Uncontested scrums at the RWC?

by Portnoy Wed 20 Jul 2011, 10:35 am

This could be the shortest article ever if I'm wrong in believing that RWC team selections will be the traditional 22 players rather than the 23 with a compulsory extra prop to avoid the spectre of uncontested scrummaging in the autumn at rugby's showcase event.

Optimists will come back saying it won't happen.
Pessimists will (like me) be more concerned that an essential feature of the game may be jeopardised,

by BATH_BTGOG Wed 20 Jul 2011, 10:40 am

If it’s true then some teams will be rubbing their hands at this news.

by pete (buachaill on eirne) Wed 20 Jul 2011, 10:43 am

Yeah it's 22 man squads.

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Wed 20 Jul 2011, 10:45 am

Portnoy wrote:This could be the shortest article ever if I'm wrong in believing that RWC team selections will be the traditional 22 players rather than the 23 with a compulsory extra prop to avoid the spectre of uncontested scrummaging in the autumn at rugby's showcase event.

Optimists will come back saying it won't happen.
Pessimists will (like me) be more concerned that an essential feature of the game may be jeopardised,

To be honest, I can't remember the last time an international went to uncontested scrums. I was surprised when the extra prop on the bench trial actually started, as I wasn't aware of there being a problem - though I wasn't paying that much attention to NH club rugby at the time

by Portnoy Wed 20 Jul 2011, 10:53 am

Kiwireddevil wrote:
Portnoy wrote:This could be the shortest article ever if I'm wrong in believing that RWC team selections will be the traditional 22 players rather than the 23 with a compulsory extra prop to avoid the spectre of uncontested scrummaging in the autumn at rugby's showcase event.

Optimists will come back saying it won't happen.
Pessimists will (like me) be more concerned that an essential feature of the game may be jeopardised,

To be honest, I can't remember the last time an international went to uncontested scrums. I was surprised when the extra prop on the bench trial actually started, as I wasn't aware of there being a problem - though I wasn't paying that much attention to NH club rugby at the time

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/international/4420364.stm

by TheGreyGhost Wed 20 Jul 2011, 11:01 am

2003 RWC NZ v Australia. NZ trailing on the board with a scrum under the Aussie posts.

The Aussie scrum was being pushed all over the place and this culminated at a point where the ABs repeatedly reset a collapsing scrum right under the Wallaby posts. There was a "neck" call from the Aussie scrum and the ABs disengaged following protocol.

After a long delay, Ben Darwin was stretchered off and the game resumed with a penalty to Australia for the AB front row standing up. The referee was Chris White (England).

Just saying.

by TBJ9625 Wed 20 Jul 2011, 11:07 am

Perhaps what we need is a rule change here that would stop tatical injuries from happening.
If you need to remove a 'qualified' front row member and can't be replaced with another 'qualified' player the on your put in you have a non contested scrum, if a scrum is required with the opposition teams put in they can claim a free kick intead of the scrum, therefore not losing any advantage. What do you think of that idea?

by blackcanelion Wed 20 Jul 2011, 11:14 am

I remembered that to. The Aussie scrum got monstered that day, until they went uncontested. I'm sure I remember the French going the same way in a test in France.

By the way, wasn't that Darwin's last game due to the neck injury?

by Portnoy Wed 20 Jul 2011, 11:17 am

It would require a Law change to make it universally applicable.But at international/elite level there is no reason why the 23 squad rule could't be adopted.

by **Notch** Wed 20 Jul 2011, 11:19 am

The SH nations don't agree or see the issue. To be honest the issue of uncontested scrums was only a big on in NH club rugby.

I agree with you. I'm not happy that we could go that way in such a big tournament. I wish we had 31-man squads with a minimum eight front row players and 23-man squads.

The issue is that it's difficult for some of the minnow nations to supply an extra front-rower.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed 20 Jul 2011, 11:33 am

TBJ9625 wrote:Perhaps what we need is a rule change here that would stop tatical injuries from happening.
If you need to remove a 'qualified' front row member and can't be replaced with another 'qualified' player the on your put in you have a non contested scrum, if a scrum is required with the opposition teams put in they can claim a free kick intead of the scrum, therefore not losing any advantage. What do you think of that idea?

They are still losing the advantage though.
It allows teams to field non scruumaging mobile props, and when these get tired swap them for back rowers. The teams who field strong scrumaging sides look like idiots. See the Tigers Wasps premiership final a few years back for an example.

Strong scrummaging is a tactic in itself. Getting a free kick intead doesnt help a dominant scrumaging side, if anything its even less use than a uncontested scrum. If sides woudl ratehr have the free kick than a scrum tehy wouldnt keep opting for the scrum under the posts when they have the choice, many even chose to take the scrum over a penalty kick.

