Scrums Canterbury- Northland (Spoiler)

Scrums Canterbury- Northland (Spoiler)

Post by Paul Galvi » Sat, 07 Oct 2000 04:00:00


So Canterbury have put the shield away for the summer doing enough to beat
Northland 28-22. I have read a lot here about what good scrummagers
Somerville and co are, so made a point of watching the scrums tonight
because I have long suspected that the Canterbury scrum is not as dominent
as many seem to think. There were 21 scrums in the game. Of these the ball
was won cleanly first time 7 times (1 of these a tighthead to Northland) 2
resulted in penalties, 2 in free kicks, and 10 were reset, some 2-3 times.
Why is boring-in or up or not binding properly considered to be good
scrummaging? There were only 2 or 3 good solid scrums in the whole game. The
Otago front row, which has copped a lot of flack seems to set square and
scrum straight with far fewer resets than the Canterbury one. The All Black
scrum  may not have disrupted opposition scrums this year, but they weren't
pushed around either. As a scrum is just a means of restarting play, what's
so clever about  front rows collapsing or coming up, resulting in reset
after reset? Rather than being good scrumagers the Canterbury front row seem
to have to compensate for their lack of skill through illegalities. I freely
admit to knowing little about front row play so what am I missing here?.
What is so good about a front row that causes scrum after scrum to be reset?
--
Paul.
 
 
 

Scrums Canterbury- Northland (Spoiler)

Post by Philippe Torre » Sat, 07 Oct 2000 04:00:00

Quote:

> scrum  may not have disrupted opposition scrums this year, but they weren't
> pushed around either. As a scrum is just a means of restarting play, what's

I think you're missing a point then if you see scrums are a mere restart
of play.

Quote:
> so clever about  front rows collapsing or coming up, resulting in reset
> after reset?

Cheating from one or both front rows. Searching for the best position to
put a maximal pressure on the adverse front row is sometimes considered
as cheating but imo forward *** is the name of the game. Both
front row use this "restart" to dent the mental and physical strength of
their opponents.

In case of collapse, the problem is for the ref to decide who is
cheating : the stronger side for obtaining a *** position (via
illegal ways ?) or the weaker side for refusing the bad position (by
collapsing ?) and the challenge it means.

Quote:
> What is so good about a front row that causes scrum after scrum to be reset?

Nothing is good in that but it's worst still to give a penalty to one
side if the ref is not sure who's cheating.
Perhaps two refs would be necessary on this phase of play : one on each
side of the scrum. Often, a scrum is collapsed on the loose when the ref
is on the tight and vice-versa.
Two field refs could help avoid this very situation.

Anyway, the scrum is very hard to ref :
the ref must watch both front rows from side and above and also the pair
of half-backs :
does the ball is rightly introduced ? Is the defending half-back on-side
?
Very heavy task.

Philippe

 
 
 

Scrums Canterbury- Northland (Spoiler)

Post by ...To » Sun, 08 Oct 2000 06:28:42


Quote:
> As a scrum is just a means of restarting play, what's
>so clever about  front rows collapsing or coming up, resulting in reset
>after reset? Rather than being good scrumagers the Canterbury front row seem
>to have to compensate for their lack of skill through illegalities. I freely
>admit to knowing little about front row play so what am I missing here?.
>What is so good about a front row that causes scrum after scrum to be reset?

There is your problem. A scrum is NOT just  a means of restarting
play. That is league you are thinking about. Scrums in Union are about
***. Resets mean that the contest is fierce. The results of
those contests are not always seen purely as scrum ball. A
surprisingly high percentage of rugby is  a head game. What happens in
the scrums contributes to that.

...Tom

 
 
 

Scrums Canterbury- Northland (Spoiler)

Post by Paul Galvi » Sun, 08 Oct 2000 08:21:06


Quote:

> > As a scrum is just a means of restarting play, what's
> >so clever about  front rows collapsing or coming up, resulting in reset
> >after reset? Rather than being good scrumagers the Canterbury front row
seem
> >to have to compensate for their lack of skill through illegalities. I
freely
> >admit to knowing little about front row play so what am I missing here?.
> >What is so good about a front row that causes scrum after scrum to be
reset?

> There is your problem. A scrum is NOT just  a means of restarting
> play. That is league you are thinking about. Scrums in Union are about
> ***. Resets mean that the contest is fierce. The results of
> those contests are not always seen purely as scrum ball. A
> surprisingly high percentage of rugby is  a head game. What happens in
> the scrums contributes to that.

