Only a third of 6N scrums resulted in a successful restart

Only a third of 6N scrums resulted in a successful restart

Post by Mentalguy2k » Fri, 29 Mar 2013 22:26:08


Total: 280
Won outright: 101
Lost outright: 3
Result in free kicks: 37
Result in penalties: 73
Reversed: 3
So only 37% of scrums resulted in play being restarted

If 63% of all scrums result in a reset, free kick or penalty, are the fans
being cheated?

Brian Moore's article below identifies that the current state of scrummaging
is the fault of the All Blacks, followed by referees turning a blind eye to
existing rules and finally argues that by rigidly enforcing ALL the rules of
the scrum, referees have the power to stamp out this tedious non-spectacle
of 20 resets followed by a penalty. Or in Steve Walsh's case, to prevent the
referee making it up and awarding free kicks and penalties to whichever team
said the nicest thing about his personal grooming:

http://SportToday.org/

BBC rugby union pundit Brian Moore is a former *** for England and the
British and Irish Lions. He is also a qualified referee and has been growing
increasingly exasperated with handling of the scrum at the highest level. He
explains why these problems are spoiling the game and offers some solutions:

Instead of being a means of restarting the game it has become a way of
winning penalties. The *** - my old position - has generally become
bigger, because he is required to have power rather than hooking skills.

The important elements of scrummaging - engagement, binding of the front
rows and feeding of the ball - have been truncated into a split second.

This means referees cannot watch all parts of the scrum and players know
that if they get one element wrong, they are in a disadvantageous position
and are likely to get pushed backwards. As a result, they collapse the scrum
knowing the referee is unlikely to know who is responsible and is as likely
to blame one pack as the other.

To be frank, the whole edifice has become a grotesque farce and is blighting
the game.

Not only has the scrum become tedious, but it is dangerous - and the
International Rugby Board knows it. Paying customers are rightly registering
their disapproval and asking where the value for money is in watching the
game.
Will the IRB listen? We will have to wait and see, but if they don't, they
had better get ready for a major lawsuit because the first injured player in
an international match will take them to the cleaners.
The scrum, according to rugby's laws, is a means of restarting the game
safely, quickly and fairly. In order to do that, there are specific laws
about what you can do and when, which are relatively long-standing.
The job of the *** is to hook the ball back when it enters the scrum,
consisting of 16 large men spending too much time wrapped in each other's
arms. When the rules are applied properly, they work. And although they
don't stop things going wrong, like a scrum collapsing or wheeling, they
stop as many as can reasonably be expected in a competitive and
technically-difficult environment.

The two packs are meant to form either side of a mark and engage, which
means the front rows binding on their opposite numbers. When the scrum is
square and stationary, the ball is fed in straight by the scrum-half along
the line between the two front rows. The *** hooks the ball back into his
side of the scrum where it emerges and can be used in open play.
A pack that is not putting the ball in can still compete for it by their
*** striking for it when it is fed in, or they can shove the opposition
off the ball. But, crucially, this can happen only when the ball has been
fed and not before.
The working of these laws means the roles in the scrum of ***, prop and
so on are distinct, and require different physical attributes. This allows
rugby's unique claims to flourish. It is a game for all shapes and sizes.
The fat boys can be props, the tall ones second rows and the diminutive
malevolent ones ***s.
Simple? Well it should be. So let me go back and explain why things first
started to go wrong with the scrum.

Around 1996, the birth of professionalism, the All Blacks, who have always
led the rugby world in new techniques, adopted a scrummaging technique that
involved their pack timing a push to coincide with the strike of their
***.

England complained about refereeing of the scrum against Wales in Cardiff
This way they not only got the hooked ball, they also had an advancing scrum
that put them at a distinct advantage as their opponents had to retreat to
stay onside.
As is the nature of sport, this did not go unnoticed, and fairly soon all
packs at elite international level were adopting the same technique.
Gradually referees stopped enforcing the law requiring the ball to be fed in
straight, and scrum halves started to feed the ball further and further into
their side of the scrum.
The opposition *** stopped striking for the ball because there was no
realistic chance of succeeding, and his efforts would be transferred into
adding to the power of his pack's drive. Over time, the scrum became not a
hooking and pushing contest but one of power pushing, with each pack trying
to push as early as the referee would allow. According to the laws of the
game, this was not supposed to happen until the ball had been fed.
The increasing focus on power led to more and more scrums collapsing and the
IRB decided it had to do something to control scrum engagement. Thus,
instead of leaving the front rows to engage in their own time and under
their own auspices, they introduced a sequence which controlled the
engagement.
In its various incarnations it was "touch, crouch, hold, engage". This did
not work, which came as no surprise to people like me who have played in the
front row. In fact, it made matters worse by effectively becoming a signal
for the front rows to engage with as much force as possible.
Then, for reasons known only to themselves, elite referees abandoned
altogether the law against early shoving.
Unfortunately, the IRB and elite referees have failed to understand that it
is what happens after, and not before, engagement that matters. That is
where the source of the current problems lie.
Ironically, the solution is the simple application of the existing laws. And
the proof is where the laws are properly applied - at junior level - where
they do not have these serious problems with the scrum."
Brian Moore investigates "The Scrum" in a special BBC 5 live rugby programme
on Thursday, 28 March, at 19:30 GMT

