"Not holding your weight" in the scrum?

[MattyP]

Take a look at this clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0pSDuUqRiC4
http://www.sareferees.co.za/laws/laws_explained/clips/2807444.htm

The SA refs site seems to think this was a correct penalty. What happened to the scrum being stationary and parallel? England clearly won the "hit" here, but then it seemed to me that they just drove on. I would have FK'd them for driving over the mark.

Ref's comment was "not holding your weight". As Brian Moore so poignantly points out - where's that in the law book? All I can find is 20.1(j) which says "...A team must not shove the scrum away from the mark before the ball is thrown in. Sanction: Free Kick" England had cleared driven beyond the mark before the ball was in.

Thoughts?

 

[OB..]

Law 20.1 (j) requires the scrum to be stationary and parallel before the feed. If one team pulls back, or deliberately fails to make a firm engagement, they are the ones preventing the scrum from being stationary.

A good engagement needs both teams to make a firm hit.

 

[MattyP]

OB, let me quote Brian Moore from elsewhere on the site. On this point, I completely concur with Brian's view, which is completely opposed to yours. I believe that it accurately and completely describes the current situation. I am not aware that your view is supported by the laws or any particular refereeing guidance, which is why I raised it in this forum.

"Regarding the mark and one pack going over it. As far as I am aware under the laws, the only responsibility a pack has is to engage on that mark and not do anything to move away from it. It does not have a responsibility to engage as hard as the other pack and certainly not to match any illegal early push - which is what is actually meant when referees say 'take the hit'.
It is actually almost impossible for a whole pack to walk backwards and make it look natural, but as far as I am aware a pack does not have any responsibility to resist an early and illegal shove that comes before the ball leaves the scrum half's hands and which moves it backwards.
What many seem to fail to realise is that it is perfectly possible to engage with considerable force and not advance over the mark; even if the other pack engages meekly. You might get a six inches or a foot of movement forward, and I stress might, but this would be distinguishable from the early push which almost always starts and continues until the whistle or collapse or the scrum running all over the place.
Therefore I equate a pack going over the mark by anything more as an early hit and most of all from a referees point of view, if you have made a clear mark you can simply point to it and the fact that the pack you are penalising is over the mark and they will have to adjust the force with which they hit. If that means they cannot hit and drive early so much the better, however much they complain and do not like it. Again, if anybody can point to me where in the laws there is a responsibility for any pack to engage in a certain manner, other than obeying the CTPE, then I will reconsider this."

 

[OB..]

There are two points at issue here.
(1) Can it be done? You claim that

It is actually almost impossible for a whole pack to walk backwards and make it look natural

The sareferees comment says

Firstly you can see the French No.8, Imanol Harinordoquy, hardly scrums. The flanks break up from the locks and the French loosehead, Jean-Baptiste Poux, actually pulls away from his English tighthead, Dan Cole.

It is not necessary for a whole pack to walk backwards: if the front row does not really drive forward, then the opposition will go forward further than they were expecting. When you go to pick up something that is much heavier or much lighter than you expect, your first attempt misfires because you misjudge the amount of force to use. It is the same with a scrum. If you expect to meet a firm hit by the opposition and it does not materialise, I do not think it is realistic to expect all 8 in a scrum to be able to instantly stop their drive. This outcome is demonstrated when there is a genuine early attempt to engage.

All a team needs to do is put much less force into the engagement than usual, and they will be pushed back. To that extent, the engagement has to be a sort of cooperative contest

(2) What does the law say? Having argued that it is impossible, you now argue that it is legal. You rely entirely on the absence of a specific requirement to take the hit, or equivalent. I point to the requirement for the scrum (ie both teams) to be stationary and parallel before the feed.

I have long maintained that referees have to make sense of the laws, and you cannot have a one-sided engagement.

Again, if anybody can point to me where in the laws there is a responsibility for any pack to engage in a certain manner, other than obeying the CTPE, then I will reconsider this.

Laws 20.1 (i) and (j).

