PDA

View Full Version : Better Scrums



wolfie
26-03-15, 11:03
After a crappy game this weekend, where one scrum totally dominated everything and having listened to Jeff Probyn on Sport 5, Sunday say – “the way to improve scrums was to get the ref out of it and let them get on with it, just make sure they don’t stand to far apart to avoid charging on engagement”

Q – Who makes sure they don’t stand to far apart if the ref isn’t involved?



I have anyway had a thought about it and come up with the following:

1. The winning side in the scrum is also subject to the “use it” law as for ruck and maul and will then have to use the ball within 5 secs avoiding the constant pushing until the losing scrum collapses and a penalty is awarded.

2. A try cannot be scored at the base of a scrum by push over by what normally is the No.8 keeping it at his feet and diving on it.



It means:

· The scrum will be purely to restart a game fairly and less opportunity for penalties.

· There will still be contesting for the ball in the scrum.

· The stronger more skilful scrum will still be able to benefit.

· The ball will be recycled quicker enabling more attacking running rugby and not endless scrums.

· If a defending FR stands up once the ball has been one, it will not matter as the winning team will have 5 sec to “use it”.

· A try can still be scored if the defending team manage to win the strike but are pushed over the try line and an attacking player dives in to touch down.

· Because there is not as much opportunity for gaining a penalty, front rows will just get on and scrum.


Thoughts/ Discuss!!!

Pegleg
26-03-15, 12:03
THere are plenty who would say that the pack driving over the goal line for the 8 to score IS attacking play. Remember there are more ways to attack than just chucking it to the girls for them to run around like headless chickens.

didds
26-03-15, 12:03
Remember - there is no obvious issue at the grass roots level - see posts passim.

When was the last time you saw a push over try at elite level? Hopw often does it really happen? So they can have the law/rule/reg. But leave the grassroots alone.

Didds (who LOVES scrummaging)

Ian_Cook
26-03-15, 13:03
1. The winning side in the scrum is also subject to the “use it” law as for ruck and maul and will then have to use the ball within 5 secs avoiding the constant pushing until the losing scrum collapses and a penalty is awarded.

2. A try cannot be scored at the base of a scrum by push over by what normally is the No.8 keeping it at his feet and diving on it.

It means:

· The scrum will be purely to restart a game fairly and less opportunity for penalties.

· There will still be contesting for the ball in the scrum.

· The stronger more skilful scrum will still be able to benefit.

· The ball will be recycled quicker enabling more attacking running rugby and not endless scrums.

· If a defending FR stands up once the ball has been one, it will not matter as the winning team will have 5 sec to “use it”.

· A try can still be scored if the defending team manage to win the strike but are pushed over the try line and an attacking player dives in to touch down.

· Because there is not as much opportunity for gaining a penalty, front rows will just get on and scrum.


Thoughts/ Discuss!!!

I cannot agree with 2.

However, I would go along with 1. in part.

Rather than use it, treat the whole thing similar to a maul.

1. The team winning the hook has a limited amount of time to get the scrum moving. If they cannot get forward motion within five seconds of the ball being hooked, then the SH must clear the ball from the scrum. If they get it moving, and are stopped then they MUST clear the ball within 5 seconds. Not clearing the ball within five seconds, or attempting to restart the forward motion of the scrum results in a scrum turnover. This would allow a team to score a pushover try

2. Why do we offer an incentive to the non-throwing in team disrupt the scrum by rewarding them for wheeling it. Isn't the scrum supposed to be a straight pushing contest? IMO, we should make ALL wheeling of the scrum a FK offence.

Camquin
26-03-15, 14:03
Why penalize the wheel at all.
Why not go back to resetting the same scrum with the same put in.
The defense then has no incentive to wheel.

I might remove the requirement for 8 players to remain in the scrum and allow a player who loses their bind to retire behind the rear foot and regain their bind, or retire five metres and join the girls without penalty. If they fail to do so and interfere with play, then they are offside. You could argue that the mark should be at the backs offside line.

Camquin

Rushforth
26-03-15, 14:03
Why penalize the wheel at all.
Why not go back to resetting the same scrum with the same put in.
The defense then has no incentive to wheel.

The law was changed in the first because the attack had a great incentive to wheel - no real loss if swung past 90 degrees, but putting the opposition back row in a poor position to defend.

It is still the case that the opposition back row is in a poor position to defend if the scrum is wheeled "almost" 90. But the side putting the ball in tends not to want to let it get that far, for some reason, with the law as it stands.

An unfortunate side-effect is that the art of hooking has been all but lost.

didds
26-03-15, 15:03
Why penalize the wheel at all.
Why not go back to resetting the same scrum with the same put in.
The defense then has no incentive to wheel.

except of course they do wrt tactical moving of the ball/backrow ...

and now the feeding side can kill time by winning the ball and wheeling...

didds

ChrisR
26-03-15, 16:03
Agree with Ian and Camquin that a wheeled scrum should not be a turnover. This removes the incentive for the defenders to wheel with the sole objective of getting the turnover. I think that didds's concern about time wasting is a lesser issue. Yes, a team could resort to that (and I understand that has happened and was a reason for the change) but every reset scrum is a turnover risk.

I don't agree that scrums are onlyl about being a pushing contest. An agile, skilled pack should be able to use the power of the opponent to wheel the scrum to limit the opponents options. The reasons given for penalizing wheeling are fatuous and belong in the thread "Making it up".

This is a personal pet peeve so I can only say sorry about :deadhorse:

Browner
26-03-15, 17:03
I'd, disincentivise the defensive wheel >90°
First occasion reset re-feed by the team in possession.
2nd occasion give FK to team in possession.

