The Scrum

[Digby]

Only if the opponent spoils it legally. Which is the crux of my argument - the ball should always be a contest unless unplayable.

Ball held at the back of a dominant scrum isn't contestable, though the attacking team too often still consider it unplayable Vs waiting for a penalty

It is contestable. It might not be much of a contest if one pack is clearly dominant but it's still contestable. That's before you think of the many fumbles at the base by a slight shift in momentum either way.

Not when it's at the base of a dominant scrum it's not, and it's not serving a function of restarting a game. I like that in theory it's a contested restart (when the ball is actually fed in straight) for as long as it's in the tunnel, but once you've got the ball to the back then they should be using it pronto, if you want to keep a contest in the scrum then by all means leave the ball in the tunnel

[thedman]

In all this discussion is no one interested in speeding up the actual engagement? That's where I'd start as I've mentioned before. Concentrating efforts on penalising simply isn't going to improve things, we've had years of this fiddling now and we still have the same basic problem.

How do you speed it up safely, though? When I've looked back at scrums from the early 2000s before the rules were introduced they involved pretty frightening collisions.

go much earlier then

I find myself going around in circles on this!

I’m familiar with how scrums used to be up until about 1995 (see my previous post) where scrums formed quickly with the front rows lining up more upright and then folding or flopping together. That was how I’d always remembered scrums. Was this considered safe?

I can see that a few years later in the early 2000s the scrums line up considerably lower and hit much more explosively.

But how did we get from one to the other? Was it organic or due to a rule change? I can hear in the early 2000s that the ref is saying “Crouch and Hold…..Engage”. Did he always say this and we just couldn’t hear it because he wasn’t miced up? If not when did that happen?

I know at about the same time the ABs developed (or refined) “the hit”.

I’ve found a couple of good articles about the history of scrums but they seem woolly around this particular period.

[Mellsblue]

Ball held at the back of a dominant scrum isn't contestable, though the attacking team too often still consider it unplayable Vs waiting for a penalty

It is contestable. It might not be much of a contest if one pack is clearly dominant but it's still contestable. That's before you think of the many fumbles at the base by a slight shift in momentum either way.

Not when it's at the base of a dominant scrum it's not, and it's not serving a function of restarting a game. I like that in theory it's a contested restart (when the ball is actually fed in straight) for as long as it's in the tunnel, but once you've got the ball to the back then they should be using it pronto, if you want to keep a contest in the scrum then by all means leave the ball in the tunnel

We'll have to disagree. The ball, for me, is still contestable as the teams are still contesting for it due to the fact they are still pushing in a scrum. I have seen sides pushed off a ball that has been sat at the 8 or lock's feet. Not often, granted, but the ball is still contestable. Are we saying that once a ball leaves the tunnel then the side losing at that moment has no chance of winning back the ball via pushing, or forcing a wheel or forcing the oppo front row to collapse?

[Banquo]

It is contestable. It might not be much of a contest if one pack is clearly dominant but it's still contestable. That's before you think of the many fumbles at the base by a slight shift in momentum either way.

Not when it's at the base of a dominant scrum it's not, and it's not serving a function of restarting a game. I like that in theory it's a contested restart (when the ball is actually fed in straight) for as long as it's in the tunnel, but once you've got the ball to the back then they should be using it pronto, if you want to keep a contest in the scrum then by all means leave the ball in the tunnel

We'll have to disagree. The ball, for me, is still contestable as the teams are still contesting for it due to the fact they are still pushing in a scrum. I have seen sides pushed off a ball that has been sat at the 8 or lock's feet. Not often, granted, but the ball is still contestable. Are we saying that once a ball leaves the tunnel then the side losing at that moment has no chance of winning back the ball via pushing, or forcing a wheel or forcing the oppo front row to collapse?

Its happened to us quite a lot- we've secured it at the base, then in a macho way gone for the second shove and....failed and been pushed back.

[Banquo]

How do you speed it up safely, though? When I've looked back at scrums from the early 2000s before the rules were introduced they involved pretty frightening collisions.

go much earlier then

I find myself going around in circles on this!

I’m familiar with how scrums used to be up until about 1995 (see my previous post) where scrums formed quickly with the front rows lining up more upright and then folding or flopping together. That was how I’d always remembered scrums. Was this considered safe?

I can see that a few years later in the early 2000s the scrums line up considerably lower and hit much more explosively.

But how did we get from one to the other? Was it organic or due to a rule change? I can hear in the early 2000s that the ref is saying “Crouch and Hold…..Engage”. Did he always say this and we just couldn’t hear it because he wasn’t miced up? If not when did that happen?

I know at about the same time the ABs developed (or refined) “the hit”.

