The tighthead fed option scrum

[the_rugbyologist]

What if the law required that most scrums were to be fed from the thrower's tighthead side with the non offender determining who was to feed? The remainder, such as penalty scrums, would stay as is.

Could this encourage a more constructive approach to scrummaging, with less resets?

Given the two great advantages in the engaged scrum being superiority of the hooker's position and timing of the shove, both of which are with the non offender, the current scrum is NOT a contest for possession so much as it is a contest for quality of possession. The suggestion here, is that if the two advantages are required by law to be split between the teams, with the non offender allowed the best advantage, the likely distribution of possession will create a scrum which is a direct possession contest. The non offender will have a lessened, but still fair advantage (penalty scrums can be exempted).

The reasoning is that if both packs are engaged in the constructive effort of trying to strike the ball, the scrum becomes less a destructive contest and reset rates should drop.

A potential problem with such tighthead fed scrums is a lower quality of striking, with hooker's resorting to using the near foot (cow kicking). There would, however, be justification for limiting the scrum loser's ability to disrupt clearance of such scrums (e.g. restricting the halfback's position). At present, the scrum is harder to clear than to win. The opposite should be healthier.

The idea of the tighthead fed option scrum, with possible clearance enhancement, is to use player motivation to allow cleaner scrummaging. The more technical approach adopted to date has had limited success and has created a problematical scrum that the best referees struggle to adjudicate on.

 

[Olyy]

Not 100% sure what you mean, but are you suggesting that the scrums are fed from the opposite ends for a knock-on?
Surely that means it's an advantage for the offender, causing more "accidental" knock-ons in the game, so they can setup a setpiece from the scrum?

 

[jawmalawm24]

All they need to do is go back to old scrums where the 2 teams came together and sorted it out themselves. If you watch some old games where there was no engage call the scrums were alot simpler and safe I reckon. These days now that there's the engage call it makes for an instant moment of impact where the 2 sides collide and this is when most injuries occur.

If Rugby went back to old style scrums this could all be nullified and we wouldn't have to worry about players being injured as badly as they have been in the last decade and some.

 

[the_rugbyologist]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Olyy @ Nov 11 2009, 01:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Not 100% sure what you mean, but are you suggesting that the scrums are fed from the opposite ends for a knock-on?
Surely that means it's an advantage for the offender, causing more "accidental" knock-ons in the game, so they can setup a setpiece from the scrum?[/b]

Either the same halfback as now feeds but from the other side, or the other halfback feeds from the same side as now. One way or the other has to be an advantage to the non offender and they get to choose.

 

[toup]

Why would you give the offending side an advantage?

 

[Olyy]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (toup @ Nov 11 2009, 10:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Why would you give the offending side an advantage?[/b]

That's what i was thinking,
e.g Like in the wales nz game, where nz were stuck on the welsh tryline for 5mins, they could 'accidently' knock on, get a 5m scrum and just run it over from a set play

 

[dullonien]

I'm another that isn't quite understanding what you're putting forward the rugbyologist.

Scrums are certainly a problem area at the moment. It's quite boring to watch almost every scrum re-set 2-3 times. Or like in the Wales v NZ game, where almost all the scrums resulted in a penalty to one team or the other. As jawmalawm24 said, we should go back to older scrum styles. Get the two front rows to crouch and engage without pushing (like in uncontested scrums) then pushing is allowed when the ball's put in. Would this work, or would it put more emphasis on whichever side get's the earliest push? I don't personally understand why props are no longer allowed to put a hand on the floor to stop collapsing. I know it's because props are required to bind on their opposite number, but this isn't helping with how often the scrum is collapsing.

To create more of a contest, all that needs to be done is to referee the 'put in' properly. Make sure the scrum half puts the ball in straight, and we'd see a few more turnover scrums in the game. I think it was Brian Moor who put this in the best way: "Scrum half's basically feed the ball to the second rows feet. If it were a linout, it would be like the Hooker throwing the ball straight to the scrum half!"

