Italy-USA

[SimonSmith]

Clubs with sponsors? Changing shirts every two years?

Boy, you guys from the Tier 1 countries really have it good!

 

[Dixie]

from what gets written here in the lower levels prop's binds don;t seem to be an issue as much as they allegedly are in the elite game... so presumably such patches wouldn;t be needed.

Hmm - I think that props fail to bind properly at lower levels just as often as they do at elite levels. The difference is that the failure doesn't lead to the entire FR eating dirt at the lower levels. IMO, the existence of the patches at the elite levels would just get rid of one more excuse for the deliberate dropping of the scrum, while at the lower levels it would give the props one more thing to ask the ref to watch out for at scrum time.

 

[didds]

Most clubs will have changed their sponsors and therefore jerseys probably by then anyway wouldn't they?

Our 1st XV has had the same sponor for a decade... and even so "old" shirts tend to get handed down to gthe 2nds and 3rds .

That said the point is a reasonable one... thopugh it doesn;t seem to be that much of an issue down the leagues gloing by comments here.

didds

 

[Mike Whittaker]

At this point I am dropping out of a discussion which to my simple mind has gone beyond even the realms of fantasy!

In fact it is all so crazy that it is just possible that the manufacturers will see great commercial gain in producing 'prop shirts' and stimulate the IRB into introducing them. And the props will still bind incorrectly and the scrums will still collapse at the elite level where they know they can get away with it and forums like this will considering even more sophisticated solutions to the most elementary of problems.

Have fun, folks

 

[ddjamo]

clancy confirmed with this match why I consider him my least favorite of the "pros". piss poor job...never got the tackle right and control was horrible. scrums a mess and overall management a joke.

 

[chopper15]

If a player is binding correctly on to his opponent at the touch, the packs have already engaged.

The touch is to ensure the packs are close enough together. It is not a hold of any sort because that would enable a player to exert some kind of disruptive force while engaging.

'Engage' tells the front rows to (i) locate and grab (ii)'lock' heads and (iii) hold the shove, all at one fell swoop, OB.

I suggested the 'touch' command be used to establish a positive 'hold' (aided by a 'gripping' zone) instead of imposing that ridiculously optimistic last second hit-or-miss attempt which invariably contributes to the problem, because that's what it does and should be recognised as such.

Crouch . . Hold . . . . ( then on ref's OK) . . LOCK.

And, of course, to get constructive criticism and sensible input, coaches and elite front row players, ex and current, should be involved in controlled experiments with selected referees on hand to oversee and advise on practicable management solutions.

The scrum overtures we see now suggests this was never attempted. Or it may've been but with a rag-tag and bob-tail gang of posers.:sad:

 

[Ian_Cook]

What about the flanker who comes in as a front row replacement wearing his number 6 shirt? would he have to put on the prop's shirt before he could scrummage.
Also, what implications for clubs who bought their kit two years ago and arent due to change it for another 2 years at least?

good idea in principle, but only really enforceable at higher levels.
the price of kits would shoot up as well, as manufacturers could charge extra for the prop shirts.

Wouldn't be an issue in that circumstance because the scrums wont be contested

 

[Davet]

If the FR have gripped each other prior to the engage command then at least one of them will try to pull his opponent to the side or down as they engage.

If you want to sort out the resultant mess I suggest you take up the whistle.

 

[OB..]

'Engage' tells the front rows to (i) locate and grab (ii)'lock' heads and (iii) hold the shove, all at one fell swoop, OB.

I suggested the 'touch' command be used to establish a positive 'hold' (aided by a 'gripping' zone) instead of imposing that ridiculously optimistic last second hit-or-miss attempt which invariably contributes to the problem, because that's what it does and should be recognised as such.

Crouch . . Hold . . . . ( then on ref's OK) . . LOCK.

The current "Touch" is on the shoulder, and is intended to get the teams the right distance apart. The gripping panel would be further back on the player's back and side. A prop would not be able to reach it unless the front rows had already engaged. Is that what you are proposing?

 

[chopper15]

I'm trying to do just that, OB . . . proposing.

OK, they get closer to achieve the necessary hold. Experiment would then find out if it's practicable to nuzzle heads while holding the shove . . . without having to make the bind.

A rethink in the scrummaging overture is, IMO, the solution.

PS. What justification is there to have a loose arm bind anyway?

:deadhorse: . . . is the only answer I ever get.:horse:

 

[chopper15]

If the FR have gripped each other prior to the engage command then at least one of them will try to pull his opponent to the side or down as they engage.

If you want to sort out the resultant mess I suggest you take up the whistle.

. . . then pass it to you, young man, to penalise the culprit/s.:clap:

 

[Robert Burns]

How about making the left shoulder of each front rower in the hook type of velcro, and the right shoulder in the fur type.

Surely that would hold them up after Engage?





































:sarc:

 

[didds]

If the FR have gripped each other prior to the engage command then at least one of them will try to pull his opponent to the side or down as they engage.

Dave as ever is spot on.

There is just NO way props at ALL levels (senior anyway) are going to not use that leverage potential whether we like it or not.

Even if its just a small shove on the engage in order to just disrupt the timing and gain an extra little bit of extension into the gap/space.

didds

 

[didds]

PS. What justification is there to have a loose arm bind anyway?

do you mean to get the loose head binding?

Full arm extension on top the bind helps keep the head up in line with the spine, helps keep the chest proud ("through") thus keeps the force horizontal.
It also helps the elbows maintain a horizontal plane which in turn aids the above. Elbows vertical drops the weight.

All this and more in "Scrum factory".

didds

 

[chopper15]

do you mean to get the loose head binding?

Full arm extension on top the bind helps keep the head up in line with the spine, helps keep the chest proud ("through") thus keeps the force horizontal.
It also helps the elbows maintain a horizontal plane which in turn aids the above. Elbows vertical drops the weight. didds

The 4 loose arms, didds.

Picture the letter 'M', peaks on either side being the waists. In current binding/engage practice the horizontal attitude invariably dips into the tunnel because of the hit-or-miss imposition of binding.

Should this dip start with arms free they will be used to support the tunnel with the palm placed flat to the ground. The palm can also be used against the front of the thigh to gain extra thrust. Refs will manage the grip problem as now.

So what did prompt the change from the 'old' practice to the 'new' I wondered?:hap: I do accept a change back won't happen but why not a Crouch . . Hold . . Lock . . with refs managing the bind as now?

And, didds, as a coach, do you think 'they' carried out the necessary experiments before introducing the current practice bearing in mind the problems with the binding we're still having?