I’ve found a couple of good articles about the history of scrums but they seem woolly around this particular period.

apols, missed your previous one. I'd like to go back to the 'flopping together' version. Much safer imo, though would need some monitoring as coaches and players try to get an edge again! I'd like to know what the objection to this might be?

[Digby]

I'd like to know what the objection to this might be?

I've been told over the years with the power involved it's better to have something of a hit and then if the scrum isn't stable it can collapse and be reset, and this is preferable to the power coming on when someone has engaged in a bad position, i.e. with a back that isn't straight. I have no idea if that's actually true, and I have to say there'd seem a reasonable concern about scrums collapsing. But is is an objection

[Banquo]

I'd like to know what the objection to this might be?

I've been told over the years with the power involved it's better to have something of a hit and then if the scrum isn't stable it can collapse and be reset, and this is preferable to the power coming on when someone has engaged in a bad position, i.e. with a back that isn't straight. I have no idea if that's actually true, and I have to say there'd seem a reasonable concern about scrums collapsing. But is is an objection

...I'd assume that's post 'hit' introduction. If the front rows line up nose to nose, and no hit or push is permitted before the ball comes in, its as you were surely?

[Puja]

I'd like to know what the objection to this might be?

I've been told over the years with the power involved it's better to have something of a hit and then if the scrum isn't stable it can collapse and be reset, and this is preferable to the power coming on when someone has engaged in a bad position, i.e. with a back that isn't straight. I have no idea if that's actually true, and I have to say there'd seem a reasonable concern about scrums collapsing. But is is an objection

That sounds like the biggest load of shi... of nonsense I've ever heard. Why would it be better to charge together and thus increase your chances of not being in the right position than to bind up uncontested and get yourself into whichever position suits you best before the ball comes in.

I'm not a prop (as I keep telling the hopeful people at rugby when they see a fat hooker), but to me that sounds like someone complaining that they get into an uncomfortable position while driving a car and the posited solution being starting the car and running alongside it to jump in as it's moving.

Puja

[Banquo]

I'd like to know what the objection to this might be?

I've been told over the years with the power involved it's better to have something of a hit and then if the scrum isn't stable it can collapse and be reset, and this is preferable to the power coming on when someone has engaged in a bad position, i.e. with a back that isn't straight. I have no idea if that's actually true, and I have to say there'd seem a reasonable concern about scrums collapsing. But is is an objection

That sounds like the biggest load of shi... of nonsense I've ever heard. Why would it be better to charge together and thus increase your chances of not being in the right position than to bind up uncontested and get yourself into whichever position suits you best before the ball comes in.

I'm not a prop (as I keep telling the hopeful people at rugby when they see a fat hooker), but to me that sounds like someone complaining that they get into an uncomfortable position while driving a car and the posited solution being starting the car and running alongside it to jump in as it's moving.

Puja

lol, tend to agree

[thedman]

I'd like to know what the objection to this might be?

I've been told over the years with the power involved it's better to have something of a hit and then if the scrum isn't stable it can collapse and be reset, and this is preferable to the power coming on when someone has engaged in a bad position, i.e. with a back that isn't straight. I have no idea if that's actually true, and I have to say there'd seem a reasonable concern about scrums collapsing. But is is an objection

I read the same thing recently in an article reposted at the link below from a referees forum:

"The argument in favour of the hit is that it is safer because it ensures that the front rows get secure positions before the battle really commences. With the old fold-in, nobody was sure how good the position was till battle commenced, i.e. till the ball came in."

http://www.rugby-talk.com/2011/04/scrum-myths/

[Beasties]

He also said the front rows should have one leg in front of the other rather than with their legs side by side in order to make the scrum more stable. Does this make sense - and if so why don't they do it?

Trust me, you'd have to try playing prop to understand. To the best of my knowledge Moore hasn't. That's not to say standing with your feet inline is a good technique mind, it isn't.

One leg in front of the other adds stability and prevents the prop from going face first into the floor if they break their bind. It amazes me how often we see a front row go down with one of the props flat on his stomach.

Also, the added stability means that if a bind is broken the player has a chance to re-engage allowing the scrum to continue rather than constant resets and penalties.

In this case I'd say Moore is making perfect sense.

I did actually say that standing with your feet inline is not a good idea ftaod.

What I was indicating was that unless you've played prop you don't understand the sheer forces that are going through you. It isn't simply one man pushing against one man. It should be you, your lock and flanker and half of your no8 pushing against the same number on the other side. That's 3.5 men vs 3.5 men. All going through your back and shoulders. Your oppo is trying his level best to get you in an uncomfortable/painful position, as are you to him, so that those forces can be thwarted. Sometimes you see feet parallel to the tunnel because the prop is trying to push as hard as he possibly can, you simply can't push as hard with one leg forward, but you are more stable as far as the up and down forces are concerned. Legs parallel makes you vulnerable to the scrum going up or down, with the results that we can all see, and is why props try NOT to do it. Moore has never propped, to hear him banging on about this as if all props are thick as mince is just so tiresome.

