Dysfunctional scrums - the agony continues

[Dunhookin]

The problem with the materialistic philosophy Cooky is that the rapid downhill descent into scrum dysfunction is inevitable as per the current shambles. Yes it's perfectly true with a highly skilled hooker heeling in channel 1 that opportunities to win the ball against the head are very few. I often used to take a look at my opposite number at the first scrum on their ball to judge his proficiency - then have a 'chat' with him accordingly - against the most skilled I often wouldn't get a smell, but I was always alive to the prospect that the guy might just make an error - get out of step with the SH - and then I'd nick it off him. But skill and a proper technical contest are the watchwords here - and coupled with a hooker with fast feet - very quick very useable ball results. The focus is on winning the ball - not extorting penalties. Bent feeding prevents any of that.

Bent feeding is a destroyer of skill - do we really want our game radically de-skilled? Anyone care to comment on that? Bent feeding gives us a contest for penalties - not the ball - the ball produced by a bent scrum is so slow its pretty much useless and not worth having. In coaching their packs to extort penalties, coaches are not interested in the ball - it's a complete irrelevance. This is NOT what our scrum should be for.

Cooky's point about the ball fed reasonably straight stopping in the middle of the front rows because neither side have a hooker - only a lineout thrower making up the numbers in the front row is right on. The skills to heel (hook) the ball - and a highly technical skilled job it is - are absent. Bent feeding has destroyed the skills required - so we have the frankly ridiculous sight of two well matched packs trying to push the other off the ball...and time goes by, even scrum passionistas like me get bored and irritated in the extreme - ridicule is on view, it's an abject embarrassment. Eventually the ball emerges - so pathetically slow it's useless ball - why bother?

Stats in the press today produced to fuel the pre-match verbal jousting of Eddie Jones and Michael Cheika on scrums show the damning truth about penalty fest modern scrums - both side are pinged at scrums about 43% of the time...how incredibly negative is that? Then the 50% odd of scrums that survive the whistle produce useless possession - a waste of everyone's time. I ask again - how can this possibly be justified? WR - are silent on the matter - they're failing - why?

 

[Dunhookin]

Pulsating match yesterday - bracing test match - and a great result. And the scrums? Less dysfunctional than has been the case with recent games - but still bent feeding blights our game unchecked and possession from bent scrums is pretty much useless it's so slow.

Notably we lost a scrum against the head in the first half, duly noted by Brian Moore who seemed to me rather bit his tongue on the reasons for it. The first reason is the ball was fed reasonably straight...a rarer than rocking horse poo occurrence in these autumn internationals. The second reason was voiced by Brian Moore - 'that's what you get when you have a hooker who can't hook'.

In Sky's coverage Stuart Barnes' interpretations and subsequent comments about the same thing were as embarrassing as they were inadequate. It usually pays to keep your own council if you don't know what you're talking about.

Brian Moore's observations were bang on - Hartley is a product of bent feeding and lacks the skills and technical expertise required to strike the ball. So if the ball is put in even reasonably straight (ish), there is a very real risk it will be lost - as it was in this instance. Begs the question - had the referee insisted on straight feeding - how many more scrums would we have lost? Imagine us playing against a team which does have a striking hooker - Rory Best of Ireland is a real technician - and the referee insists on straight feeding...

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Pulsating match yesterday - bracing test match - and a great result. And the scrums? Less dysfunctional than has been the case with recent games - but still bent feeding blights our game unchecked and possession from bent scrums is pretty much useless it's so slow.

Notably we lost a scrum against the head in the first half, duly noted by Brian Moore who seemed to me rather bit his tongue on the reasons for it. The first reason is the ball was fed reasonably straight...a rarer than rocking horse poo occurrence in these autumn internationals. The second reason was voiced by Brian Moore - 'that's what you get when you have a hooker who can't hook'.

In Sky's coverage Stuart Barnes' interpretations and subsequent comments about the same thing were as embarrassing as they were inadequate. It usually pays to keep your own council if you don't know what you're talking about.