It can, of course, be hard to tell if one team is pushing too hard or the other too softly. The mere fact that one team goes forward does not answer the question. Early engagement is simply when a team moves forward before the referee has said "Engage". If the team goes forward only after that, they surely cannot be penalised for going early, even if they do go over the mark.

As for shoving the scrum away from the mark, if one team simply does not move forward at all (which you see as legal), has the other team really driven the scrum off the mark in any meaningful sense?

Do you think it is a good idea to allow a team to fade on the engagement? That would smack of trying to buy a sanction, like calling "Six" when you put 5 in a lineout.

My solution to all this is to allow the referee to adjust the scrum after the engagement.

 

[rugbydave]

I think OB is quite right here. And, I would add that there is more going on in the scrum that just "the hit on engage." Poor or loose binds between the props and their hooker and the locks on the props will result a scrum that moves backwards and comes apart as there are now eight individuals involved separately and not eight men scrumming togther.

But, OB, what do you mean by "adjust the scrum after the engagement."? It seems to me that the only thing to do is whistle, reset and go again. I can't see adjusting something after the scrum has started.

 

[OB..]

But, OB, what do you mean by "adjust the scrum after the engagement."? It seems to me that the only thing to do is whistle, reset and go again. I can't see adjusting something after the scrum has started.

I am remembering my youth! It was common for the referee to say "Give a yard, Blue", "Rights shoulders please, gentlemen" etc to get the scrum stationary and parallel over the mark. If it is known that this will be the procedure, neither side would benefit from trying to shove or fade away from the mark. Resetting simply gives them another chance to play silly beggars. It may not always work, but I would certainly like to see it tried.

 

[Jenko]

I am remembering my youth! It was common for the referee to say "Give a yard, Blue", "Rights shoulders please, gentlemen" etc to get the scrum stationary and parallel over the mark. If it is known that this will be the procedure, neither side would benefit from trying to shove or fade away from the mark. Resetting simply gives them another chance to play silly beggars. It may not always work, but I would certainly like to see it tried.

Agreed. Set the scrum and allow the ush when ball enters the middle of the tunnel.

 

[MattyP]

I must say that in 20-odd years of playing in the front row, in various countries (but mostly crappy standard), nobody ever suggested that we deliberately get squashed on engagement and then loosen up our binds and disintegrate, at great risk to our own personal safety, in order to try to milk a penalty. But if you guys think that's what's happening, I'll look out for it in future.:smile:

In my limited time as a ref, I have endeavoured to manage this area by making sure the front rows know that the ball isn't coming in until they're square and steady. I do remember 20 years ago being "adjusted" to the mark after engagement before the feed - but then, scrumming was completely different back then, the "hit" was a pale shadow of what it is today.

 

[Dixie]

I can't see adjusting something after the scrum has started.

The scrum, of course, starts when the ball is fed (Law 20.7), so an adjustment before this to get the hookers square and steady over the mark would not be an adjustment after the scrum has started. The old "right shoulders - give a yard" approach was common when I started playing in the mid 1970's - I can't remember when it stopped.

I I do remember 20 years ago being "adjusted" to the mark after engagement before the feed - but then, scrumming was completely different back then, the "hit" was a pale shadow of what it is today.

And I think this identifies the problem. In the oldm days, the props folded genty in, wriggled a bit, got comfortable, got true and quare, and then the SH put the ball in. Is there anything at all about the laws of modern rugby that indicates such an approach could no longer work?

 

[OB..]

Is there anything at all about the laws of modern rugby that indicates such an approach could no longer work?

We need to get rid of the first sentence in 20.5[LAWS]No Delay. As soon as the front rows have come together, the scrum half must throw in the ball without delay. [...][/LAWS]That conflicts with the requirement in 20.1 (j) that the scrum should be stationary and parallel when the ball is fed in.

However the real problem is the concept of the hit, and using that to gain an advantage. I think it has been allowed to go too far.

