Adam Jones on propping today: "technique has gone out of the window a bit"

Adam Jones is a very likeable player, who usually gives very honest interviews. The Telegraph has one today where he says a few words about how the scrum changes have affected him:

“If you look at the props who have played over the past 10 years, they are in a similar boat – people like [Martin] Castrogiovanni, [Carl] Hayman, [Nicolas] Mas – none of those guys have been as dominant as they have been over the past decade or so,” he said. “It is a different way of doing things that we are getting used to.

“There’s never consistency. I have never played a game where referees have wanted the same thing every week. A technically good prop now is not as important as a really strong prop. If someone is really good in the gym then they might get away with not being technically great. Technique has gone out of the window a bit, which I feel is a shame.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/wales/11356049/Wales-Adam-Jones-desperate-for-another-chance-after-day-of-humiliation.html

I have no idea whether he can be a force again in international rugby but there can't be many who would begrudge him finding some form again.

any changes in the rules which lead to less collapsed scrum, less resets, and less random penalties from scrum are a positive development. And the elimination of the "hit" has clearly improved things. The "hit" was the moment of maximum confusion for refs and the moment of maximum exploitation of the dark arts.

Sorry Adam Jones, but most people view the reduction of scrum time, scrum resets, and scrum penalties as a positive. I played hooker for 10 years and the scrum at professional level bore absolutely no resemblance to the fair contest and means of restarting the game, that i grew up with.

I really like Adam Jones too. But the scrum is undoubtedly one of the weakest elements of modern rugby. Eliminating the hit at least gives a chance for the ref to identify which team is under pressure once the ball goes in!

Decent bloke & seems a real character.
But taking the hit away and now having to bind properly took away a lot of some props advantages.
Successful modern day props have to be a lot more mobile than Adam currently is to.

His driving technique could do with some work too.

Biggest issue now is teams going out and just looking for pens. If refs were more insistent with their use it call we'd get a lot more quick ball and less resets, instead refs feel they have to penalise a team for something if they go backwards, even if the other team are cheating too. Going backwards in the scrum isn't illegal, but refs seem to think it should be a penalty.

Owens on Sat was far better/inconsistent/annoying Quins had multiple scrums in the Wasps 22 where we drove through them and pushed them apart, no pens though just a use it call from the ref. At the time I was irate as that's never been the case this season, but in hindsight I like that call, just as long as other refs do it too! Consistency is needed.

He needs to spend more time on his technique and less time speeding in his car.

Gwlad wrote:His driving technique could do with some work too.

The modern day scrums with crooked feeds etc are ruining the game.

Allty wrote:The modern day scrums with crooked feeds etc are ruining the game.  

nothing modern about the crooked feeds!

yappysnap wrote:Biggest issue now is teams going out and just looking for pens. If refs were more insistent with their use it call we'd get a lot more quick ball and less resets, instead refs feel they have to penalise a team for something if they go backwards, even if the other team are cheating too. Going backwards in the scrum isn't illegal, but refs seem to think it should be a penalty.

Owens on Sat was far better/inconsistent/annoying Quins had multiple scrums in the Wasps 22 where we drove through them and pushed them apart, no pens though just a use it call from the ref. At the time I was irate as that's never been the case this season, but in hindsight I like that call, just as long as other refs do it too! Consistency is needed.

Owens creating new laws, as I thought the "use it" applied only to rucks and mauls ? Or have they introduced a time limit to scrums too now? Cannot see anything in the law book to suggest this though.

A lot of the time a scrum that is going back quickly sees a number of players disengage - that is a penalty offence that I rarely see given - and in fact far too often those players are allowed to disrupt the ball.

quinsforever wrote:any changes in the rules which lead to less collapsed scrum, less resets, and less random penalties from scrum are a positive development. And the elimination of the "hit" has clearly improved things. The "hit" was the moment of maximum confusion for refs and the moment of maximum exploitation of the dark arts.

Sorry Adam Jones, but most people view the reduction of scrum time, scrum resets, and scrum penalties as a positive. I played hooker for 10 years and the scrum at professional level bore absolutely no resemblance to the fair contest and means of restarting the game, that i grew up with.

I really like Adam Jones too. But the scrum is undoubtedly one of the weakest elements of modern rugby. Eliminating the hit at least gives a chance for the ref to identify which team is under pressure once the ball goes in!