 

[the_rugbyologist]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (toup @ Nov 11 2009, 11:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Why would you give the offending side an advantage?[/b]

The non offending side would still have the advantage, as they would choose who throws in. Remember, the ball must be fed from the thrower's tighthead side, whoever throws in. If the advantage is with the side not feeding, then the non offender simply asks the offender to feed from the offender's tighthead side.

 

[the_rugbyologist]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (dullonien @ Nov 12 2009, 02:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

I'm another that isn't quite understanding what you're putting forward the rugbyologist.

Scrums are certainly a problem area at the moment. It's quite boring to watch almost every scrum re-set 2-3 times. Or like in the Wales v NZ game, where almost all the scrums resulted in a penalty to one team or the other. As jawmalawm24 said, we should go back to older scrum styles. Get the two front rows to crouch and engage without pushing (like in uncontested scrums) then pushing is allowed when the ball's put in. Would this work, or would it put more emphasis on whichever side get's the earliest push? I don't personally understand why props are no longer allowed to put a hand on the floor to stop collapsing. I know it's because props are required to bind on their opposite number, but this isn't helping with how often the scrum is collapsing.

To create more of a contest, all that needs to be done is to referee the 'put in' properly. Make sure the scrum half puts the ball in straight, and we'd see a few more turnover scrums in the game. I think it was Brian Moor who put this in the best way: "Scrum half's basically feed the ball to the second rows feet. If it were a linout, it would be like the Hooker throwing the ball straight to the scrum half!"[/b]

I am not saying the ball must be thrown in from the non offender's tighthead side, but that it must be fed from the tighthead side of whoever throws in and the non offender chooses who throws in.

The reason is to make the scrum a possession contest (as outlined in original post), more like the lineout where the non offender has the best chance in a genuine competition (perhaps more so than the modern lineout). The fact that it has not been for decades points to the failure of alternative ideas. Countless penalties and free kicks have not achieved their goal, because the main advantages of the scrum are all with the non offender. Splitting the advantages is a more realistic way of achieving the goal.

I sympathize with the comments made in this thread about simplifying the engagement, by returning to previous practices. Immediate engagement has its merits, except when the ball is not available. As dullonien has suggested, the packs could be required to not put on weight until the ball is there. I have had it suggested to me that this can be potentially dangerous. Perhaps there could be some compromise where scrums engage without delay, with some power on, but must wait for the ball to be available for throw in before fully competing, but I am not sure how this could be worked.

 

[stormer2010]

'..contest for posesseion rather than quality of posessen..' - I hope not, not with the SA scrum and selections as it is anyway.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jawmalawm24 @ Nov 11 2009, 02:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

All they need to do is go back to old scrums where the 2 teams came together and sorted it out themselves. If you watch some old games where there was no engage call the scrums were alot simpler and safe I reckon. These days now that there's the engage call it makes for an instant moment of impact where the 2 sides collide and this is when most injuries occur.

If Rugby went back to old style scrums this could all be nullified and we wouldn't have to worry about players being injured as badly as they have been in the last decade and some.[/b]

I would agree with this; allow a contest where the teams have to sort it out within a looser structure and allow for contest in such a way rather than have the ref guessing half the time. Same goes for the breakdown and allow old school rucking; less pedantic. IE if the opposition take it then fair enough, we should have kept it. Guess I would like the ref to be taken out as much as possible in those areas of the game as it is near impossible to ref consistantly.

 

[frenchie851]

I think this would make things realy complicated. Intrestingly enough there is no law to say which side the ball has to but put into a scrum from, but if you decide that you are going to put in in from the tight head side you must continue to do so for the rest of the game.

I think the best way to sort the scrum out would be as follows (and this is basicaly because players are getting bigger and bigger and therefore with the combined weight of the packs something is going to have to give.)

I think we should have call of crouch touch puse engage but all done at the pace and velocity as you often see at an uncontested scrum. Then as the ball is put in the ref could call 'contest' at this point the scrum could start pushing.

