Or Probyn, Smith and Wallace
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
And the Engage is Goooooooooooooooooooooone
- Thread starter Teh Mite
- Start date
dasNdanger
First XV
What do you think of this comment?:
I can see how the shirts are a big problem. When I started watching the game 11 years ago the old jumpers were still worn and there was just all that much material to bind onto. But I also tend to agree with comments made regarding the role of the hooker, and the fact that force has replaced skill in the scrum. There needs to be a proper balance, and it would be nice to see scrums a bit less predictable.
das
Streetwise was probably the wrong term. What I mean is that props nowadays are more prepared to collapse the scrum to try and con the ref/get a re-set. On top of this, the scrum is used more and more as a way to gain a penalty, at least in the NH, and not as a way to re-start the game. It's just the way the game has gone, if you have an advantage in one area you squeeze everything you can out of it, even going back to 2000 this wasn't quite the case.
- Joined
- May 25, 2007
- Messages
- 5,708
- Reaction score
- 772
As a former referee, I have to say....AND ABOUT TIME TOO!! The first thing I thought of when I read this....
[TEXTAREA]"The "crouch", "touch", "set" engagement calls currently being trialled globally are maintained within the PRC trial but in a revision to the technique of engagement, props will be expected to bind using their outside arm after the referee has called "touch" in the sequence.
The front rows will maintain the bind and the referee will then call “set†and the two packs will be permitted to engage. In this sequence, with the props bound, the "set" call is not a command to engage, but an instruction that the front rows may come together when ready."[/TEXTAREA]
was this....
IMO, we are slowly working our way back to the way scrums used to be set... the 25 year experiment is almost over.
The "hit on engage" has been an absolute failure. It may have worked for a short while, but it became apparent to me some years ago that it was not achieving what it was intended to do; to lock the scrum together.
Correct binding is what locks the scrum. It always has been and always will be.
The hit actually disadvantages prop forwards who have good scrummaging techniques, by placing the emphasis on the power of the engage rather than the ability of the prop to get the better of his opponent. What is the point of having this great power hit when the scrum law states...
[TEXTAREA]20.1 (j) Stationary and parallel. Until the ball leaves the scrum half’s hands, the scrum must be stationary and the middle line must be parallel to the goal lines. A team must not shove the scrum away from the mark before the ball is thrown in.
Sanction: Free Kick[/TEXTAREA]
Teams with a weaker scrum were able to negate their opponents strengths, and the Wallabies were particularly good at this a few years ago; former England second rower and Sunday telegraph columnist Paul Ackford explains it best....
[TEXTAREA]"It is when they are trying to protect their own put in that the Wallabies get up to their tricks. One ploy is to collapse at the hit. Early in the game referees are reluctant to penalise teams so the tight-head (usually Baxter) will head for the floor as soon as the pressure comes on. By the time the referee has sorted out the problems, which usually means him coming round from the other side of the scrum to deliver a lecture, and by the time the scrum has been re-set, the opposition pack have had the steam taken out of the engagement. Australia then put the ball into the scrum swiftly and get it out through the fastest channel available. Job done."[/TEXTAREA]
The scrum half was a part of this subterfuge as well. George Gregan would **** about delaying his put in until the Wallaby front row could take the scrum down. When the ball finally went in, it went in crooked anyway.
I'm not Wallaby bashing here, just giving an example. Thankfully, the Wallabies now do have a couple of decent FR players and don't need to resort to this tactic any more.
I also agree with others here that the slippery, tight fitting jerseys are becoming a problem that will need to be addressed. I think that has even been mentioned in the iRB's official report They are either gong to have to consider making props wear the older style jerseys, or have patches of "grippy" material on props' jerseys. I prefer the latter. If they had "grip patches" of a slightly different colour to the rest of the jersey, it would make the referee's job very easy; if the prop is not gripping the patch, PING for incorrect binding. Some props (particularly a certain shaggy-haired Italian prop) are not going to like that idea, because it would put an end to their shenanigans.
Hopefully, if this trial works out, we'll see a return to props who prop the scrum, hookers who hook the ball, and scrum halves made to feed the ball straight.
