Hookers missing the hook !

New to the forum so please be nice to me on my first post !

The new scrummaging laws have unintentionally added some new entertainment value for me to scrums which were becoming tedious ; hookers missing the strike or not being able to get their foot off the ground to hook because of the weight coming through. Seen a few games where the ball has sat patiently on the floor waiting for one of the two hookers to actually hook it. of course, there's a whole generation of hookers not used to striking. Have been wondering what would happen if neither of them could actually strike the ball and it just sat there endlessly............

Also, been watching rugby 30 plus years now - does the rule about out ' foot up ' still apply to hookers ? Remember that from the dim and distant past. anyone ?

Its amused me as well apart from when is Ross Ford doing it :-)

Welcome to these boards, Bluedragon.
 
Can I go out on a limb and guess that you may be a Cardiff Blues fan?
 
I have long assumed that the new rules requiring scrum stability before the put in are entirely to allow the hookers to raise their foot and so there shouldn't be any reason to miss the strike. That said, I've already seen the ball roll straight through the channel and out of the other side of the scrum this season.

Tom Youngs did say it was a steep learning curve for him once the season started. He was a converted centre so had never actually had to hook back a ball in hos life before this season. I'm guessing It's similar elsewhere as well.

Thankfully Youngs has adapted fairly quickly. Having been playing hooker for only 4 years he probably had less of a habit to break.

Welcome Bluedragon!

I think teams with a heavy strong scrum may still not need to hook the ball and I believe I read somewhere that was Tigers philosophy (I may be corrected on that!).
As these teams will just be able to 'walk' over the ball as they will generally have got the nudge on.

Other lighter scrums will need to hook the ball (traditionally) to get the ball out of the scrum ASAP.

Of course if your scrum is going forwards, depending on the circumstances it maybe that the team keeps it in to milk a penalty.

I still don't think I have seen a top pro game where you have seen a genuine battle of 2 hookers trying to get the ball back with a hook but that may be down to the difference between scrums played at a higher level.

Welcome Bd!
Of course, there is a commonly held myth that there are any new scrummaging laws.

The new interpretations are similar to the old ones with the exception that the engagement is effectively reduced by about 75% whereas in the 'good old days' there wasn't a hit to speak of. Just watch the classic Baa-Baas v NZ game of '73(?) for an easy guide.

In those days the front rows employed different ways of cheating to gain an advantage - like twisting and lowering and forcing opposing hookers into un-hookable posititions by application of pressure to drive him down on the hooking leg or by driving the loose head prop down such that the hooker couldn't be effective as he either couldn't see the ball or to strike for it would be dangerous. In those amateur days, there was was an oft-heard comment in the front five "Come on lads, we've all got work on Monday".

There never was a requirement for the hooker to hook as if one scrum was dominant, either pack could use an eight-man shove to gain possession.

Foot up was always a problem and I've seen a few of those this season although these days at the top level no scrum can afford the hooker to effectively swing (i.e not take his weight and dangle his legs much nearer the feed than was allowed) like his RL counterpart.

Props in the old days were required to bring their outside foot on the feed side to prevent the ball re-emerging from that side until the ball was hooked.

The whole dynamics of the front five are now seemingly different.

And refs still are not prepared to consistently enforce a stable and square scrum nor a straight feed down the middle if the tunnel.

straight feed down the middle if the tunnel.

I disagree here, there may be a few misses, but I have seen short arm, and long arm penalties given for the crooked feed, even a yellow card to a 9 who just kept rolling it to his locks (French guy I think can't remember the name or game)

Ref's are doing a great job of enforcing the straight feed, in comparison to last seasons rolling it to the 8's feet.

best hookers have little legs, back in the day when i played i could always steal oppostion ball with mi wee stumps, guys like tom lindsay are going to have to be flexible as sin, but TBH the scrummies still feed the crap out of it so no issue, worst comes to the worst neil back will hand it back to you !

butterfingers wrote:straight feed down the middle if the tunnel.

I disagree here, there may be a few misses, but I have seen short arm, and long arm penalties given for the crooked feed, even a yellow card to a 9 who just kept rolling it to his locks (French guy I think can't remember the name or game)

Ref's are doing a great job of enforcing the straight feed, in comparison to last seasons rolling it to the 8's feet.

French guy who got the sinbin was he Castres 9 against Leinster in the recent HC game in the RDS. He was a idiot, warned about three times by ref for feeding ball into his on second row before finally getting the card.

brennomac wrote:

butterfingers wrote:straight feed down the middle if the tunnel.

I disagree here, there may be a few misses, but I have seen short arm, and long arm penalties given for the crooked feed, even a yellow card to a 9 who just kept rolling it to his locks (French guy I think can't remember the name or game)

Ref's are doing a great job of enforcing the straight feed, in comparison to last seasons rolling it to the 8's feet.

French guy who got the sinbin was he Castres 9 against Leinster in the recent HC game in the RDS.  He was a idiot, warned about three times by ref for feeding ball into his on second row before finally getting the card.

He had a very curious technique.  He would feed the ball in straight, but it had so much spin on it that as soon as it hit the grass it would roll back between the hooker and LH. So the direction of ball and his arm movements into the scrum were perfect, but the ref would be a half second to bend down and look in at the ball, by which time the spin had the ball moving past the locks.  It was such a prepared move that he must have gotten it cleared as okay in the Top14 and just couldn't understand how it was being pinged as not straight.

Scrummies putting spin on the ball is not new. They have (legally) to feed the ball holding the long axis. It's easy to spin the left hand and in the counter rotation with the right.

Try it. You too could pass as Shane Warne reincarnate.

An old trick.

Thanks everyone.

And yes, I do follow Cardiff Blues, but live in the Dragons region. But follow all rugby.

was also just pondering what hookers used to do when wingers threw the ball into the lineout. Bit before my time. Did they just hang about on the blindside ?

Still hoping to see packs shoving away but not moving and a ball stood untouched between 2 hookers......

The non-throwing hookers generally used to stand just inside the 5m line slightly outside the front of the line-out.

If the could get away with it, both hookers would make a quick assessment as to who would win the ball (unassisted jumpers) and run like buggery without consideration of the offside law to support/spoil the winning team's ball.

Thank you portney. I see you are from a generation that saw non throwing hookers. Why did it change ? who changed first ? I am guessing NZ ?