Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Dysfunctional scrums - the agony continues
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="smartcooky" data-source="post: 826866" data-attributes="member: 20605"><p>Just a little clue for interested readers. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p><img src="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/RugbyRefs/scrum-lock-hip-bind.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /> <img src="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/RugbyRefs/scrum-lock-hip-bind2.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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!!</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="smartcooky, post: 826866, member: 20605"] 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. [IMG]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/RugbyRefs/scrum-lock-hip-bind.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/RugbyRefs/scrum-lock-hip-bind2.jpg[/IMG] 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!! 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. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Dysfunctional scrums - the agony continues
Top