Both assume a straight feed !!!!!!!!

didds
26-03-15, 17:03
how do you know its a defensive wheel?

didds

crossref
26-03-15, 18:03
how do you know its a defensive wheel?

didds

mostly because they have a huddle before the scrum and are obviously planning something, then it wheels, and almost before they've completed the wheel it they start appealing for the turnover :)

ChrisR
26-03-15, 20:03
mostly because they have a huddle before the scrum and are obviously planning something, then it wheels, and almost before they've completed the wheel it they start appealing for the turnover :)

That's very scientific but a tad unreliable.

Ian_Cook
26-03-15, 21:03
I don't agree that scrums are onlyl about being a pushing contest. An agile, skilled pack should be able to use the power of the opponent to wheel the scrum to limit the opponents options. The reasons given for penalizing wheeling are fatuous and belong in the thread "Making it up".

Well the Law says that "The purpose of the scrum is to restart play quickly, safely and fairly, after a minor infringement or a stoppage."

It also says "All players in a position to shove. When a scrum has formed, the body and feet of each front row player must be in a normal position to make a forward shove."

If wheeling its legal, why do referees give PKs "walking the scrum around" or "whip wheeling"? Isn't that just another way of wheeling the scrum?

Where in the Law does it specify what constitutes legal wheeling of the scrum, and what constitutes illegal wheeling of the scrum?

How can wheeling be legal when someone, somewhere in the scrum has to do something illegal to make it wheel?


how do you know its a defensive wheel?

didds

Do you really believe that most referees actually "know" what is happening in the scrum?

If we can't agree to penalise all wheeling, then perhaps "wheeled through more than 45°/90°" should go into Law 20.10 ENDING THE SCRUM. When the scrum is wheeled through more that 45° or 90°, the scrum is over, play on. Players may unbind, the 5m offside disappears and players can pick up or kick the ball, but must not fall on it (PK).

Pegleg
26-03-15, 21:03
It (the Law) also says "All players in a position to shove. When a scrum has formed, the body and feet of each front row player must be in a normal position to make a forward shove."

But it does not say that they MUST make that shove.


If wheeling its legal, why do referees give PKs "walking the scrum around" or "whip wheeling"? Isn't that just another way of wheeling the scrum?

Wheeling is not illegal. A "dangerous" wheel - one which makes a scrum unstable is illegal. A whip wheel (as I understand the term) is a wheel that is caused by one side of the scrum driving hard whilst the other side PULLS the scrum on. This, it has been decreed, is dangerous.


Where in the Law does it specify what constitutes legal wheeling of the scrum, and what constitutes illegal wheeling of the scrum?

Dangerous is what we as referees decide it is.



How can wheeling be legal when someone, somewhere in the scrum has to do something illegal to make it wheel?

See the answer to your second point. Wheeling is not illegal unless it is done dangerously (just as tackling can be legal or illegal). The scrum can wheel without any illegal practices.

Why the turnover was introduced is an interesting question. I remember a while back (early to mid 1980s?) sides like Ireland were running down the clock by getting a scrum in the opposing 22 and wheeling it. The ref would give them a reset and they would repeat the process as a way of stiffling the game. The new law stopped that tactic but contributed to the mess we have now. The law of unintended consequences.

Ian_Cook
26-03-15, 22:03
But it does not say that they MUST make that shove.

Nonetheless, in order to shove in any direction other than forward, they must get into a position to shove in that direction, which is not forward, so they are no longer in a position to shove in a forward direction.... FK :biggrin:


Wheeling is not illegal. A "dangerous" wheel - one which makes a scrum unstable is illegal. A whip wheel (as I understand the term) is a wheel that is caused by one side of the scrum driving hard whilst the other side PULLS the scrum on. This, it has been decreed, is dangerous.

It may not be dangerous, but it is one of the primary causes of scrums collapsing and being dismantled;; isn't that what the OP is addressing?

How often to do you see a scrum being pushed straight backwards collapsing without first being wheeled? Not very often.


Dangerous is what we as referees decide it is.

So, if I see a tackle like the one Courtney Lawes executed on Jules Plisson in the weekend, can I decide that is dangerous even when there is no reference in Law to support my decision!


A whip wheel (as I understand the term) is a wheel that is caused by one side of the scrum driving hard whilst the other side PULLS the scrum on. This, it has been decreed, is dangerous.

Law reference for this!

Pegleg
26-03-15, 23:03
1: They simply don't shove. They don't have to be in an illegal position to do that. So no FK!

2: A controlled wheel does tend to collapse because of the wheel. An uncontrolled wheel does tend to. A scrum pushed back often resorts to a wheel AND collapse to prevent lost of ground / a pushover.

3: The Law defines certain things that are dangerous but not others. We as referees (sole judge etc) make that call beased on OUR interpretation. An assessor may offer "alternative" interpretations if he disagrees with us but we make the call during the game.

4: "This, it has been decreed, is dangerous." We have already covered this one. We know the law book is an imperfect document. The law book identifies ONE type of dangerous tackle. There is a clear requirement for the referee to interpret what he sees on the field; It is left to the referee to make the call. Regardig the Whip Wheel: It has been passed down from above that, what we refer to as a "Whip Wheel" is dangerous and we are "instructed not to allow it.

chbg
27-03-15, 00:03
How can wheeling be legal when someone, somewhere in the scrum has to do something illegal to make it wheel?