Quins, I knew you and I had something in common, I also played hooker, the hit part taken out did initially improve the number of scrums (less), that this season has gone out of the window, there are just as many infringements now as when the hit was employed, did you not see our match on Sunday, when the Ref totally got wrong the interpretations of a wheeled scrum at least 3 times.

From what I've seen the main issue seems to be refs not really understanding the new interpretation. So many still seem to treat the set as a hit, and there was that weird thing early on where a bunch of them seemed to think they were supposed to be pushing the scrumhalf to put the ball in.

LondonTiger wrote:

yappysnap wrote:Biggest issue now is teams going out and just looking for pens. If refs were more insistent with their use it call we'd get a lot more quick ball and less resets, instead refs feel they have to penalise a team for something if they go backwards, even if the other team are cheating too. Going backwards in the scrum isn't illegal, but refs seem to think it should be a penalty.

Owens on Sat was far better/inconsistent/annoying Quins had multiple scrums in the Wasps 22 where we drove through them and pushed them apart, no pens though just a use it call from the ref. At the time I was irate as that's never been the case this season, but in hindsight I like that call, just as long as other refs do it too! Consistency is needed.

Owens creating new laws, as I thought the "use it" applied only to rucks and mauls ? Or have they introduced a time limit to scrums too now? Cannot see anything in the law book to suggest this though.

A lot of the time a scrum that is going back quickly sees a number of players disengage - that is a penalty offence that I rarely see given - and in fact far too often those players are allowed to disrupt the ball.

I've heard a few different refs say use it in the Pro12.

The scrums are still bad, especially in Pro12. They seem a bit more strict in the premiership.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

yappysnap wrote:Biggest issue now is teams going out and just looking for pens. If refs were more insistent with their use it call we'd get a lot more quick ball and less resets, instead refs feel they have to penalise a team for something if they go backwards, even if the other team are cheating too. Going backwards in the scrum isn't illegal, but refs seem to think it should be a penalty.

Owens on Sat was far better/inconsistent/annoying Quins had multiple scrums in the Wasps 22 where we drove through them and pushed them apart, no pens though just a use it call from the ref. At the time I was irate as that's never been the case this season, but in hindsight I like that call, just as long as other refs do it too! Consistency is needed.

Owens creating new laws, as I thought the "use it" applied only to rucks and mauls ? Or have they introduced a time limit to scrums too now? Cannot see anything in the law book to suggest this though.

A lot of the time a scrum that is going back quickly sees a number of players disengage - that is a penalty offence that I rarely see given - and in fact far too often those players are allowed to disrupt the ball.

I've heard a few different refs say use it in the Pro12.

i heard it used in the northamption/ospreys game at the weekend

scrums should be penalised with free kicks most places on the field, and penalty tries if defending scrum repeatedly deliberately collapses when the scrum is 5 metres out.

penalties should only be awarded against backrowers who break their binds before the ball is out.

will mean teams use the ball far more often, as the advantage of conning a penalty is much reduced.

Having been a prop for a number of years I would like to say how wrong Adam Jones is.

Technical scrummagers now have the advantage whereas those with brute power from the hit specifically are now at a disadvantage.

The binding now forces props to jostle for leverage in a fairer way rather than relying on a massive hit generated from the Locks as much as the front row.

Strength is a factor but I would say less so now. I'll use a Scottish example here to illustrate my point. Guys like Ali Dickinson (never renowned as a powerful scrummager) has in recent times gotten the better of the likes of Euan Murray who was/is a bit of a monster of a man.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Having been a prop for a number of years I would like to say how wrong Adam Jones is.

The words of a wise man/pro player who has been on Lions tours vs your opinion. Hmmmmmm.

The Saint wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Having been a prop for a number of years I would like to say how wrong Adam Jones is.

The words of a wise man/pro player who has been on Lions tours vs your opinion. Hmmmmmm.

People at the top aren't immune from being wrong

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Having been a prop for a number of years I would like to say how wrong Adam Jones is.

Technical scrummagers now have the advantage whereas those with brute power from the hit specifically are now at a disadvantage.

The binding now forces props to jostle for leverage in a fairer way rather than relying on a massive hit generated from the Locks as much as the front row.