 

[didds]

I am pretty sure BCM said this far more eloquently than I but

* ping not straights and you get a possible contest for the ball by striking
* permit squint feeds and now the non receiving pack can't /won't strike so they "need" to do something to disrupt the oppo ball. This isn'ty about winning the ball, just making the quality of bball the oppo win not as good as they may like.
* so now non puttinmg in side smash into the hit to try and sisrupt the enagagement, putting oppo under pressure leading to snarly gnarly scrum and poor ball
* and now side putting in have to smash their engagement in order to offset the oppo smash.

So - it won;t be the ONLY thing for sure... but start pinging nont straights [1] and it will remove one reason for huge hits on engagement.

[1] Oh - silly me. PoB instructed his refs to do that already!

But of course the genie is now out of the bottle... so why not go for a heavy smash at enagagement anyway?

didds

 

[OB..]

I am pretty sure BCM said this far more eloquently than I but

* ping not straights and you get a possible contest for the ball by striking
* permit squint feeds and now the non receiving pack can't /won't strike so they "need" to do something to disrupt the oppo ball. This isn'ty about winning the ball, just making the quality of bball the oppo win not as good as they may like.
* so now non puttinmg in side smash into the hit to try and sisrupt the enagagement, putting oppo under pressure leading to snarly gnarly scrum and poor ball
* and now side putting in have to smash their engagement in order to offset the oppo smash.

So - it won;t be the ONLY thing for sure... but start pinging nont straights [1] and it will remove one reason for huge hits on engagement.

[1] Oh - silly me. PoB instructed his refs to do that already!

But of course the genie is now out of the bottle... so why not go for a heavy smash at enagagement anyway?

didds

How can any scrum half throw the ball in straight when the scrum is moving and wheeling?

I stick with my view that you need to get the scrum settled properly first. Stationary and parallel. Then you have covered several of the things you need to check, so it is praticable to demand a straight feed, and the referee has time to check for it.

 

[didds]

How can any scrum half throw the ball in straight when the scrum is moving and wheeling?

I stick with my view that you need to get the scrum settled properly first. Stationary and parallel. Then you have covered several of the things you need to check, so it is praticable to demand a straight feed, and the referee has time to check for it.

I completely concur OB. I was only ioffering one reason why these big hit engagements have become the norm especially at the elite levels. Its not a be all and end all... and as you say (and i agree) the laws create a paradox that your suggestion woud solve.

didds

 

[rugbydave]

The scrum, of course, starts when the ball is fed (Law 20.7), so an adjustment before this to get the hookers square and steady over the mark would not be an adjustment after the scrum has started. The old "right shoulders - give a yard" approach was common when I started playing in the mid 1970's - I can't remember when it stopped.

And I think this identifies the problem. In the oldm days, the props folded genty in, wriggled a bit, got comfortable, got true and quare, and then the SH put the ball in. Is there anything at all about the laws of modern rugby that indicates such an approach could no longer work?

My questioning of adjustments to a scrum after the engagement is in the context of the current state of affairs. And that state is that there is a hit, preferably a big one and low, so that you get as much advantage as possible in the scrum (plus all the other cheating that goes on). In this situation it is a little more difficult to sort it out as suggested.

Yes, maybe that is the way it was done once. But that is not what is happening now. It's mindset of how the modern scrum should work, which is a very physical affair from the start, the start not by Law, but by what the players are actually doing on "the hit."

I'm not making a judgement about which is better or worse. It's just an observation.

 

[Dixie]

there is a hit, preferably a big one and low, so that you get as much advantage as possible in the scrum (plus all the other cheating that goes on). In this situation it is a little more difficult to sort it out as suggested. ...

I'm not making a judgement about which is better or worse. It's just an observation.

And a perfectly accurate one, but I'm not so sure about it being difficult to get it sorted. Tell me - if your national referee body wrote to all clubs explaining that from the start of next season the primary focus at the scrum would be to ensure that the ball could not be put in before it was square and steady over the mark, and that a SH would be free-kicked if he did put it in without that condition being met, what coaching obstacles would there be to getting that sorted?

