In the cold light of day.....

by macscot Tue 09 Jul 2013, 10:10 pm

Absolutely delighted that the Lions players raised their game and beat the Wallabies on Saturday, it was a fine end to the 2013 Tour.
Looking back at the tour, however, there are a number of things that need to be highlighted to put it into perspective:

A. We were up against the 3rd rated SH team who had significant players out injured. We should have won all the Tests.
B. We had to play a so called "warm up match" in Hong Kong that brought nothing to the Tour or player selection.
C. Injuries did affect potential test player partnership selections. More pressure on non-injured players - part of touring.
C. A number of players were played out of their normal positions which may have affected their chances of being in the Test 23.
D. Bringing in a number of players, originally not selected, for less that two matches devalues the Lions jersey.
E. The managements statement of "players will be selected on form" was adhered to on an ad hoc basis. Not consistent.
F. The treatment of Ryan Grant in the 2nd test when Mako was dead on his feet and not contributing to the match was poor management.
G. It took until the 3rd Test to finally get selection right, we should have won the series by the end of the 2nd Test.
H. Leigh Halfpenny was definitely the star of the series and deserves all the accolades he has accumulated.
I. The players seemed to gel well as a squad and behaved professionally throughout. Respect to them.

I'm sure there are many other points that can be added but while wining the series covers lots of cracks, lets hope all the learning points from this Tour are collected and used in 2017 when that Tour will probably not be as easy as this one.

What do you think?

by RubyGuby Tue 09 Jul 2013, 10:14 pm

by **Biltong** Tue 09 Jul 2013, 10:21 pm

I think lnce the Lions went into the test, the free flowing and dominance at the breakdown disappeared to a large extent.

The first test brought some great individual displays of power running and try scoring, but apart from that neither team really "created" anything.

The second test was a slugfest, and perhaps that impacted on the Wallaby forwards in the last test when they were very porr indeed.

I love a scrum to be dominant and where physcial dominance are imposed, what I down't like is when scrum oenalties are the order of the day and basically can be the decider in a test match.

The advantage of a strong scrum should benefit a team yes, but not to the extent where the impact negates anything else.

It is time for the IRB to get their act together, not only on the impact of scrum penalties but also the manner in which inconsistencies at the breakdown brings far too much of an element of luck to the party.

I have seen not only in this test series but during the minth where these two aspects of "conning" or playing up to the referee can effectively be the difference to winning and losing.

Rugby is about who is the best team team on the day, not the one that gets away with the most.

At least the Lions can say they were by far the better team on the pitch in the last test, whether they were 19 points better just on their scrum alone, I am not so sure.

As for the Lions selections and Gatland. He won, he could have lost the first test had the Aussies micked their goals.

So much of the accolades may be deserved, but in my view, perspective must be maintained, the Lions were better than the Ozzies for 28 minutes of the second half of the last test.

That is where their dominance in general play outshined the Ozzies greatly, for the rest of the test series, it was pretty much stalemate, with both teams not being able to organise much in temrs of attack as a collective unit.

by BigTrevsbigmac Tue 09 Jul 2013, 10:32 pm

Some good points made there Mascot but with respect to G.

The most important selections were actually brought about by injury ie.
Corbs at LH & at IC both Roberts & Tuilagi became available for a big runner to come in at IC. Bearing in mind there was only one specialist selected at IC & in the 2nd test JD did not work there.

Murray should have arguably started to.

Perspective is important though definitely.

by macscot Tue 09 Jul 2013, 10:35 pm

BigTrev
Totally agree, hope the Lions Board have some too.

by macscot Tue 09 Jul 2013, 10:39 pm

Hey Biltong
If one scrum is as dominant as the Lions were, the referee can't just go on and on handing out penalties - it's not as if the "weaker scrum" can add muscle within the 80 minutes of the match, you are so correct in your view that the IRB has to look at this in detail, lets hope they have the balls to do something, and quickly.

by **Biltong** Tue 09 Jul 2013, 10:46 pm

Exactly, I am a prop and when it comes to scrumming it is something I always took great pride in, but for the scrum to have such an impact is just not right.

We used the scrum to soften the opponent, to beat them down which would lead to dominance at the breakdown and breaking their confidence, not slot penalty after penalty.

by macscot Tue 09 Jul 2013, 10:51 pm

My sympathies on being a prop, last time i played there was at high school, still get a sore neck after I hear "engage" !!

by **Biltong** Tue 09 Jul 2013, 11:00 pm

My neck is fine, but my knees, well they are shot.

by dragonbreath Wed 10 Jul 2013, 12:11 am

macscot wrote:Absolutely delighted that the Lions players raised their game and beat the Wallabies on Saturday, it was a fine end to the 2013 Tour.
Looking back at the tour, however, there are a number of things that need to be highlighted to put it into perspective:

A. We were up against the 3rd rated SH team who had significant players out injured. We should have won all the Tests.
B. We had to play a so called "warm up match" in Hong Kong that brought nothing to the Tour or player selection.
C. Injuries did affect potential test player partnership selections. More pressure on non-injured players - part of touring.
C. A number of players were played out of their normal positions which may have affected their chances of being in the Test 23.
D. Bringing in a number of players, originally not selected, for less that two matches devalues the Lions jersey.
E. The managements statement of "players will be selected on form" was adhered to on an ad hoc basis. Not consistent.
F. The treatment of Ryan Grant in the 2nd test when Mako was dead on his feet and not contributing to the match was poor management.
G. It took until the 3rd Test to finally get selection right, we should have won the series by the end of the 2nd Test.
H. Leigh Halfpenny was definitely the star of the series and deserves all the accolades he has accumulated.
I. The players seemed to gel well as a squad and behaved professionally throughout. Respect to them.

I'm sure there are many other points that can be added but while wining the series covers lots of cracks, lets hope all the learning points from this Tour are collected and used in 2017 when that Tour will probably not be as easy as this one.

What do you think?

You're a happy Frak aren't you? You need to fill that glass up its half empty

by macscot Wed 10 Jul 2013, 12:17 am

Sure am. A Scotsman's glass is usually empty but lets not talk National traits ;-)

by nganboy Wed 10 Jul 2013, 1:41 am

Biltong wrote:My neck is fine, but my knees, well they are shot.