Strength is a factor but I would say less so now. I'll use a Scottish example here to illustrate my point. Guys like Ali Dickinson (never renowned as a powerful scrummager) has in recent times gotten the better of the likes of Euan Murray who was/is a bit of a monster of a man.

I definitely agree with this. The slightly smaller props who have good technique are now getting the better of the big beasts like Adam Jones, Euan Murray etc. For the past few years Props were all about size and power and trying to out power their opposition prop but not there is a good bit of technique involved so would definitely disagree with Adam Jones on this.

Gwlad wrote:His driving technique could do with some work too.

Lol.

Whose been a naughty boy then.

I agree too, it stands to reason that under the old engagement the heavier and more physically strong props would have an advantage straight away over the smaller more technically gifted ones. Once they had won the initial 'hit' it would be very difficult for the smaller man to come back at them.

I still remember the best example of technique vs size - Tom Smith

Tiny but one of the best

I always find it amusing (and annoying) when a team has an attacking scrum on the 22. The backs line up in a really interesting way and the commentators start talking about all the different lines and decoys that will be used. The scrum collapses a couple of times, a penalty gets awarded and we never get to see the set move

Watch Rugby league then!

Scrums are part of our game and always will be.

nathan wrote:

The Saint wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Having been a prop for a number of years I would like to say how wrong Adam Jones is.

The words of a wise man/pro player who has been on Lions tours vs your opinion. Hmmmmmm.

People at the top aren't immune from being wrong

Yeah, but Keith Wood is yet to apologise (Lions, 2013). So bitter.

Good to see Stuart Barnes was spot on though about Warburton's injury being a blessing in disguise.

What Jones refers to as 'technique' may well be different to what other people refer to it as. Taking advantage of the hit to put your opposition in trouble (largely by cheating) is a technique. Now that's taken out that 'technical skill' doesn't work so they get pushed back by the 'strong' ones. But these stronger props might well be better able to use their strength because of their 'technical' application (largely through cheating).

HammerofThunor wrote:What Jones refers to as 'technique' may well be different to what other people refer to it as. Taking advantage of the hit to put your opposition in trouble (largely by cheating) is a technique. Now that's taken out that 'technical skill' doesn't work so they get pushed back by the 'strong' ones. But these stronger props might well be better able to use their strength because of their 'technical' application (largely through cheating).

Tomato, tomato (ok yeah that doesn't work in typing but you know what I means).

TightHEAD wrote:Watch Rugby league then!

Scrums are part of our game and always will be.

Scrums are great if they do whats intended, resetting play.

Nobody except retired props want to see collapse after collapse with the odd chance their team might get a penalty.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:What Jones refers to as 'technique' may well be different to what other people refer to it as. Taking advantage of the hit to put your opposition in trouble (largely by cheating) is a technique. Now that's taken out that 'technical skill' doesn't work so they get pushed back by the 'strong' ones. But these stronger props might well be better able to use their strength because of their 'technical' application (largely through cheating).

Tomato, tomato (ok yeah that doesn't work in typing but you know what I means).

Yeah, that's my point. People can say he's wrong, the more technical props come to the fore now...but they might be talking about differen techniques. Doesn't make him wrong...just biased to his technique.

HammerofThunor wrote:What Jones refers to as 'technique' may well be different to what other people refer to it as. Taking advantage of the hit to put your opposition in trouble (largely by cheating) is a technique. Now that's taken out that 'technical skill' doesn't work so they get pushed back by the 'strong' ones. But these stronger props might well be better able to use their strength because of their 'technical' application (largely through cheating).

I'd agree. I also took him to mean, though, that he isn't sure what new techniques to put in practice, because referees aren't consistent about what they want to see. Jones thinks Hayman has been less effective, but he's certainly not just a technique prop, because he has strength in abundance.

Without doubt. We see loosehead out at 45° right at the beginning of the scrum. Sometimes it's a penalty. Sometimes not. You see teams driving upward (actually illegal), I think this happened for Bath towards the end. They seemed to be going at about 20° maybe. Should Bath be penalised? Or that ok and it was right to penalise Toulouse? I don't know, and I don't think the refs do either.

IronMike wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Watch Rugby league then!

Scrums are part of our game and always will be.

Scrums are great if they do whats intended, resetting play.

Nobody except retired props want to see collapse after collapse with the odd chance their team might get a penalty.