Equally you cant over penalise a team for running out of fit props. The rules are there for a very sound legal reason, props have to be protected from what is a very dangerous facet of the game. The alternative to bringing in uncontested scrums was to get rid of them altogether. In retaining them its importnat to not encourage players with neck injuries to take unecassary risks by staying on the field, reducing a sides numbers or issueing penalties is not an option thats on the table.

Having doctors assess players fitness to stay on isnt relaly an option eithr. They can still lie easily, and no doctor would want to risk the lawsuit that would follow by them keeping a player on who had crooked their neck.

This is why the world is gradualy moving to the 23 man option. Like most things it still relies on a degree of honesty and integrity form the people involved. Even in games where theres been 22 man sqauds we havent seen so many go uncotested as we did pre bloodgate (which finaly made everyone face up to injury faking in all its forms).
Hopefully honour and decency will prevail.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed 20 Jul 2011, 11:34 am

Notch wrote:The SH nations don't agree or see the issue. To be honest the issue of uncontested scrums was only a big on in NH club rugby.

I agree with you. I'm not happy that we could go that way in such a big tournament. I wish we had 31-man squads with a minimum eight front row players and 23-man squads.

The issue is that it's difficult for some of the minnow nations to supply an extra front-rower.

Australia arent really a minnow nation Whistle

by Luckless Pedestrian Wed 20 Jul 2011, 11:41 am

TBJ9625 wrote:Perhaps what we need is a rule change here that would stop tatical injuries from happening.
If you need to remove a 'qualified' front row member and can't be replaced with another 'qualified' player the on your put in you have a non contested scrum, if a scrum is required with the opposition teams put in they can claim a free kick intead of the scrum, therefore not losing any advantage. What do you think of that idea?

It's a decent idea, but the great thing about having a scrum in the opponents' 22 is that it doesn't just give a good scrummaging side a great opportunity to take on the opposition pack, it also ties in the opposition's forwards if the attacking side want to try a move off the scrum. With a free kick, the opposition can just fan out across the pitch.

by TBJ9625 Wed 20 Jul 2011, 11:52 am

luckless_pedestrian wrote:
TBJ9625 wrote:Perhaps what we need is a rule change here that would stop tatical injuries from happening.
If you need to remove a 'qualified' front row member and can't be replaced with another 'qualified' player the on your put in you have a non contested scrum, if a scrum is required with the opposition teams put in they can claim a free kick intead of the scrum, therefore not losing any advantage. What do you think of that idea?

It's a decent idea, but the great thing about having a scrum in the opponents' 22 is that it doesn't just give a good scrummaging side a great opportunity to take on the opposition pack, it also ties in the opposition's forwards if the attacking side want to try a move off the scrum. With a free kick, the opposition can just fan out across the pitch.

Luckless,
I agree with what you say there, I just can't think of any other way where you can still give the full strength side the advantage they would have at the scrum. With uncontested scrums the concentration of effort isn't required and therefore the backrows engage less and are quicker off the back of the scrum defensively (well generally anyway)??

by TBJ9625 Wed 20 Jul 2011, 11:58 am

Mr Wheeler,

I'm not trying to go against H&S recommendations here, just trying to stop the tatical use of an injury to remove another teams advantage. If a player is genuinely injured then fair enough, get him off. I'm an ex prop myself so know a little bit about what goes on up front and how dangerous it can be (2 back ops later!!!)

by Portnoy Wed 20 Jul 2011, 11:59 am

luckless_pedestrian wrote:
TBJ9625 wrote:Perhaps what we need is a rule change here that would stop tatical injuries from happening.
If you need to remove a 'qualified' front row member and can't be replaced with another 'qualified' player the on your put in you have a non contested scrum, if a scrum is required with the opposition teams put in they can claim a free kick intead of the scrum, therefore not losing any advantage. What do you think of that idea?

It's a decent idea, but the great thing about having a scrum in the opponents' 22 is that it doesn't just give a good scrummaging side a great opportunity to take on the opposition pack, it also ties in the opposition's forwards if the attacking side want to try a move off the scrum. With a free kick, the opposition can just fan out across the pitch.

Precisely Lucky,

Coarse rugby rugby couldn't possibly fulfil laws that require additional players when only 13 players turn up on match day.

In more complete sides (below the elite) they'd struggle.

But at World level it can't be argued that the seven-man bench is debatable.

It's not a matter of the Laws - it's about competition rules.

by formerly known as Sam Wed 20 Jul 2011, 12:30 pm

Uncontested scrums are not common on the international scene but were starting to creap into club games. A couple of interesting ones in French leagues prompted the trial of a full front row being available for replacement but no front row player could be replaced by a non front row replacement. Thankfully it then came to the English game where a certain black clad team had been using it as a cup final tactic for some time.

