Yet Moore On The Scrum...

Any one with an interest in the scrumaging farce that is hurting our game so much should take a read of this by Brian Moore. As an ex 9 I have no direct experience of the dark art but I find myself agreeing with prety much all of Brian's comments. This is such a talked about subject that I am at a loss to understand why the IRB is failing to address such a key aspect of the game - it's shameful. The Law's are there to sort this out, they are just not being applied.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/21952652

Offload

I just hope it doesn't take a really serious injury to a front rower in a high profile game for the IRB to realise that this has become both a mess and dangerous.

In an article back in 2011 Paddy O'Brien states that the changes to the scrum which have caused all the issues have reduced serious scrum injuries to zero. I can't imagine how a passive engagement can be worse than the massive hits you get at international level these days. It just seems counter intuitive!

Interview here the date of the article has my 'irony-ometer' going off the scale!

Great article by Moore, as usual especially on this topic. I am very rarely in a penalised/collapsed scrum when playing even when I'm playing at prop (not ideal) and getting murdered. Thus the penalties should not be occurring at a higher level where the laws are the same. But if it proves impossible to make the changes required (as George Chuter alludes to, somewhere that I will look for, because it is "unfair"- boo freaking hoo- to players currently abusing the awful set up at the moment) then the approach being tested in SA of setting the scrum up statically then feeding the ball in (straight) is another option

Effervescing Elephant wrote:In an article back in 2011 Paddy O'Brien states that the changes to the scrum which have caused all the issues have reduced serious scrum injuries to zero. I can't imagine how a passive engagement can be worse than the massive hits you get at international level these days. It just seems counter intuitive!

Interview here the date of the article has my 'irony-ometer' going off the scale!

Does Paddy O'Brien have any credibility left in the eyes of any posters here?

I would certainly hope not Chequered!

I agree with most people's comments on this thread, it appears out of all the IRB refs; only Steve Walsh knows how to referee the scrums with knowledge and authority

RubyGuby wrote:I agree with most people's comments on this thread, it appears out of all the IRB refs; only Steve Walsh knows how to referee the scrums with knowledge and authority

WUMs aside this is a bigger issue than the Wales-England fall-out though

WUMs aside this is a bigger issue than the Wales-England fall-out though

You don't say

RubyGuby wrote:I agree with most people's comments on this thread, it appears out of all the IRB refs; only Steve Walsh knows how to referee the scrums with knowledge and authority

To be honest, I don't think it is possible to referee the scrum fairly and correctly to the current rules, in part because they are contradictory (as 'the hit' is a violation of the Law on charging) and in part because all four props are trying to play to the ref and not the rules anyway.

I remember one of England's 6Ns matches from (iirc) 2012 where the ref actually did apply the rules about the scrum being stationary and sqaure before put in, and the result was far fewer resets because both packs realised that 'winning the hit' was not going to be decisive. Didn't need changes in the Laws, just the correct application of those that already exist.

The whole thing needs a root and branch review. The scrum now has too many variables, a relatively simple process has been overcomplicated. My first 3 suggestions for starters:

1 - No hit just bring them together
2 - Push when the ball is in
3 - Props possible wear different jerseys or conversley no penaltys for slipping the bind. Its a slip and not a serious offence - if the prop slips and loses his footing in the mud the ref doesn't penalise him - if he slips the bind he penalises him. It's not intentional and gains no advantage whatsoever.

Other suggestions welcome. Moore by the way is not the most objective when it comes to scrum time.

Stop the scrum halves feeding. Make the hooker actually have to hook for the ball again.

One again, I will roll out my tried and tested example video. See below, Newport v Pontypool 1992. Watch the scrum on 30 seconds. Perfect! Why can't we return to this. No hit, just two packs forming and setting, and the a shove after the ball goes in. As this perfectly demonstrates a dominant pack is not penalised under this format; in fact Pontypool win one against the head. I can't see why they don't go for this? Or more importantly, why it was changed in the first place?

https://youtu.be/Ksa2rKcKf8c

P.s. I'm not an old dinosaur who hankers for the 70's - I was 15 at the time of this game and not even into rugby.

Who was reffing Griff

RubyGuby wrote:Who was reffing Griff

Looked like Walsh, or was it Tony Spreadbury?!

Can't have been Walsh - Probably Clayton Thomas

Griff wrote:One again, I will roll out my tried and tested example video. See below, Newport v Pontypool 1992. Watch the scrum on 30 seconds. Perfect! Why can't we return to this. No hit, just two packs forming and setting, and the a shove after the ball goes in. As this perfectly demonstrates a dominant pack is not penalised under this format; in fact Pontypool win one against the head. I can't see why they don't go for this? Or more importantly, why it was changed in the first place?

https://youtu.be/Ksa2rKcKf8c

P.s. I'm not an old dinosaur who hankers for the 70's - I was 15 at the time of this game and not even into rugby.

