• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Dysfunctional scrums - the agony continues

Well they won't but that's fine. Chaos for a few weeks perhaps, but if coaches see that one of their guys could be binned as a result of a lottery that would give them even more incentive to tell them to keep it up. Wouldn't it?
 
If you're good at conning the ref into giving a penalty would you not carry on doing it to con the ref into giving a yellow card?

You may inadvernently cause it to become a bigger joke by increasing the advantage gained by breaking the rules.
 
Maybe, but it's a high risk strategy. And if you classify deliberate collapsing as serious foul play (and why wouldn't you?) the TMO can be involved increasing the chances of getting the right decision (in theory). Not saying there's a perfect solution, but definitely a few things worth considering.
 
Good post Cooky - well reasoned and well written. The most significant point you make is in player attitude - spot on - not just players, the attitude of coaches in some cases fuels the problem also. So entrenched is scrum dysfunction that the pre match mantra of players and coaches is to see the set piece as solely a means of screwing penalties out of the referee - and nothing else.

The points you make about the causes of scrum dysfunction are all indeed component parts - but the root cause and the denominator of it all is bent feeding. Here's why. Players need a means of competing with each other - straight feeding provides an opportunity to compete for the ball - bent feeding denies that opportunity. As it's not possible to compete for possession, players instead compete for penalties, by using some of the tactics you mention - to force (screw) a penalty out of the opposition or hoodwink an often bamboozled referee into giving one.

Consider that a moment - our set scrum, one of the very key identities of our game, has degenerated into a cesspool of negativity and become a penalty fest. It's a depressing reality and one that WR should be highly alarmed about and pulling out the stops to correct.

Instead they create false dawns, claim they're going to take action on bent feeding - which fizzles out pretty quickly. They're consistently incompetent. Referees lecture front rows often - for what exactly? The body language of the players speaks volumes about how derisory they regard the verbal salvoes - having held the game up presumably re-iterating the adherence to scrum laws, they do precisely nothing when the ball is rolled through the LH's legs. It's an absolute farce.

The problems of collapses and resets - Jiffy recently said that this was 'killing the game' - anyone care to disagree? Pre-bind should all but eliminate collapses, the fact that it's a chronic problem is another symptom of scrum dysfunction. Why are there so many collapses? We're back to the issue of players looking for a competitive element - and their corrosive pre-conceived mindset to screw penalties from the scrum.

Players getting buckled up for a scrum know before they start that with bent feeding there is no possible way to compete for the ball. So they're mentally prepared to contest for penalties - the ball is irrelevant. Were straight feeding restored and properly enforced - consistent application of the existing law is ALL that is required - then teams would be forced to field a hooker capable of striking the ball - or risk losing it.

This would focus their attention on ensuring they won the ball - and much less on trying to screw penalties. RWC 15, these nations fielded hookers who were actually hookers in that they hooked the ball producing fast usable possession in the process.
Canada, Ireland, Japan, NZ and USA. Whereas pretty much everybody else reverted to type - tedious penalty after tedious penalty - scrums that survived the whistle were ruined by bent feeding and the tediously slow worthless ball that results. Purgatory to watch.

Taking the role traditionally, when picking the best XV of the tournament - the best actual hooker was the Japanese lad. Technically his skill levels were the best on view - as was his striking speed. An excellent example of scrum functionality and (for the most part) straight feeding - watch the Ireland/Canada game, both sides producing fast runnable ball from their set piece - barely a scrum penalty in the whole game.

Cooky you mention TH's boring on the hooker - traditionally the purpose of doing this is to 'pin' the hooker into a position where he a) can't see the ball and b) can't move his feet to strike. I had this done to me many times in my playing days - done right it's very very uncomfortable to be on the receiving end of - and the reward for the destructive TH, was his team winning the ball against the head. It can be countered - as long as the LH has the physical and mental strength to do what's necessary. These days the only motivation for the TH is yet another negative tactic of - you've guessed it - screwing more penalties. Dire.

WR are failing our game - and all of us traditional rugby passionistas - with their myopia and their incompetence. Bent feeding is a disease - de-skilling a key traditional role at the very core of rugby's very identity - our set scrum. Time to call them out on it - come tell us WR why the deeply embarrassing scrum debacle of your making can possibly be acceptable
 
Dunhookin'

Bloody excellent post mate, you are obviously well versed in the dark arts. (You didn't go to "C & P" School in Halifax by any chance?)

