Scrum tactics

[Dan54]

Just put on ITM cup thread, Chris Pollock was reffing Northland/North Harbour game today, and was touching 9 on back when he ready for ball to go in, and just seemed to use hand signal when other side of scrum, takes away one argument.

 

[Mank]

Eight men shoving will usually beat seven. Given that the side with the supposed advantage is forced to rely on a seven man shove, so that the hooker can strike for the ball, where is the advantage?

Not true. There was some analysis done a while back and almost all the power from the scrum was front 5. The back row contribute very little, though not nothing.

It will reach the point where a dominant side will deliberately knock the ball on to force a defensive scrum. Ridiculous.

How is that different to say the 3rd Lions test?

 

[FilthRugby]

It’s good that I’ve found out different interpretations of the scrums. And, after reading a few of the posts above, I think what I’ve previously said has been misinterpreted which is my fault, I stated it incredibly bluntly. When I said the ‘scrum is the hit’, I was referring to the ‘crouch, touch, set’. If a front-rower doesn’t get the hit right, whatever occurs after that is irrelevant…due to the opposition capitalising on a poor hit. However, I concur that the scrums ideally is what happens after the hit. So, I got caught up in a ‘Kearnsy’ moment of speaking rather bashfully. I read an article published a few years ago…can’t remember by whom, but it stated that the Wallabies front-row in the early 90s concentrated more on lower-body building, i.e predominantly squats, specifically for the scrum. However, heading into the 00s, there was more concentration of upper-body strength with the scrummaging, ie. Bench-press etc. Just simply to combat the hit.

As a former front-rower, I’ve attached a video below, which I believe is a prime example as to why the ‘crouch, touch, set’ (yes I know it has the pause, engage, but Nigel Owens instructs it in the same timing as the crouch, touch ,set) shouldn’t go straight away. There is nothing better than the forwards getting a go at attacking, considering they do nearly all the work on the field…compared to the backs.

I have reconsidered and I do agree that the new potential scrum laws can work.

 

[Sully]

I was pretty disappointed to see the Australian forwards coach feeding the scrum crooked at training last night.

 

[Dai bando]

The new laws are interesting something we did in my past as a matter of course, Ball goes in straight allowing both hookers to contest the ball.
Then the opposition team started the 8 man shove which was very successful for a time, the tap on the shoulder to alert the hooker gave the side putting the ball in first push if you like but anything the one side does the opposition usually countered it.
It still generally allows the best technicians of the front rows to win, however there is now a more levelled playing field by allowing the bind.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

I put all the "issues" down to teething problems as players taught under the old system adjust to the new (old) way of contesting scrums.

Nothing really wrong with what they are trying to do. Just don't expect it to be 100% immediately. Like any cultural change, it will take time. Persevere with it.

There are plenty of us old enough to remember how it worked, and it was good, and it was a contest man vs man, team vs team.

Strength, technique, teamwork and timing were rewarded.

Isn't this what we want from a scrum?