Hope you don't mind Griff, i tweeted the clip to Mr Moore and he agrees that it's a perfect example of hooking and pushing.

Not at all EE, glad he liked it!

Cheers mate!

Tweet from Brian Moore:

Brian Moore ‏@brianmoore666 31m MT @JWedgery: See scrum on 30 secs Ponty v Newport 92 https://youtu.be/Ksa2rKcKf8c > Perfect eg of how it can be both a hooking & shoving contest.

Five Live had Brian Moore on during a programme last night about the scrums.

It wasn't very well structured but did include input from Moore, Phil Vickery, Topo Rodriguez, Sean Fitzpatrick, Matt Stevens, John Jeffrey (IRB), Mike Cron (NZ scrum coach) and Nigel Owens.

They looked at how the problem has arisen, tracing it back to the power scrummaging of Argentina, which the All Blacks then developed.

Moore's continued major contention is that the referees don't ensure the scrum is square and stable before the put-in, with neither side pushing. They then don't penalize crooked feeds.

John Jeffrey explained that the IRB is looking hard at the scrum problems and has some new protocols on trial in the Pacific Cup, which they hope will help matters. Details here:

http://www.rugbymag.com/international-news/7121-scrum-experiement-in-pacific-nations-cup.html

Moore asked him why the IRB allows referees to ignore existing laws. Jeffrey replied that the IRB doesn't do that but pointed out that coaches repeatedly tell them that they don't regard a straight feed as a particular problem.

It would have been interesting to have more referee input but Nigel Owens was delayed, and only joined in for a few minutes at the end. He confirmed that no-one has ever asked him to turn a blind eye to crooked feeds. He did concede, however, that he sometimes reviews games and wonders how he missed some of the more outrageous examples. He suspects referees have so much to watch, they get distracted.

One simple thing I'd like to see is a 'binding strip' on the back of the props shirts. Make it compulsory and ensure it is the same on every jersey - i.e. same position, size etc.

Place this strip of fabric (or whatever the shirts are made of these days!) where you are supposed to bind and say the prop has to grab hold of it. Makes it easier for the players and refs as the bind will be stronger and harder to slip plus you can tell to an extent which way the prop is pushing from where the strip goes. If he's pushing straight and square it will go straight back down the opposition props back/side, if he's dragging the scrum down the strip would be in a completely different direction. Make the strip a bright colour that's different to the rest shirt so that the touch judges can see from the 'other side' to the ref as well....

Simple but seems like it could work in my mind!

Its simple. There are just too many scrum laws that are open to differing interpretation by refs. All the IRB need do is remove most of them and downgrade the 2 or 3 left to Free Kick offences. All sides seek ways to get a penalty at the scrum and the resulting 3 points. (And infuriate the fans).

RubyGuby wrote:Who was reffing Griff

Not very clear but I thought it was Derek Bevan

englandglory4ever wrote:Its simple. There are just too many scrum laws that are open to differing interpretation by refs. All the IRB need do is remove most of them and downgrade the 2 or 3 left to Free Kick offences. All sides seek ways to get a penalty at the scrum and the resulting 3 points. (And infuriate the fans).

Some sides have won World Cups playing that way.

Wish they would make all refs keep the same timings on the calls, how many free kicks did we get over the 6n for early engagement?

nathan wrote:Wish they would make all refs keep the same timings on the calls, how many free kicks did we get over the 6n for early engagement?

How are you going to work that one out though? All refs have their own timing because all refs have their own views on the way it should be done and the intervals between each call. Some don't mind a flowing journey..others want it staccato. So first there would have to be a concensus on the timing and then....refs practice at conferences to make sure they keep the same beat? Crouch, one, two, three, one, two, three, Touch, one, two, three, one, two, three, Set?

Who cares what the refs want, there should be a standard that all refs adhere too. We need to take some of the guess work out of the scrums.

If you remove the notion of a hit, there can't be timing issues

Looking at it from a completely different perspective I wonder if the clock needs to be stopped until the ball is put in and the scrum eventually completed - Ref can shout "clock on" when the ball is back in play. This would save some frustration with the continuous resetting, particlarly at the end of games when the team in front just labours around the scrums

Most of the laws and issues are relatively minor and can be changed / tweaked without fixing or killing what we currently have, or would want to have.

There are 2 big issues though that are the root cause of all the problems.