The Law does not require each Blue member of the scrum to push forward with the same force. If LH side pushes more strongly than RH side, reinforcing the natural tendency of the scrum to swing clockwise, then it will wheel legally (unless the opposition counter, often by stepping to the right).

If scrum players "know" what is happening in the scrum, then some referees will do so.

Pegleg
27-03-15, 10:03
We used to wheel legally and, at times, illegally. I'm sure anyone who has played in the front row / scrum knows how to do it.

Ian_Cook
27-03-15, 13:03
I know how to wheel a scrum alright, both legally and illegally, but what I am arguing is that it ought to be illegal to wheel a scrum at all, under the reasoning that it has nothing to do with "the purpose of the scrum" which is to "restart play quickly, safely and fairly, after a minor infringement or a stoppage.

Pegleg
27-03-15, 13:03
I know how to wheel a scrum alright, both legally and illegally,...

This post seems to contradict the above.


How can wheeling be legal when someone, somewhere in the scrum has to do something illegal to make it wheel?

didds
27-03-15, 13:03
I know how to wheel a scrum alright, both legally and illegally, but what I am arguing is that it ought to be illegal to wheel a scrum at all, under the reasoning that it has nothing to do with "the purpose of the scrum" which is to "restart play quickly, safely and fairly, after a minor infringement or a stoppage.


that's a fair point, and a reasonable idea.

But we could then (playing devlils advocate here largely) also say - no contest. We just want 18 players in one very small part of the pitch to create more space elsewhere. Now we get the restart concept, no chance of stupidity and restes..

??

didds

didds
27-03-15, 13:03
Do you really believe that most referees actually "know" what is happening in the scrum?


No. But if "we" are goling to staret introducing laws and interpretations to penalise the defending wheel - then we need to be able to ensure "we" know what that looks like, such that attackers don't just con a PK.

didds

crossref
27-03-15, 13:03
How can a referee tell the difference between a legal, and an illegal wheel ?

It's a serious question -- what are the give away signs I should I look for?

Rushforth
27-03-15, 13:03
How can a referee tell the difference between a legal, and an illegal wheel ?

It's a serious question -- what are the give away signs I should I look for?

The easiest - not best, but easiest - way is to look at patterns, specifically of how fast the wheel is.

If packs are evenly matched in strength, then some of the scrums will wheel naturally, if the ball isn't out quickly enough.

When one pack is dominant, then it will still take time - and distance - for the scrum to wheel.

The faster the wheel, the closer it stays to the original position of the scrum, the more suspect.

You then have to decide - arbitrate arbitrarily perhaps - what is causing that.

Dixie
27-03-15, 17:03
The easiest - not best, but easiest - way is to look at patterns, specifically of how fast the wheel is.

If packs are evenly matched in strength, then some of the scrums will wheel naturally, if the ball isn't out quickly enough.

When one pack is dominant, then it will still take time - and distance - for the scrum to wheel.

The faster the wheel, the closer it stays to the original position of the scrum, the more suspect.

You then have to decide - arbitrate arbitrarily perhaps - what is causing that. I'd agree with that - with experience, a referee can usually tell when something illegal has taken place. Then comes the tricky bit - who was responsible for it? There we see different approaches among the elite. Romain Poite, who is generally considered a decisive scrum manager among referees, decides which pack is dominant and penalises the other team. Wayne Barnes for example, who has a barrister's sense of fair play, tends to reset when he can't say for certain who did what. Perhaps it's the difference between a Napoleonic Code approach and a Common Law approach.

crossref
27-03-15, 17:03
OK so let's take a scenario - red is dominant scrum and on a blue put in, are trying to wheel the scrum.

Are you saying -- as a rule of thumb of course -- that if red drive forewards and wheel they are wheeling legally, but if red just wheel, or allow themselves to go backwards and wheel, then they are wheeling illegally...

beckett50
27-03-15, 18:03
What is the direction of the initial drive? Is the wheel occuring becuase one side of the red scrum has either stopped moving forward or, as is more likely the case, walking backward? Are the 2nd rows still driving with 'spines in line' or are they at an angle? Has the LH slipped his binding and so forcing his opposite number in and down? etc. etc.

Dixie
27-03-15, 18:03
OK so let's take a scenario - red is dominant scrum and on a blue put in, are trying to wheel the scrum.

Are you saying -- as a rule of thumb of course -- that if red drive forewards and wheel they are wheeling legally broadly yes. If perfectly executed, the wheel will describe an arc - usually around the Red tighthead as a pivot; but if imperfectly done, Red tighthead may move a bit forward as well.
but if red just wheel, or allow themselves to go backwards and wheel, then they are wheeling illegally... If the scrum pivots around the hookers, with Red tighthead going fast backwards and Red loosehead going fast forwards, then it's most probably illegal. But which tighthead has pulled his opposing loosehead on, while himself offering little or no resistance?

Ian_Cook
27-03-15, 20:03
This post seems to contradict the above.


You don't seem to understand the concept of playing devil's advocate. I have plenty of experience playing in the front row. I have even scrummaged against an All Black prop (John Ashworth and I feel no shame in admitting that I came off second best against an older, wiser, cannier and tougher opponent)

I know there are legal and illegal ways of wheeling the scrum, what I am saying is that "technically" front rowers are supposed to push forwards, and despite the natural tendency for a wheeled scrum to wheel to the right due to the non alignment of the spines, that someone in that scrum are not pushging parallel tiot he touchm9nes iof the scrum starts to turn.

That the majority of resets which take place after the ball is fed involve straight collapses or some type of turning of the scrum, is an undeniable fact. If you take away the wheeling, you take away the incentive for front rowers to turn and twist, and it follows logically that you remove a large percentage of the resets.

