Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
No only on this form Scotty.
Scrum - Wallabies Vs Wales
- Thread starter Langthorne
- Start date
- Status
No only on this form Scotty.
just watched the 94 Bledisloe Cup (Gregan's tackle), gee the scrums were quick. I reckon from the time the whistle was blown for the knock on until the ball was out in the scrum half's hands, was about the same time it takes a ref to say crouch touch pause engage.
Yep - sometimes in the 80s and even the 90s the scrum was engaged and nestled together waiting for the scrummie to pick up the ball and go to the scrum to put it in. There was no shove until he did so - as the laws say. The dominant scrum still dominated, don't you worry; they didn't need a power hit to do it.
The power hit is an artificial add on. You could see the genesis of it even in the early 80's and it fluctuated in usage but from the time pro rugby started and players could spend time in the gym getting prepared for power hits, the use of them escalated.
Now we have delay when forwards posture on the crouch, plus delay caused by more frequent collapses when the forces from the two scrums don't align properly on impact. Therefore there is less real rugby time than in the old days.
Power hits are also part of the reason scrum feeds are allowed to be crooked. Referees soon gave up on getting a clear channel when feet were moving around getting balance after a power hit; so they let the scrummies put the ball into a channel behind the hookers feet.
But I rant.
The power hit is an artificial add on. You could see the genesis of it even in the early 80's and it fluctuated in usage but from the time pro rugby started and players could spend time in the gym getting prepared for power hits, the use of them escalated.
Now we have delay when forwards posture on the crouch, plus delay caused by more frequent collapses when the forces from the two scrums don't align properly on impact. Therefore there is less real rugby time than in the old days.
Power hits are also part of the reason scrum feeds are allowed to be crooked. Referees soon gave up on getting a clear channel when feet were moving around getting balance after a power hit; so they let the scrummies put the ball into a channel behind the hookers feet.
But I rant.
JJJ
Vay Wilson (31)
We have to wait for the idea to emanate from England first, or find a way to fool them into thinking it was their idea. Ideally we would then protest stridently yet ineffectually. Otherwise we'll just get more of this "TRYING TO TURN UNION INTO LEAGUE!!!!11!!!1" rubbish.
Done that
Ron Walden (29)
You're obviously not a front rower ? The lock & no.8 have to bind first , before the front rows engage , & then they bind with the front row as you know .The reason for this sequence is that there is no way you can get an efficient bind between the front & back three ,the way you suggest.
Brumbieman
Dick Tooth (41)
Its evident how much scrums have changed in even 10 years. I watched the 2nd Lions/Aus test about a week ago. It was remarkable how little fuss there was with scrums. The scrum would be called, the front rows would jog in and bind, lock in with the 2nd rows and flankers and then engage all within about 3-4 seconds. What ended up happening is that the Wallabies for once were not the world leaders in ideas in rugby, and failed to realise that with the advent of professionalism, scrums were always going to become much more technical, and then mark them with a corresponding level of importance.
My guess is that McQueen would have spotted it early enough. But Eddie Jones, despite being a hooker when he played, is a remarkably good coach in terms of getting the team to gel in attack. And with Larkham, Latham, Giteau, Mortlock and Gregan all in your backline, along with Smith and Finnegan in your backrow, its very easy to see how he got sucked into developing a gameplan that used the backs to actually get the go forward, and backrowers and the tight five running as support agents.
Unfortunately, the rest of the world never abandoned the mantra that the tight five win games for you, the backs just decide by how much.
To be fair to Jones he didn't have the scrum cattle that St. Rodney had around the time of the 1999 RWC and even he had to use some nose pickers near the end of his tenure: guys like Stiles, Moore, Panaho and "Cheating Bill" Young some of whom Jones had to use too. Ben Darwin was becoming a good international prop in the Jones period but his career was cut short in the 2003 semi-final and Eddie had to use Le Fuse in the final.
The Cheat and the younger Fuse were OK by our standards but the reserves like Dunning weren't stellar.