While I agree that a straight feed is important, will it actually stop the other malarkey that I mentioned in my post?. You see, IMO, the straight feed is a key (probably the key) component of a good scrum, but I don't think its a magic bullet. I don't think it can work on its own; it needs the other things I mentioned in my post.
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zwdxp39

For what it's worth: the Video at 4 with Brian Moore (the grumpy old man of rugby) shows how it's done and also a straight feed down the middle of the tunnel (personally I'd forgotten what one looked like :)).
 
Dunhookin'

Bloody excellent post mate, you are obviously well versed in the dark arts. (You didn't go to "C & P" School in Halifax by any chance?)

While I agree that a straight feed is important, will it actually stop the other malarkey that I mentioned in my post?. You see, IMO, the straight feed is a key (probably the key) component of a good scrum, but I don't think its a magic bullet. I don't think it can work on its own; it needs the other things I mentioned in my post.


Just out of curiosity the above mention of Crossley and Porter school in Halifax is that to do with Brian Moore or other, as i attend this school before Brian Moore and played rugby for the same but not at hooker, 10 or 15.was my position.
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zwdxp39

For what it's worth: the Video at 4 with Brian Moore (the grumpy old man of rugby) shows how it's done and also a straight feed down the middle of the tunnel (personally I'd forgotten what one looked like :)).


FFS, Brian had HAIR!!!

Just out of curiosity the above mention of Crossley and Porter school in Halifax is that to do with Brian Moore or other, as i attend this school before Brian Moore and played rugby for the same but not at hooker, 10 or 15.was my position.

I was hinting that Dunhookin' might be BCM. He certainty writes like him!
 
Just wondering whether it's flattering to be compared to Brian Moore...?! Guess it is actually, his commentaries are on the money and he emanates passion in his views - plus he was a pretty good player!

Notably Brian was outspoken on scrum dysfunction and bent feeding especially - regularly expressing his dismay. This is exactly what should be happening - keeping the problem topical and in the public eye. He was doing that - but he has been disappointingly silent on it in more recent times. I can't believe that someone with such strength of opinion as he has, now accepts WR's incompetence.

I suspect that the luvvie lambkins at the BBC were paralysed with terror that Brian's hitherto refreshingly honest, forthright and truthful criticisms of elite level scrum refereeing, might cause someone, somewhere to be offended....FFS!! Honesty and truth sacrificed just in case it causes the odd bleat and whine...utterly pathetic and frankly contemptible.

Cooky's point about bent feeding not being a 'magic bullet' on its own is correct. It is the absolute root cause of scrum dysfunction, but it's not a magic wand. Eradicating bent feeding will make monumental improvements in scrum functionality, produce much faster and much more usable ball and significantly fewer penalties. With such tangible advantages - it again begs the question - why does WR consistently fail to address the running sore and the agony of dysfunctional scrums?

Person (s) unknown within WR clearly have some perfidious agenda that sees the current mess as acceptable - or lacks the moral fibre to get a grip of this problem, actually take control, lead the way and sort it. I suspect that nobody in WR ever looks at forums like this - reality can be unpalatable - as can addressing an unjustifiable stance. I'm trying to ascertain who the perfidious gang within WR are responsible for scrum debacle. They're not held to account - that must change.
 
Nigel Owens :

Is there such a thing as the perfect scrum? On occasions, believe it or not, there probably is. A perfect scrum would be that the scrum is up, the bindings are long, one team is pushing one team back, or they are both holding the same pressure so nobody’s moving and the scrum is perfect. It’s up, it’s good and that is a perfect scrum, and believe it or not, from time to time, we do see them!

We will look first of all at the set-up sequence of crouch, bind and set. The teams will come together. We’ll say the ‘crouch’, and the players will come down. When they come down to a crouch position, the referee will then look to see if the players are square and that the height is good; so they are not too low or not too high â€" that they are in a good position no lower than hip- height and that we see one of the six shoulders. If one of the shoulders are tucked in, then the scrum won’t be square when they set; that’s what we look for and we then call the ‘crouch’.

Then they ‘bind’ on the opposition; so players will reach on the opposition - which gives the correct distance apart for the safety of getting the scrum together. In that procedure we have to make sure that there is space between the two shoulders; so we’re looking for temple-to-temple on the distance head-to-head. If the shoulders are touching; which means there is no space, then the referee will have to call them up and reset.

