BCM
I lot of what you say makes sense now. Whereas before, I dismissed your straight-feed theory as somewhat crackpot, I am beginning to see that insisting on it will give both teams a fair shot at a contest in the scrums, and ultimately will help to keep scrums stable. Its not 100% of the answer, but it is a significant part of it.
However, I cannot believe the number of elite referees that are STILL missing another significant part of the answer, by allowing props to bind on their opponents' arms and sleeves. IMO, they (the referees) are simply making a rod for their own backs by doing this.
Insisting on a long bind onto the opposing prop's back makes it very difficult for props to engage in the type of disruptive shenanigans that we see going on in front rows. What is more, a scrum with long binding front rows is naturally stable. The fact that the props are unable to cock their elbows helps to prevent them bringing any sideways or vertical force onto their opponent.
The upshot of this is that not only are collapsing, lifting, driving up, twisting and boring-in much more difficult to do, any attempts to do so become much more difficult to hide from the referee.
When I try explaining the dynamics of this to people who have never played in the front row, they often have difficulty in understanding or believing that a bent arm is much stronger than a straight arm. The simple exercise of doing normal press-ups then doing straight-arm press-ups usually settles the matter.
Ian,
i have no idea what a straight arm press up is - can you enlighten me please.
You are correct about binding. the reason so many tightheads don't want to do this is that it makes them stay square and they then have to be very strong to resist a shove, they are in a naturally disadvantageous position because they have weight coming from both shoulders.
Also, am I being simple or am I right that this is very easy to spot?
OK, the following is my rough guide to guessing (because we all do , it is just that some of us do it with a bit more knowledge - only the two props know which one was responsible and they will both lie when you ask them anyway)which I stress is not absolute.
When reading the following please bear in mind a few points -
1. These rely on you ensuring that there is no pushing until the ball is fed and that it is fed along the middle line.
2. The reason for the above is, as I have said before, is that if you force the SH to feed the ball straight the hooker has to put his weight on the non-striking foot, dive forward when he sweeps his leg and complete the hook in a roughly round movement. He cannot do this or will not if the scrum is moving. Therefore, it is safe to assume that he and his pack will, at least before the ball is fed,.k want a stationary scrum. In fact, unless they go for an eight man shove they will want it still until the ball leaves the scrum; with the possible exception of wheeling slightly one way or the other to move the defending flankers away from the pass or run.
3. If a scrum collapses on the put-in side before the ball is put in I look to see if either prop has lost his bind. This is not always the cause of a collapse but more often than not it is done when under pressure. If the other prop is legally bound I would ping the one losing his bind. Even if you are not right at least you can point to some offence and the prop knows he should have been bound and cannot argue. You will get more right than wrong.
4. If the scrum has not moved much and by this I mean a yard or so look at the position of the two props on the floor. If the TH is turned on and on his side it is because he was twisting in before the collapse and it is likely to be his fault. Again you can point to his position and he cannot really argue.
It is possible for the LH to have gone down but as the TH was not in a legal position - IE he was twisting or boring in, then you can rightly say that the LH should not be expected to hang on for grim death when being twisted illegally and even if he does collapse it you can say that he wouldn't have had to do any of this if the TH was square. Almost always when this happens the TH as shifted his bind to the arm, sleeve or under the armpit. He would not end up in this position if he were bound on the shirt with a long bind.
Also bear in mind - if the put-in side is not being mullered, what have they to gain from collapsing a stationary scrum before the put-in?
5. If the props go down square it is more likely to be the LH's fault. There is no reason for a TH who is not going backwards to collapse chest first as he is not being shoved. This is where what is now call 'hinging' comes in - where the LH bends from the waist and sends the TH down. This is usually evidenced by the bend coming from the waist and not involving much leg bend.
6. If the scrum goes down on the far side before the ball is fed it is likely to be the put-in sides TH. The LH on that side would be either seeking to keep it still for his hooker to strike against the head or pressuring the TH in advance of a shove. A collapse before the ball is in is not any real advantage to him whereas it is for the TH if he knows that the pressure is likely to send him backwards when the shove comes on - After the feed note! If you go round the other side you can see this more clearly. And let us just clear up one thing - it is perfectly possible to see how straight the feed is from this side - if anything it is easier because you don't have the scrum half to look over. I would, if anything stand on the far side more often than not as you have a better view of the tunnel and are nearer the breakdown, if as is usual the ball is passed the normal; way. The only problem is a number eight pick up but you can avoid this by standing 5 -7 yards away as he is likely to drive reasonably close so that he is not an easy tackle line. And yes, you can still easily see what is going on with binds, the feed etc.