 
 
 

Only a third of 6N scrums resulted in a successful restart

Post by William Clar » Fri, 29 Mar 2013 23:29:17


Quote:

> Total: 280
> Won outright: 101
> Lost outright: 3
> Result in free kicks: 37
> Result in penalties: 73
> Reversed: 3
> So only 37% of scrums resulted in play being restarted

> If 63% of all scrums result in a reset, free kick or penalty, are the fans
> being cheated?

> Brian Moore's article below identifies that the current state of scrummaging
> is the fault of the All Blacks, followed by referees turning a blind eye to
> existing rules and finally argues that by rigidly enforcing ALL the rules of
> the scrum, referees have the power to stamp out this tedious non-spectacle
> of 20 resets followed by a penalty. Or in Steve Walsh's case, to prevent the
> referee making it up and awarding free kicks and penalties to whichever team
> said the nicest thing about his personal grooming:

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

 . . snip, snip . .

Quote:
> In its various incarnations it was "touch, crouch, hold, engage". This did
> not work, which came as no surprise to people like me who have played in the
> front row. In fact, it made matters worse by effectively becoming a signal
> for the front rows to engage with as much force as possible.
> Then, for reasons known only to themselves, elite referees abandoned
> altogether the law against early shoving.
> Unfortunately, the IRB and elite referees have failed to understand that it
> is what happens after, and not before, engagement that matters. That is
> where the source of the current problems lie.
> Ironically, the solution is the simple application of the existing laws. And
> the proof is where the laws are properly applied - at junior level - where
> they do not have these serious problems with the scrum."
> Brian Moore investigates "The Scrum" in a special BBC 5 live rugby programme
> on Thursday, 28 March, at 19:30 GMT

One point Brendan Gallagher made in the Grauniad about Walsh's handling
of the E-W match was that he was uncertain whether to penalize Wales for
pushing early, or Youngs for delaying the put-in because his scrum was
going backwards. This seems crystal clear to me - if neither side is
supposed to push until the ball is put in, then Youngs has control of
the tempo (as long as the wait is not excessive). If his scrum is being
pushed back, then he definitely shouldn't put the ball in, and the ref
should penalize the offending scrum for pushing too early. Perhaps if
scrum halves are instructed to wait until the scrum is steady and
stable, the hit would lose it's effectiveness, and we can all get on
with the game.
Provided, of course, scrum halves are made to put the ball in straight
:-)

 
 
 

Only a third of 6N scrums resulted in a successful restart

Post by Tom Westo » Mon, 01 Apr 2013 01:22:28

Quote:

> Total: 280

> Won outright: 101

> Lost outright: 3

> Result in free kicks: 37

> Result in penalties: 73

> Reversed: 3

> So only 37% of scrums resulted in play being restarted

> If 63% of all scrums result in a reset, free kick or penalty, are the fans

> being cheated?

[snipperty snip]

So, I guess where we are heading is that the scrum doesn't work, and there will
be some radical rule change that will devalue the scrums as a contest.

Added to that the current laws seem to massively encourage crash ball tactics.

Is this going to signal a gradual convergence of league and union in playing style and characteristics?

I sincerely hope not, but it seems an almost irreversible trend.

 
 
 

Only a third of 6N scrums resulted in a successful restart

Post by BrritSk » Mon, 01 Apr 2013 02:06:54


Quote:

>> Total: 280

>> Won outright: 101

>> Lost outright: 3

>> Result in free kicks: 37

>> Result in penalties: 73

>> Reversed: 3

>> So only 37% of scrums resulted in play being restarted

>> If 63% of all scrums result in a reset, free kick or penalty, are the fans

>> being cheated?

> [snipperty snip]

> So, I guess where we are heading is that the scrum doesn't work, and there will
> be some radical rule change that will devalue the scrums as a contest.

Care took the***last night by putting in to the scrum from the wrong
side  :)
Quote:

> Added to that the current laws seem to massively encourage crash ball tactics.

