Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Get rid of the scrum!

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Roger_007
    Registered Users Posts: 21,886 ✭✭✭✭Roger_007


    For Paws wrote: »
    The scrum has to stay
    However, the IRB should make whatever changes are necessary to
    (a) maintain player safety
    (b) effect prompt restarts of play

    Can't remember who it was, but can recall a retired front rower (might have been Brian Moore the solicitor & hooker (saying that in his opinion there are 3 main causes for constant collapses / resets / penalties.

    (1) Players of hugely differing physique directly opposing each other
    ie; Prop of 6'6" with long legs can't match the same body angle as a prop 5'10".

    (2) Scrum halves putting ball in 'not straight'. Hooker doesn't have to 'hook', and props don't have to support him as he does so.

    (3) Referees not seeing props 'boring in' & shifting binds.

    Can't understand the multitude of changes made by the IRB to the Laws which have only contributed to slower & more offense ridden play.

    Finally someone has got to the heart of the matter. My original post was meant to prompt people to acknowledge that there are problems with the scrum and to make suggestions as to how to improve it. I didn't think that many real rugby fans would advocate doing away with it altogether. It is such a pivotal part of the game for most people.
    I would like to add a suggestion to the above:
    That the team who have the put-in should have the option of calling a 'short' scrum, front and second rows only. They have already done this with the line-out and it works fine.


  • Options
    #63
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    Roger_007 wrote: »
    Finally someone has got to the heart of the matter. My original post was meant to prompt people to acknowledge that there are problems with the scrum and to make suggestions as to how to improve it. I didn't think that many real rugby fans would advocate doing away with it altogether. It is such a pivotal part of the game for most people.
    I would like to add a suggestion to the above:
    That the team who have the put-in should have the option of calling a 'short' scrum, front and second rows only. They have already done this with the line-out and it works fine.

    Considering the title you used was "Get Rid of the Scrum", are you surprised at the replies?


  • Options
    #64
    Roger_007
    Registered Users Posts: 21,886 ✭✭✭✭Roger_007


    JustinDee wrote: »
    Considering the title you used was "Get Rid of the Scrum", are you surprised at the replies?

    Sometimes you have to have a provocative title to get a debate going. It is bit like standing up in an Orange Lodge and suggesting that there should be a united Ireland. You mightn't win the argument but you WILL have an argument.


  • Options
    #65
    For Paws
    Closed Accounts Posts: 812 ✭✭✭For Paws


    Another thing occurs to me on foot of a earlier post

    When 'lifting' in the line out was not allowed, there was no need for lifters.
    When 'lifters' (is there another, more correct word ?) are used, it's an advantage to have a tall lad lifting. Since lifting seems to be the props job, hence taller props.

    Aside :Have heard it said that a line out jumper is only as good as his lifter, and that in this regard John Hayes was due more credit for POC's line out work than he received.


  • Options
    #66
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    For Paws wrote: »
    When 'lifting' in the line out was not allowed, there was no need for lifters

    ... but there were lifters hence permitting the action in the end on safety and penalisation grounds.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    For Paws
    Closed Accounts Posts: 812 ✭✭✭For Paws


    JustinDee wrote: »
    ... but there were lifters hence permitting the action in the end on safety and penalisation grounds.

    Not sure I follow.

    There was a time when 'lifting' a team mate to assist his catching was an offense.

    The Laws were changed to allow 'lifting'.

    My point was that a change in one Law affected another area of the game,
    arguably for the worst.


  • Options
    #68
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    For Paws wrote: »
    Not sure I follow.

    There was a time when 'lifting' a team mate to assist his catching was an offense.

    The Laws were changed to allow 'lifting'.

    My point was that a change in one Law affected another area of the game,
    arguably for the worst.

    My point was that lifting, which was already occurring anyway, was permitted mainly on safety grounds. A good instance of tweaking a law to improve the game. A good lifter doesn't need to be tall. John Hayes was a good lifter because he's as strong as an ox.


  • Options
    #69
    Roger_007
    Registered Users Posts: 21,886 ✭✭✭✭Roger_007


    JustinDee wrote: »
    My point was that lifting, which was already occurring anyway, was permitted mainly on safety grounds. A good instance of tweaking a law to improve the game. A good lifter doesn't need to be tall. John Hayes was a good lifter because he's as strong as an ox.

    I think we should get rid of the lineout..............No, just joking.


  • Options
    #70
    For Paws
    Closed Accounts Posts: 812 ✭✭✭For Paws


    JustinDee wrote: »
    My point was that lifting, which was already occurring anyway, was permitted mainly on safety grounds. A good instance of tweaking a law to improve the game. A good lifter doesn't need to be tall. John Hayes was a good lifter because he's as strong as an ox.