A real prop doesn't have a neck I thought

by Rob B Wed 10 Jul 2013, 2:33 am

Biltong wrote:

I love a scrum to be dominant and where physcial dominance are imposed, what I down't like is when scrum oenalties are the order of the day and basically can be the decider in a test match.

The advantage of a strong scrum should benefit a team yes, but not to the extent where the impact negates anything else.

It is time for the IRB to get their act together, not only on the impact of scrum penalties but also the manner in which inconsistencies at the breakdown brings far too much of an element of luck to the party.

I have seen not only in this test series but during the minth where these two aspects of "conning" or playing up to the referee can effectively be the difference to winning and losing.

Rugby is about who is the best team team on the day, not the one that gets away with the most.

At least the Lions can say they were by far the better team on the pitch in the last test, whether they were 19 points better just on their scrum alone, I am not so sure.

.

Tend to agree. Scrums and lienouts used to be viewed as the mechanism to re-start play after a stoppage as well as a competition for possession. I think it is now seen as an opportunity to get a penalty and kick points. Easy for me to say I know as my team just went down as the scrum did not function all night. But whenever Lions knocked on, Wallabies "advantage". Scrum Wallabies feed. It was no advantage at all in the circumstances. It is an advantage only if you have the dominant or on-par scrum on the day. Why should having a dominant or on-par scrum have anything to do with the fact that the other team knocked on? Should the means of the re-start be at the option of the team that did not knock on? Ie should they get the option of a tap, kick in touch or a scrum? Would eliminate a lot of re-sets, collapses, penalties and stoppages in my view. Lions were the better side on Saturday to be clear and the deserved the win. But it was off the back of countless penalties at scrum time, which is really only 1 aspect of the game. Unfortunately it decided the series.

by Luckless Pedestrian Wed 10 Jul 2013, 9:30 am

macscot wrote:The treatment of Ryan Grant in the 2nd test when Mako was dead on his feet and not contributing to the match was poor management.

The other way of looking at it is that, whether you agree with it or not, Vunipola was above Grant in the coaches' eyes and, given there was a third Test to come in which Vunipola was also likely to feature, it was good management not to haul him off. My recollection is that he fared better in the scrums as the match wore on anyway, and I'm sure I read that he topped the tackles and metres made stats. I'm pretty certain that they wouldn't have left Grant on the bench if they felt it was necessary to bring him on.

Just playing devil's advocate. Smile

by Scrumpy Wed 10 Jul 2013, 9:41 am

Have people forgot how awful Grant was in one of the warm up games?

by macscot Wed 10 Jul 2013, 3:14 pm

Who is the better scrummager is not the point I was raising - Mako was clearly dead on his feet after 60 minutes and I believe he should have been replaced for two reasons:
1. A new player would have been even better in the scrum and around the park, giving the Lions a chance to maybe get on top of the Wallabies.
2. Getting Mako off would have helped his recovery and chance if making the final test without injury - did you notice the large bandage around his calf when he came on in the final test.
Mako was clearly one of the most improved and most used players on the Tour and I think the management could have taken more care with him. Grant was there as a replacement behind Mako and Corbs but he should have replaced Mako for reasons above. Poor management of both players.
Just my view. Everyone has theirs too.

by offload Wed 10 Jul 2013, 6:32 pm

Two points: Selection is just a matter of opinion. Whether we agree with Gatland's opinions and judgments or not they were his to make. Secondly - much as I enjoyed seeging the set piece dominance I agree that the scrum shouldn't be used to gain penalty after penalty. I like to see a strong scrum used as a platform to drive forward, get on the front foot and create space. It just seems wrong that because your opposite number is better than you they keep getting 3 points? Penalties should be for infringements and foul play.

by captain carrantuohil Wed 10 Jul 2013, 7:05 pm

Have to disagree re. the scrum. Time was, and not a million years ago, that every side recognised that, even if it wasn't necessarily their forte, they had to do sufficient work on their scrummaging to ensure that they got somewhere near parity.

Most sides still adhere to that belief - the scrum remains a central tenet of Union, thank God. Some years ago, Australia, for a variety of reasons, decided that they weren't going to bother with that sort of nonsense. Rather than bring through the inheritors of a perfectly decent front-row tradition, their top brass decreed that everyone else could be persuaded to downplay the importance of the prime contact point of the game.

Front-row dominance, well before the professional era, guaranteed success for a decent side about three-quarters of the time. What last Saturday showed is that failure to gain parity in that area will still ensure that you will lose most of the time. So it should. If the scrum's importance is diminished to the point that it becomes like a game of Subbuteo rugby, what comes next? Why not restart the game with a quick tap each time it goes out of play, a la Rugby League, and forget line-outs completely? Blow for another tap whenever a maul forms? After all these are also time-consuming pursuits in which dominance can be either less than interesting or too slow for some people.

If you're far better than your opposite number at scrum time, good on you. 3 points seems to me to be the least you deserve. Are we to penalise the wing who can step his direct opponent at will? Rugby isn't basketball; it isn't Rugby League, either. The beauty of the game is that there are so many ways of skinning a cat.

For Australia, and over the last decade or so, that's been the only country whose weakness at scrum-time has been such that they have consistently lost games that they might otherwise have won, the alternatives are simple. Try quick Channel 1 ball - you never know what might happen until you try it - or invest a bit of time, effort and money in mastering a core skill. Telfer had it right back on the 97 Lions tour - without something like equality in the scrum, the Boks would have rolled all over the Lions. No-one says you have to be dominant; what you can't be is a blancmange.

All the core skills should be given due attention by all sides - I can't accept the fact that one is superior to another, nor that the effect of supremacy in the tight should be minimised because it isn't as glamorous as flowing three-quarter moves. You earn the right to play the flowery stuff.

by **Biltong** Wed 10 Jul 2013, 7:14 pm

captain carrantuohil wrote:Have to disagree re. the scrum. Time was, and not a million years ago, that every side recognised that, even if it wasn't necessarily their forte, they had to do sufficient work on their scrummaging to ensure that they got somewhere near parity.