1) early drive.
The forwards are supposedly not allowed to drive until the ball has been fed in by the scrum half.
The 'hit' is a by-product of early driving. Even without early driving, you would still have a bit of a hit, but it wouldn't be so massive, and the forwards would have to stop almost immediately after the hit. As such, while there might be a slight advantage by 'winning' the hit, it would be minimal.

This would mean that scrums are entirely stable until the scrum half puts the ball in.
In theory the side with the put in has an advantage here because the scrum half would normally tap the hooker when he's about to put the ball in.


2) Straight Feed
Even with a straight feed, the team with the put in will win the ball back at least 90% of the time - often more.
As such, it doesn't make a huge amount of difference to the team which wins the ball from the scrum.
However, a straight feed will give the opposition hooker a change at the ball. This might encourage the rebirth of smaller hookers. At the moment, Hookers are all about power and driving forward. Smaller hookers will negate this a bit
Again, the team with the put in still has the advantage because their hooker will be aware when the ball is being put in.



Other issues such as boreing in, wheeling, missing bind, not driving straight etc etc have always existed in the game, and can be penalised in the same way as they used to be.
However, these are not issues that are causing the current fiasco, so why worry about them.


If we can get scrums where the ball can be put in 1st time all the time, then the rest will all come together.
That's more about the preparation of scrums, rather than the actual scrummaging.

How about the referee putting the ball into the scrum - I'm serious

SecretFly wrote:

nathan wrote:Wish they would make all refs keep the same timings on the calls, how many free kicks did we get over the 6n for early engagement?

How are you going to work that one out though? All refs have their own timing because all refs have their own views on the way it should be done and the intervals between each call. Some don't mind a flowing journey..others want it staccato. So first there would have to be a concensus on the timing and then....refs practice at conferences to make sure they keep the same beat? Crouch, one, two, three, one, two, three, Touch, one, two, three, one, two, three, Set?

The refs should have a ghetto blaster (is that un-PC these days?!), or similar, around their necks with a recorded 'crouch, touch, set' message read out by the king of referees, whoever that may be. That way, the same timing will always be observed. Or maybe it should be done over the tannoy so that the crowd can get involved! It would be like the (s)hit TV programme Gladiators. Awooga! In fact, the referee from that programme is probably the king of referees IMO, so he'd get my vote for the recorded message.

RubyGuby wrote:How about the referee putting the ball into the scrum - I'm serious

That's a great call actually. However, imagine the uproar and calls of bias if he did a crooked feed!

But what is the advantage to the side whose scrum it is?

Griff wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

nathan wrote:Wish they would make all refs keep the same timings on the calls, how many free kicks did we get over the 6n for early engagement?

How are you going to work that one out though? All refs have their own timing because all refs have their own views on the way it should be done and the intervals between each call. Some don't mind a flowing journey..others want it staccato. So first there would have to be a concensus on the timing and then....refs practice at conferences to make sure they keep the same beat? Crouch, one, two, three, one, two, three, Touch, one, two, three, one, two, three, Set?

The refs should have a ghetto blaster (is that un-PC these days?!), or similar, around their necks with a recorded 'crouch, touch, set' message read out by the king of referees, whoever that may be. That way, the same timing will always be observed. Or maybe it should be done over the tannoy so that the crowd can get involved! It would be like the (s)hit TV programme Gladiators. Awooga! In fact, the referee from that programme is probably the king of referees IMO, so he'd get my vote for the recorded message.

yes because its that hard to remember to say it at the same speed....

nathan wrote:

Griff wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

nathan wrote:Wish they would make all refs keep the same timings on the calls, how many free kicks did we get over the 6n for early engagement?

How are you going to work that one out though? All refs have their own timing because all refs have their own views on the way it should be done and the intervals between each call. Some don't mind a flowing journey..others want it staccato. So first there would have to be a concensus on the timing and then....refs practice at conferences to make sure they keep the same beat? Crouch, one, two, three, one, two, three, Touch, one, two, three, one, two, three, Set?

The refs should have a ghetto blaster (is that un-PC these days?!), or similar, around their necks with a recorded 'crouch, touch, set' message read out by the king of referees, whoever that may be. That way, the same timing will always be observed. Or maybe it should be done over the tannoy so that the crowd can get involved! It would be like the (s)hit TV programme Gladiators. Awooga! In fact, the referee from that programme is probably the king of referees IMO, so he'd get my vote for the recorded message.

yes because its that hard to remember to say it at the same speed....

Is that sarcasm? If so, then yes it is hard to get it the same from ref to ref. Hence the problems.

lostinwales wrote:But what is the advantage to the side whose scrum it is?

I don't recall Ben Youngs seeing it as an advantage

Remember when we used to laugh at rugby league scrums?