I think that the major problems are during the engage and this is because 16 player come crashing together, if it was done in the way I suggested you would see a simple pushing and hooking contest which is what i regard the scrum as. People would say that way it would become more like RL but i personaly think something has to change as at the moment its like RL as there are hardley ANY scrums that are contested from start to finish!

 

[frenchie851]

oh and sorry about my spelling it is crap but cant find a spell check on here!

 

[smartcooky]

What if the law required that most scrums were to be fed from the thrower's tighthead side with the non offender determining who was to feed? The remainder, such as penalty scrums, would stay as is.

Could this encourage a more constructive approach to scrummaging, with less resets?

Given the two great advantages in the engaged scrum being superiority of the hooker's position and timing of the shove, both of which are with the non offender, the current scrum is NOT a contest for possession so much as it is a contest for quality of possession. The suggestion here, is that if the two advantages are required by law to be split between the teams, with the non offender allowed the best advantage, the likely distribution of possession will create a scrum which is a direct possession contest. The non offender will have a lessened, but still fair advantage (penalty scrums can be exempted).

The reasoning is that if both packs are engaged in the constructive effort of trying to strike the ball, the scrum becomes less a destructive contest and reset rates should drop.

A potential problem with such tighthead fed scrums is a lower quality of striking, with hooker's resorting to using the near foot (cow kicking). There would, however, be justification for limiting the scrum loser's ability to disrupt clearance of such scrums (e.g. restricting the halfback's position). At present, the scrum is harder to clear than to win. The opposite should be healthier.

The idea of the tighthead fed option scrum, with possible clearance enhancement, is to use player motivation to allow cleaner scrummaging. The more technical approach adopted to date has had limited success and has created a problematical scrum that the best referees struggle to adjudicate on.

This makes a very interesting discussion point;

It is very similar to the "old" way that Rugby League scrums were managed (early 1970's and before). In those days, pushing was allowed and scrum feeds had to be straight.

After 1931, the defending team would always feed the scrum but the attacking side would always have the loose-head, so effectively the scrum-half fed the ball on his tight-head side. This was regardless of who infringed.

In 1962(??), the Law was amended to give the feed to a scrum from a touch finder (including a penalty) to the non-offending team regardless of field position. NOTE: Remember, in those days, they were still having a scrum after a penalty was kicked to touch. The infield tap kick didn't come in until later.

In the early 1980's, that Law was changed so that the non-offending team would get the loose-head and feed regardless of field position, making it that same as what we do in RU.

What I think would work for Rugby Union is a combination of this arrangement.

1. The scrum would always be fed by the defending scrum half

2. The loose head is always given to the non-offending/non-responsible team.

Some examples. Blue v Gold

► Blue player knocks on in Gold's half; - Gold's loose-head & scrum feed.

► Blue player knocks on in own half; - Gold's loose-head, Blue's scrum feed.

► Blue takes ball into maul which becomes unplayable in Gold's half; Gold's loose-head & scrum feed.

► Blue takes ball into maul which becomes unplayable in own half; Gold's loose-head, Blue's scrum feed

► Blue are driving forward in a ruck in own half when the ball becomes unplayable; Blue loose-head and feed

► Blue are driving forward in a ruck in Gold's half when the ball becomes unplayable; Blue loose-head, Gold's feed.

Some interesting things happen from making the offending team's scrum half feed the ball into his opponents loose-head. Some are advantages to the game, some are not.

Advantages
1. The opposing hooker will get first shot at striking for the ball. It would be nigh on impossible for the scrumhalf to squint the ball under his own hooker's feet undetected. In order to successfully do this, the feed would have to be very quint indeed.

2. The onus for feeding the ball straight is always on the defending scrumhalf. Make it a penalty instead of a free kick for a squint feed, and you have a real good incentive for throwing the ball in down the centreline

Disadvantage
1. The scrum half might try to rush the feed before the opposing scrum is ready & steady, i.e. right at the moment of the engage. This could be dangerous. It could pressure the hookers to be ready to strike immediately, and they could end up trying to do so at risk to their own safety. This would need to be a penalty offence and be dealt with severely.