[Beasties]

I'd like to know what the objection to this might be?

I've been told over the years with the power involved it's better to have something of a hit and then if the scrum isn't stable it can collapse and be reset, and this is preferable to the power coming on when someone has engaged in a bad position, i.e. with a back that isn't straight. I have no idea if that's actually true, and I have to say there'd seem a reasonable concern about scrums collapsing. But is is an objection

That sounds like the biggest load of shi... of nonsense I've ever heard. Why would it be better to charge together and thus increase your chances of not being in the right position than to bind up uncontested and get yourself into whichever position suits you best before the ball comes in.

I'm not a prop (as I keep telling the hopeful people at rugby when they see a fat hooker), but to me that sounds like someone complaining that they get into an uncomfortable position while driving a car and the posited solution being starting the car and running alongside it to jump in as it's moving.

Puja

Completely agree, who tf came up with that theory? The hit is what started causing all the injuries in the first place.

[Digby]

I've been told over the years with the power involved it's better to have something of a hit and then if the scrum isn't stable it can collapse and be reset, and this is preferable to the power coming on when someone has engaged in a bad position, i.e. with a back that isn't straight. I have no idea if that's actually true, and I have to say there'd seem a reasonable concern about scrums collapsing. But is is an objection

That sounds like the biggest load of shi... of nonsense I've ever heard. Why would it be better to charge together and thus increase your chances of not being in the right position than to bind up uncontested and get yourself into whichever position suits you best before the ball comes in.

I'm not a prop (as I keep telling the hopeful people at rugby when they see a fat hooker), but to me that sounds like someone complaining that they get into an uncomfortable position while driving a car and the posited solution being starting the car and running alongside it to jump in as it's moving.

Puja

Completely agree, who tf came up with that theory? The hit is what started causing all the injuries in the first place.

Props, at semi-pro and pro level. The highest up I've heard it from would be a fairly recent Lions prop. I don't know it's true, they could well be mistaken, but I've heard it a number of times so maybe there's something in it, and/or maybe some people found they had an advantage in the hit.

[Beasties]

How do you speed it up safely, though? When I've looked back at scrums from the early 2000s before the rules were introduced they involved pretty frightening collisions.

go much earlier then

I find myself going around in circles on this!

I’m familiar with how scrums used to be up until about 1995 (see my previous post) where scrums formed quickly with the front rows lining up more upright and then folding or flopping together. That was how I’d always remembered scrums. Was this considered safe?

I can see that a few years later in the early 2000s the scrums line up considerably lower and hit much more explosively.

But how did we get from one to the other? Was it organic or due to a rule change? I can hear in the early 2000s that the ref is saying “Crouch and Hold…..Engage”. Did he always say this and we just couldn’t hear it because he wasn’t miced up? If not when did that happen?

I know at about the same time the ABs developed (or refined) “the hit”.

I’ve found a couple of good articles about the history of scrums but they seem woolly around this particular period.

Crouch, touch, pause, engage and it's derivatives all came from the "desire" to reduce the hit and therefore injuries. There were basically no instructions from the ref up until that point as far as I can remember (ahem!). Scrums lined up and engaged under their own steam. If one player didn't go down correctly the scrum was reset. Persistent refusal to engage was penalised. Scrums formed quickly and simply with very few resets. It wasn't broke so why did they try to fix it?

I keep going back to that fantastic Lions tour to SA led by Jonno. There wasn't a single collapsed scrum in the entire series.

[Beasties]

Are there no other props on this board?

[Puja]

Are there no other props on this board?

I'm amazed that we've got even one in a place that requires the ability to form coherent sentences!

Puja

[Puja]

I keep going back to that fantastic Lions tour to SA led by Jonno. There wasn't a single collapsed scrum in the entire series.

I think the nostalgia for the halcyon days of never dropping scrums and the urge to go back there is somewhat misplaced. In 1997, the game was 2 years professional; it was barely different from the amateur game with a bit more time for training. Nowadays, the art of analysis and working to gain an edge is forensic, not to mention that a pack is now likely to be 15-20st heavier than they were in 1997.

Basically, the art of cheating has gone professional and players are taught to go down rather than go back. There's no going back to where you came from.

Puja

[Lizard]

In what other facet of the game do the laws stop a team being able to maximise their advantage in that facet? If a team can't defend a rolling maul the ref doesn't demand they use it once they've gained dominance. At no point in any other facet of the game is it 'well, you've gained enough of an advantage so use it.'

Rucks. How often do you hear a ref declare the ball won, ask the defending team to stop competing and then order the attacking team to use it?

[Mellsblue]

Are there no other props on this board?