Ian_Cook
27-03-15, 21:03
that's a fair point, and a reasonable idea.

But we could then (playing devlils advocate here largely) also say - no contest. We just want 18 players in one very small part of the pitch to create more space elsewhere. Now we get the restart concept, no chance of stupidity and restes..

??

didds


didds, the scrum is supposed to be, in the first instance, a hooking contest for the ball, not a wrestling contest between two groups of 8 big blokes with single digits on their jerseys. Once the ball is hooked and won, then the contest switches to one between two packs, one which wants to use the ball to their best advantage, and the other who try to prevent their opponents from using the ball to their advantage.

Rugby is a ball game, where the object it to kick carry and pass the ball to score points. What I want to see happen is for the scrum to not become a wrestling contest, if I want wrestling, I'll watch the Olympics.

I am sick to death of seeing 20-30 minutes of every 80 minute rugby game wasted in endless resets and other malarkey. The scrum, at least at the elite level, has become an excruciatingly protracted eyesore, and a major turn-off for fans. I even find myself watching most of my full length rugby matches on MySky, fast forwarding though the scrums.

There are many issues in and around the scrum that can be addressed to get better scrummages. In no particular order

1. Either remove wheeling, or limit it by making it part of the criteria for ending the scrum. Once the scrum is wheeled beyond 90°, the scrum ends and it becomes General Play; players may then unbind, the 5m offside disappears and players can pick up or kick the ball, but must not fall on it (PK).

2. Place a time limit (say 5 seconds from the time the ball is hooked/won) during which one of the teams must get forward motion. If they cannot then the referee calls "use it" and the SH has a further 5 seconds to clear the ball from the scrum. If one of the teams gets it moving forward before the first 5 seconds elapses, then they can continue to move forward. This would allow a team to score a pushover try, but if they are stopped then they have had their chance, they cannot restart and must clear the ball within 5 seconds. Failure to do so results in a scrum turnover.

3. Take away the incentive to use the scrum as a means of scoring points by making scrum infringements a PK but removing the option to kick at goal from a scrum PK (former was trialled in Australia last year and was an outstanding and unqualified success). No scrum option allowed from a scrum penalty. Tap kick or kick for touch only.

Rushforth
27-03-15, 21:03
You don't seem to understand the concept of playing devil's advocate.

Ferrous.

Pegleg
27-03-15, 22:03
You don't seem to understand the concept of playing devil's advocate. I have plenty of experience playing in the front row. I have even scrummaged against an All Black prop (John Ashworth and I feel no shame in admitting that I came off second best against an older, wiser, cannier and tougher opponent)

I know there are legal and illegal ways of wheeling the scrum, what I am saying is that "technically" front rowers are supposed to push forwards, and despite the natural tendency for a wheeled scrum to wheel to the right due to the non alignment of the spines, that someone in that scrum are not pushging parallel tiot he touchm9nes iof the scrum starts to turn.

That the majority of resets which take place after the ball is fed involve straight collapses or some type of turning of the scrum, is an undeniable fact. If you take away the wheeling, you take away the incentive for front rowers to turn and twist, and it follows logically that you remove a large percentage of the resets.

I understand devils advocate perfectly well. I also understand contradiction. Thanks.


Controlled LEGAL wheels can create space for backs to attack. A wheel can be positive or not, Which one depends on the sides mindset.

Front rows pushing straight can wheel the ball so your second paragraph is neither here nor there.

ChrisR
27-03-15, 23:03
NO was at it again in the France/England game. "Walking around"? That is such a bogus call.

OB..
27-03-15, 23:03
didds, the scrum is supposed to be, in the first instance, a hooking contest for the ball, not a wrestling contest between two groups of 8 big blokes with single digits on their jerseys. Historically the scrum was originally nothing but a pushing contest.1871: Scrummage: when the ball is put down, and "all who have closed round on their respective sides endeavour to push their opponents back, and by kicking the ball to drive it in the direction of the opposite goal line."
Heeling out was definitely bad form.
The other canker - worm is heeling out. [...] Is it possible for a man to be kicking backwards and pushing forwards simultaneously? Of course not. Since football began it has been, and till football ends it will be, an enormous advantage to carry the scrummage.
The views of Arthur Budd, who gained 5 caps for England 1878-81.

As for wheeling (screwing) the scrum ... ...
When we decide to screw the scrum instead of letting the ball go clean out of it, the lock man gives the word. At the same time he dips down and picks the ball up between his knees, and he retains it there until the screwing movement has been completed and he is clear of the scrum, when all he has to do is to let the ball drop and go ahead with a rush, the side man following him up and all combining to the best advantage. As soon as the word is given to screw, the back-row men bring their feet together to prevent the exit of the ball, and the lock man, who has the ball between his knees, throws his arms clear of the hooker and grasps the side man. This is done in order to facilitate the movement, for the lock man in his endeavours is then helped by the two front row men, who pull their opponents' scrum round in the opposite direction to that in which they (the screwers) desire to go while at the same time the two side men push and pull him until he is clear and away with the ball. The scrum formation in the attacking scrum breaks down in the middle, and the back part goes off with the ball in the usual manner."
from Gallaher and Stead. The Compleat Rugby Footballer 1906.

Clearly things have changed a lot since those days! However Budd was right that it is still a significant advantage to be able to push the opponents back in a scrum.

RobLev
28-03-15, 00:03
NO was at it again in the France/England game. "Walking around"? That is such a bogus call.

If they're walking around, they're not pushing straight - indeed they're not in a position to push straight. Nothing wrong with the call.

ChrisR
28-03-15, 18:03
If they're walking around, they're not pushing straight - indeed they're not in a position to push straight. Nothing wrong with the call.

RobLev, what is straight? To me, and I suspect most others, "straight" is along the long axis of the scrum. Players have no difficulty in maintaining this as they take small (and quick) side steps.

OB..
28-03-15, 19:03
RobLev, what is straight? To me, and I suspect most others, "straight" is along the long axis of the scrum. Players have no difficulty in maintaining this as they take small (and quick) side steps.By taking sideways steps players are adding a sideways component to their shoving. This is clearly deemed illegal.

RobLev
28-03-15, 19:03
RobLev, what is straight? To me, and I suspect most others, "straight" is along the long axis of the scrum. Players have no difficulty in maintaining this as they take small (and quick) side steps.

That's what I would call straight. Taking small and quick side steps moves your stern to one side so the resultant shove can no longer be straight but must be at an angle to the long axis of the scrum. That is after all why players do it - so they can push at an angle so as to wheel the scrum more easily.

ChrisR
28-03-15, 23:03
RobLev, as you imagine it I would agree. But that isn't how it's done. At least, not in the way I have done it and coached it for 50 plus years.

To wheel left the LHP is a pivot, wheel right and the THP is the pivot. If possible he drives forward but it's not required and if you're under pressure going backwards that isn't going to happen.

The prop on the other side of the pivot retreats under the push/pressure of his opposite. He does not pull. no need to do so.

The locks and 8 crab, with small quick steps, about the pivot keeping their spines in line with the scrum axis and their feet pushing forward. The flanks stay bound and try not to get in the way.

This method is legal (cite laws if you disagree), controlled (small steps is the key), effective (it can be countered by crabbing into the wheel)and safe (much, much safer than collapsing under pressure).

Ian_Cook
29-03-15, 00:03
The prop on the other side of the pivot retreats under the push/pressure of his opposite. He does not pull. no need to do so.

100% this!

I tire of hearing & reading referees arguing that a "whip wheel" or an illegal wheel is caused by props pulling their opponents. When I read this, its a big clue that the referee does not understand scrum dynamics at all.

It is physically impossible to pull on an opponent in front of you when your bodyweight is ahead of your feet. It cannot be done. Any non-believers reading this? Go try pulling your car along while facing it with your bodyweight ahead of your feet. Good luck trying; it cannot be done!

Rushforth
29-03-15, 00:03
It is physically impossible to pull on an opponent in front of you when your bodyweight is ahead of your feet. It cannot be done. Any non-believers reading this? Go try pulling your car along while facing it with your bodyweight ahead of your feet. Good luck trying; it cannot be done!

Ian, by your theory, humans would be incapable of lifting objects in front of them if they are bent over forwards.

Camquin
29-03-15, 01:03
When you bend over to pcik something up you bum is behind your feet, or you fall on your nose.
When your feet are a foot behind your bum you are going to go forwards.

In a position to push

http://img.rasset.ie/0006ef98-642.jpg

In a position to pull

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Irish_600kg_euro_chap_2009.JPG

Ian_Cook
29-03-15, 02:03
Ian, by your theory, humans would be incapable of lifting objects in front of them if they are bent over forwards.

Its not "my" theory, its a scientific fact. Its called physics.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/RugbyRefs/2playerscrumwarmup.jpg

It is impossible for either the green or the blue player to pull his opponent forwards, i.e. to force his opponent to take a step forward. The best either can do is allow their opponent to push them backwards.



PS: Lifting something up not the same as pulling it horzontally.

didds
29-03-15, 02:03
PK for agaiant blue for not binding!

RobLev
29-03-15, 08:03
RobLev, as you imagine it I would agree. But that isn't how it's done. At least, not in the way I have done it and coached it for 50 plus years.

To wheel left the LHP is a pivot, wheel right and the THP is the pivot. If possible he drives forward but it's not required and if you're under pressure going backwards that isn't going to happen.

The prop on the other side of the pivot retreats under the push/pressure of his opposite. He does not pull. no need to do so.

The locks and 8 crab, with small quick steps, about the pivot keeping their spines in line with the scrum axis and their feet pushing forward. The flanks stay bound and try not to get in the way.

This method is legal (cite laws if you disagree), controlled (small steps is the key), effective (it can be countered by crabbing into the wheel)and safe (much, much safer than collapsing under pressure).

That is legal; the differential shove between LH and TH side is what wheels the scrum and side steps are required to keep the player upright. It is however not what is described by "walking it round", where the steps leads the wheel.

The Fat
29-03-15, 09:03
How can a referee tell the difference between a legal, and an illegal wheel ?

It's a serious question -- what are the give away signs I should I look for?

crossref,
this from post #17 by chbg.

The Law does not require each Blue member of the scrum to push forward with the same force. If LH side pushes more strongly than RH side, reinforcing the natural tendency of the scrum to swing clockwise, then it will wheel legally (unless the opposition counter, often by stepping to the right).


A legal wheel adheres to this explanation i.e. the initial movement of both props of the team doing the wheeling must be forward.
When one of those props stops going forward, the scrum will pivot on him. If that same prop is going backwards, the wheel will be quicker and will pivot on the hooker (remember that his other prop is still going forward).
Ian C is absolutely correct that if a prop is in the correct body shape with feet behind arse, knees at 120 degrees, weight forward etc, etc, he cannot pull his opposite prop toward him. To get the impression that he is "pulling" his opposite on, his own feet must be going back. That can be from two possible causes, either his opposite is stronger and is pushing harder or he is giving ground and allowing his opposite to win the pushing contest for obvious reasons. It's just that referees use the term "prop pulling opponent on" supported by signal #20 in the law book because that's what it looks like.

To try to simplify identifying a legal wheel for guys at our level, the key indicator is, "When the wheel begins, are both props of the side doing the wheel winning the contest? i.e. is their first movement forward?"

ChrisR
29-03-15, 14:03
It is however not what is described by "walking it round", where the steps leads the wheel.

Please provide a technicasl description of "walking around" supported by law reference.

To try to simplify identifying a legal wheel for guys at our level, the key indicator is, "When the wheel begins, are both props of the side doing the wheel winning the contest? i.e. is their first movement forward?"

Please provide law reference that supports a requirement for both props to be "winning the contest" prior to wheeling.

OB..
29-03-15, 17:03
It is however not what is described by "walking it round", where the steps leads the wheel.

Please provide a technicasl description of "walking around" supported by law reference.

To try to simplify identifying a legal wheel for guys at our level, the key indicator is, "When the wheel begins, are both props of the side doing the wheel winning the contest? i.e. is their first movement forward?"

Please provide law reference that supports a requirement for both props to be "winning the contest" prior to wheeling.
Is everything covered by the laws? No. We are trying to find a sensible way of dealing with something that is NOT properly covered by the laws. We know that wheeling can be legal or illegal. We hear various explanations for sanctions at top levels, and have a few hints from the laws. The rest is a mystery wrapped in an enigma. :sad:

ChrisR
29-03-15, 18:03
We know that wheeling can be legal or illegal

Wheeling, in and of itself, is not illegal. Therefore, for a PK to be invoked, there must be some other cause. Thus "walking around" but there is no reference in law to "walking around" and no clear description of what it is and why it must be a penalty sanction.

With most grey areas we can fall back on a principle of the game such as safety (hurdling an opponent) and fairness (receiver joining at a lineout). Or to simply expedite the game (allow SH to dig for the ball).

If a wheel was executed in such a manner that it caused the opponents to collapse then that could be considered an unsafe act. But then driving a scrum backwards can cause an opponent to collapse yet it is invariably the collapsing side that gets penalized.

Fairness? Wheeling is a skillful unit skill that can be used to limit the options of the team in possession.

I believe that the attack on wheeling is a result of someones view of the game and nothing else and that is what really pisses me off.

RobLev
29-03-15, 18:03
It is however not what is described by "walking it round", where the steps leads the wheel.

Please provide a technicasl description of "walking around" supported by law reference.

...

I've already given it; when the wheel caused by differential strengths of shove (and/or the natural asymmetry of the scrum) causes the sidestepping, that's legal; when the sidestepping, causing an off-axis shove, leads the wheel, that's illegal.

Or try this (http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?18742-Referee-quot-jargon-quot&p=295394&viewfull=1#post295394).

Laws 20.2(a) and 20.8(g).

ChrisR
29-03-15, 19:03
Laws 20.2(a) and 20.8(g).

Neither of these references apply to a player sidestepping around a pivot.

RobLev
29-03-15, 19:03
Laws 20.2(a) and 20.8(g).

Neither of these references apply to a player sidestepping around a pivot.

If a front-row player sidesteps to push off axis he is putting himself no longer in a position to push straight - to make a forward shove. He is also twisting his body (if he remains properly bound) and, by pushing off-axis, doing something likely to cause the scrum to collapse.

OB..
29-03-15, 19:03
I believe that the attack on wheeling is a result of someones view of the game and nothing else and that is what really pisses me off.All interpretations reflect someone's view of the game, or more realistically a consensus - scrum half handling in the ruck, for example. In this case your view is different from a general view, but there is little clarity in that general view.

Frustrating, yes, but I repeat my view that you are not going to find the answer by scrying the wording of the laws. If you want to know what you can coach your players to do as far as local referees are concerned, ask your local society for the guidelines they give to their referees. (If any .....)

ChrisR
29-03-15, 20:03
OB, I agree on your last suggestion. Everything else is just :deadhorse:

The Fat
29-03-15, 20:03
OB, I agree on your last suggestion. Everything else is just :deadhorse:

From 2015 USA GMGs

C. WHEEL
1. A scrum has only wheeled through 90º if the line between the front rows has gone through 90º.
2. Whip-wheel (when the scrum turns/spins on its axis) or walking the scrum around are not
allowed. Before a scrum can be wheeled legally there must be a clear forward movement by the
combined front row of the team that is driving their
opponents backwards. PK

ChrisR
29-03-15, 22:03
Yes, TF, very aware of our GMGs.

What is clear is that you are only allowed to wheel if you're the dominant scrum. Where in law is this supported? It's not.

Personally, I think the GMGs should reflect guidance for application of the laws, not the bias of the referee committee.

OB..
30-03-15, 01:03
Yes, TF, very aware of our GMGs.

What is clear is that you are only allowed to wheel if you're the dominant scrum. Where in law is this supported? It's not.

Personally, I think the GMGs should reflect guidance for application of the laws, not the bias of the referee committee.
Are you cherry picking by only challenging the wheel and not the leniency of (I repeat) a scrumhalf handling in the ruck?

Blue Smartie
30-03-15, 10:03
Stepping aside from wheeling for a moment and back to one of the OP suggestion - a "use it" law. Seek and ye shall find 20.4(e) & (f).