Suprised it wasn't at least tested in the SH.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed 20 Jul 2011, 12:42 pm

TBJ9625 wrote:Mr Wheeler,

I'm not trying to go against H&S recommendations here, just trying to stop the tatical use of an injury to remove another teams advantage. If a player is genuinely injured then fair enough, get him off. I'm an ex prop myself so know a little bit about what goes on up front and how dangerous it can be (2 back ops later!!!)

Yes but the issue is how do you tell the difference between a fake and a real one? Faking was becoming endemic in the club game, and despite what Sam says was occuring in internationals ( especially cometitive ones) too.
AndIfyou impose penalties on teams for having players injured or make them play a man down it encourages them to stay on rather than erring on the side of caution, which places unnaceptable pressure on the players and ignore sthe whole spirit of scrum safety which is what the rules are about in the first place.

The 23 man squads were bought in in many competitons to help deal with this. Faking one or two injuries is one thing, but 3 becomes deeply suspiscious...still possibel but even more blatant. When it really comes down to it we are relying on peopels honesty and an acceptance that its no OK. Untill bloodgate thats what had been lost, not only did people think it was OK to fake injuries but it had also become the accepted norm, it wasnt even considered dishonourable by many (and that goes across the globe and dates back at least tio the introduction of bloodbins)

From what I remeber it was ratified as optionla by the IRB in the wake of bloodagte when the wider issue of injuury faking was finaly faced up to. Certain competitions adipted it, with a view to all elite rugby having them in the future. However a decision was made early on that it wouldnt go global untill after the world cup. That may be partly due toi recistance from certain SH boards, but also to help protect the smaller Unions who struggle to find 3 good props .... one side effect of teh 23 man sqausd is that it allows more rotation of the front row and gives more advantage to sides with a deep stable of scrumaging props, in theory every member of the front row can be used for just 40 minutes whereas in the 22 man sytem one would play the entire game
Mind this does open up a whole new avenue of taking advantage of the safety rules to rotate props ...best prop on for 40 minutes, tactialy sub him at half time, sub gets "injured" after 20 minutes, best prop comes back on fresh....you never have a tired prop on the field.

If we cant rely on coaches and players honour then the only other option is to remove the scrum so that everyone is on a level playing field.

by TheGreyGhost Wed 20 Jul 2011, 12:46 pm

A matchday squad of 40 players with unlimited substitutions. I think was the ultimate conclusion of professionalism, as witness in American football.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed 20 Jul 2011, 1:43 pm

TheGreyGhost wrote:A matchday squad of 40 players with unlimited substitutions. I think was the ultimate conclusion of professionalism, as witness in American football.

And youd still accuse England of only playing with 10 of them anyway

by **Biltong** Wed 20 Jul 2011, 1:45 pm

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
TheGreyGhost wrote:A matchday squad of 40 players with unlimited substitutions. I think was the ultimate conclusion of professionalism, as witness in American football.

And youd still accuse England of only playing with 10 of them anyway

by TheGreyGhost Wed 20 Jul 2011, 1:50 pm

Or 16 at the same time.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed 20 Jul 2011, 1:52 pm

TheGreyGhost wrote:Or 16 at the same time.

but only 10 of them english

by TheGreyGhost Wed 20 Jul 2011, 1:54 pm

If they can get the academies to start producing some talent you mean?

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed 20 Jul 2011, 1:55 pm

TheGreyGhost wrote:If they can get the academies to start producing some talent you mean?

Well it only took one Englishman to knock all 22 of yours out the last 2 world cups so why bother?

by **Biltong** Wed 20 Jul 2011, 1:58 pm

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
TheGreyGhost wrote:If they can get the academies to start producing some talent you mean?

Well it only took one Englishman to knock all 22 of yours out the last 2 world cups so why bother?

Do you guys want to get a room?

Or maybe I should just leave. Erm

by Portnoy Wed 20 Jul 2011, 2:11 pm

Oh dear. There goes another thread.

This is about uncontested scrums in the RWC remember?

by funnyExiledScot Wed 20 Jul 2011, 2:12 pm

Pretty sure the Lions 2nd Test went to uncontested scrums as well, which handed an advantage to South Africa (albeit that it was the Lions props that got injured).

Didn't Wasps go to uncontested scrums a couple of times during their heyday. I seem to remember a bit of a furore when Joe Worsley was being used as a prop in uncontested scrums.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed 20 Jul 2011, 2:21 pm

Portnoy wrote:Oh dear. There goes another thread.

This is about uncontested scrums in the RWC remember?

We are having contested banter.

You are welcome to keep discussing Wasps behaviour in the Jeff final whenever you want.

by TheGreyGhost Wed 20 Jul 2011, 2:25 pm

biltongbek wrote:
Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
TheGreyGhost wrote:If they can get the academies to start producing some talent you mean?

Well it only took one Englishman to knock all 22 of yours out the last 2 world cups so why bother?

Do you guys want to get a room?

Or maybe I should just leave.