As we know: there is more to scrummaging than who the props are including the names of the other 6 forwards and how all 8 can work together, but one couldn't have expected an above average scrum without above average props.
Not to the point but poor old Eddie didn't have much luck with the Reds with props either. Remember when he had a big butchers bill and had to drag a couple of players off the local park to play for Queensland?
The Cheat and the younger Fuse were OK by our standards but the reserves like Dunning weren't stellar.
As we know: there is more to scrummaging than who the props are including the names of the other 6 forwards and how all 8 can work together, but one couldn't have expected an above average scrum without above average props.
Not to the point but poor old Eddie didn't have much luck with the Reds with props either. Remember when he had a big butchers bill and had to drag a couple of players off the local park to play for Queensland?
Groucho
Greg Davis (50)
No, he was quoting Gnostic, who was having a go at someone else for doing something 'over a long period of time'.
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
I think Ben Darwin getting injured was the turning point for us. As Lee says, he was developing nicely but we didn't have the quality in depth behind him. The set piece also didn't seem to suit Eddie's game plan and that was that. The end wasn't pretty unfortunately.
If I heard right that's exactly what Link said they used to do in his day on Ruggamatrix.
Props would engage with each other, then the rest would get in and no-one would push until the ball turned got fed (like the rules say)
One of the big problems the front row would bitch about was seconds and backrow not getting in on time for the shove!
Groucho
Greg Davis (50)
Yeah, I'm an oldster (but not nearly as old as Bruce and Lee
) and that was how scrums formed in my day. No pushing till after the engage.The hit is a recent innovation.
Bruce Ross
Ken Catchpole (46)
Yeah, I'm an oldster (but not nearly as old as Bruce and Lee
The hit is a recent innovation.
Other than Done that's contribution which I must confess I am still trying to get my head around, I fully agree with the above. The hit has destroyed much of the beauty of the scrum, particularly by encouraging a form of cheating that is unmanly. Backing off from the hit is rugby's equivalent of soccer's dying cockroach act to try to milk a penalty.
I don't think that the hit is that recent an innovation. I can recall in the early '80s watching a touring New Zealand club team virtually cartwheel the opposition front row. I seem to remember some time later the Laws being amended to outlaw charging into the engagement. LG is the collective keeper of facts for us geriatrics so I might have to appeal to his Rainman abilities to verify my recollection.
In any case, given that Ewen was born in 1965, the hit was certainly around in his time.
I think getting the front rowers to engage before the other rows connect is the way forward. Virtually no resets, much greater scrum safety, more or less straight feeds and a revival of hookers actually contesting the ball. I still have notches on my shin bones as a badge of honour from my efforts as a loose head to hook back ball left laying in the tunnel.
Old style scrums with modern bodyweights and gym bred strength would in themselves probably justify the outrageous admission prices charged in the professional era. Nothing else does.
Scotty
David Codey (61)
No, he was quoting Gnostic, who was having a go at someone else for doing something 'over a long period of time'.
Considering I am still trying to suck you back into the broadband thread, I probably shouldn't say anymore.
Brumbies Guy
John Solomon (38)
So Moore, Fainga'a and now Edmonds are sporting injuries, not excluding TPN. Surely this will disrupt the Aussie scrum tonight.
You're right Bruce it didn't happen all of a sudden; its just that it has got more prevalent since the professional game started. Incidentally, I've just had another look at that 1994 game and the hit is benign compared to what they are now.
*****
One of the forum members asked me about the evolution of what I call the power hit because he was going to do a blog about it, but I don't recall that he actually did. Folks may be interested in the info I sent to him which is as follows:
*****
I've done some viewing of old test matches. Unfortunately some of my DVDs were not finalised and my DVD player is busted and I can't look at them at the moment. However I have enough test matches archived on my computer to give a brief summary of the history of the scrum engage.
It's interesting that up until the mid 1980s, and certainly a lot more before that, 16 men were often steady in the scrum whilst the scrummie was still retrieving the ball from where it was. The superior scrum got dominance after the put in, not on the hit.