(e)
When a scrum remains stationary and the ball does not emerge immediately a further scrum is ordered at the place of the stoppage. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession at the time of the stoppage.
(f)
When a scrum becomes stationary and does not start moving immediately, the ball must emerge immediately. If it does not a further scrum will be ordered. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession at the time of the stoppage.

The Fat
30-03-15, 11:03
Stepping aside from wheeling for a moment and back to one of the OP suggestion - a "use it" law. Seek and ye shall find 20.4(e) & (f).

(e)
When a scrum remains stationary and the ball does not emerge immediately a further scrum is ordered at the place of the stoppage. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession at the time of the stoppage.
(f)
When a scrum becomes stationary and does not start moving immediately, the ball must emerge immediately. If it does not a further scrum will be ordered. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession at the time of the stoppage.

If you want to see an example of this, Jaco Peyper made this call during the Waratahs v Blues game this week.

Watch the scrum from 37:14 on the game clock

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKAgVMR8fss

Lee Lifeson-Peart
30-03-15, 12:03
If you want to see an example of this, Jaco Peyper made this call during the Waratahs v Blues game this week.

Watch the scrum from 37:14 on the game clock


I was going to mention that. I watched it yesterday. JP makes his call - Jimmy Cowan nearly shits with delight - and the 'Tahs all look perplexed.

George Clancy tried it (calling use it at a scrum) in the Amlin Cup Final but even he baulked at just turning over the scrum and thus ending the match - Cheika's head would've exploded!!

We had a meeting in South Yorkshire where we advised not to call "use it" at scrums which I infer meant we should just "peep" and turn it over. We never got round to discussing that bit as everyone turned on me as I thought "use it" was a good preventative at the scrum.

Is JP following WR Elite/SANZAR advice or is he just doing his own (sensible) thing?

ChrisR
30-03-15, 13:03
Are you cherry picking by only challenging the wheel and not the leniency of (I repeat) a scrumhalf handling in the ruck?

It's not "cherry picking" to disagree with one guideline but not another when the two are distinctly different.

Allowing the SH to dig improves the continuity of the game. Prohibiting wheeling in such an arbitrary manner stifles creativity and reinforces the perception that the scrum is the domain of muscle only, not brains.

OB..
30-03-15, 14:03
Allowing the SH to dig improves the continuity of the game.I agree, but it is technically a blatant infringement.
Prohibiting wheeling in such an arbitrary manner stifles creativity and reinforces the perception that the scrum is the domain of muscle only, not brains.You may not like the legal arguments about wheeling, but at least they exist.

I reject your assessment of the rationale. My guess would be that once they had introduced the wheel turnover, they were concerned at the likelihood of getting a sequence of wheeled scrums from one infringement.

Browner
30-03-15, 17:03
I was going to mention that. I watched it yesterday. JP makes his call - Jimmy Cowan nearly shits with delight - and the 'Tahs all look perplexed.

George Clancy tried it (calling use it at a scrum) in the Amlin Cup Final but even he baulked at just turning over the scrum and thus ending the match - Cheika's head would've exploded!!

We had a meeting in South Yorkshire where we advised not to call "use it" at scrums which I infer meant we should just "peep" and turn it over. We never got round to discussing that bit as everyone turned on me as I thought "use it" was a good preventative at the scrum.

Is JP following WR Elite/SANZAR advice or is he just doing his own (sensible) thing?

Hi LLP, IMO "use it" in this kind of circumstance is exactly the right thing to do as is puts the team in possession 'on notice' of the whistle to follow.

Interestingly JP gives them a second yhtUI forewarning ( but that's not good practice IMO)

If I'm honest, (if I were refereeing that scrum). then it appeared that blue were still walking forwards over the ball and it was heading back towards the 8 , I'd let them continue and only give a UI instruction if the scrum became static 'after' it was at the 8's feet.

In my mind that was a fabulous scrummage contest , superbly resisted also , and the premature curtailment was just a bit to early for me. But then - for us ex 8's we loved for those 5m scrum pushover opportunities , so maybe I'm entirely one-eyed biased on this .:love:

ChrisR
30-03-15, 18:03
I reject your assessment of the rationale. My guess would be that once they had introduced the wheel turnover, they were concerned at the likelihood of getting a sequence of wheeled scrums from one infringement.

And that would be a real concern. They went with the turnover to cure a disease that really only exists at the end of a match where the team in front has the feed. Now a turnover wheel is on pretty much every scrum. Except there is a real risk to that strategy. If the ball winning team gets a quick heel to the feet of the 8 and the referee is a little lax on enforcing the 90 rule then the defending team would find themselves in difficult circumstances.

Lineouts have blossomed into real competitions with plenty of creativity and variety. Scrums, as the OP observes, have descended into arbitrary allocations of PKs/FKs. They have stopped being a platform for creative attack.

The Fat
31-03-15, 04:03
Lineouts have blossomed into real competitions with plenty of creativity and variety. Scrums, as the OP observes, have descended into arbitrary allocations of PKs/FKs. They have stopped being a platform for creative attack.

I agree they have ceased to become a platform for creative attack with most now ending in a FK or PK but this is not the fault of the referee. At elite level and just below it is the fault of the players who refuse to scrummage within the laws unless there is a scrum awarded within kicking range of their posts and a PK could cost them the game.
Had a conversation last Saturday with a guy who referees a couple of levels up from me and we were commenting that the scrums had been shit in the game we were watching (= to L6). The scrums at this level are usually pretty good but we both agreed that the further down you go in match level, the better the scrums get in terms of completions on the first set. Obviously as the match level gets higher, the stronger the packs until you get to the point where cheating becomes more and more a part of the mentality to get that edge over the opposition pack.
Fans can whinge all they like about how endless resets and scrum penalties piss them off but until top level packs stop cheating for 90% of the game, those fans would be better off toddling along to a L8 or L10 game if they want to see the ball fed and won and the game restart as quickly as possible.
End rant.