Most sides still adhere to that belief - the scrum remains a central tenet of Union, thank God. Some years ago, Australia, for a variety of reasons, decided that they weren't going to bother with that sort of nonsense. Rather than bring through the inheritors of a perfectly decent front-row tradition, their top brass decreed that everyone else could be persuaded to downplay the importance of the prime contact point of the game.

Front-row dominance, well before the professional era, guaranteed success for a decent side about three-quarters of the time. What last Saturday showed is that failure to gain parity in that area will still ensure that you will lose most of the time. So it should. If the scrum's importance is diminished to the point that it becomes like a game of Subbuteo rugby, what comes next? Why not restart the game with a quick tap each time it goes out of play, a la Rugby League, and forget line-outs completely? Blow for another tap whenever a maul forms? After all these are also time-consuming pursuits in which dominance can be either less than interesting or too slow for some people.

If you're far better than your opposite number at scrum time, good on you. 3 points seems to me to be the least you deserve. Are we to penalise the wing who can step his direct opponent at will? Rugby isn't basketball; it isn't Rugby League, either. The beauty of the game is that there are so many ways of skinning a cat.

For Australia, and over the last decade or so, that's been the only country whose weakness at scrum-time has been such that they have consistently lost games that they might otherwise have won, the alternatives are simple. Try quick Channel 1 ball - you never know what might happen until you try it - or invest a bit of time, effort and money in mastering a core skill. Telfer had it right back on the 97 Lions tour - without something like equality in the scrum, the Boks would have rolled all over the Lions. No-one says you have to be dominant; what you can't be is a blancmange.

All the core skills should be given due attention by all sides - I can't accept the fact that one is superior to another, nor that the effect of supremacy in the tight should be minimised because it isn't as glamorous as flowing three-quarter moves. You earn the right to play the flowery stuff.

Cappie, I agree with everything you said there except for the bold bit. A strong scrum or dominant scrum should give you an advantage, but when that is all that is necessary to score ooints and beat a team then it overstates the benefit of a scrum. Yes gain territory, yes even gain a penalty, but not one that you can kick at goal for.

At the most gain a territorial benefit, kick for the corner and get the line out, but work for the points.

by captain carrantuohil Wed 10 Jul 2013, 7:25 pm

Biltong, would you also sanction the persistent offender in any way? The point is, of course, that a poor scrummaging side will happily give away penalty after penalty if there is no immediate punishment for their transgression. That poor unit can also carry on doing it, even if they do lose someone to a yellow card, safe in the knowledge that scrums will eventually be uncontested.

I can just about live with the idea that a "differential penalty"/free kick be awarded for scrum offences outside the 22. To me, a side that infringes inside the 22 is committing the equivalent of the professional foul in Wendyball. Three points for that every time, plus a yellow card after the first warning.

I felt that Poite handled the scrum correctly on Saturday, just as Walsh did when England and Wales clashed in March. They may not have been 100% right every time, but the basic principle of rewarding the dominant scrum was upheld. In both cases, that dominance was ultimately translated, as it often is, into clear superiority across the rest of the field and the points on the scoreboard to emphasise the fact. Long may it continue, I say.

by **Biltong** Wed 10 Jul 2013, 7:46 pm

captain carrantuohil wrote:Biltong, would you also sanction the persistent offender in any way? The point is, of course, that a poor scrummaging side will happily give away penalty after penalty if there is no immediate punishment for their transgression. That poor unit can also carry on doing it, even if they do lose someone to a yellow card, safe in the knowledge that scrums will eventually be uncontested.

I can just about live with the idea that a "differential penalty"/free kick be awarded for scrum offences outside the 22. To me, a side that infringes inside the 22 is committing the equivalent of the professional foul in Wendyball. Three points for that every time, plus a yellow card after the first warning.

I felt that Poite handled the scrum correctly on Saturday, just as Walsh did when England and Wales clashed in March. They may not have been 100% right every time, but the basic principle of rewarding the dominant scrum was upheld. In both cases, that dominance was ultimately translated, as it often is, into clear superiority across the rest of the field and the points on the scoreboard to emphasise the fact. Long may it continue, I say.

I suppose the best way will be a yellow card for a repeat offender, that way the team is pnalised in a manner wher coaches will have to ensure they consider the scrum for what it is supposed to represent, physical battle and dominance.

I also think a kickable penalty within your red zone is acceptable as it poses a different type of threat close to your line.

I love scrums, but want it to be part of the battle of dominance not point scoring henve my issue with kickable penalties.

by macscot Wed 10 Jul 2013, 11:32 pm

Captain and Biltong - some good points and arguments brought out here, thank you both for raising them.
I just wish the IRB would look at these and bring forward some draft proposals that address this issue. After all, no-one likes the road this currently leads to - uncontested scrums.

by aucklandlaurie Wed 10 Jul 2013, 11:52 pm

If the scrums end up being uncontested, can we then put the ball in crooked?

by macscot Wed 10 Jul 2013, 11:55 pm

Of course you can, why change the habits of a lifetime.......!
I'd rather watch Rugby League than watch a Union match with uncontested scrums. Phew, that was hard to say!

by **Biltong** Thu 11 Jul 2013, 12:45 am

macscot wrote:Captain and Biltong - some good points and arguments brought out here, thank you both for raising them.
I just wish the IRB would look at these and bring forward some draft proposals that address this issue. After all, no-one likes the road this currently leads to - uncontested scrums.

no worries mate, it is nice to have a serious debate about an issue with someone like Cappie every now and then, it is an issue that strikes at the heart of rugby union and should be resolved.

by blackcanelion Thu 11 Jul 2013, 2:09 am

Interesting discussion. I'm no expert on the scrum. Like everybody it frustrates the hell out of me. I'm still trying to get my head around it. This usually involves listening to gnarled squat buggers at the pub, and at games, reading the laws and guides for refs by people like Brian Moore. For some strange reason I still have an opinion that feel compelled to share (all right impose, seeing as no one will take it seriously anyway).