The hit is the enemy the scrum spectacle in current times. Players spend too much time posturing in position to get the perfect hit. Up until the mid 80s also if a scrum did collapse both packs would stand straight up, much closer together and just nestle towards each other. Now they take the same gap apart and a collapse is just as likely to happen the 2nd time.
1956 NZ v Boks – No hit; civilised walk-in; sometimes niggle and disruption (a la Skinner) before ball put in.
1958 Boks v Fra – Gentle engagement
1961 Fra v Boks – Dirty game; substantial wrestling and some players up, some down before put in; tight five bind noticeable before back row rows who bound only at last second and sometimes after put in.
1967 – Eng v NZ – casual - e.g. players run for scrum after lineout and get in position just before put in; mostly engaged waiting patiently for scrummie to retrieve ball for put in.
1971 – NZ v Lions – not much change from 60's – typically ball put in long after soft engage
1973 – Baas v NZ – ditto
1974 – Boks v Lions – ditto – physicality starts at put in.
1979 – NZ v Fra – some proto-hits early in game but mostly walk-ins
1981 – NZ v Boks – Some short power hits but mostly folding into each other; noticeable pushing after engage and before put in.
1982 – NZ v Oz - ditto
1983 – Eng v NZ – lots of walking in; one from 2 metres away; in some one side of the scrum engaged before the other side.
1984 – Oz v NZ – Short power hits more common.
1985 – NZ v Oz – Ditto – set ups getting more streamlined prior to engage
1986 – NZ v Oz – Ditto – gap before engage looking bigger.
1987 – NZ v Fra - RWC Final – Lesser hits compared to recent Bledisloes; also from closer in.
1989 – NZ v Oz – Hits back to pre RWC intensity
1990 – Ditto – Still not a lot of collapsed scrums on dry tracks
1991 – RWC Final – Eng v Oz – Ditto
1992 – 1995 inc – No noticeable changes
1996 – NZ v Oz (1st 3N test) to present
- Gradual increase of power of players in professional environment; necks and shoulders get more developed to deal with power hits.
- 8 man hits more prevalent and pack movements towards each other faster.
- More dependence on hit from both sides needing to be exact for scrum to stay up, because of increased power. Therefore more collapses if forces don't line up.
- More dependence of winning hit – therefore more early engages and more things for ref to get wrong – and they do.
- Shock of power hits, unless well matched, cause front rowers to stagger which compromises clear tunnel parallel to goal lines; scrummies therefore don't bother to feed straight and refs let them.
All solved on the face of it by having the packs engage gently, the ref making sure everybody is stable then calling “Steady” at which time the scrummies has to put the ball in.
You may wish to refer to a post I made elsewhere:
http://www.rugbyrugby.com/laws_and_referees/law_discussions/story_7710130417.php
My thoughts have moved on slightly from there, and you may want to add that the jerseys should be ribbed on props to making binding easier, but it may help you.
Cheers
LG
JJJ
Vay Wilson (31)
I reckon if someone made a decent YouTube clip on the top 20 sneaky scrum tricks and/or tactics, with footage of said tricks/tactics in action, they'd get 20k+ views in short order. People want to understand what goes on in scrums, but whenever props are interviewed it doesn't take them long to say things like "I don't want to get too technical" and then refuse to offer exactly the sort of inside info people are looking for. Maybe they're just trying to keep their cards close to their chest.
kiap
Steve Williams (59)
Interesting reading the history there from Lee Grant. Thanks.
I wonder what beginnings of consensus there might be amongst the various unions for improving the scrums? At the moment it seems that Australia would need a period of dominance on the field (or at least regain some poise in mixing it with the NH sides under the current interpretations) to even get a seat at the table, much less a hearing, on future directions for the scrum.
I wonder what beginnings of consensus there might be amongst the various unions for improving the scrums? At the moment it seems that Australia would need a period of dominance on the field (or at least regain some poise in mixing it with the NH sides under the current interpretations) to even get a seat at the table, much less a hearing, on future directions for the scrum.
- Status