To be fair, this is not like having a simple technical Law change, for example, a five second limit at rucks, or deciding where a quick throw in is taken. The scrummage involves some very complex mechanics. Very small changes can make a very big difference, and getting it wrong has the potential for catastrophic injuries to players. Nobody wants that to happen, and I think nobody will worry about some money being spent to prevent it happening.
[TEXTAREA]"The "crouch", "touch", "set" engagement calls currently being trialled globally are maintained within the PRC trial but in a revision to the technique of engagement, props will be expected to bind using their outside arm after the referee has called "touch" in the sequence.
The front rows will maintain the bind and the referee will then call “set†and the two packs will be permitted to engage. In this sequence, with the props bound, the "set" call is not a command to engage, but an instruction that the front rows may come together when ready."[/TEXTAREA]
was this....
IMO, we are slowly working our way back to the way scrums used to be set... the 25 year experiment is almost over.
The "hit on engage" has been an absolute failure. It may have worked for a short while, but it became apparent to me some years ago that it was not achieving what it was intended to do; to lock the scrum together.
Correct binding is what locks the scrum. It always has been and always will be.
The hit actually disadvantages prop forwards who have good scrummaging techniques, by placing the emphasis on the power of the engage rather than the ability of the prop to get the better of his opponent. What is the point of having this great power hit when the scrum law states...
[TEXTAREA]20.1 (j) Stationary and parallel. Until the ball leaves the scrum half’s hands, the scrum must be stationary and the middle line must be parallel to the goal lines. A team must not shove the scrum away from the mark before the ball is thrown in.
Sanction: Free Kick[/TEXTAREA]
Teams with a weaker scrum were able to negate their opponents strengths, and the Wallabies were particularly good at this a few years ago; former England second rower and Sunday telegraph columnist Paul Ackford explains it best....
[TEXTAREA]"It is when they are trying to protect their own put in that the Wallabies get up to their tricks. One ploy is to collapse at the hit. Early in the game referees are reluctant to penalise teams so the tight-head (usually Baxter) will head for the floor as soon as the pressure comes on. By the time the referee has sorted out the problems, which usually means him coming round from the other side of the scrum to deliver a lecture, and by the time the scrum has been re-set, the opposition pack have had the steam taken out of the engagement. Australia then put the ball into the scrum swiftly and get it out through the fastest channel available. Job done."[/TEXTAREA]
The scrum half was a part of this subterfuge as well. George Gregan would **** about delaying his put in until the Wallaby front row could take the scrum down. When the ball finally went in, it went in crooked anyway.
I'm not Wallaby bashing here, just giving an example. Thankfully, the Wallabies now do have a couple of decent FR players and don't need to resort to this tactic any more.
I also agree with others here that the slippery, tight fitting jerseys are becoming a problem that will need to be addressed. I think that has even been mentioned in the iRB's official report They are either gong to have to consider making props wear the older style jerseys, or have patches of "grippy" material on props' jerseys. I prefer the latter. If they had "grip patches" of a slightly different colour to the rest of the jersey, it would make the referee's job very easy; if the prop is not gripping the patch, PING for incorrect binding. Some props (particularly a certain shaggy-haired Italian prop) are not going to like that idea, because it would put an end to their shenanigans.
Hopefully, if this trial works out, we'll see a return to props who prop the scrum, hookers who hook the ball, and scrum halves made to feed the ball straight.
To be fair, this is not like having a simple technical Law change, for example, a five second limit at rucks, or deciding where a quick throw in is taken. The scrummage involves some very complex mechanics. Very small changes can make a very big difference, and getting it wrong has the potential for catastrophic injuries to players. Nobody wants that to happen, and I think nobody will worry about some money being spent to prevent it happening.
Last edited by a moderator:
I vote for the former. Speaking from a front row perspective, putting a prop into a super tight jersey is demeaning - with much too much effort going into sucking in the gut when your girlfriend is watching the game. I wan't the older jerseys which make me look less like a misshapen sasauge.
dasNdanger
First XV
:lol:
I will never look at the front row the same again! :lol:
On an aside, with these super-snug jerseys, what - exactly - is the lock supposed to latch onto now?
das
Or nuts.
Dunno where the lady players grip...
Dunno where the lady players grip...
dasNdanger
First XV
Ah. So it's nothing like the "handles" at the top of beer-bottle 6-packs?!
