Too many resets - prop mismatch

[Agustin]

I reffed a game on Saturday, a well contested game between Black and White, the two teams at the top of the table. The game overall was really good, probably the highest caliber I have reffed, and I was happy with my performance, as was my coach.

However, the scrums gave me problems. The White loosehead was quite a bit stronger than his opposition and won every engagement. The scrum collapsed or was unsteady a number of times so I had lots of resets. I kept looking for the cause of the problem but could not find it. I spoke with said White loosehead in the bar after the game, and he told me that nothing weird was going on (except that a couple of times his lock pushed him outwards so he went in crooked, and I did give a FK for that) but that his opposition was just not as skilled.

I’ve been pondering how I should/could have dealt with it and thought about the phrase that’s been talked about here, “dominate but don’t destroy”. The trouble I’m having is that he didn’t destroy, he just won the contest, and the Black tighthead didn’t know what to do…

It’s the first time I’ve come up against such a situation and I’m at a bit of a loss… Any thoughts?

 

[Davet]

Difficult.

The prime consideration is safety, and if the scrum keeps collapsing you must do something.

Your nuclear option is to call uncontested scrums, on the basis that the Black THP was incapable of scrummaging against the far superior White LHP.

Whilst always an option this probably not what anyone actually wants, and "Dominate but don't destroy" is a usful tool.

And he DID destroy, the scrum kept collapsing

You can ask him to hold back and keep the scrums stable or you will have to go uncontested. You can point out that while contested he can make their ball hard for them to control, and he can get a drive or a wheel on on his ball - within safe bounds. It is up to him, if he isn't prepared to work with you then you will have to go uncontested, and he will lose any benefit of dominance.

 

[Agustin]

Difficult.

The prime consideration is safety, and if the scrum keeps collapsing you must do something.

Your nuclear option is to call uncontested scrums, on the basis that the Black THP was incapable of scrummaging against the far superior White LHP.

Whilst always an option this probably not what anyone actually wants, and "Dominate but don't destroy" is a usful tool.

And he DID destroy, the scrum kept collapsing

You can ask him to hold back and keep the scrums stable or you will have to go uncontested. You can point out that while contested he can make their ball hard for them to control, and he can get a drive or a wheel on on his ball - within safe bounds. It is up to him, if he isn't prepared to work with you then you will have to go uncontested, and he will lose any benefit of dominance.

Good points... Certainly my main concern was safety, and as the game wore on I was resetting for unsteadiness before the collapse could happen, which increased the tally of resets. (10 resets out of 33 scrums by the end of the game.)

It is true that he did indeed destroy the scrum, albeit unintentionally. (A couple of times it went down on his own team's put-in, which tells me that he wasn't doing it on purpose -- and another reason to go uncontested, I suppose.)

I'm left wanting for an intermediate step in the "Ask, Tell, ?, Go Uncontested" sequence. I do feel that to go to uncontested scrums would truly have been "the nuclear option"... Is it kosher/useful to penalise? If so, for what infraction?

 

[stuart3826]

I'm inclined to think that if iy went down on their own put in, then they didn't take it down. Where in the field was the scrum collapsing? What was the score - what would the consequence of a PK have been.

Can you be absolutely certain the collapse was deliberate and on that side? Was there a binding issue on your blindside.

Problem is, it must have been a hell of a mis-match for a lucy to consistently take down a tighthead - they're built to anchor the scrum, and therefore should be the stronger of the 2. Also, by the very positioning of the lucy outside the TH, it's much harder for him to drop the scrum

Just a few thought - without being there, very hard to judge of course

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

Hard to judge but if it was always unsteady and going down it would be a no brainer for me.
"Guys I cannot guarentee your safety so next time this happens we are going uncontested"
You might find it magically fixes the problem but you'l definitely cover your *rse

 

[dave_clark]

at which stage the lesser prop collapses the scrum to negate the opposition advantage.

 

[Simon Thomas]

10 resets in 33 scrums would be a SD (significant development) on RFU Assessment report and could lead to remedial training and even downgrading.

You cannot compromise safety and so have to show very strong and clear management.

What you describe (and I agree with Stuart) is a LHP taking down a THP. My thoughts would be to get skippers together as the pre-nuclear uncontested scrums option.

Black skipper - "either your THP is able to stay up or I need you to provide a suitably trained and experienced THP that can. If neither is done we will go to uncontested scrums for the safety of the players."

White skipper - "instruct your LHP to stay legal and do nothing to cause a collapse, or we will go to uncontested scrums for the safety of the players".

 

[Wert Twacky]

ST - I didn't think the RFU adopted the MD, ND, SD way of assessing. I thought that was just in county assessments.

 

[Simon Thomas]

Wert

The Assessment/Advising/Referee Coaching pathways, training, report forms and process are standard RFU ones, and used by all English Societies/Feds/Groups.

I used RFU as a broad description for the numerous overseas readers, not as meaning RFU Panel only.

We use

1. ELRA Stage 3 at the first Society level

2. The 'Coaching Form' - 3 good and 3 development points - most Society matches up to level 9. No grades - just a 'ready for next level, correctly graded, or "would be more comfortable at a lower level game".