 

[Charles]

What do yo mean by getting the loose head?

 

[frenchie851]

smartcooky, I cant get my head round why sometimes the offending team puts the ball in and sometimes the non offending team would put the ball in, depending on where the knock on occured?

 

[smartcooky]

Firstly, I hope you both understand how the loose-head and tight head get their names. If not, here is a brief review..

This is a stylised representation of a scrum looking from above.

The prop on the left of his hooker is always the "loose head" prop (#1). He packs down with his head on the left of his opposing prop's head, and there is no-one to his left, therefore his head is "loose" i.e., not held in by another other player's head.

The prop on the right of his hooker is always the "tight head" prop (#3). He packs down with his head between those of his opposing prop and hooker, therefore his head is "tight" i.e. tightly held between his two opponents.

The upshot of this is that the hooker is closer to his loose head prop than his opposing hooker, so when the ball is fed on his loosehead side, he gets first go at the ball; it has to pass his feet before his opposing hooker can get to it. Under current law, the scrum half will always feed the scrum with his pack on his right hand side, so in the drawing above, white has the "loose head and feed".

What I am suggesting is that if Black

► commits a scrum infringement
► is driven back in a ruck (unplayable)
► takes the ball into a maul (unplayable)

Then the ball will be fed at X, however;

► If white is the attacking team, black will feed the scrum
► If white is the defending team, white will feed the scrum

White will still have the advantage of having their hooker closer to the feed (regardless of which player feeds the ball, but if it is in Black's half of the field, the onus will be on the Black scrumhalf to feed it straight, and you can see from the diagram that it is going to be much more difficult for Black 9 to squint the ball under his own hooker's feet.

 

[frenchie851]

I played as hooker so I know which bloke im grabbing under my left arm is the loose head and visa verca. I just think that the above would not be an answer but just a complication. The rugby authorities are constantly trying to make our game more accessable to fans recent and complete new comers I think this would put the game further out of their reach.

I personaly think that the biggest problem with the scrum is that there is hardley EVER a fully completed competative scrum without the ref sticking his arm straight in the air or with a bend at the elbow (as seen by a new fan) guys falling over and getting penalised basicaly to no fault of their own or trying their best to stay on their feet over and over but then getting a yellow card. The game has to address the fact that players are getting bigger and bigger resulting in more injuries and in my opnion the reason the scrum is becoming a farce.

I am sure refs at international level have to use an eliment of guess work wen a scrum goes down as at the moment if we are honest its a lottery, this cant be good for any sport!

 

[smartcooky]

I just think that the above would not be an answer but just a complication. The rugby authorities are constantly trying to make our game more accessable to fans recent and complete new comers I think this would put the game further out of their reach.

I agree. I am not an advocate of the idea, but I think it is a worthwhile discussion point. The Laws Lab at Stellebosch has experimented with this and other similar concepts

I personaly think that the biggest problem with the scrum is that there is hardley EVER a fully completed competative scrum without the ref sticking his arm straight in the air or with a bend at the elbow (as seen by a new fan) guys falling over and getting penalised basicaly to no fault of their own or trying their best to stay on their feet over and over but then getting a yellow card. The game has to address the fact that players are getting bigger and bigger resulting in more injuries and in my opnion the reason the scrum is becoming a farce.

As a former Lucy myself, I concur, however I would point out (and as a hooker you MUST surely know this) that very little of the stuff that goes on in the front row happens by accident, and that the higher the level you play at, the less accidental that stuff becomes

I am sure refs at international level have to use an eliment of guess work wen a scrum goes down as at the moment if we are honest its a lottery, this cant be good for any sport!

Some do, and they are well know for it!

 

[frenchie851]

no I agree, i think what I was aluding to by 'by accident' is when it goes down at the point of engag. Especialy when you see one pack getting dominated by the other as seen last night, Wales vs Figii