Mike Cron on hooking

[buff]

This just appeared on PR.

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16016_9339274,00.html

The relevant parts start with the following, about 3/4 of the way down the page.

But the Kiwi argues rugby's lawmakers ought to follow the lineout model ...

I would like to hear what BCM666 thinks of this.

 

[Dixie]

I am no forward, let alone a hooker. But the contention that a safe striking range still leaves the hooker 60cm short of the centre line seems to me to be drivel. I'd guess that it takes as a starting point the idea that the hooker must start from a position of straining his gonads off in taking the strain before the ball comes in (Cron's isometric loading) and then hook rapidly while still retaining the isometric load on his left leg. The alternative is for the hooker's job to be to strike rather than push - and it could then be done safely, as his starting point can be much further forward.

 

[chbg]

Methinks that the IRB idea was not be applying full pressure on the opposition until the scrum begins, i.e. when the ball is thrown in. That way you have a moment's opportunity to hook before full pressure is applied. It takes two to tango, or in this case to take the strain. Surely it is actually more clever to REDUCE the pressure between the packs when it is your put in, whilst still being in a 'normal position to make a forward shove', the full pressure of 7, then 8, players being initiated by you on the ball leaving the scrum half's hands? If the opposition don't moderate their pressure to match your's (before the ball is in) then they will/should be penalised. The scrum doctor perhaps has a fixation on over-powering the opposition with strength rather than using a bit of legal guile.

But I am not a coach, let alone a scrum coach! (Albeit still occasionally playing there)

 

[Browner]

Forgive me, but when did this become a IRB 'Elite' Trial?

Wasn't it MC who suggested that 20% depowering of the scrum was all that was needed!?

Maybe if MC and his coaching cohorts stopped coaching anything other than correct binding/levering and pre-feed shoving then the ball would come in a tad quicker?

It sounds to me like he is persisting with removing the 'fair contest' agenda. Its plain daft to think that that allowing the ball to be fed even closer to one hooker meets a 'restart contest' requirement.

I feel he won't be satisfied until teams get virtual gteed possession from every feed, ( which is why Ellery Hanley could switch from centre to 2nd row) ......Yes, perhaps he should consider switching to RL.

Down the centre & then a pushing contest for possession which is followed by a hook , gets my vote.

PS...just recd a trial feedback survey from the RFU , not only is it scripted for mere yes/no answers, but I'm fairly sure it plays no 'real part' in the trial outcome.

 

[4eyesbetter]

So, and stop me if I'm reading this wrong, the solution he's suggesting for the problem "neither hooker can hook the ball" is to change the law to allow the halfback to put the ball in a place where only one hooker can hook it?

Hmmm. Sounds like one for the circular file.

 

[Browner]

So, and stop me if I'm reading this wrong, the solution he's suggesting for the problem "neither hooker can hook the ball" is to change the law to allow the halfback to put the ball in a place where only one hooker can hook it?

Hmmm. Sounds like one for the circular file.

But IRB,
Wtf, we've spent years converting flankers into front rowers as part of the "hit and chase methodology" that relies on false start momentum rather than pure strength, now you want our front rowers to be isometric loaders as well, c'mon guys ... A coach cant work miracles!
MC