3. Form 2 - which expands things, and adds the Management and Potential sections where we give a G, MD, ND, SD grade. used for Exchange Refs, Society Development Refs, RWPs (Refs With Potential), plus some Federation reports.

4. The Group Form - for Groups level 5, and some Federation reports - much more stats based and identified non-compliance errors. Managment, communoication & control reports, and next steps. No grades

5. National Panel Match Observers Report - step up from Group form.

 

[TheBFG]

dup posting, slow broadband at home!

 

[TheBFG]

I had a similar outcome in a recent match (numbers of scrums to re-sets), but not the collapses just 2 props arsing around on the touch etc………..

The advice I got from the assessors was to ping the attacking side, in that way you didn’t affect the score and the attacking team just lost 40-50 meters and then do the same at the other end of the pitch if it continues, now there’s a plan?:wink:

Mind you not sure on the assessors general advice because when I suggested that I should have gone to un-contested scrums he said I couldn’t as it would make the game null and void:chin:

Wert..............:nono:

 

[Simon Thomas]

two FR messing around with engagement is very different from collapse and resets Agustin describes.

A T and then P (as suggested by asessor against attacking side).

Part of T could be a slowing down of CTPE to C----T-----P---------E ; make you point and they usually comply.

Threatening uncontested in the engagement messing around scenario is perhaps a bit over-the-top and not needed. That is for major safety issues.

 

[Agustin]

Can you be absolutely certain the collapse was deliberate and on that side? Was there a binding issue on your blindside.

I don't think the collapse was deliberate. Hence my difficulties...

A T and then P (as suggested by asessor against attacking side).

Part of T could be a slowing down of CTPE to C----T-----P---------E ; make you point and they usually comply.

Threatening uncontested in the engagement messing around scenario is perhaps a bit over-the-top and not needed. That is for major safety issues.

Well taken.

What would be the "P" in ATP? Can I penalise the dominant prop, effectively for being dominant? (I'm starting to lean towards "yes"...)

 

[Phil E]

What would be the "P" in ATP? Can I penalise the dominant prop, effectively for being dominant? (I'm starting to lean towards "yes"...)

No, you should reward dominance in the scrum. That's what it's all about.

In the same way as you reward positive play in other areas of the game.

 

[TheBFG]

What would be the "P" in ATP? Can I penalise the dominant prop, effectively for being dominant? (I'm starting to lean towards "yes"...)

I had a cup match on Sunday, L12 team v L8 a miss match if ever seen.

I had a good understanding with the front row of the L8 side along the lines of Dominate don't destroy nono: in fact i'd used it in the pre match brief!) and for the most it worked well, couple of FK/PK against them when they unnecessarily flexed their might on the weaker side, but in the main i was happy that it was safe, as was my coach.

During the second half L8 side brought on a new prop (i caught his eye, as i'd played against him many times and reminded him about the brief:chin: ) and on the very first scrum he sent his prop skyward! Loud blast PK against him. After that he just stood his ground:clap:

 

[Wert Twacky]

Ah, was this Hickey replacement prop ginger par chance BFG??

 

[TheBFG]

Ah, was this Hickey replacement prop ginger par chance BFG??

No, it was their player coach! Ginger prop has gone i think:chin:

 

[TheBFG]

No, you should reward dominance in the scrum. That's what it's all about.

But there's a fine line between a dominent prop and one that is **cking another prop over. By all means give him a hard time but don't loose your advatage by making it unsafe, in which case the ref becomes the dominent force!

 

[Phil E]

But there's a fine line between a dominent prop and one that is **cking another prop over. By all means give him a hard time but don't loose your advatage by making it unsafe, in which case the ref becomes the dominent force!

I don't think the line is really that fine. Domminant prop driving his opposition back till he collapses shouldn't be penalised (penalise the one who dropped it).

But, on the very first scrum he sent his prop skyward! that's not dominance, that's law breaking, so yes ping him.

 

[Will.Q]

But there's a fine line between a dominent prop and one that is **cking another prop over. By all means give him a hard time but don't loose your advatage by making it unsafe, in which case the ref becomes the dominent force!

If you penalise against the dominant scrum; you could end up in trouble somewhere along the line.

The best assessors I have had have all had the same message - never, ever, weaken the dominant scrum, unless you have a very good reason to do so.

You were there, and made your call, and I am sure it was the right one. However, consider this. L12 prop has played for 60 minutes and is probably nackered (or whatever it was), L8 prop comes on all fresh and champing at his somerset bit. First scrum, the fresh faced L8 prop is just too strong for the tired L12 prop and his sheer strength, ability and technical skills end up with the piss poor L12 prop going up?? Ponder over that one...

We've all seen plenty of Aussies going straight up in the scrum on the TV. It isn't always because their opposite number was cheating, it is often because the prop going up is as soft as bread and his opposite number is just too strong. We saw Sheridan demolish as Aussie a few years back at Twickenham - the Aussie was going up, down, being turned inside out etc - Sheridan was not penalised for being strong - the Aussie was binned for being weak. Ponder...