The Rugby Club & Bryce Lawrence's Scrums

[The Fat]

Didn't see all of the segment on tonight's Rugby Club here in Aus, but I'm assuming they were talking about the Aust v Ireland game (someone may wish to correct if it was about a different game).
Greg Martin commented that after the game, the Wallabies management sent a letter to POB about the scrum penalties (I assume for clarification). The response from POB and Bryce Lawrence was that after reviewing the tapes, 3 of the 6 scrum PKs awarded against the Wallabies were incorrect and BL apologised for the errors. I wonder if any points were scored as a result?
Will be interesting to see how the scrum penalties go in this Sunday's QF against the Boks.

 

[OB..]

While I applaud the openness, the problem with that sort of response is that it does not say if other PK errors went in Australia's favour. There is also difficulty with the yes/no nature of a 50/50 decision. Were these clear-cut errors, or differences of opinion? 3D vs 2D.Tricky territory. I would certainly like a more detailed explanation, as I learn nothing from that bald statement.

 

[Mike Selig]

I'm not surprised. I assume the Ausies were confused as to how they were being penalised for collapsing the scrum when the Irish loose-head was binding on the underside of his oppo's shirt and pulling down. It was an inept display of refereeing.

You can look at it 2 ways:
1) Aus trying genuinely to avoid being penalised at the scrum against SA so asking what they did wrong.
2) Aus picking up on clear refereeing errors in an attempt to show their scrum is stronger than it actually is.

If it was any other ref there I'd be confident that 2) would fail, however BL does seem to strike me as being a "make up my mind and stick to it" ref (not only Aus-Ire, but Eng-Fra deciding 6N in 2010) so they could enjoy some success.

 

[Taff]

You can look at it 2 ways:
1) Aus trying genuinely to avoid being penalised at the scrum against SA so asking what they did wrong.
2) Aus picking up on clear refereeing errors in an attempt to show their scrum is stronger than it actually is.

No matter which way you look at it, I just see it as an attempt to try and intimidate one referee in particular or referees in general.

 

[The Fat]

While I applaud the openness, the problem with that sort of response is that it does not say if other PK errors went in Australia's favour. There is also difficulty with the yes/no nature of a 50/50 decision. Were these clear-cut errors, or differences of opinion? 3D vs 2D.Tricky territory. I would certainly like a more detailed explanation, as I learn nothing from that bald statement.

I don't have any further detailed info at this stage OB. As I said, I didn't see all of the segment on tonight's Rugby Club. I'm not sure who would be privy to the response from POB & BL or how detailed it was. I would expect that there would be a reasonable level of detail nominating which decisions were incorrect as I would assume that the Wallabies management's letter was seeking clarification of BL's interpretations so that problems, if any, with the scrum could be worked on prior to the QF stage of the tournament. I don't think the Wallabies would be too worried about other PKs (other than scrums that is) going either way. Their main concern is obviously fixing their scrum (as if they haven't had long enough). If they felt they were being wrongly penalised at times, they would obviously want to bring that situation to light as well rather than change some part of the scrum that really doesn't need changing.

For me, scrums remain the most difficult part of the game for referees to consistently get a high percentage of calls correct. I think that Poite is close to the best at it at the moment.

 

[The Fat]

No matter which way you look at it, I just see it as an attempt to try and intimidate one referee in particular or referees in general.

Can't agree with that statement sorry Taff. I would tend to lean more towards Mike's scenario #1 in post #3. I think they want to make sure they are not giving away a heap of PKs to Morne Steyn anywhere in kicking range in the sudden death QF..

 

[Davet]

Ultimately I don't expect giving away scrum penalties will make any difference. I expect SA to win comfortably.

 

[barker14610]

Ultimately I don't expect giving away scrum penalties will make any difference. I expect SA to win comfortably.

Why? They are missing a key second row, the best hooker is on the bench and their rejuvenated 10 is out.

 

[Taff]

Can't agree with that statement sorry Taff. I would tend to lean more towards Mike's scenario #1 in post #3. I think they want to make sure they are not giving away a heap of PKs to Morne Steyn anywhere in kicking range in the sudden death QF..

Mmmmm. I hope your right Fat.

Perhaps I'm getting too cynical in my old age, but having Bryce Lawrence pulled up for half the scrum PKs against them in their last game must play on his mind before he awards one at the next game.

 

[Mike Whittaker]

From what we have seen in this RWC the THs are all binding on the arm and the LHs are gripping the shirt under the chest (except when they are not binding at all). In trials conducted with prop connivance it has been shown that deciding who was responsible for the collapse in these situations is not an exact science. Or to put it bluntly, nobody has a clue - apart from the props.