The issue for me about scrums is that it's really technical. There's packing, timing, binding, twisting and collapsing. A lot of things that can go wrong. There's a real benefit in not getting nailed. A good scrum is a great attacking platform.

So a lot of things can go wrong, and there is pressure to "bend the rules". All sides bend the rules, and they are constantly evolving new and better ways of doing it. Referee's are always trying to adapt to keep up, all the time trying to make decisions in real time.

I'm going to give the referees a break. I think they all get partially right/wrong. I think consistency is hard get as scrummaging constantly evolves.

I think a real problem is actually understanding what's actually happening. At the moment it looks like we have a lot of experienced people having input and a lot of "patch protection". An example is discussing the Lions v Australian scrum.

The common assessment is that the Lions were technically better in the last game, the Australians were so poor they deserved to be penalised off the park. In the earlier game Vunipola wasn't great and the Aussies benefited from poor refereeing.

It's a great argument. It may be completely correct. It certainly fits well with my view of the games. It's pretty subjective though. I saw enough interesting photos of the Lions scrum in the third test to raise some questions in some of the scrums.

That being aside. It's about adjusting to the referee. That being the case there will be times where teams aren't on the same wavelength. It's more likely when it's ref you aren't familiar with.

I think there is a real bias in all of us towards what we are familiar with and our emotional attachment with a team. It doesn't matter if it's kids rugby or international rugby, supporters are unhappy if they get the wrong end of a penalty count, or they see penalties not being given for perceived offenses, being given for actions they perceive to be normal.

I'm not sure about Poite. To me he makes up his mind on the scrum before the game. Looking back at his international matches it seems that he is criticized for his scrum management more than any other ref. I'm not sure if he is rewarding the "better scrum" or just deciding who is the "better scrum".

The argument has been made that he's French and the product of a scrummaging culture. I wonder. John Schwalger is back from 2 years at Agen and didn't have a high opinion of French technique. Essentially his view was they produced plenty of string men, but the the technique was poor. If they could get good scrum coaching (his example being Mike Cron) they would be awesome.

by **Biltong** Thu 11 Jul 2013, 2:15 am

I wrote this for another forum, perhaps it will enlightn you why I feel about scrums the way I do.

It is midwinter of 1992 and Edenvale is taking on Germiston Simmers, a tough opponent. A few minutes into the first half and its time for the first scrum. I am looking forward to this, this is where I shine.

Scrum time, made for overweight blokes with short necks and strong backs.

I set up for the first scrum.

First I have to make sure Kobus, my lock (he isn’t the brightest cookie in the cookie jar) hits me under my hip and not my lower back. It seems you need to remind him with a tap to the head every time you get ready that he isn’t tackling or hugging you but getting ready to push.

I ensure I get my bind onto my hooker by pulling his hips tight and get my arm around as far as possible on his shorts to ensure I remain straight.

Then I go down into my prone position – heads up as to stare into my opponents eyes, looking for the first signs of intelligence.

You can tell someone’s intelligence in two ways in my opinion. Tell them a joke and see if they get it, or in this case, see whether the expression is dulled or whether the eyes are awake and alert.

“Not much going on there” I say to myself and wait for my halfback to bring the ball closer.

In my prone position I have my left arm ready for the jab.
It is a technique I have perfected over time. the aim is to hit the inside of the armpit a few inches down, enough to give me the leverage over my opponent. In the same motion I will hit the armpit, swing my elbow out and lock my shoulder perpendicular to the ground.

Then I will transfer my momentum straight forward and up, not that far up to pop him. But to put into practise the lesson my physics teacher taught me many years ago: no matter whether he is stronger than me, I am underneath him and therefore have the advantage.

The shoulder in the locked position keeps me straight and unless the guy is a monster he isn’t going to be able to twist me.

Our hooker gives the tap on my shoulder (the sign for the hit and the feed, in unison we go forward. The halfback has seen the tap on my shoulder and feeds the ball.

It all goes swimmingly.

I hit the spot. In the same motion I level my elbow out and lock my shoulder. GOT HIM.

Now for the next test, see if I can push him. Yep, it works, I have the upper hand.

It isn’t too long and we have another scrum, their feed.

As I get prone to strike and look into his eyes I am disappointed, still nothing there. Oh well, same old same old. It is going to be an easy day in the scrums.

You see, the exciting and sometimes scary thing at scrum time is the ability of the opponent to react and recognise what you did the previous scrum to have control over him.

There is a glimmer of intelligence and he will realise how you beat him. He will now know that the speed of the bind is where I aim to beat him, and if he is intelligent enough and quick enough he can beat me.

Sadly this guy isn’t going to do any of that.

For me, my power lay in how I could use my whole body from my heels through my hips, to my shoulders, all in one straight line and effectively lock up being inflexible and almost impossible to bend or buckle. By having my shoulder locked it was almost near impossible to be turned inward or bent.

The challenge at scrum time is an art. I suspect every prop has his own techniques.

Admittedly I wasn’t a very big prop, only 92 kg’s fighting weight, even in those days smallish for a prop.

But irrespective of the rest of the match, every scrum for me is a challenge, one I have to win.

Although there are eight forwards in the pack, it is a one on one, as fair as you could possibly have in any sporting code.

Him and I. Our technique and our strength will decide each battle.

Sure I like doing the other stuff to, like run straight.

I can’t sidestep a mosquito or run faster than most but I love getting the ball, dropping the shoulder and bashing the hell out of some unsuspecting back.

But it is at the scrum where I shine, it is my playground, employing the art of beating your opponent again and again.