I'm amazed that we've got even one in a place that requires the ability to form coherent sentences!

Puja

Agreed. Beasties lost all credibility when he tried so say that all props aren't as thick as mince.

[Mellsblue]

In what other facet of the game do the laws stop a team being able to maximise their advantage in that facet? If a team can't defend a rolling maul the ref doesn't demand they use it once they've gained dominance. At no point in any other facet of the game is it 'well, you've gained enough of an advantage so use it.'

Rucks. How often do you hear a ref declare the ball won, ask the defending team to stop competing and then order the attacking team to use it?

All I hear is that the ruck is formed so no more hands or don't touch the scrumhalf. At no point have I heard no more counter rucking. The only time I've heard 'use it' is time wasting at the end of a game or a ref letting the sh know that he has asked an illegal defender to move and the ball is there to play.
Even if I'm wrong do the laws provide for this or is it the refs just getting above themselves.

[Banquo]

Trust me, you'd have to try playing prop to understand. To the best of my knowledge Moore hasn't. That's not to say standing with your feet inline is a good technique mind, it isn't.

One leg in front of the other adds stability and prevents the prop from going face first into the floor if they break their bind. It amazes me how often we see a front row go down with one of the props flat on his stomach.

Also, the added stability means that if a bind is broken the player has a chance to re-engage allowing the scrum to continue rather than constant resets and penalties.

In this case I'd say Moore is making perfect sense.

I did actually say that standing with your feet inline is not a good idea ftaod.

What I was indicating was that unless you've played prop you don't understand the sheer forces that are going through you. It isn't simply one man pushing against one man. It should be you, your lock and flanker and half of your no8 pushing against the same number on the other side. That's 3.5 men vs 3.5 men. All going through your back and shoulders. Your oppo is trying his level best to get you in an uncomfortable/painful position, as are you to him, so that those forces can be thwarted. Sometimes you see feet parallel to the tunnel because the prop is trying to push as hard as he possibly can, you simply can't push as hard with one leg forward, but you are more stable as far as the up and down forces are concerned. Legs parallel makes you vulnerable to the scrum going up or down, with the results that we can all see, and is why props try NOT to do it. Moore has never propped, to hear him banging on about this as if all props are thick as mince is just so tiresome.

Back in the day, pre hit etc, looseheads were coached to put the left foot forward for both stability and to create a better 'channel' to hook down. But recognise that's effin hard now.

[Banquo]

Are there no other props on this board?

I'm amazed that we've got even one in a place that requires the ability to form coherent sentences!

Puja

James Haskell doesn't understand this post, but likes it.

[Banquo]

I keep going back to that fantastic Lions tour to SA led by Jonno. There wasn't a single collapsed scrum in the entire series.

I think the nostalgia for the halcyon days of never dropping scrums and the urge to go back there is somewhat misplaced. In 1997, the game was 2 years professional; it was barely different from the amateur game with a bit more time for training. Nowadays, the art of analysis and working to gain an edge is forensic, not to mention that a pack is now likely to be 15-20st heavier than they were in 1997.

Basically, the art of cheating has gone professional and players are taught to go down rather than go back. There's no going back to where you came from.

Puja

hmmmmmm, seems better to try that than the lists of elaborate workarounds I've been reading for what seems like days.....

and even if they did go down, the resets would be tons quicker.

[Puja]

All I hear is that the ruck is formed so no more hands or don't touch the scrumhalf. At no point have I heard no more counter rucking. The only time I've heard 'use it' is time wasting at the end of a game or a ref letting the sh know that he has asked an illegal defender to move and the ball is there to play.
Even if I'm wrong do the laws provide for this or is it the refs just getting above themselves.

The "Use it" call is in the laws - they've got 5 seconds or it's a scrum to the other team. Was brought in a couple of years back after Saracens used to set up long thin rucks over 20 seconds to put a box-kicking scrum-half several metres back from any chargers.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

All I hear is that the ruck is formed so no more hands or don't touch the scrumhalf. At no point have I heard no more counter rucking. The only time I've heard 'use it' is time wasting at the end of a game or a ref letting the sh know that he has asked an illegal defender to move and the ball is there to play.
Even if I'm wrong do the laws provide for this or is it the refs just getting above themselves.

The "Use it" call is in the laws - they've got 5 seconds or it's a scrum to the other team. Was brought in a couple of years back after Saracens used to set up long thin rucks over 20 seconds to put a box-kicking scrum-half several metres back from any chargers.

Puja

Yep, I knew about the time wasting law changes - Ireland was also an example of the perpetrators, where they'd take an age to pickup the ball only to then flop on the floor to the side of the existing ruck - it was more asking whether Lizard's assertion that refs were telling players that they could no longer compete at the ruck was provided for in the laws.