6. If a scrum is moving when it collapses - bear this in mind - of what advantage is it to the advancing pack to take it down? Ignore this rubbish about double bluffs and trying to con penalties; it rarely happens and if they do con you then good for them.
The reason you can be reasonably sure about this is that it is not in a front rowers psyche to collapse when he is in the dominant position. This is why players like playing in the front row. Shoving your opposite number is the equivalent of side-stepping for a back only much more satisfying for entirely justifiable macho reasons.
furthermore, it is dangerous to collapse when you are advancing for several reasons. Unlike when the retreating prop collapses you cannot be sure your back 5 will stop pushing. They may not be able to recognise immediately that you have gone down. If they keep pushing your neck can get bent or extended, neither of which are much fun. Many times when this happened to me I would be be screaming so that the back five could see we were on the floor and stop pushing.
For the retreating prop - OK he might get driven over but getting trodden on might be painful; it is not the same as above.
Also, when this happens see which prop ends up in the more comfortable position. If the retreating prop has both feet back and lands square on that is good sign he has collapsed because he as been able to end up in a decent position (all relative I know).
7. A scrum cannot wheel quickly without being pulled illegally one way or the other. The natural way of achieving a wheel - where on prop stays still and the other drives means that it cannot be done quickly unless there is such an imbalance that there is a complete mismatch in the two front rows - in which case you have to ask why are they wheeling rather than simply shoving their opponents off the ball?
Any quick wheel penalise the non-put-in side even if it happens after the feed. A side hooking the ball may want a slight wheel to put the other back row further from the tackle area, but they would not do this before the ball is controlled by the number eight because if they do whilst the ball is making its way there, there is every possibility that one of dullard and clumsy 2nd rows will kick it through. Also the number eight is not in a position to pick it up and do the back row move whilst it is not at his feet or very close.
Similarly they would not wheel the scrum quickly even if the ball is at their number eights feet because it makes it much harder to control the pick up if the second rows feet are tap-dancing about.
8. Scrums that wheel slowly are not usually dangerous and provided they do not collapse I think you just play on making sure the back rows are legally bound etc.
Also make sure you are consistent with how far you allow the scrum to wheel before a reset - layers get really annoyed if the other side is given more time.
Finally, one thing with the flankers bind. Watch out for which player he is binding on. He may stay should and upper arm engaged but simply move up from his prop to their prop and this number eights do the same going from their second row o their prop. surprisingly the Kiwis are masters at this.
9. Lifting - one of the reasons I have a poor opinion of BL is that he was unable to understand that it is not possible for a prop to stand up and by doing so suspend hi9himself in mid-air, three feet off the ground. **** me, you don't have to be a prop to get this, trying standing up and getting to where Phil Vickery found himself against the so-called Beast. you might do it if you're David Blaine but not otherwise.
Very dangerous - hyper extension if still bound in dangerous coming down if not. in the air - NEVER the liftee's fault. It is technically possible for a retreating second row to stop the drive by diving under his front row and shooting them up, but this is so cynical and difficult it might occur once in whatever.
Finally with standing up - you are allowed to ping the first player you see pop-up but I think that this is not right. Standing up dissipates a drive because the pressure goes up not back. If a pack is retreating it can do this to stop it; if you are going forward you do not want to stand up because you cannot drive anymore. You could posit that the player must have not been driving straight but that may not be the case and given that he has weakened his position i don' think you should ping - you should restart if necessary. I would carry on because the player is not in any danger and the scrum is likely to have become static because of his standing.
sorry there is one further point. Some props try to lift their opponent's leg during a drive. If I saw this I would be considering a YC straight away. This is highly dangerous and the prop doing it knows it; it cannot be accidental and i would at least leave the player in doubt about how lucky he was not getting carded.
As I said this cannot be absolute and you will be wrong - but not mess than you are right and the useful thing is that even if you are wrong you can point to something that could have been pinged and your assessor may not know nor will the penalised player's team know - is this too cynical?
:wink:
