Wow!

[RugbyGeek]

I'm still naieve enough to believe/hope that rugby is a man's game played by gentleman and not thugs whose sole aim is to intentionally injure others!!!

http://www.keo.co.za/2011/07/21/setting-a-precedent/

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

That's a very clear, precise video for a school match!

Notwithstanding all the other evidence it appears fortunate (not for Mr Roux) it was videoed in such detail (ie so close).

Very sad incident indeed!

 

[chopper15]

Why on earth do refs permit 'impact' engagement in school level matches?

 

[Robert Burns]

Because it's normally not an issue, unless people intentionally cheat.

 

[chopper15]

Because it's normally not an issue, unless people intentionally cheat.

'. . . normally not an issue' when even pros have problems with it is surely not a good enough reason for allowing it, Robert?

I would've thought at that level refs' management would insist on a static assembly with a shove when the ball is put in?

 

[ckuxmann]

I did around 35 youth games I had one scrum collapse in the second row, not the front. The problem at youth games, at least in America, isn't the front row hit, it's the problem of properly playing 2nd and back row, knowing how and where to support your prop to make sure the props stay up. Most of the props are able to keep it up on there own, but the added pressure of someone pushing in the wrong position may sometimes cause it to go down.

 

[chopper15]

I did around 35 youth games I had one scrum collapse in the second row, not the front. The problem at youth games, at least in America, isn't the front row hit, it's the problem of properly playing 2nd and back row, knowing how and where to support your prop to make sure the props stay up. Most of the props are able to keep it up on there own, but the added pressure of someone pushing in the wrong position may sometimes cause it to go down.

But wouldn't a static assembly help make the scrum a bit safer, ck? And is it allowed to be a ref's management decision . . . should he wish to play it safe?

 

[ckuxmann]

Well I guess it could be, but it hasn't been an issue for me, I've seen a few other refs in my area who have done as you say just have them come together, but for me I don't see the use because I haven't dealt with may going down. So the answer is yes and no depending on the ref, and also the level of knowledge of the players.

 

[Bryan]

But wouldn't a static assembly help make the scrum a bit safer, ck? And is it allowed to be a ref's management decision . . . should he wish to play it safe?

There is nothing in the U19 law variations that require this.

If there was a safety issue, I'd go straight to uncontested scrums.

 

[Ian_Cook]

But wouldn't a static assembly help make the scrum a bit safer, ck? And is it allowed to be a ref's management decision . . . should he wish to play it safe?

In my day as a player (and probably in yours as well) we used to simply "fold in". The front rows were responsible for the timing (which didn't have to be precise) and the whole thing happened by eyeball between the forwards in a sort of "by mutual consent" arrangement. This was because the whole object of scrummaging was to "outscrum", i.e. out muscle, the opposing scrum in a the contest for the ball.

At a coaching clinic last year, I suggested to a top level NZ scrum coach that perhaps the way to fix the scrum reset problems was to go back to something like that. He disagreed strongly, explaining that it would in fact be more dangerous to do that now. The "hit" is supposed to lock the front rows together, and if that doesn't happen properly, or too loosely, the props and hooker will be on danger of severe injuries when the weight comes on from the Locks and Loosies.

He reckons that even an average modern middle of the table Senior amateur club scrummage would likely demolish an England or All Blacks scrum of the 1970's. For a start, the modern day scrum will be a lot heavier (by as much as 100KG) and with all the weight and strength training and refined techniques coached today, the forwards are physically much, much stronger now than they were in our day.

 

[chopper15]

Agree, Ian. But back then when we tried to out-muscle the front row we always had the loose arm free to support the collapsing tunnel. It also allowed us extra shove support with hand against the thigh. . . . still can't figure out why they had to introduced the touch, then allowed a back-a-way, which often balls up the hold on impact.

Bryan, why go straight to uncontested scrums? Why not the compromise of just the static assembly? Would you be permitted to try 'loose arm' binding for immediate ground support with a flat palm. Locking the front rows together was never a problem.

 

[OB..]

still can't figure out why they had to introduced the touch, then allowed a back-a-way, which often balls up the hold on impact.

There was a tendency to pack down too far apart to get a more powerful hit. The Touch stops that.

You cannot let props keep the arm up because otherwise they would use it for nefarious purposes instead of going straight into the binding position (you hope!).

 

[Ian_Cook]

Agree, Ian. But back then when we tried to out-muscle the front row we always had the loose arm free to support the collapsing tunnel. It also allowed us extra shove support with hand against the thigh. . . . still can't figure out why they had to introduced the touch, then allowed a back-a-way, which often balls up the hold on impact.

Chopper

A correctly bound scrum will not collapse. Referees can do themselves and the players a big favour by rigidly enforcing the bind Laws. Correct binding is like the keystone in an arch. If it is correctly positioned, the arch will not fall. Have a look at the binding in this photo....

The Blue lucy is bound correctly IMO, and while the Gold tight-head is legal, it would be better if he was bound where I have put the yellow dot.

In this position, as long as the other two props are bound the same way, this scrum very unlikely to collapse. As a prop you must "trust" that scrum won't collapse and keep your bind. If one of these players releases for any reason, it will increase the chance of a collapse being triggered.

 

[Adam]

The most important part of that photo is that the yellow 6 is wearing full length leggings. What a relaxed referee.

 

[chopper15]

Ian, you state that a correctly bound scrum will not collapse . . . but that's the problem, getting it correctly bound every scrum.

And OB, why is getting a more powerful, or even a powerful hit, so very necessary when a binding miss is so very often on the cards? Why not have a static assembly, the correct binding can then be assured, the 'macho bit of wrestling can happen when the feed goes in?

