Locks - left and right?

I need some education. Is there a material difference between locking the loosehead or tighthead side? Are these positions completely interchangable or is there a difference (subtle or not) that requires a different skill set or even physique? Genuinely interested to hear from those who understand second row play.
Thanks.

'Totally ignorant on the subject, only knows the lock grabs me between my legs and must bind his shoulder under my hip.

SA usually plays their most powerfull lock on the loosehead side though.

As a prop, I've always thought it makes sense to have the bigger of the two second rows packing down on the tighthead side, as that's where the most pressure is felt.

The loosehead second row, being lighter and perhaps a bit more athletic, is generally better jumping at 2, as in that position the ability to get up in the air quickly is important.

On the whole I don't think it matters too much and there doesn't seem to be a hard and fast rule.

Thanks Monkeyan,Biltong. From the lack of comments I can only conclude that there is little or no difference between positions 4 and 5 when it comes to the scrum, or a lot of posters are as ignorant as me on the subject. My search continues......

offload wrote:Thanks Monkeyan,Biltong. From the lack of comments I can only conclude that there is little or no difference between positions 4 and 5 when it comes to the scrum, or a lot of posters are as ignorant as me on the subject. My search continues......

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/rules_and_equipment/6320407.stm

Found this article on the BBC that might help.

Biltong wrote:'Totally ignorant on the subject, only knows the lock grabs me between my legs and must bind his shoulder under my hip.

SA usually plays their most powerfull lock on the loosehead side though.

Really?

They have their 6 and 7 backwards too. Strange people.

offload wrote:Thanks Monkeyan,Biltong. From the lack of comments I can only conclude that there is little or no difference between positions 4 and 5 when it comes to the scrum, or a lot of posters are as ignorant as me on the subject. My search continues......

Tight head scrumaging locks are becoming very precious in the game like th props. With the scrum so important now in generating attacking ball the th lock is a seriously important player.

Look at the crisis in Leinster last season that brought in renowned TH lock Brad Thorn.

[quote Look at the crisis in Leinster last season that brought in renowned TH lock Brad Thorn.[/quote]

And the difference it has made without him there. Ulster dominated the Leinster scrum in the Pro12 final, despite Leinster's all-international front row. Without Thorn behind him, Mike Ross can look fairly ordinary at scrum time.

Monkeyan wrote:

Look at the crisis in Leinster last season that brought in renowned TH lock Brad Thorn.

And the difference it has made without him there. Ulster dominated the Leinster scrum in the Pro12 final, despite Leinster's all-international front row. Without Thorn behind him, Mike Ross can look fairly ordinary at scrum time.

Owen Franks hasn't looked quite so good without Thorn behind him for Crusaders & ABs either

Helpful additional comments - thanks.

I asked this very question on the old Scrum-5 about 5 years ago. I had some illuminating answers, but unfortunately can't remember any of them#bugger

Monkeyan wrote:

St John wrote: Look at the crisis in Leinster last season that brought in renowned TH lock Brad Thorn.

And the difference it has made without him there. Ulster dominated the Leinster scrum in the Pro12 final, despite Leinster's all-international front row. Without Thorn behind him, Mike Ross can look fairly ordinary at scrum time.

Toner has come on immensely and he has great hands, is great on restarts and in the lineout. but he will always be at a disadvantage in the scrum at 6'11". He has to pack down on the th side when with Leo as Leo is a purely LH scrumager.

Toner would probably be fine in the scrum with someone like Bakkies beside him. tall enough to balance him up and powerful enough to make a serious impression in the scrum.

Toner beside Quinn Roux or Thorn is not as good because there is 6" difference in height between them.

Having 2 arses at different heights makes it hard for the 8 to lock the scrum and distribute his force.

Ulster had Muller and Tuohy who are better matched ans good scrumaging locks.

Sorry pressed post before I was finished.

Ulster had Williams at 8 too who only has to lean on a scrum. not to mention Court Best Afoa.

That pack could put it up to most packs in world rugby (in the scrum)

You are all insulting to us locks who pride ourselves on the subtelties of our position!!!

How dare you all comment on what clearly so few know about, I wouldn't dare try to explain the benefits of front or rear foot placement of the place kick, or the effects of contact time between ball and foot on the drop kick!!!

That said until recently there has been little or no discussion about the real differences because the main differences have been preference of the locks as to which side they prefer (as in right hand bind to lock, left hand bollock grap, left shoulder on the props butt (hookers are a locks nightmare, suirmy little weirdo's never help enough pushing, never help the lock to set correctly))

I personally like to have my best scrummaging locks on the LH side, and I generally like to use the LH, Hooker and lock (flanker if they can) to attack the TH, although it's not uncommon for locks to switch depending on how the scrum goes, and therefore most coaches start their best on the TH side for safety, and if the TH can hold his own switch them up for some more agression on the opposing side.