It has little to do with whether I got a penalty awarded to our team, it has little to do with any of the other 14 mates in my team, just me, him and the battle.

by aucklandlaurie Thu 11 Jul 2013, 2:41 am

You must love it when you see a knock-on or a forward pass..

by macscot Thu 11 Jul 2013, 8:26 am

Front rows and scrummaging is all about "black arts in technique" and grunting, sweaty, hairy guys.
The referee can't influence the the last three of those but may, and I repeat, may know something about the the technique with respect to the Laws of the game. However at international level, I'm not sure how many of the senior refs ever played in the front row as all of the actually have necks.
So, it can't be easy for refs (and their assistants) to understand what's actually going on in there. Maybe some are influenced by reputations or experience from previous matches while others call it as they see it in relation to the Laws. I bow to the knowledge & experience of those of you props & hookers and am glad I'm one of the "brylcream boys" who stay we'll away from that dark place.

by SecretFly Thu 11 Jul 2013, 1:46 pm

How about Scrummaging as a sport onto itself - like tug-of-war? No ball just ................. well, whatever Biltong is talking about and more...at the Olympics?

Sometimes I can sense that Biltong is absolutely correct - sometimes forwards get hypnotised by their own personal battles in there and forget it's all about a ball and cold players on the fringes, waiting for them to let them into a game.

by **Biltong** Thu 11 Jul 2013, 1:59 pm

SecretFly wrote:How about Scrummaging as a sport onto itself - like tug-of-war? No ball just ................. well, whatever Biltong is talking about and more...at the Olympics?

Sometimes I can sense that Biltong is absolutely correct - sometimes forwards get hypnotised by their own personal battles in there and forget it's all about a ball and cold players on the fringes, waiting for them to let them into a game.

There is a remedy for this Fly, those colds hands should stop dropping balls. Then there won't be any scrums. Wink

The whole issue for me is Rugby Union has different facets to play, it is different to rugby League which in my view is rather one dimensional at its core.

We used to play the same format during school breaks by having one guy running through a line of defenders, it is the same principal just no ball.

Rugby has Scrums, Line outs, Rucks, Free kicks, Penalties, varied types of defences, rush, drift, you can break it down with various ways whether you chip kick, box kick, grubber, the double back to the half back or flyhalf, the inside runner off the shoulder, the skip pass, the cross kick etc etc etc.

With so many teams all playing the basic fundamentals in a similar manner, the rest is up to each team.

As much as I don't want penalties at scrums to dominate the result of a match, that much I don't want referee interpretations at the breakdown rule match results or any other facet of rugby.

I know I am likely in the minority but Rugby is a game won by the best all round team, in other words use your forwards to dominate the collision, the scrum and the line out. Use your half back pairing to run the plays and control territory and the rest to attack.

Let the game be decided by the best team, not the team getting away with the most, if I want to watch that I'll watch a reality show about conmen.

by gregortree Thu 11 Jul 2013, 4:01 pm

Biltong, nice one
You can tell someone’s intelligence in two ways in my opinion. Tell them a joke and see if they get it, or in this case, see whether the expression is dulled or whether the eyes are awake and alert.
“Not much going on there” I say to myself and wait for my halfback to bring the ball closer.

That made I larff.
On subject of Necks. One of our props didn't have one either.
His name oddly enough was Nick.
His nickname obviously enough was 'Necky'

by **Biltong** Thu 11 Jul 2013, 4:30 pm

Cheers mate. Very Happy

by thebandwagonsociety Fri 12 Jul 2013, 11:08 am

Wow, great to see a sensible discussion about union.

My own two cents on this is that the scrum is a highly important part of union. Making sure that scrums are important and can't be ignored means there needs to be strong, beefy, heavy front rows and powerful (and probably heavier) locks. Having to pay more attention to the scrum set piece means these players need to concentrate more training on strength and that leaves less time/possibility for adding speed. That creates the mismatches in open play between slow forwards and quick backs, creates space, etc.

At the initial level, having proper competition at scrums keeps the backrow engaged in the scrum, that means the backs get the ball to pull first phase moves with that fraction of extra time before the forward cover comes over from the scrum.

At the extreme level, if the scrum is diminished, it could end up turning some more of the tight-5 into more mobile additional flankers. That means more players getting a fraction quicker to breakdowns, means more hands on the ball in rucks which turns that area of the game into even more of an issue.

I also think that, from my point of view, the purpose of rugby is to play to your strengths, minimise your weaknesses and exploit the opponents weaknesses. So if you have a terrible scrum, tough luck. If you can't run a proper lineout, tough luck. If you can't kick your goals or get your back line going or boss the breakdown, again tough luck.

I worry sometimes that union is getting obsessed with trying to change itself in order create some kind of soundbite style highlight for the TV audience. When I'm at a game, the crowd gets load when your team decide to man up and 'stick it up the jumper'. Driving your opponent back 5 metres in a scrum, putting their scrum half under pressure and messing with their planned 1st phase move. I love that! But it isn't TV highlight reel stuff, it isn't the soccer clip - NFL top play.

Don't get me wrong, I do think scrums need to be tweaked. But I want them to become more of a contest. If anything I'd almost suggest having a scrum penalty worth more than 3 points! Shocking I know. But if a scrum penalty was worth more, then teams wouldn't be allowed to just ignore it. They wouldn't be able to just say 'this is an acceptable weakness' for us and we are happy to lose in the scrums in order to have players better prepared for other facets of the game.

by SecretFly Fri 12 Jul 2013, 11:19 am

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I do think scrums need to be tweaked. But I want them to become more of a contest. If anything I'd almost suggest having a scrum penalty worth more than 3 points! Shocking I know. But if a scrum penalty was worth more, then teams wouldn't be allowed to just ignore it. They wouldn't be able to just say 'this is an acceptable weakness' for us and we are happy to lose in the scrums in order to have players better prepared for other facets of the game.

Some days you just can't bluff it. Some days you just can't find enough good scrummagers to put in your team. You want sides like that to just hoist a white flag before the game starts?

by **Biltong** Fri 12 Jul 2013, 12:06 pm

Bandwagon wrote:Wow, great to see a sensible discussion about union.

My own two cents on this is that the scrum is a highly important part of union. Making sure that scrums are important and can't be ignored means there needs to be strong, beefy, heavy front rows and powerful (and probably heavier) locks. Having to pay more attention to the scrum set piece means these players need to concentrate more training on strength and that leaves less time/possibility for adding speed. That creates the mismatches in open play between slow forwards and quick backs, creates space, etc.