 

[The Fat]

We need to get rid of the first sentence in 20.5[LAWS]No Delay. As soon as the front rows have come together, the scrum half must throw in the ball without delay. [...][/LAWS]That conflicts with the requirement in 20.1 (j) that the scrum should be stationary and parallel when the ball is fed in.

However the real problem is the concept of the hit, and using that to gain an advantage. I think it has been allowed to go too far.

I agree 100% with your way of thinking re stationary and parallel and I know you have made that point many times now in various threads. At my level, in both seniors and juniors, square and steady is my aim before allowing the SH to feed and I generally get very few resets as a result.
I do believe that there is too much emphasis being placed on the hit even in age groups as low as U14s. I had an U14s match where one front row would deliberately set themselves just a little further back (feet just a back a bit and rock the upper body further back if you can understand what I'm trying to describe) so that they had more momentum on the engagement and therefore create a bigger hit. Before the call of "Touch", I would stand them all back up and get that front row to set up closer to the mark and I had no problems. Their first action was obviously coached and was definitely designed to provide an agressive hit.

 

[rugbydave]

And a perfectly accurate one, but I'm not so sure about it being difficult to get it sorted. Tell me - if your national referee body wrote to all clubs explaining that from the start of next season the primary focus at the scrum would be to ensure that the ball could not be put in before it was square and steady over the mark, and that a SH would be free-kicked if he did put it in without that condition being met, what coaching obstacles would there be to getting that sorted?

I would like to see exactly that. I think it would be great, not just here but everywhere.

But then, as you can see I'm in the USA.:usa:
And, on this side of the pond you see, it's like, well, ya' know... ummm, I just shouldn't start. :chin:

 

[didds]

Tell me - if your national referee body wrote to all clubs explaining that from the start of next season the primary focus at the scrum would be to ensure that the ball could not be put in before it was square and steady over the mark, and that a SH would be free-kicked if he did put it in without that condition being met, what coaching obstacles would there be to getting that sorted?

I've no issue with that... but I sort of got the impression from you guys that this isn't really an issue at the lower levels anyway? And as such its only an area of annoyance/concern at the higher elite end ... in which case we are back to the pre-decided arrangements between coaches, clubs and referees that apparently go on?

Is that not the case then?

didds

 

[didds]

I had an U14s match where one front row would deliberately set themselves just a little further back (feet just a back a bit and rock the upper body further back if you can understand what I'm trying to describe) so that they had more momentum on the engagement and therefore create a bigger hit. Before the call of "Touch", I would stand them all back up and get that front row to set up closer to the mark and I had no problems. Their first action was obviously coached and was definitely designed to provide an aggressive hit.

I'd have to agree it was coached if the entire FR was doing it... sadly. sadly because I find it disappointing that something like this is being coached instead of making sure a bunch of 13 year olds are safe, scrummage solidly but securely, and then spend the time developing them in other areas.

I would also add that I thought this form of scrummaging disappeared ages ago It sounds a very old tactic. I say that because (if you were looking to gain an advantage etc ;-) the FR that packs normally-for-the-21st-century is at "crouch" and "touch" and "pause" on the balls of their feet, weight forwards, with the hooker's "brake" on keeping them poised.

At "engage" the "brake" comes off and the FRs close the gap... and any FR sat rocked back on their heels trying to make a big hit with the extra momentum from further back would find that their space where the tunnel is has been used up by the oppo FR filling it before they got there. End result they are not extended into the tunnel space and end up compressed in less space than they comfortably need.

A second thought - how the hell do they fulfill "touch" if they are sat back in the manner described? Unless the hookers' feet are almost touching two FRs rocked back like this could never touch each other's shoulders?


didds

 

[Taff]

.... I stick with my view that you need to get the scrum settled properly first. Stationary and parallel. Then you have covered several of the things you need to check, so it is praticable to demand a straight feed, and the referee has time to check for it.

So would you criticise a ref who insisted on a "square and stable" scrum before the ball was put in?

My point is, such a ref wouldn't strictly be applying the letter of the law, but would it be acceptable for "the greater good"?