....the deliberate and continual blind eye to feeding has also hollowed out the scrum contest as the opportunity to get all your ball and maybe up to 50% of their ball by dominating them in the scrum has also gone.....
I don't see the squint feed as the
cause of scrum problems, I see it as a
consequence of a change in scrummaging philosophy.
It used to be that BOTH Hookers hooked for the ball. You had a 7 v 7 pushing contest when the ball was thrown in. The SH fed the ball
straight, partly because a squint feed was a PK not a FK, and partly because, even with a straight feed, his own hooker was for more likely to hook the ball than his opponent. This is so for two reasons
1. the hooker of the team throwing in is positioned closer to the SH.
2. he would call for the ball to be fed using a timing sequence, tapping visibly on the LHP's shoulder..... TAP---TAP---FEED.
So the hooker of the team throwing in not only got first bite of the cherry, he had the advantage of knowing exactly when that opportunity for the first bite was going to come.
Then some teams started ignoring the hook on the opposition feed (because the chances of a hook against the feed was rare - you might see one in every few games if you were lucky). Instead, they had the hooker put his feet back and push. Now while the
"eight-man shove" had been around for some years, it was the Pumas who developed it and turned it into an art form, the
"co-ordinated eight man shove" In Argentina, this technique was known as "La Bajada", a technique developed by San Isidro Club coach Francisco Ocampo. They used their 8 v 7 weight advantage in an attempt to push the feeding team off their own ball. Even if they didn't succeed, the feeding team's scrum would still be under severe pressure or 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.
I have heard the argument that a good hooker will be able to strike and then get his feet back to make it into an 8 v 8 pushing contest again, but I don't buy it. If the eight-man shove comes on while the opposing hooker is trying to hook the ball, then he is already at a big disadvantage. The hooker might be able to get his feet back in, say half a second, but could be too late by then; his scrum is already likely to be going backwards....just try getting your feet back while you are being pushed back and backpedaling.
IMO, until the 7 v 8 pushing disadvantage for the feeding team is addressed, the problems with squint feeding at elite level are going to remain. If you force the SH to feed straight without addressing the 7 v 8 shoving contest, you are creating a difficult and disadvantageous situation for the feeding team. 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; neither hooker striking for the ball because they are afraid to stop pushing. I have seen instances of the ball sitting in the tunnel for 10 - 20 seconds and the scrum going nowhere.
Now, I don't claim to have any solutions, but I do have a couple of ideas that might help. One is a direct approach, the other an indirect approach
►
The Direct Approach. Make it mandatory for both hookers to strike (so that they cannot push). Failing to strike for the ball when it is thrown in could be FK offense. This would restore the 7 v 7 pushing contest, get back to a hooking contest again, and prevent the opposing hooker from getting a head start on the shove.
►
The Indirect Approach. Assess the materiality of the throw-in. The referee would only ping squint feeds if the non-feeding team's hooker strikes for the ball. If he chooses not to strike, then allow the squint feed to go unpenalised on the grounds that it was immaterial. If the non-feeding hooker doesn't want to compete fore the ball, why should be be handed the advantage on a plate? If he wants to force the opposition SH to feed straight, all he has to do is a make a genuine attempt to strike.
Both approaches would be fairly easy to implement and adjudicate. All the referee would need to do is see legs from both sides of the tunnel strike out at the ball. It doesn't really matter if the opposition hooker is making a genuine attempt to strike because if he is seen flicking his leg out then we know he doesn't have both feet back pushing.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
For those who are interested here is more on La Bajada, with a brief explanation of how it works.
In Spanish,
"La Bajada" literally means
"The Descent". The idea is to concentrate all the power of the scrum through centre of the front row, pushing
inwards and forwards, not just forwards. They push along a imaginary arrows drawn pointing inwards from either side of the No 8, which means all the power is directed towards the hooker." This is called
"Empuje Coordinado" (Coordinated Push). The scrumhalf gives a three part call after the engagement.
►
"Presión" (Pressure) - all the players tighten their binds and fill their lungs with air.
►
"Uno" (One) everyone sinks (the descent). The players' legs are bent 90° at the knees.
►
"Dos" (Two) The pack comes straight forward while violently expelling the air from their lungs. It is important that, at this point
nobody moves their feet until forward momentum is established. If the first drive is insufficient the scrumhalf begins the call again and the opposing pack is usually caught off guard and pushed back.
You can usually tell when a Pumas scrum is going to try La 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.