At the initial level, having proper competition at scrums keeps the backrow engaged in the scrum, that means the backs get the ball to pull first phase moves with that fraction of extra time before the forward cover comes over from the scrum.

At the extreme level, if the scrum is diminished, it could end up turning some more of the tight-5 into more mobile additional flankers. That means more players getting a fraction quicker to breakdowns, means more hands on the ball in rucks which turns that area of the game into even more of an issue.

I also think that, from my point of view, the purpose of rugby is to play to your strengths, minimise your weaknesses and exploit the opponents weaknesses. So if you have a terrible scrum, tough luck. If you can't run a proper lineout, tough luck. If you can't kick your goals or get your back line going or boss the breakdown, again tough luck.

I worry sometimes that union is getting obsessed with trying to change itself in order create some kind of soundbite style highlight for the TV audience. When I'm at a game, the crowd gets load when your team decide to man up and 'stick it up the jumper'. Driving your opponent back 5 metres in a scrum, putting their scrum half under pressure and messing with their planned 1st phase move. I love that! But it isn't TV highlight reel stuff, it isn't the soccer clip - NFL top play.

Good post agree with all that.

Bandwagon wrote:Don't get me wrong, I do think scrums need to be tweaked. But I want them to become more of a contest. If anything I'd almost suggest having a scrum penalty worth more than 3 points! Shocking I know. But if a scrum penalty was worth more, then teams wouldn't be allowed to just ignore it. They wouldn't be able to just say 'this is an acceptable weakness' for us and we are happy to lose in the scrums in order to have players better prepared for other facets of the game.

Disagree with this, rugby is about winning contests as you say above, each and everyone of those contests are part and parcel of the collective to dominate an opponent and this will allow you to beat you opponent, I am all for that and beleive each and everyone of those facets make rugby union unique and intriguing, however not one of those facets of play are worth 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 or more points per match, it is a loop hole that takes away from the contest as a hole.

As I have suggested earlier in the thread, gain advantage from a scrum, but if you win a match ourely based on one aspect of rugby, then it means rugby is failing miserably.

by thebandwagonsociety Fri 12 Jul 2013, 1:31 pm

SecretFly wrote:
thebandwagonsociety wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I do think scrums need to be tweaked. But I want them to become more of a contest. If anything I'd almost suggest having a scrum penalty worth more than 3 points! Shocking I know. But if a scrum penalty was worth more, then teams wouldn't be allowed to just ignore it. They wouldn't be able to just say 'this is an acceptable weakness' for us and we are happy to lose in the scrums in order to have players better prepared for other facets of the game.

Some days you just can't bluff it. Some days you just can't find enough good scrummagers to put in your team. You want sides like that to just hoist a white flag before the game starts?

I wouldn't say hoist the white flag. But I reckon if the scrum was given proper respect and attention then clubs and academys would be producing better quality front rows and more of them. There is almost an acceptance sometimes (and too easy an acceptance) that joe blogg is a class front row because he is great in the loose but in the same breathe people will say that they are weak in the scrum.

I suppose my fear is that the scrum will eventually be neutered because teams will decide they don't want to invest the time/money/resources into producing props and instead will look to change the rules.

by thebandwagonsociety Fri 12 Jul 2013, 2:09 pm

Biltong wrote:
Bandwagon wrote:Wow, great to see a sensible discussion about union.

My own two cents on this is that the scrum is a highly important part of union. Making sure that scrums are important and can't be ignored means there needs to be strong, beefy, heavy front rows and powerful (and probably heavier) locks. Having to pay more attention to the scrum set piece means these players need to concentrate more training on strength and that leaves less time/possibility for adding speed. That creates the mismatches in open play between slow forwards and quick backs, creates space, etc.

At the initial level, having proper competition at scrums keeps the backrow engaged in the scrum, that means the backs get the ball to pull first phase moves with that fraction of extra time before the forward cover comes over from the scrum.

At the extreme level, if the scrum is diminished, it could end up turning some more of the tight-5 into more mobile additional flankers. That means more players getting a fraction quicker to breakdowns, means more hands on the ball in rucks which turns that area of the game into even more of an issue.

I also think that, from my point of view, the purpose of rugby is to play to your strengths, minimise your weaknesses and exploit the opponents weaknesses. So if you have a terrible scrum, tough luck. If you can't run a proper lineout, tough luck. If you can't kick your goals or get your back line going or boss the breakdown, again tough luck.

I worry sometimes that union is getting obsessed with trying to change itself in order create some kind of soundbite style highlight for the TV audience. When I'm at a game, the crowd gets load when your team decide to man up and 'stick it up the jumper'. Driving your opponent back 5 metres in a scrum, putting their scrum half under pressure and messing with their planned 1st phase move. I love that! But it isn't TV highlight reel stuff, it isn't the soccer clip - NFL top play.

Good post agree with all that.

Bandwagon wrote:Don't get me wrong, I do think scrums need to be tweaked. But I want them to become more of a contest. If anything I'd almost suggest having a scrum penalty worth more than 3 points! Shocking I know. But if a scrum penalty was worth more, then teams wouldn't be allowed to just ignore it. They wouldn't be able to just say 'this is an acceptable weakness' for us and we are happy to lose in the scrums in order to have players better prepared for other facets of the game.

Disagree with this, rugby is about winning contests as you say above, each and everyone of those contests are part and parcel of the collective to dominate an opponent and this will allow you to beat you opponent, I am all for that and beleive each and everyone of those facets make rugby union unique and intriguing, however not one of those facets of play are worth 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 or more points per match, it is a loop hole that takes away from the contest as a hole.

As I have suggested earlier in the thread, gain advantage from a scrum, but if you win a match ourely based on one aspect of rugby, then it means rugby is failing miserably.

I see where you're coming from. But I'd use the same argument you made as a reason why scrums should stay the same as other facets of the game and not be diminished either.

At the minute though there is an effort to try by the great unknown to split scrums away from being a key facet of the game and to try and diminish their importance in the game.