Brian Moore's observations were bang on - Hartley is a product of bent feeding and lacks the skills and technical expertise required to strike the ball. So if the ball is put in even reasonably straight (ish), there is a very real risk it will be lost - as it was in this instance. Begs the question - had the referee insisted on straight feeding - how many more scrums would we have lost? Imagine us playing against a team which does have a striking hooker - Rory Best of Ireland is a real technician - and the referee insists on straight feeding...

Hartley hooks all the time in a saints shirt so I doubt that's the reason. He's actually one of the only ones that does.

 

[smartcooky]

Losing against the head is less often down to a hooker that can't hook and more down to a simple mistiming between hooker and scrumhalf.

In the old days, the hooker used to let the scrumhalf know he was ready by tapping on the Lucys shoulder..... TAP---TAP---FEED. These days, because the ball cannot be fed until the referee is happy that the scrum is square and stable, it often works the other way... the scrum half taps the hooker on the arm with the ball as he is about to feed.

While I would like to see a straight feed at all scrums, I still think the referee should have the discretion not to bother with Free Kicking a crooked feed if the opposing hooker doesn't make an effort to hook (why should you get the ball handed to you if you're not even interesting in competing for it).

If he's not hooking, then we should assume that he is only interested in pushing

1. If you want to compete by striking for the ball, then you strike and keep the opposing scrum half honest by making him feed straight

2. If you want to compete by pushing, then you have to live with a crooked feed that it is gong to make it harder to push the opposing team far enough to push them off the ball.

 

[welshglory]

I like your idea of having a second ref/touch ref looking at the scrum cooky. At the very least I think it could help as a deterrent. I believe there have been live trials and studies done, seems to have stopped there though.

 

[Dunhookin]

I haven't seen very much of the Saints Living - so happy to take it under advisement that Hartley is striking the ball at club level. Cooky's view that the reason for the lost scrum was a timing/understanding thing - partly true - to be fair to Hartley he would not have expected the ball fed even remotely straight. England, like pretty much every team have been cheerfully putting the ball in the second row.

So he would have expected to just watch as normal as the ball is fed behind his feet towards Courtney Lawes. The straighter feed caught him out, his feet were in the wrong place and the ball struck his knee as he tried to adjust, the ball bounced off his knee into the Aussie front row. Feather in the Aussie cap - who then demonstrated the usefulness of scrum turnover ball by scoring a try with it.

Cooky's other point to only insist on straight feed if both hookers strike for the ball, whilst understandable, misses a number of key technical and tactical points. A proper hooking contest is a duel of skill, technique, tactics and psychology. In my playing days I would always watch my opposite number in the early scrums to gauge how skilful and technical he was. Sometimes this would mean making no attempt to strike against the head. I would often 'kid him on' with compliments about how good he was. So a 'can see I'm not going to nick any ball off you mate' or 'give us a chance mate, you're so fast I can't even see the ball'

Then I'd watch my chance, wait for him to become complacent - and lose concentration- then when he least expected it I'd go for his ball. It worked pretty well for the most part, but some hookers were so technical in those days that with well matched props on both sides, stealing the ball was very hard.

Another tactic was to try and take the first scrum of the match against the head. Successful or not it was another opportunity to have some 'chirp' with the other hooker, 'you lost that one buddy - I'll be having another off you in a minute'. Or, 'hmm you only just got that one ole son, best be careful or you'll lose the next'. On other days I'd do and say nothing - just wait until there was a scrum on their ball in a good attacking position for my team - quick word with the TH and bang, steal it against the head.

At other times, I would mix it up and vary these tactics, but the contest would last the whole game. I had many memorable battles with very good hookers who were technical and fast. The point here is that for there to be a proper scrum contest - straight feed is the key ingredient and the end result of two hookers competing for the ball is very quick, very useable possession - the life blood of our game. Pinging bent scrums sometimes but not others is not good enough. We need consistency.

Begs the question still - why is this problem still a problem? Why are WR so useless? What possible justification can there be for their abject mismanagement of our scrum? They are supposed to exist for the good of the game - they're failing in that duty - badly.