It would be very interesting to know the basis of determining wrong decisions in the Aus v Ire game...

Personally have no sympathy with any of them. Get a prop like Jason Leonard and the scrum will not go down on his side.

 

[Dixie]

Perhaps I'm getting too cynical in my old age, but having Bryce Lawrence pulled up for half the scrum PKs against them in their last game must play on his mind before he awards one at the next game.

Agreed. But is this a good thing or a bad thing? Would it be better if he just carried on PK-ing Aus because his resaearch suggests they have the weaker scrum?

 

[The Fat]

From what we have seen in this RWC the THs are all binding on the arm and the LHs are gripping the shirt under the chest (except when they are not binding at all). In trials conducted with prop connivance it has been shown that deciding who was responsible for the collapse in these situations is not an exact science. Or to put it bluntly, nobody has a clue - apart from the props.

It would be very interesting to know the basis of determining wrong decisions in the Aus v Ire game...

Personally have no sympathy with any of them. Get a prop like Jason Leonard and the scrum will not go down on his side.

How many times, not only in this RWC, do we see a scrum go down twice on the far side but as soon as the ref moves to that side for the 2nd reset, we miraculously get a perfect scrum?

 

[The Fat]

Mmmmm. I hope your right Fat.

Perhaps I'm getting too cynical in my old age, but having Bryce Lawrence pulled up for half the scrum PKs against them in their last game must play on his mind before he awards one at the next game.

May have been a good thing until leaked and made public on the Rugby Club tonight. He may be a bit pissed at that. Hoping he doesn't see the show or hear about it prior to Sunday's game.

 

[andyscott]

Who gives a flying **** if he made 3 scrum errors why do we expect a referee to make no wrong calls, its an impossibility and we have to accept human error and mistakes happen.

Even at international level I would accept mistakes.

Its like dropping a player from the squad who knocks the ball on.

 

[Mike Whittaker]

How many times, not only in this RWC, do we see a scrum go down twice on the far side but as soon as the ref moves to that side for the 2nd reset, we miraculously get a perfect scrum?

Precisely! So what are the AR's doing? They are certainly not making the referee look good...

 

[Ian_Cook]

From what we have seen in this RWC the THs are all binding on the arm and the LHs are gripping the shirt under the chest (except when they are not binding at all). In trials conducted with prop connivance it has been shown that deciding who was responsible for the collapse in these situations is not an exact science. Or to put it bluntly, nobody has a clue - apart from the props.

Then don't let that situation arise...

Don't let the THP bind on the LHP's arm.
Don't let the LHP bind on the THP's chest.
Don't proceed with the scrum until those four players bind correctly.

You CAN see the other side of the scrum from where you are standing, no matter which side you choose to stand on. If you cannot see the some part of the outside bind hands of both the props on the opposite side of the scrum, then they are not bound correctly!!!

Get the props' binding right, and the rest will follow.

 

[Mike Whittaker]

Then don't let that situation arise...

Don't let the THP bind on the LHP's arm.
Don't let the LHP bind on the THP's chest.
Don't proceed with the scrum until those four players bind correctly.

You CAN see the other side of the scrum from where you are standing, no matter which side you choose to stand on. If you cannot see the some part of the outside bind hands of both the props on the opposite side of the scrum, then they are not bound correctly!!!

Get the props' binding right, and the rest will follow.

That is precisely what I have been hammering on about every day during this RWC.

If the referees and ARs did their job, there would be no problem.

 

[OB..]

That is precisely what I have been hammering on about every day during this RWC.

If the referees and ARs did their job, there would be no problem.

I agree with that, but in this case I am concerned that pulling out that sort of statement sounds like a serious criticism of the referee, whereas in fact it contains no useful information. We do not know which 3 decisions were supposedly wrong, we do not know why they were wrong, and we do not know if that was typical of his game generally. They might all have been close judgement calls.

 

[Mike Whittaker]

I agree with that, but in this case I am concerned that pulling out that sort of statement sounds like a serious criticism of the referee, whereas in fact it contains no useful information. We do not know which 3 decisions were supposedly wrong, we do not know why they were wrong, and we do not know if that was typical of his game generally. They might all have been close judgement calls.

Exactly! which is why in an earlier post I said, "It would be very interesting to know the basis of determining wrong decisions in the Aus v Ire game..."
Will we be told? Would think not...

 

[Account Deleted]

Precisely! So what are the AR's doing? They are certainly not making the referee look good...

What is the ref asking from the ARs? Roland, for example, has specific requests from his ARS. Calling (binding) Penalties at scrum time in not in the remit. "Tell me and I'll come around and have a look". Rather than "Tell me it is a PK". Remember the ref sets the framework for how the To3 work.