I don't think rugby fails if a team wins purely on one aspect of the game. It is all about balance. If a team has set their tight-5 up to be big powerful and technical in the scrum then that means they should have slower players in the defensive line. A more expansive mobile game will wear those players out during the game. That means there is a weakness and something for the poor scrummaging team to exploit. If they don't manage to do so, because they don't have the handling skills and knock the ball on, resulting in scrums or even through ineptness then fine.

by **Biltong** Fri 12 Jul 2013, 2:15 pm

thebandwagonsociety wrote:
Biltong wrote:
Bandwagon wrote:Wow, great to see a sensible discussion about union.

My own two cents on this is that the scrum is a highly important part of union. Making sure that scrums are important and can't be ignored means there needs to be strong, beefy, heavy front rows and powerful (and probably heavier) locks. Having to pay more attention to the scrum set piece means these players need to concentrate more training on strength and that leaves less time/possibility for adding speed. That creates the mismatches in open play between slow forwards and quick backs, creates space, etc.

At the initial level, having proper competition at scrums keeps the backrow engaged in the scrum, that means the backs get the ball to pull first phase moves with that fraction of extra time before the forward cover comes over from the scrum.

At the extreme level, if the scrum is diminished, it could end up turning some more of the tight-5 into more mobile additional flankers. That means more players getting a fraction quicker to breakdowns, means more hands on the ball in rucks which turns that area of the game into even more of an issue.

I also think that, from my point of view, the purpose of rugby is to play to your strengths, minimise your weaknesses and exploit the opponents weaknesses. So if you have a terrible scrum, tough luck. If you can't run a proper lineout, tough luck. If you can't kick your goals or get your back line going or boss the breakdown, again tough luck.

I worry sometimes that union is getting obsessed with trying to change itself in order create some kind of soundbite style highlight for the TV audience. When I'm at a game, the crowd gets load when your team decide to man up and 'stick it up the jumper'. Driving your opponent back 5 metres in a scrum, putting their scrum half under pressure and messing with their planned 1st phase move. I love that! But it isn't TV highlight reel stuff, it isn't the soccer clip - NFL top play.

Good post agree with all that.

Bandwagon wrote:Don't get me wrong, I do think scrums need to be tweaked. But I want them to become more of a contest. If anything I'd almost suggest having a scrum penalty worth more than 3 points! Shocking I know. But if a scrum penalty was worth more, then teams wouldn't be allowed to just ignore it. They wouldn't be able to just say 'this is an acceptable weakness' for us and we are happy to lose in the scrums in order to have players better prepared for other facets of the game.

Disagree with this, rugby is about winning contests as you say above, each and everyone of those contests are part and parcel of the collective to dominate an opponent and this will allow you to beat you opponent, I am all for that and beleive each and everyone of those facets make rugby union unique and intriguing, however not one of those facets of play are worth 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 or more points per match, it is a loop hole that takes away from the contest as a hole.

As I have suggested earlier in the thread, gain advantage from a scrum, but if you win a match ourely based on one aspect of rugby, then it means rugby is failing miserably.

I see where you're coming from. But I'd use the same argument you made as a reason why scrums should stay the same as other facets of the game and not be diminished either.

At the minute though there is an effort to try by the great unknown to split scrums away from being a key facet of the game and to try and diminish their importance in the game.

I don't think rugby fails if a team wins purely on one aspect of the game. It is all about balance. If a team has set their tight-5 up to be big powerful and technical in the scrum then that means they should have slower players in the defensive line. A more expansive mobile game will wear those players out during the game. That means there is a weakness and something for the poor scrummaging team to exploit. If they don't manage to do so, because they don't have the handling skills and knock the ball on, resulting in scrums or even through ineptness then fine.

I fully agree with you the Scrum must not be diminished in any way. The problem I have with scrums delivering penalty after penalty is that these calls are at best a guess, or should I say educated guess.

As a Prop I can see when a player is being Physically dominated or when he is tactically illegally being dominated, and even then I am not always sure, so what bugs me is the fact that referees make decisions based on what they see and not what they don't see. Which means they go for what they deem is obvious, yet it doesn't work like that.

by Brendan Fri 12 Jul 2013, 4:17 pm

The issue i have is the card for being against a better player. There are a fair few FH/SH who would be yellowed in games if that were the case.

Italy is someone who does not get benifit from a strong scrum over the years. Against Aus in the last AIs comes to mind. It seems stupid that gaining from the scrum can depend on your kicker.

The other issue i have is the other team knocks on and then gets a kick at goal. Where is my advantage.

I like the idea of having to tap or kick to touch unless the scrum is in the 22.

On the lions there was alot of over the top hype when in the first two test the lions were all huff and apart from two individual tries did nothing.
Aus will do poor in the RC. If they had had pollock not sure lions would have been in the series for game 3.

AIs and RC will tell us more about how good/ok/bad this Aus team are.

by **Biltong** Fri 12 Jul 2013, 4:43 pm

Agree Brendan, it doesn't make sense

by thebandwagonsociety Fri 12 Jul 2013, 5:40 pm

The advantage thing is interesting.

I think that there should be the option for the team with the advantage to chose to a certain degree.

When a ref calls advantage, that team should be able to communicate to the ref whether they want to take the advantage.

For example when a ball goes forward and then out of play, often the ref just takes it straight back to a scrum for the knock on, but the team should be able chose to take the lineout or go back for the advantage.

Equally I'd like when a team loses the ball forward that the side with advantage and in possession should be able to chose to play on and not have the ref call it back.

I must say it's great to have a chat about rugby and not have lions/wales/no-scots/henson/SHvNH/HCrules creep through.

by **Biltong** Fri 12 Jul 2013, 6:02 pm

Agree Bandwagon, some interesting discussion here.

The advantage rule in itself is rather interesting as there isn't a hard and fast rule, every referee effectively decides how much or how little advantage he allows.

Usually the knock on advantage is over if the other team decides to kick, even if immediately.

Sometimes it amazes me how much advantage is played for a penalty as well.

Often you find a player being offside at a ruck (specifically a slow ruck where it is due to the halfback taking his time) but after a warning from the referee retreats, yet the defences were set already but the referee will allow play to go on for quite some time until he decides there has been no advantage.