It is essential for the well being of our scrum and our game that bent feeding is eradicated by consistent refereeing - and that straight feed becomes the norm. This will engage the attention of teams at all levels to focus on the ball - not on penalties.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

I don't think Hartley was attempting to hook the ball in the scrum lost against the head, I thought the England pack was driving forward when Hartley kneed the ball to the Australian side of the scrum. It was laughable that Stuart Barnes said it was Because the Australian pack "shunted" England off of the ball. It was nothing of the sort.

 

[Dunhookin]

Laughable indeed Blind - Stuart Barnes ably demonstrating that he knows nothing about the set piece - and would be better advised to keep schtum rather than utter such claptrap.

Matt Dawson was similarly afflicted on Radio 5 live, at least 3, possibly 4 times he referred to Farrell and Yarde making a 'complete horlicks' of a defensive situation on the England line that nearly conceded a score. Unlike Barnes, he was at least half right - the horlicks was by Farrell and Brown - nothing to do with Yarde...?! Brown and Yarde notably don't look alike...bit of a howler by Mr D...!

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Apologies for thread derailment, but Dunhookin your against the head strategies remind me of a tour incident. We, a bunch of nice Surrey boys, were playing a tour match against a crew cut XV in Bristol. I was propping, but our hooker (3rd team on a good day) was being chewed up so, as you do on tour, we mixed things up at half time. Our full back came in to hook and, to a chorus of WTF, took a clean heel against the head in the first scrum. The loose head and I just looked at him as we knew what was coming and sure enough the next scrum erupted. It was only well into a brilliantly liquid evening that we fessed up that the "fullback" usually wore 2 for our first team. Happy days.

Back on topic...

 

[smartcooky]

In my playing days I would always watch my opposite number in the early scrums to gauge how skilful and technical he was. Sometimes this would mean making no attempt to strike against the head. I would often 'kid him on' with compliments about how good he was. So a 'can see I'm not going to nick any ball off you mate' or 'give us a chance mate, you're so fast I can't even see the ball'

Then I'd watch my chance, wait for him to become complacent - and lose concentration- then when he least expected it I'd go for his ball. It worked pretty well for the most part, but some hookers were so technical in those days that with well matched props on both sides, stealing the ball was very hard.

Dunhookin'

I don't know whether you play golf at all, but if you do, I'll bet you're a right b'stard of an opponent in matchplay!!

 

[Dunhookin]

Well thanks for the compliment Cooky - but no, golf is not for me. Have had a go at it - and it really frustrated and p*ssed me off - to the point that frankly, I'd rather be buckled up in a scrum with a 19 stone TH bearing down on me with the sole intention of shoving my head up my ass...! Oh the memories...!

 

[Zootalaws]

Can't argue with much that has been said except to those that seem to think the answer is even more rules and technicalities.

There are plenty of rules, just apply them.

if there was a change I would like to see it would be that a scrum can only produce a penalty for foul play - it's a method of restarting the game, it shouldn't, through a technical failure, be a penalty-making machine, which if you look at the likes of England in the Wilkinson era, was pretty much what it was used as.

Enforce the current rules and the standard of technical scrummaging would again become dominant.

Allowing the slipshod is what got us where we are now,

 

[Car]

Scrums should help restart the game quickly, too often, that's not the case at all. Fix that problem and the actual playing time should increase.

 

[Dunhookin]

Yes - no matter which way you look at scrum dysfunction - it comes back to the salient and blindingly obvious problem that referees are failing to apply the laws of the game correctly. That all of the elite referees we've seen in the autumn internationals are to a man ignoring excruciating bent feeding with all the tedious disadvantages that result, clearly indicates that WR are instructing them to do exactly that.

Those responsible for this dire situation within WR are nameless, faceless bureaucrats - they are not held to account for their actions. As dysfunctional scrums continue to seriously blight our game - the people responsible aren't exposed for their incompetence- that needs to change

 

[smartcooky]

Scrums should help restart the game quickly, too often, that's not the case at all. Fix that problem and the actual playing time should increase.

Yes - no matter which way you look at scrum dysfunction - it comes back to the salient and blindingly obvious problem that referees are failing to apply the laws of the game correctly. That all of the elite referees we've seen in the autumn internationals are to a man ignoring excruciating bent feeding with all the tedious disadvantages that result, clearly indicates that WR are instructing them to do exactly that.