I have to disagree. When Bath twice shoved Toulouse off the ball to win penalties against the head on their own 5m line last week-end I suspect their fans will have been delighted that play hadn't restarted

It's a tricky one though, and I agree with your principle. No one wants to see endless resets. Equally though, scrum dominance needs to be rewarded, so I'm not in favour of just giving free-kicks. I still feel things have been much better under the current regs, but then again I mostly watch Aviva Prem whereas apparently things are a bit worse in the Pro 12...

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

IronMike wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Watch Rugby league then!

Scrums are part of our game and always will be.

Scrums are great if they do whats intended, resetting play.

Nobody except retired props want to see collapse after collapse with the odd chance their team might get a penalty.

I have to disagree. When Bath twice shoved Toulouse off the ball to win penalties against the head on their own 5m line last week-end I suspect their fans will have been delighted that play hadn't restarted

It's a tricky one though, and I agree with your principle. No one wants to see endless resets. Equally though, scrum dominance needs to be rewarded, so I'm not in favour of just giving free-kicks. I still feel things have been much better under the current regs, but then again I mostly watch Aviva Prem whereas apparently things are a bit worse in the Pro 12...

Scrum dominance should be rewarded with quick clean ball for the team to attack with, not milking penalties, just my 2 pence

Wonder if we'll ever hear the end of that win in Toulouse... Bath will choke again, if not next week then in the coming months.

anyone who has watched bath play this season at full strength is not at all surprised by them beating toulouse in such comprehensive fashion. i dont think beating toulouse away is the crowning glory this season for Bath...their sights are set much higher than that

any team can be hindered by injuries to key players and positions. but at full strength bath could beat anyone.

What about Glasgow's comprehensive win over Bath though?

Not full strength albeit a great performance. Is it the return leg this week?

Yep, that one will be interesting.

IronMike wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

IronMike wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Watch Rugby league then!

Scrums are part of our game and always will be.

Scrums are great if they do whats intended, resetting play.

Nobody except retired props want to see collapse after collapse with the odd chance their team might get a penalty.

I have to disagree. When Bath twice shoved Toulouse off the ball to win penalties against the head on their own 5m line last week-end I suspect their fans will have been delighted that play hadn't restarted

It's a tricky one though, and I agree with your principle. No one wants to see endless resets. Equally though, scrum dominance needs to be rewarded, so I'm not in favour of just giving free-kicks. I still feel things have been much better under the current regs, but then again I mostly watch Aviva Prem whereas apparently things are a bit worse in the Pro 12...

Scrum dominance should be rewarded with quick clean ball for the team to attack with, not milking penalties, just my 2 pence

Two excellant replies Mike.

The purpose of scrums was to restart play with an advantage( by having the feed) going to the team that didnt "fault" ie pass forward, knock on etc. but what we have now is the team that faulted in play usually end up being rewarded with a penalty, due to some technical scrum ruling. the Worlds going to Hell in handcart.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

IronMike wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

IronMike wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Watch Rugby league then!

Scrums are part of our game and always will be.

Scrums are great if they do whats intended, resetting play.

Nobody except retired props want to see collapse after collapse with the odd chance their team might get a penalty.

I have to disagree. When Bath twice shoved Toulouse off the ball to win penalties against the head on their own 5m line last week-end I suspect their fans will have been delighted that play hadn't restarted

It's a tricky one though, and I agree with your principle. No one wants to see endless resets. Equally though, scrum dominance needs to be rewarded, so I'm not in favour of just giving free-kicks. I still feel things have been much better under the current regs, but then again I mostly watch Aviva Prem whereas apparently things are a bit worse in the Pro 12...

Scrum dominance should be rewarded with quick clean ball for the team to attack with, not milking penalties, just my 2 pence

Two excellant replies Mike.

The purpose of scrums was to restart play with an advantage( by having the feed) going to the team that didnt "fault" ie pass forward, knock on etc. but what we have now is the team that faulted in play usually end up being rewarded with a penalty, due to some technical scrum ruling. the Worlds going to Hell in handcart.

I agree with Mike here. Maybe the scrum laws should not award a penalty against the infringing scrum. Maybe just a reset and if props can't get on with a decent set they go straight to bin...?

Elevating the ability to win penalties from scrums.

I'm partially with quinsforever on this one. I think the French style of scrum refereeing (which Nige adopted on Saturday) is the way to go: if it's a mess, but it's safe, let the scrum go on. Only penalise for a dangerous collapse or obvious infringement. But refs need to be consistent.