Getting back to the scrum advantage.

There is a ruling if the knock on affects the ball into touch the team getting the benefit can choose whether they want a line out or a scrum. And I think there should be a benefit for a team with a weak scrum to choose a line out if they know their scrum will not orovide them any benefit.

The strong scrummaging team will obviously choose the scrum every time.

I have seen many games where a struggling scrum nrings no advantage for a team getting a scrum in their redzone, where due to technique, power or getting away with some illegal stuff costs the team supposed to get the benefit points.

Think about it this way, my team has a powerful scrum, because as captain I know your scrum is weak and I can maipulate it, I can now go play reckless rugby in your zone as my poor handling will actually provide me a great opportunity to score three points as the referee has already shown his tendencies to penalise you team.

That does not make sense to me, if my team has poor handling skills and it means we struggle to score tries, we use our poor skills to take advantage of what is supposed to be your benefit to score points just because your scrum is weak.

by Brendan Sat 13 Jul 2013, 1:17 am

As has been stated the great thing about rugby union is all the different aspects of the game that adds to it

by Glas a du Sat 13 Jul 2013, 7:44 am

What do I think? I think Darling should ask whether an Independent Scotland could still be part of the Lions NOT that they get a fair crack of the whip anyhoo... Very Happy

Seriously though:
A. We were up against the 3rd rated SH team who had significant players out injured. We should have won all the Tests.
underestimate Australia at your peril. They beat New Zealand against the odds. Pete KiwiRD said that if the All Blacks landed up with our possession and territory stats from the 2nd test they would have expected a hammering

B. We had to play a so called "warm up match" in Hong Kong that brought nothing to the Tour or player selection.
he who pays the piper calls the tune to be butchered

C. Injuries did affect potential test player partnership selections. More pressure on non-injured players - part of touring.
yes

C. A number of players were played out of their normal positions which may have affected their chances of being in the Test 23.
yes, but that's in your eyes not his.

D. Bringing in a number of players, originally not selected, for less that two matches devalues the Lions jersey.
possibly, but in 16 years time who will remember apart from Question of Sport quiz masters. It also kept the core squad from silly injuries. You know like Irish provinces do.

E. The managements statement of "players will be selected on form" was adhered to on an ad hoc basis. Not consistent.
even if its not true you have to make the players believe its true before the tour to incentivise them

F. The treatment of Ryan Grant in the 2nd test when Mako was dead on his feet and not contributing to the match was poor management.
of Grant, but not generally. They didn't know if Corbisiero would be fit and needed to give MV a confidence boost, or at least avoid wrecking it just to be inclusive.

G. It took until the 3rd Test to finally get selection right, we should have won the series by the end of the 2nd Test.
that's Graham Rowndtree for you.

H. Leigh Halfpenny was definitely the star of the series and deserves all the accolades he has accumulated.
yes

I. The players seemed to gel well as a squad and behaved professionally throughout. Respect to them.
as far as we know so far. I don't think we've heard the last about Phillips especially and dare I say it St. Brian of Blackrock's reaction to the second test...

by RubyGuby Sat 13 Jul 2013, 9:07 pm

There's nothing cold about the light of day at the moment - Just thought I'd clarify

by **Biltong** Sat 13 Jul 2013, 10:33 pm

You should come to Johannesburg. Wink

by RubyGuby Sat 13 Jul 2013, 11:00 pm

Biltong wrote:You should come to Johannesburg.

Played there; won't be back thumbsup

by macscot Sun 14 Jul 2013, 3:29 pm

What do I think? I think Darling should ask whether an Independent Scotland could still be part of the Lions NOT that they get a fair crack of the whip anyhoo...
M: Ouch, that whip lash hurt

Seriously though:
A. We were up against the 3rd rated SH team who had significant players out injured. We should have won all the Tests.
underestimate Australia at your peril. They beat New Zealand against the odds. Pete KiwiRD said that if the All Blacks landed up with our possession and territory stats from the 2nd test they would have expected a hammering
M: Yes, agreed, but that was with more of their unfit players available

B. We had to play a so called "warm up match" in Hong Kong that brought nothing to the Tour or player selection.
he who pays the piper calls the tune to be butchered
M: mmmmmmm!

C. Injuries did affect potential test player partnership selections. More pressure on non-injured players - part of touring.
yes

C. A number of players were played out of their normal positions which may have affected their chances of being in the Test 23.
yes, but that's in your eyes not his.
M: Ok, but goes against his opening gambit of "all players will have a level playing field from which to push for a test place"

D. Bringing in a number of players, originally not selected, for less that two matches devalues the Lions jersey.
possibly, but in 16 years time who will remember apart from Question of Sport quiz masters. It also kept the core squad from silly injuries. You know like Irish provinces do.
M: Still devalues the jersey in my opinion!

E. The managements statement of "players will be selected on form" was adhered to on an ad hoc basis. Not consistent.
even if its not true you have to make the players believe its true before the tour to incentivise them
M: Agreed, helps if Rountree was told that too.

F. The treatment of Ryan Grant in the 2nd test when Mako was dead on his feet and not contributing to the match was poor management.
of Grant, but not generally. They didn't know if Corbisiero would be fit and needed to give MV a confidence boost, or at least avoid wrecking it just to be inclusive.
M: Don't think MV needed a confidence boost - he just needed an oxygen tank to keep him going for last qtr of the match or they could have put Grant on.

G. It took until the 3rd Test to finally get selection right, we should have won the series by the end of the 2nd Test.
that's Graham Rowndtree for you.
M: Totally, totally agree, Rountree - good coach from all I here but poor poor selector (unless you're well known to him) Didn't see him or any other of the coaches up in Scotland for any of the Warriors matches, same in Edinburgh I believe. Poor show!

H. Leigh Halfpenny was definitely the star of the series and deserves all the accolades he has accumulated.
yes

I. The players seemed to gel well as a squad and behaved professionally throughout. Respect to them.
as far as we know so far. I don't think we've heard the last about Phillips especially and dare I say it St. Brian of Blackrock's reaction to the second test...
M: The truth will out....!

by Sponsored content