Those responsible for this dire situation within WR are nameless, faceless bureaucrats - they are not held to account for their actions. As dysfunctional scrums continue to seriously blight our game - the people responsible aren't exposed for their incompetence- that needs to change

Dunhookin, you'll love this

From the time the referee signals for a scum to the time the front rows are engaged and set - 10 seconds

From the time the front rows are set to the time the SH feeds the ball (and feeds it straight!) - 1 second

From the time the SH feeds the ball to the time its hooked straight down channel 2 and away - 5 seconds



The whole thing, from referee's signal to ball back in play - 16 seconds. This is how scrummaging is supposed to be!!

At the 16 second mark, in the modern game, the forwards are still scratchin' their arses!!

 

[Car]

Lovely, thanks for sharing. When and why did that change then?

 

[j'nuh]

Dunhookin, you'll love this

From the time the referee signals for a scum to the time the front rows are engaged and set - 10 seconds

From the time the front rows are set to the time the SH feeds the ball (and feeds it straight!) - 1 second

From the time the SH feeds the ball to the time its hooked straight down channel 2 and away - 5 seconds

The whole thing, from referee's signal to ball back in play - 16 seconds. This is how scrummaging is supposed to be!!

At the 16 second mark, in the modern game, the forwards are still scratchin' their arses!!

It's not just scrums. It's amazing how slowly teams get on with pretty much everything in the game. You don't need a minute to take a kick at goal. Players shouldn't be strolling towards the lineout. Scrum-halves are given far too long to do nothing with an available ball at the bottom of a ruck. Teams shouldn't be allowed a committee meeting after every penalty to decide whether its posts or corner. Players shouldn't be given half a minute waiting for their team to get back onside at a 22 dropout.

 

[Dunhookin]

Fair comment j'nuh - but scrums are a major spotlight issue - and arguably the greatest frustration in the game. Referees habitually;

Regularly lecture front rows for 20 - 30 seconds and sometimes longer...about what exactly? Presumably to adhere to the laws of the game - but then stand there are do nothing when the ball is rolled into the second row. A complete farce and excruciating embarrassment.
Take far too long to voice the CBS commands, should take 3 to 4 seconds, many of them are taking 4 to 5 times that - ludicrous
Find minute or unnecessary fault especially when one pack is dominant over the other. All too often the dominance cannot be exploited because the referee blows up - another frustration.

Add all the above time issues to the fact that many scrums produce ball that takes far too long to get to the 8. In some cases its as long as 25 seconds, the ball is rolled into the 2nd row and stops behind the front rows feet, the locks cannot get their feet far enough forward to channel the ball and so it sits there as the pack with the ball try to get enough nudging momentum. Most of us seeing this give up the will to live, the boredom factor is so utterly mind numbing - truly agonising to behold.

So add it all up, the lecture takes 20 seconds (accept that there's not a pre-scrum lecture every time), the engage commands take 15 seconds, then in some cases the momentum-less ball (a result of bent feeding and hookers who can't strike) is stranded in the scrum for another 20 seconds. Add in collapses and resets, plus a few seconds for the put-in process itself, in total for the typically 55% of scrums that do survive the whistle, the whole debacle has taken a minute and a half - or more in some cases, to produce ball that is so slow it's good for nothing - dire in the extreme.

Many games will usually have about 12 scrums - 6 of which will be pinged quite quickly - with the remainder using up far, far too much time. So WR - for the umpteenth time you people owe us an explanation - what the FF is going on?

 

[RedruthRFC]

Lovely, thanks for sharing. When and why did that change then?

I don't think it was a case of someone saying "let's slow this down and waste loads of time" creating an overnight change, it just evolved that way. It would be interesting to chart how long the average international scrum took over the years. My guess would be that things were at their worst when "the hit" was at its peak.

 

[Every Time Ref]

I think as forwards have been expected to do more, cover more of the pitch, they've been more tired and more keen to slow down and look for an opportunity to catch their breath. The clip above shows pretty much all the forwards on both teams within a few square metres where the scrum is awarded. How often in the modern game, apart from immediately following a lineout or scrum, do you find all the forwards from both teams within spitting distance of each other?