We never had the problem of the impact charge or the binding problem for the simple reason we didn't have to.

What reason did they come up with to do away with the loose arm and introduce the impact charge?

 

[Ian_Cook]

The most important part of that photo is that the yellow 6 is wearing full length leggings. What a relaxed referee.

Not really. This photo is circa 2008, well before the iRB edict about leggings was issued.

Ian, you state that a correctly bound scrum will not collapse . . . but that's the problem, getting it correctly bound every scrum.

Why should it be a problem? If the referee is doing his job properly, it should not be a problem.

Incorrect binding is one of the easiest things to pick up. Its at a static phase so you have time to see it and correct it. It is clearly visible, the nearside is right in front of your face, and the far side, while more difficult, is still possible to see. If you cannot see both props' binding hands, then one of them , especially the tight-head prop, is likely to be binding on this opponent's arm.

And OB, why is getting a more powerful, or even a powerful hit, so very necessary when a binding miss is so very often on the cards? Why not have a static assembly, the correct binding can then be assured, the 'macho bit of wrestling can happen when the feed goes in?

As said in my last post chopper, that static assembly would be considered dangerous in the modern scrum

We never had the problem of the impact charge or the binding problem for the simple reason we didn't have to.

What reason did they come up with to do away with the loose arm and introduce the impact charge?

This didn't happen suddenly chopper. It has evolved over a number of years. You don't have to go back very far to see scrums that had no management of the engage.

In 1996 the scrum binding Law contained this

LAW 20

Binding of Players

(6) (c) The outside (loose-head) prop must either

(i) bind his opposing (tight-head) prop with his left arm inside the right arm of his opponent, or

(ii) place his left hand or forearm on his left thigh.

Numerous studies in New Zealand and other countries determined that allowing props to do this did not make for a stable scrum, and was leading to collapses in which there were serious neck injuries. Something had to change so the experts determined that making all four props bind to each other was the answer. I think the change was made in the 2001 rewrite but I am sure OB will know.

 

[chopper15]

Info' and comments much appreciated. Many thanks. But I would still like to know what the professional front rows would make of the the static assembly and the no-bind loose arm for flat-hand ground support or thigh shoving.:drool:

 

[voice of reason]

Interesting article.
A couple of weeks ago Bryce Lawrence PK'd one of the the stormers (S15 semi vs Cru's I think?? - Ian you may recall) props for dangerous play prior to his engage call - IIRC he said "dangerous play - you moved" At the time I thought the prop must have moved his head to take to oppo prop's gap, the NZ Tv commentators had no idea and accused BL of being pedantic and then let rip with their usual ignorant "harden up" comments. I hope they do a bit more research before the RWC

 

[Ian_Cook]

Info' and comments much appreciated. Many thanks. But I would still like to know what the professional front rows would make of the the static assembly and the no-bind loose arm for flat-hand ground support or thigh shoving.:drool:

Chopper

The person I spoke to about this was a high-level scrum coach who has been a scrum coach for Super Rugby and ITM Cup. He coaches at IRANZ; one of their "position-specific" scrum coaches.

I think you will find most professional front row players would not want to return to the fold-in style of engagement. It would be interesting to hear BCM's view on this, and my guess is that he would agree.

Back in 2009, I posted this. Perhaps you didn't see it.

I think it will give you a fairly good idea of why it would not be a good idea to return to the fold-in

I went back through All Black pack weight statistics, going back every 10 years from 2009. I chose the first test played in each of those years, and input the individual player weights, totaled them up and charted them. Here is what I got

► The individual player weights are based on the jersey number (left column) they would be wearing now.

► Admittedly, by choosing only the first test of each year, 10 years apart I am limiting the sample, but I doubt this would skew the results very much

► There were no tests in 1939, so I chose 1938 instead

► There was no point in going back to 1929 because prior to 1934, New Zealand was using the 2-3-2 scrum formation, with two hookers, three locks, two back rowers and a Wing Forward who stood off the scrum anyway.

A few interesting things popped up:

1. From the late 1980's onwards the tighthead prop becomes heavier than any other player in the scrum, by quite a margin.

2. The 2009 scrum almost 200kg heavier than the 1938 scrum. That is like two extra 1938 forwards packed down either side of the No. 8!!!

3. The combined FR weights as a percentage of the pack weight has remained relatively stable at between 36% and 40% for the last 70 years

4. The red line shows how the pack weight is climbing exponentially, so, some time around 2029, the All Blacks will start regularly packing down "one tonne scrums".

5. Prior to the 1950's there were few if any forwards over 100kg. Nowadays, there aren't any under 100kg


My thanks to the Rugby Museum of New Zealand for the extensive player stats available on their website at http://www.rugbymuseum.co.nz/

 

[Bryan]

Bryan, why go straight to uncontested scrums? Why not the compromise of just the static assembly? Would you be permitted to try 'loose arm' binding for immediate ground support with a flat palm. Locking the front rows together was never a problem.

If I thought the scrums were unsafe, I would not make up a new law variation under which I wasnt covered from a liability point of view, wasnt covered from a law-sanctioned point of view, and had no prior experience in previously applying.

I cannot believe that you are suggesting that referees apply things that have never been sanctioned under law in order to create a "safer environment". The Uncontested Scrum fits this role. Why the f**k would I ever think of applying something that had no backing under law?

I am not suggesting that your suggestion has no merit; I'm not even going to consider it as any halfway house scrum between contested and uncontested is not covered legally.

I suspect if Society Officers or RDOs heard their referees were trying something "experimental" in a match they'd be quickly dropped, from ALL refereeing.