Pegleg
31-03-15, 08:03
...but this is not the fault of the referee. At elite level and just below it is the fault of the players who refuse to scrummage within the laws unless there is a scrum awarded within kicking range of their posts and a PK could cost them the game.


But that is not the whole truth. The elite referees and WR and its referees' Department ARE culpable. Until the elite guys start carding the offenders. A season of "ping them off the park" will lead to compliance. Presently we see routine ignoring of the bind and the feed. We have the mess created by the wheel T/O rule. Time to stop fiddling while Rome burns and sort it OR go to RL scrums (formally).

Of course the coaches will be up in arms but it will bring about a change, if the game is serious about sorting out the scrum.

ChrisR
31-03-15, 11:03
Perhaps if we just ask them nicely ...

Lee Lifeson-Peart
31-03-15, 12:03
But then - for us ex 8's we loved for those 5m scrum pushover opportunities , so maybe I'm entirely one-eyed biased on this .:love:

Those'll be the ones where all your mates do all the work and you get the try - again.

Browner
31-03-15, 13:03
Those'll be the ones where all your mates do all the work and you get the try - again.

How very dare you , wash your mouth out with soap ...... :wink:

Ensuring a bind, controlling the ball inside your far right foot, steering and communicating a straight shove, and the correct speed and repeatedly warning your own 9 not to put his sticky mitts anywhere near 'your' ball wasn't easy on a mud rutted pitch, whoa betide you if you knocked it on !!....oh the pressure , for the glory ....:bday:

Hmmnn, as I recall I used to pick up the ball and dive forward to score/ground under/between the feet of the locks, which now i come to think about it might be 20.9(d) offence of taking the ball back into a scrum ?????

Browner
31-03-15, 13:03
........... OR go to RL scrums (formally)........

Aaaaaaaaaarrrrrgggggghhhhhhhhh. Such devil speak is damnation

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSdkrNu8CjHQR9IB0KELW_cKeXo62Ixv X0qEgd4Uf2MatCqvuJeRg

WombleRef
31-03-15, 20:03
I have found that a quicker Scrum Engagement tends to reduce the problems as Props etc. don't get to tired.

As a RL player - Rugby League scrums suck. I miss the battle with my fellow prop that I got in Union.

matty1194
31-03-15, 20:03
I have found that a quicker Scrum Engagement tends to reduce the problems as Props etc. don't get to tired.


How much quicker we talking here fella considering you have things you need to look for at each stage..........................are you abdicating your responsibilities???

WombleRef
31-03-15, 22:03
How much quicker we talking here fella considering you have things you need to look for at each stage..........................are you abdicating your responsibilities???

At the start of the season I used to leave a long 3-4 second gap as I wasn't exactly confident and wanted a little longer to check. I actually found this was giving more problems - I will take the first couple slow and if I don't have any problems I will begin to be a little quicker.

I will not just rush through them and I ensure that everyone's bound etc. before I carry on. But I now try to do it in such a way that I minimise the time taken to go through the sequence.

If that makes any sense??

ChrisR
03-04-15, 21:04
I'm just now getting to watch the England v. France match on YouTube. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kbssh2hs--8

The restart scrum after the Lawes tackle, 25:20 on the game clock, 1:04:10 on the YouTube time. Great shot from directly above. England 1,2,6 & 5, with great precision, sidestep to the left. This shearing force distabilizes the French and their LHP goes down. So does the England THP but England get the penalty.

To me this is clearly England manufacturing a PK and I think the French LHP may have said something to that effect.

But have England violated any law?

Browner
03-04-15, 21:04
To me this is clearly England manufacturing a PK and I think the French LHP may have said something to that effect.



I'd wager you're right, probably about the contrived shift. However at the set, you could argue that England are packing straightish, and French LHP is driving in unstraight .


Pour moi, ce est clairement l'Angleterre fabrique arbitre penalty? Non ? Oui? :shrug:

The Fat
03-04-15, 23:04
To me this is clearly England manufacturing a PK and I think the French LHP may have said something to that effect.

But have England violated any law?

"..........or do anything that is likely to collapse the scrum........"

RobLev
04-04-15, 08:04
I'm just now getting to watch the England v. France match on YouTube. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kbssh2hs--8

The restart scrum after the Lawes tackle, 25:20 on the game clock, 1:04:10 on the YouTube time. Great shot from directly above. England 1,2,6 & 5, with great precision, sidestep to the left. This shearing force distabilizes the French and their LHP goes down. So does the England THP but England get the penalty.

To me this is clearly England manufacturing a PK and I think the French LHP may have said something to that effect.

But have England violated any law?

I wish I could have said you're right, because it seems obvious why you've chosen an England scrum for this; but stop the video at 1:04:13, just as the ball comes in, and you'll see France are packing down at 20-30 degrees off straight. They're driving the scrum sideways. At 1:04:06, you'll have seen that the French pack is lining up with the loose head flanker's feet more than 1m closer to the touchline than anyone's in the England pack.

Have France violated any Law? Yes, they weren't in a position to drive straight from the get-go.

ChrisR
04-04-15, 22:04
I looked at again several times and you're right that France packed slightly crook but ..... was it enough (maybe 10 degs at most) to drive it sideways like what happened? French LHP definitely bores in and takes the England TH with him.