Once we’ve done the ‘set’, the teams will come together. Then it becomes totally passive; nothing can move now â€" the teams can’t start pushing until the ball goes into the scrum.

We want the ball to go into the middle of the scrum, which we call a credible feed. A lot of you will probably be listening to this and smiling and saying that we don’t get the ball in the middle and as referees we need to be better at it and we need to get the ball as consistently as possible in the middle of the scrum. What we call a credible feed is that the least part of the ball is touching the middle of the scrum in the tunnel.

So once the scrum is stationary and square after we have said the ‘set’, the scrum-half stands in the middle of the tunnel. When everything is good, the referee will tap the scrum-half, or if the scrum-half is on the opposite side he will point or nod, and then the scrum-half will put the ball into the middle of the scrum. Only when the ball goes into the middle of the scrum can the teams then start to push.

In video 2 of the BBC link I've posted above, Nigel Owens (arguably the pre-eminent referee in WR today) goes through what he looks for in the "perfect" scrum. Funny what he says is a "credible" feed. I think by what he says and his wry smile that all the top refs are aware of how "bent" the feeding is in today's game at the top level.
 
Yes Blind - well raised, Nigel Owens is a world class referee and an engaging character. The game needs referees of his immense ability and personality - he's a breath of fresh air.

Must say with massive frustration and dismay that yesterday in the England v Argentina game saw the plunging of new depths of bent feeding. Both sides blatantly putting it in the 2nd row - secure in the knowledge that the referee was more likely to streak than penalise this 'couldn't be more blatant' law breaking. The Pumas bent feeding was so bad the 9 might as well have just placed the ball at the 8s feet and have done with it.

One of WR's (and IRB before them) catch phrases is dealing with law issues that are 'clear and obvious'. The severity and extent of elite level bent feeding is such that it couldn't possibly be more CLEAR AND OBVIOUS! It's well past time that WR were called to account publicly on this abject failure...
 
Bent feeding can also be a consequence of an unfair situation in the scrum & tunnel.

In days of yore (guys like Dunhookin' will remember them well) BOTH Hookers hooked for the ball. You had a 7 v 7 pushing contest at feeding time, and the SH fed the ball straight, partly because a squint feed was a penalty kick not a free kick.

Then, some teams started ignoring the hook on the opposition feed, and instead, had the hooker put his feet back and push. The Pumas were particularly good at this (in Argentina, this technique was known as "Bajada"). The teams were attempting to use their 8 v 7 weight advantage to push the feeding team off their own ball, and it often succeeded. Even if it didn't, the feeding team's scrum would still be going backwards while the SH is trying to clear the ball.

To counter this, the feeding team would have their hooker also put his feet back and push, resulting in hookers no longer hooking, and ultimately, the squint feed was born.

Now, if you force the SH to feed straight, you effectively take away part of the solution to the 7 v 8 disadvantage problem. Perhaps one solution to this could be to make it mandatory for both hookers to strike (so that they cannot push). Another solution might be to penalise squint feeds only if the non-feeding team's hooker strikes for the ball. If he chooses not to, then allow the squint feed to go unpenalised on the grounds that it was immaterial. If a non-feeding hooker wants to force the opposition SH to feed straight, all he has to do is a make a genuine attempt to strike.

IMO, whatever they end up doing, until the 7 v 8 pushing disadvantage for the feeding team is addressed, I'm afraid the problems with feeding at elite level are going to remain.
 
Last edited:
Great post smartcookie, you've hit the nail on the head as to the problem that needs to be addressed.

Edit: Well said Dunhookin too, it makes a mockery of the game to have laws in the book that aren't or can't be enforced.
 
Spot on again Cooky - but IMO too much is made of the potential 8v7 advantage. The Pumas 'patented' the co-ordinated shove - bajadita as an alternative to playing a striking hooker. Many in Argentina did not agree with it, but enough support was gained for it to be adopted as their thing.

Crucial for bajadita was synchronisation and timing. The timing of the co-ordinated shove was at the split second the opposing hooker moved his feet to strike the ball with the intention of disrupting the useability of the ball won. And on their own ball timing was again crucial, the co-ordinated shove exactly as the ball was fed - in those days bent feeding was properly policed - so the pack using bajadita literally stepped over the ball as their c-ordinated shove gained enough momentum to do that.