    Still don't follow the bit '..which was already occurring anyway..'.

    It wasn't occurring, it was an offense.

    Now, I not arguing that allowing it wasn't an improvement.
    Line outs used to be a complete cluster fcuk at times.

    John Hayes was a good lifter because he's as strong as an ox.

    Yes, he was ,imo, the best in the world at that particular job, but any lifter has to be as strong as an ox. My point was that because The Bull was a very tall lad in comparison to the traditional prop, he had an extra advantage when lifting. Ie; A tall lifter lifts a jumper higher than an average sized lifter.

    All teams responded to the Law change on lifting, and sought taller props, thus changing the traditional 'look' of the scrum, and perhaps changing it's balance.


  • Options
    #71
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    Meaning it was going to be legalised, as it was already prevalent and penalising it only added to stoppages.
    Interesting theory re. props being selected as lifters. I don't subscribe to it myself, as the likes of John Hayes' height (6"4) isn't really that widespread. Props of 6"0 isn't anything new to the game.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Funk It
    Registered Users Posts: 663 ✭✭✭Funk It


    I have said it for years, all they need are dedicated scrum referees (or singular scrum referee) to come on for the scrums in order to keep the front rows honest. These can be retired props, who know the tricks and will have (or should have) the respect of the props that are playing.

    How many times do we see the scrum go down on the opposite side of where the ref is, and then when he switches, its the same on the other side? The touch judges are there to comment, but in most cases they are so far away, their decision could be better put into the fate of a toss of a coin.

    Scrums can be a great weapon in rugby, or they can be an absolute farce. I think all of us would prefer to see honest battles of strength and technique, which is why there needs to be change to ensure that it is not the talking point of the game for all of the wrong reasons.


  • Options
    #73
    Funk It
    Registered Users Posts: 663 ✭✭✭Funk It


    I think that it should be trialed at Pro 12 level, 6 games at any 1 weekend, so all they need is 6 retired props any one weekend, who can analyse the front rows a bit better. I know people might say that having 2 refs on the pitch, with one being a former prop who might not have been the most mobile in his playing days, will interfere with the play. But I think we have all seen plenty "ruck inspectors" in our day who keep out of the way, and I think it could work.


  • Options
    #74
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,254 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    The scrum has been an absolute chore to watch in this 6N. I can't recall a single instance of an enjoyable contested scrum in the tournament. We're actually approaching a stage where a team with a strong scrum can knock on with impunity, safe in the knowledge they'll most likely get a penalty out of the resulting scrum.


  • Options
    #75
    Funk It
    Registered Users Posts: 663 ✭✭✭Funk It


    pickarooney wrote: »
    The scrum has been an absolute chore to watch in this 6N. I can't recall a single instance of an enjoyable contested scrum in the tournament. We're actually approaching a stage where a team with a strong scrum can knock on with impunity, safe in the knowledge they'll most likely get a penalty out of the resulting scrum.

    The cheer of the crowd before the first scrum against England - that anticipation of importance for me was the highlight of the scrums in the 6 Nations, and thats even ignoring the scrum itself.


  • Options
    #76
    Macy0161
    Registered Users Posts: 9,324 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    Still sticking with the hit being the problem. Weren't the resets when the front rows just kind of flopped into each other.


  • Options
    #77
    Coburger
    Registered Users Posts: 324 ✭✭Coburger


    Macy0161 wrote: »
    Still sticking with the hit being the problem. Weren't the resets when the front rows just kind of flopped into each other.

    Unfortunately, as a viewing spectacle, the scrums are making the game a bit of a mess. I can't get into this 'the scrum of this game is going to be fascinating' (some commentator said something like this over the weekend, I think it was Frankie before the Scotland Wales game).

    Rather than the scrum being a platform for the opposition to have the ball and do something with it, it just tends to be the teams trying to get a penalty over one another.

    Any thoughts on what can be done to improve it?


  • Options
    #78
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 53,555 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    Yesterday I thought the ref delayed his set call a few times in the hope of an early engagement just so we could get the game moving past that particular scrum.

    The players struggled to get a grip.


  • Options
    #79
    P_1
    Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    Radical idea:

    How about the two front rows 'lock in' and the 'engage' is called when the back 5 'hit' into the front rows?


  • Options
    #80
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,254 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    P_1 wrote: »
    Radical idea:

    How about the two front rows 'lock in' and the 'engage' is called when the back 5 'hit' into the front rows?

    Sounds dangerous, like being hit from behind by a Renault 4 20-odd times a game.