The difference in locking either side tends to be safety V agressive scrummaging, a lot of TH locks will scrummage far safer, and take the lead of the TH, if the TH is under pressure the lock will generally lock out to give the TH a better platform and support, rather than pressure him from behind as well as frontal causing him to drop or pop. If the TH has ascendancy the lock will not just go with him but try to drive through him, this time the drop or pop would be considered the fault of the under pressure prop.

I only just spotted this thread (which is a great one by the way).  I agree with most of what blues man has said.  I do think you need to decent locks if you really want to put your strongest on the LH side, otherwise you'll can get in trouble for intentionally going round.  Ideally you want to start moving on the LH side and get everyone's footing out in the opposing pack so it's harder for them to shove back.   Then you need the tight head side to be capable of taking advantage and shoving them back on that side as well.

On the subtleties of locking I'd also add that at my old club, and I assume most are the same, it was a lock that would make the call on when to drive in the scrum and we would try and get everyone in step to maximise the impact.  I guess the front row are too busy trying to keep things straight and honest(ish), and the back row are too far from the action to feel the flow of the scrum in quite the same way.  It's a great feeling though when you've locked your legs taken the max pressure the opposing pack can put you under, and then they get tired and that pressure drops ever so slightly.  That's when you shout "drive, drive, drive", knowing that you've already got them by the goolies and they are going to go backwards.

I've propped when required, but wouldn't swap my 20 years in the second row for any other position.

Great question.  There a lot of exceptions to this and little rule.  I agree with Biltong and Bluesman.  Have your beast on the LH.

Take Botha and Matfield as a good example: one the beast (LH); the other the athletic, balletic player (TH).

Interesting that tomorrow's (sorry, today's) lock pairing is the one that played in the First Test in Durban four years ago.  A major selection error.  AWJ then (not now) did not have the ballast to deal with what was coming through from The Beast and Bakkies (I won't go into the legality of The Beast's technique) but Phil Vickery had never been lifted out of a scrum in his life. When The Lions played a genuine 4 - Shaw - as they should have played (or, Hines) in the 2nd Test, the scrum went so much better).  Shaw was awarded MOTM in that magnificent, infuriating 2nd Test.  Amazing.
 
It is also about balance.  As a LH lock, and very left-footed, I was always happier about the power coming off my left foot on the left of the scrum, and binding on the right.

Thanks for bringing up a topic dear to my heart.  Rugby is a game of specialist positions, and that applies to the second row.  I expect a better result from tomorrow's second row than four years ago.

I'm hoping for POC and Gray for the 1st Test.

C'mon the Lions !

Re-reading my post I should be clear that I am not blaming AWJ for the faults in the front five four years ago.  The Front Five of Jenkins, Mears, Vickery, AWJ, POC was unbalanced, no more so in the front row.  Mears with Vickery was not a good pairing, even for height alone.  But POC and AWJ was just too lightweight.

thebluesmancometh wrote:(hookers are a locks nightmare, suirmy little weirdo's never help enough pushing, never help the lock to set correctly))

How very dare you! As a ex-hooker I am deeply offended at this. Weirdo? Yes. Squirmy? Charming! Do you not realise that hookers are not there to push or set scrums. We are purely there to throw the ball in and then revert to our natural position of mid-field general who can sidestep, pass off both hands and put Carter'esqe grubber kicks through to non-existent wingers? If only the rest of the back line were as creative as us, we wouldn't keep turning over possession!

Other than that, great and informative post. I was blessed to play between two excellent props and two locks who were very big at scrum time. Neither of them excelled at the line-out but we primarily used our back-row, all of whom could jump, as line-out targets. That meant we could play two locks who were both what I would call number 4's in the side. Our attitude was that they were the best two locks we had, no matter how similar they were and we wanted them both on the park. Having a very strong front 4 (numbers 1,3,4 & 5, not me!) meant we could play a slightly more athletic and lightweight back row. It worked for us, certainly at scrum time where we were known as probably the best team in the league, even without me bothering to push.

I think in normal circumstances, the stronger lock will play behind the weaker prop to help balance the scrum, particularly in defensive situations, but, as has already been highlighted, this can easily be changed around depending on dominance, props preference etc etc. Locks are changing slowly as the role of the TH changes as well. It used to be a purely defensive position, to hold the scrum steady, which made it sensible to have the stronger lock packing down on the right, but it is now becoming more and more an attacking position and if a TH is destructive, the lock behind doesn't necessarily have to be the dominant pusher.

I don't there is one rule for all, that much is clear.

The competition we have at lock is incredible... I wouldn't moan about whichever two pack down next Saturday.  We have taken 5 excellent options and none have put a foot wrong yet.

Thanks again for the comments - I feel educated.  Not sure exactly what I've learned  but something for sure!