So with 8v7 in mind - why is the perceived disadvantage of the 7 enough justification to ignore bent feeding with all the deeply tedious dysfunctions caused? A skilled hooker with even moderate foot speed will strike in channel 1 and the ball is out the back and in play in less than a second. As soon as he's struck the ball, the hooker gets back into a pushing position - so the disadvantage of the whole thing is on very fine margins indeed.

Certain elite level coaches perpetuated the nonsense that the hooker moving his feet was dangerous as it destabilised the scrum...and therefore the scrum must be a pushing contest only and bent feeding is ok...?!! Who did they think they were kidding? This was a typical 'safety conquers all' strategy to deflect focus away from their real agenda - which is this:

Elite coaches regard scrums as penalty opportunities - and only that. Scrums have allowed to become a cheap penalty fest - because they're a ready supply of kickable penalties which win matches. The reality for these coaches is getting results - their sole concern is a W on Saturday - the harsh truth about professional sport. This means screwing dodgy penalties at scrums for cheap points - ultimately dull, tediously negative and absolutely bad for our game. But elite level coaches don't give a tinker's cuss for what's good for our game - they only care about results - cheap shot penalties being high on their desire list.

So they coach packs to screw penalties at scrums and we have the unedifying sight of players high fiving when they've screwed yet another penalty from a scrum. Our game deserves better than this bull sh*t - we - genuine rugby men deserve better

The clear fact remains that WR remain responsible for this excruciating debacle and are abjectly failing us. They're the governing body - or supposed to be...? With scrums they're governing an absolute embarrassing shambles - time they were exposed for that
 
Spot on again Cooky - but IMO too much is made of the potential 8v7 advantage. The Pumas 'patented' the co-ordinated shove - bajadita as an alternative to playing a striking hooker. Many in Argentina did not agree with it, but enough support was gained for it to be adopted as their thing.

Crucial for bajadita was synchronisation and timing. The timing of the co-ordinated shove was at the split second the opposing hooker moved his feet to strike the ball with the intention of disrupting the useability of the ball won. And on their own ball timing was again crucial, the co-ordinated shove exactly as the ball was fed - in those days bent feeding was properly policed - so the pack using bajadita literally stepped over the ball as their c-ordinated shove gained enough momentum to do that.

Just a little clue for interested readers.

The idea of bajada is to concentrate all the power of the scrum through centre of the front row, pushing inwards and forward, not just forwards. You can usually tell when a Pumas scrum is going to try the bajada; there are several difficult to spot clues such as feet positions of the locks and flankers, but the most obvious and easy to spot clue is that the locks usually grip their props around the hip/waist area instead of in the more traditional grip on the front of the jersey by going between the legs of the props.

scrum-lock-hip-bind.jpg
scrum-lock-hip-bind2.jpg



So with 8v7 in mind - why is the perceived disadvantage of the 7 enough justification to ignore bent feeding with all the deeply tedious dysfunctions caused?

There is a school of thought that says this is a materiality issue; why bother enforcing a straight feed if the opposition are not interested in competing for the feed by striking at it. From a referee perspective, I think what I suggested earlier would be fairly easy to implement and adjudicate. If WR were to adopt a policy that referees would penalise squint feeds only if the non-feeding team's hooker strikes for the ball, then all the referee would need to do is see legs from both sides of the tunnel strike out at the ball - and if the feed was squint - PING, otherwise let it go. It would be easy then for hookers to keep the opposing SH honest - just always strike for the ball, and who knows, they might even get blast from the past - a "tighthead" or strike against the feed!!

A skilled hooker with even moderate foot speed will strike in channel 1 and the ball is out the back and in play in less than a second. As soon as he's struck the ball, the hooker gets back into a pushing position - so the disadvantage of the whole thing is on very fine margins indeed.

Yes the margins are very fine, but that is all it takes. Once the pack of 8 get a shove on the pack of 7 and start to move them back even a small amount, it makes it very difficult for the hooker to get his feet back. We have seen a number of scrums this past season where the ball has been fed reasonably straight and its ended up in the middle of two equally matched packs trying to push each other off the ball, and neither hooker striking for the ball because they are too afraid to stop pushing. I have seen instances of the ball sitting in the tunnel for 15 - 30 seconds and the scrum going nowhere.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Top