> ...Tom

I have oversimplified things by saying that scrums are just a way of
restarting play. The point I am trying to make is that gaining *** by
resorting to illegalities is like admitting defeat, telling your opposition
that they too good for you so you resort to boring in, pulling down etc.
Somerville and more especially Feek do this a lot and many here seem to
think that is good scrummaging. Give me Dowd, Slater, Hoeft, Meeuws, or
Hayman over Somerville or Feek anyday. I noticed Steve Walsh having a chat
to the Canterbury front row just before the 2nd half kick-off and there was
some improvement in the 2nd half. Seeing 2 good front rows going at each
other within the rules is one of the best parts of rugby but silly
illegalities like not binding and causing a srum to collapse is not good
scrummaging.
--
Paul
 
 
 

Scrums Canterbury- Northland (Spoiler)

Post by Paul Galvi » Sun, 08 Oct 2000 14:53:57

Some boring scrum stats for 3 NPC games from this weekend. I took these
stats because I had noticed that games involving Canterbury seemed to
contain all sorts of scrum problems.
Game 1 Canterbury vs Northland. 21 scrums producing 2 penalties, 2 free
kicks, 10 resets and only 7 first time results (ie the ball being hooked
first time) one of which was a tighthead to Northland.
Game 2. Wellington vs Waikato. 16 scrums, no penalties, no free kicks, 3
resets and 13 first time results.
Game 3. Auckland vs Otago. 23 scrums, 3 penalties, no free kicks, 2 resets,
and 18 first time results.

It seems to me that either the Canterbury front row is unable to set a solid
platform for their scrum, or they deliberately set out to disrupt the
opposition scrum by fair means or foul, whereas the other teams make setting
a solid platform as their first priority. I agree with almost everything you
have said Phillippe and Tom. What I am asking is why would anybody pick
Somerville,Hewitt and/or Feek as ABs. To me the scrums in games 2 and 3 were
far superior to those in game 1 yet many people here think the Canterbury
props should be ABs. I'm far from convinced but as I said I don't know a lot
about front row play. Someone please educate me.
--
Paul.
ps. I'm going to put my pen and paper away now and just watch and enjoy the
rest of the games this weekend. The comp is coming to a nice climax.

 
 
 

Scrums Canterbury- Northland (Spoiler)

Post by louise.park.. » Sun, 08 Oct 2000 04:00:00

Quote:

> Some boring scrum stats for 3 NPC games from this weekend. I took these
> stats because I had noticed that games involving Canterbury seemed to
> contain all sorts of scrum problems.
> Game 1 Canterbury vs Northland. 21 scrums producing 2 penalties, 2 free
> kicks, 10 resets and only 7 first time results (ie the ball being hooked
> first time) one of which was a tighthead to Northland.
> Game 2. Wellington vs Waikato. 16 scrums, no penalties, no free kicks, 3
> resets and 13 first time results.
> Game 3. Auckland vs Otago. 23 scrums, 3 penalties, no free kicks, 2 resets,
> and 18 first time results.

> It seems to me that either the Canterbury front row is unable to set a solid
> platform for their scrum, or they deliberately set out to disrupt the
> opposition scrum by fair means or foul, whereas the other teams make setting
> a solid platform as their first priority. I agree with almost everything you
> have said Phillippe and Tom. What I am asking is why would anybody pick
> Somerville,Hewitt and/or Feek as ABs. To me the scrums in games 2 and 3 were
> far superior to those in game 1 yet many people here think the Canterbury
> props should be ABs. I'm far from convinced but as I said I don't know a lot
> about front row play. Someone please educate me.

Perhaps scrummaging hasn't been the main criteria for selection. What
else do the three in question bring to the party ?

Kev

 
 
 

Scrums Canterbury- Northland (Spoiler)

Post by Mr Sceb » Tue, 10 Oct 2000 04:00:00


Quote:

> that they too good for you so you resort to boring in, pulling down etc.
> Somerville and more especially Feek do this a lot and many here seem to
> think that is good scrummaging. Give me Dowd, Slater, Hoeft, Meeuws, or
> Hayman over Somerville or Feek anyday.

Call me old fashioned, but i find it very difficult for a loosehead to "bore
in". This particluar phenomenon seems to have arisen in the last couple of
years from TV commentators trying to explain the wiles of the front row.

If you are in any doubt about this, get a friend (if you don't have one, try
it on a work colleague, the cow in the back paddock or similar) bind against
them as two opposing front rows would, and try and push your head into their
neck region, whilst your body is simultaneously moving in the other
direction. This will simulate a loosehead "boring in".

--
Mr Scebe
~ "The nature of monkey was irrepressible".