I don't think there's any need for a "use it" call, accept as a message to the scrum half that, no, he's not going to be able to milk a penalty this time.

What does need attention is refs getting the calls right before the put in: if they were strict on the early shove (now creeping back in), binds and body angles before the real pushing started, and on getting a straight put-in, we'd have fewer resets. My feeling would be to give an immediate free kick and allow scrum halves to take it quickly if the scrum doesn't set properly. That would give a slight edge to the side with the put in (as the other side wouldn't be able to go quickly), but that feels about right.

It does seem to have regressed to 'little hit, get the ball in straight away'. Rather than the 'hit' then the ref checks the alignment of the players then the ball can go in. It slows each scrum but seemed to result in fewer resets. But if you're doing that then what is the point of the 'hit' at all?

HammerofThunor wrote:But if you're doing that then what is the point of the 'hit' at all?

There isn't (supposed to be) a hit (anymore). It's 'set', and then push once the ball comes in.

Well refs still insist on the gap. They've seperated props when they've been too close. Although thinking about it, it's probably to ensure balance, right? If the props were resting on each other, they could lean into it more so if there was a slight movement they lose their footing. If they have to be able to maintain a position unsupported by the opposition they have to be more stable. So ignore me

I was watching the Lions tour of South Africa from 1997 the other day, and one thing that struck me mostly, was the scrum was almost a second thought, the forwards just packed down, then the ball was put in, even when the front rows were almost touching the floor, when the ball got to the back of the no. 8, the scrum half just picked it up and played rugby, not once did the scrums look dangerous, all the forwards seem to know what the scrum was about and just went about there business, when one team hooked the ball back, the scrum was more or less over as a contest, why the fook did we ever change from that, it was simpler, and easier, we should just go back to the rules of 20yrs ago.

So what you are advocating is 'uncontested' scrums, ala rugby league?  The reason why scrums became a mess is that teams (Argentina, etc) starting picking props as hookers and simply pushing as an 8 on opposing put ins.  This put the team trying to hook the ball back under immense pressure.  They responded by using the crooked feed, so the hooker didn't need to get into a hooking position.

The scrum mess has arisen from this more aggressive approach by defending scrums.  Asking them to stop, is like asking defenders to stop doing a blitz defence as it stifles too much pretty running rugby.  I think rugby is running a fine line in keeping being competitive and being entertaining.  We don't want rugby to turn into a basketball type game with teams constantly taking it in turns to score and 60- 50 results.

If you stopped crooked feeding into the scrum, then the attacking team would need to hook the ball, which would lead to more collapsed scrums.  I am not sure that there is an answer to this - if you allow defending teams to 8 man push then the attacking team will by and large struggle and rather than loose the ball they will drop the scrum.

Also regarding referees telling teams to use the ball.  If a scrum collapses then the referee needs to reset the scrum and start the process again.  To me when a scrum has collapsed if the options are - 1. Get the ball out and play, 2.  Reset and start again.  3.  Give one of the teams a penalty (probably guessing) - I prefer option 1.

All that said - I still believe the fact that few if any referees have ever played in the front row means they have little or no idea what is going on. Also there is complete and utter inconsistency between referees.

I would like to see specialist scrum referees used, who actually understand what is going on. They will help prevent issues as teams won't try and 'milk them', they can talk early and often to players to sort out issues and should hopefully know who has committed the offence when the scrum goes down. At the moment it just seems a guess. Referees could come on whilst packs are getting themselves together and would not slow down restarts.

nlpnlp wrote:All that said - I still believe the fact that few if any referees have ever played in the front row means they have little or no idea what is going on.  Also there is complete and utter inconsistency between referees.

I would like to see specialist scrum referees used, who actually understand what is going on.  They will help prevent issues as teams won't try and 'milk them', they can talk early and often to players to sort out issues and should hopefully know who has committed the offence when the scrum goes down.  At the moment it just seems a guess.  Referees could come on whilst packs are getting themselves together and would not slow down restarts.

nlpnlp, 2 good posts and the general thrust I agree with, the main problem for me is when a scrum is towards one side of the field, and the Ref stays on the blindside instead of going on the openside and trusting the TJ on the blindside to assist him, because infringements happen on BOTH SIDES of a scrum.