> Is this going to signal a gradual convergence of league and union in playing style and characteristics?

> I sincerely hope not, but it seems an almost irreversible trend.

Me too  :(
 
 
 

Only a third of 6N scrums resulted in a successful restart

Post by Dechuck » Mon, 01 Apr 2013 11:07:40


Quote:


>>> Total: 280

>>> Won outright: 101

>>> Lost outright: 3

>>> Result in free kicks: 37

>>> Result in penalties: 73

>>> Reversed: 3

>>> So only 37% of scrums resulted in play being restarted

>>> If 63% of all scrums result in a reset, free kick or penalty, are the
>>> fans

>>> being cheated?

>> [snipperty snip]

>> So, I guess where we are heading is that the scrum doesn't work, and
>> there will
>> be some radical rule change that will devalue the scrums as a contest.

> Care took the***last night by putting in to the scrum from the wrong
> side  :)

While there is no correct side under the laws to put the ball in it shows
the lack of contest if the loose head advantage is given away

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

>> Added to that the current laws seem to massively encourage crash ball
>> tactics.

>> Is this going to signal a gradual convergence of league and union in
>> playing style and characteristics?

>> I sincerely hope not, but it seems an almost irreversible trend.

> Me too  :(

 
 
 

Only a third of 6N scrums resulted in a successful restart

Post by ian diddam » Tue, 02 Apr 2013 07:53:42

Quote:

> So, I guess where we are heading is that the scrum doesn't work, and there will

> be some radical rule change that will devalue the scrums as a contest.

We also need to consider WHERE the scrums don't work.  From the refs I speak to from all over the world, it seems their games i.e.at more grass root levels don't have these issues.

So if there's an issue at the top levels sort it out there - but there is no need to make wholesale changes to the scrum for everyone...  because 99%+ of all rugby played has no issue that needs dealing with.

didds

 
 
 

Only a third of 6N scrums resulted in a successful restart

Post by Mentalguy2k » Tue, 02 Apr 2013 21:11:07


Quote:

>> So, I guess where we are heading is that the scrum doesn't work, and
>> there will

>> be some radical rule change that will devalue the scrums as a contest.

> We also need to consider WHERE the scrums don't work.  From the refs I
> speak to from all over the world, it seems their games i.e.at more grass
> root levels don't have these >issues.

I find that the beauty of "grass roots" rugby (my eldest plays for school
team and club) - and amateur sport in general - is that generally two teams
know very little about each other (and about the ref) before they actually
turn up and kick off, except for their relative positions in the league
table. The training and coaching focuses on *your* strengths and weaknesses,
not your opponent's.

I think this is a problem with "pro" rugby and internationals, the two teams
know the strengths and weaknesses of every opponent (and referee) almost as
much as their own and spend part of the pre-match training week specifically
training for their opposite number. This (I think) is what leads to those
damp squib games where everyone knows how to neutralise everything the
opposition has to offer, and how to "play" the ref, focusing on how not to
lose rather than how to win. There's a plan for every eventuality, it's
over-analysed to the point where it can be tedious. School teams just turn
up, get changed and play a game of rugby against strangers, it's exciting
stuff. They're not (yet!) cynical enough to cheat without getting caught. I
think the same goes for most amateur sports.

 
 
 

Only a third of 6N scrums resulted in a successful restart

Post by Jussi Uosukaine » Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:34:08

Quote:


>> So, I guess where we are heading is that the scrum doesn't work, and there will

>> be some radical rule change that will devalue the scrums as a contest.

> We also need to consider WHERE the scrums don't work.  From the refs I speak to from all over the world, it seems their games i.e.at more grass root levels don't have these issues.

> So if there's an issue at the top levels sort it out there - but there is no need to make wholesale changes to the scrum for everyone...  because 99%+ of all rugby played has no issue that needs dealing with.

> didds

Apart from calling for the refs to apply the rules as they stand at the
moment, the nly concrete suggestion I took from the podcast was an idea
to take out the hit.

My perspective in Rugby (both watching and playing) is miniscule
compared to people here, but to me that sounds like something that could
work without diminishing the importance of the scrum, the importance of
raw power and technique and makes the scrum safer, as well. Is the hit
such an integral part of the game that losing it will make a huge
difference?

--
/jussi
Highly intelligent and well-informed people disagree on every political
issue. Therefore, intelligence and knowledge are useless for
making decisions, because if any of that stuff helped, then all the
smart people would have the same opinions. So use your "gut instinct"
to make voting choices. That is exactly like being clueless, but with
the added advantage that you'll feel as if your random vote preserved
democracy.
*Scott Adams