I'd quite forgotten Mr White's role in NZ's demise in 2003 until just today. Seems like a pattern is emerging. Dodgy English ref knocks NZ out allowing weaker opposition through to play England. Do you think the English refs will wear black this year too?

by snoopster Wed 20 Jul 2011, 2:30 pm

Kiwireddevil wrote:To be honest, I can't remember the last time an international went to uncontested scrums. I was surprised when the extra prop on the bench trial actually started, as I wasn't aware of there being a problem - though I wasn't paying that much attention to NH club rugby at the time

Australia did against England in 2005.

At club level it was a far bigger problem though up here - I think France had over a 100 games in one season go to uncontested scrums before they added an extra prop to the bench. As others have mentioned, Wasps had to go to uncontested scrums a few times in one season because of "injuries" to props when under pressure in the scrum in key games then brought on a backrow to replace the prop - which is also the issue with it, the team who runs out of props gets to use a backrow player so they gain an edge around the field as well as having their weak spot removed. Gloucester have done it at least once, though in their case they also lied to the ref about the ability of their hooker to play prop (which he had done at international level) to get it to uncontested scrums.

by snoopster Wed 20 Jul 2011, 2:31 pm

Kiwireddevil wrote:
Portnoy wrote:This could be the shortest article ever if I'm wrong in believing that RWC team selections will be the traditional 22 players rather than the 23 with a compulsory extra prop to avoid the spectre of uncontested scrummaging in the autumn at rugby's showcase event.

Optimists will come back saying it won't happen.
Pessimists will (like me) be more concerned that an essential feature of the game may be jeopardised,

To be honest, I can't remember the last time an international went to uncontested scrums. I was surprised when the extra prop on the bench trial actually started, as I wasn't aware of there being a problem - though I wasn't paying that much attention to NH club rugby at the time

by formerly known as Sam Wed 20 Jul 2011, 2:34 pm

Didn't Wasps go to uncontested scrums a couple of times during their heyday. I seem to remember a bit of a furore when Joe Worsley was being used as a prop in uncontested scrums..

It was a ready 'coincidence' whenever they were on the back foot around about the hour mark but still in front. Shove on an extra backrower for the injured prop (ideally just after your opposition have used their subs and so can't do the same thing). Was a safe way of not conceding penalties as their scrum went backwards. They were much happier defending rucks.

by Portnoy Wed 20 Jul 2011, 2:36 pm

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
Portnoy wrote:Oh dear. There goes another thread.

This is about uncontested scrums in the RWC remember?

We are having contested banter.

You are welcome to keep discussing Wasps behaviour in the Jeff final whenever you want.

This is about RWC uncontested scrums Seabiscuit. (I may have separate views about what's happened in the Jeff, but the extra prop on the bench seems to have sorted it).

And GG - neither is it about what ref done what to whom and how.

by TheGreyGhost Wed 20 Jul 2011, 2:42 pm

Killjoy.

by Portnoy Wed 20 Jul 2011, 2:49 pm

Sorry GG, but I'm sure that you can work your point into another thread. Wink

by TheGreyGhost Wed 20 Jul 2011, 2:49 pm

I'll give it a go.

by Portnoy Wed 20 Jul 2011, 2:54 pm

Good man.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed 20 Jul 2011, 2:56 pm

You two should get a room

by Portnoy Wed 20 Jul 2011, 3:11 pm

Thanks Pete. But I for one am not seeking a dating agency.

(but why hasn't the 7-man bench been replicated elsewhere?)

by snoopster Wed 20 Jul 2011, 3:27 pm

Portnoy wrote:(but why hasn't the 7-man bench been replicated elsewhere?)

Because the whole of rugby is run by incompetent old men who're just in it for the free meals and tickets?
They don't do anything unless they get a big enough kick up the backside - the French and English only adopted it because both their domestic competitions had problems with uncontested scrums.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed 20 Jul 2011, 3:48 pm

snoopster wrote:
Portnoy wrote:(but why hasn't the 7-man bench been replicated elsewhere?)

Because the whole of rugby is run by incompetent old men who're just in it for the free meals and tickets?
They don't do anything unless they get a big enough kick up the backside - the French and English only adopted it because both their domestic competitions had problems with uncontested scrums.

Well everyone does have the 7 man bench .....

by Portnoy Wed 20 Jul 2011, 4:19 pm

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
snoopster wrote:
Portnoy wrote:(but why hasn't the 7-man bench been replicated elsewhere?)

Because the whole of rugby is run by incompetent old men who're just in it for the free meals and tickets?
They don't do anything unless they get a big enough kick up the backside - the French and English only adopted it because both their domestic competitions had problems with uncontested scrums.

Well everyone does have the 7 man bench .....

Err. Yup you got me on a point of fact - but I'm sure you knew what I meant.

Sawreee.

by Sponsored content