  • Options
    #81
    Macy0161
    Registered Users Posts: 9,324 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    P_1 wrote: »
    Radical idea:

    How about the two front rows 'lock in' and the 'engage' is called when the back 5 'hit' into the front rows?
    Just get rid of the hit entirely - there's no need for it. Either walk the entire scrum in and make sure the props are bound from the off, or bind the front rows and then pack down the rest, but just get rid of the hit element. That, along with making hookers actually hook straight put ins would solve a lot of problems, imho.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,254 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    Without the hit and with a straight put-in enforced, the team with the put-in would still have an advantage in terms of timing the heel, right?


  • Options
    #83
    Risteard
    Registered Users Posts: 2,698 ✭✭✭Risteard


    pickarooney wrote: »
    Without the hit and with a straight put-in enforced, the team with the put-in would still have an advantage in terms of timing the heel, right?

    Yeah, but it would be the same as the team throwing into the line out having the advantage of knowing where it was going.


  • Options
    #84
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,254 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    Risteard wrote: »
    Yeah, but it would be the same as the team throwing into the line out having the advantage of knowing where it was going.

    Should be acceptable. As it stands, the team putting in has only about a 50/50 chance of getting it back out depending on how the ref interprets the scrum collapsing.


  • Options
    #85
    Macy0161
    Registered Users Posts: 9,324 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    pickarooney wrote: »
    Without the hit and with a straight put-in enforced, the team with the put-in would still have an advantage in terms of timing the heel, right?
    Yes, the scrum half would normally give the signal to the hooker it was coming (tap on the arm or a call). But the opposition hooker would have a fair chance of winning it too, so wouldn't necessarily be all about disrupting.


  • Options
    #86
    toomevara
    Registered Users Posts: 5,772 ✭✭✭toomevara


    The definition of the scrum from the laws of the game;

    "The purpose of the scrum is to restart play quickly, safely and fairly after a minor infringement or stoppage"

    Ahem, yes and I'm the Shah of Iran. If this is indeed the purpose of the scrum as defined by the games lawmakers you have to wonder what they think when they watch a game such as Scotland/Wales where oodles of time were taken up with reset scrums which rarely ended satisfactorily and served merely as a prelude to a free kick/penalty.

    I can never understand the attraction of this or why supporters/players/coaches continue to put up with it. Surely RU is unique in being one of the few mature, professional field-sports where a key component of the game as defined by the people who run it simply doesn't function. As a lover of rugby league it seems crazy...


  • Options
    #87
    Thud
    Registered Users Posts: 2,553 ✭✭✭Thud


    Macy0161 wrote: »
    Yes, the scrum half would normally give the signal to the hooker it was coming (tap on the arm or a call). But the opposition hooker would have a fair chance of winning it too, so wouldn't necessarily be all about disrupting.

    opposition hooker is a little bit further away from scrum half also


  • Options
    #88
    Macy0161
    Registered Users Posts: 9,324 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    toomevara wrote: »
    I can never understand the attraction of this or why supporters/players/coaches continue to put up with it. Surely RU is unique in being one of the few mature, professional field-sports where a key component of the game as defined by the people who run it simply doesn't function. As a lover of rugby league it seems crazy...
    The problem is they've been reacting to the creation of the "hit", which is relatively new, instead of dealing with the hit. I still wouldn't like it to go like League though with a token scrum and a pack of back rows.


  • Options
    #89
    toomevara
    Registered Users Posts: 5,772 ✭✭✭toomevara


    Macy0161 wrote: »
    I still wouldn't like it to go like League though with a token scrum and a pack of back rows.

    Totally agree, league is league, union is union and the scrum is as iconic a part of the game as the play-the-ball in league.What I cannot understand is how those who run the game of RU cannot make the scrum, a centrepiece of the game, work. Though i love league and much prefer it to union as a sport and indeed a spectacle I would hate to see Union make any further mockery of the scrum.


  • Options
    #90
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    toomevara wrote: »
    Totally agree, league is league, union is union and the scrum is as iconic a part of the game as the play-the-ball in league.What I cannot understand is how those who run the game of RU cannot make the scrum, a centrepiece of the game, work. Though i love league and much prefer it to union as a sport and indeed a spectacle I would hate to see Union make any further mockery of the scrum.

    Ironically RL scrums back in the day seem to be more of a contest for the ball than RU now

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=uKFyPRJnw0E


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    P_1
    Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    pickarooney wrote: »
    Sounds dangerous, like being hit from behind by a Renault 4 20-odd times a game.

    True, didn't think of that.

    Not too keen on removing the hit, it is a big part of the skill of being a prop forward.

    Maybe taking the ref's call out of it might be an option. Instead of the ref calling 'crouch, set, engage' at varying speeds depending on the ref a standardised bleep set up could be used.


Advertisement