Scrum Problems

[bails]

I was very surprised at the difficulties we had with the Munster scrum, particularly in quarters 3 & 4 on Saturday.
Nothwitstanding both Munster looseheads scrummaging with their backsides facing the touchline, I could not understand how we could not deal with it.

On second inspection it appeared That Peter O'Mahony was binding with his arm through and under his looseheads leg, which had the effect of making Munster have a 4 man front row.

I had a quick look at the laws, and the relevant law : 20.3 (f)
" Binding by all other players. All players in a scrum, other than front-row players, must bind on a lock’s body with at least one arm prior to the scrum engagement. The locks must bind with the props in front of them. No other player other than a prop may hold an opponent. Sanction: Penalty kick"

And as always, Munster fans believe they were the team that were victims of poor refereeing decisions.

[bails]

Sorry I didn't realise that there was a discussion on this on the Munster match thread

I have moved this to the match thread !

[lotmc]

Can't help thinking that this should have been picked up by the coaches, and a message passed to Rhys to let the ref know about it. Do they not do real-time video analysis to see what's going wrong / where space exists / etc? If not they should.

[COYBIB]

Can't help thinking that this should have been picked up by the coaches, and a message passed to Rhys to let the ref know about it. Do they not do real-time video analysis to see what's going wrong / where space exists / etc? If not they should.

Leo said after the game something to the effect that they couldn't figure out what was going wrong in the scrum. It was pretty stealthy from O'Mahony, but pretty concerning between the entire coaching team and players on the pitch we couldn't figure that out. But against a scrum with only two locks I think we're ok.

[locho]

Can't help thinking that this should have been picked up by the coaches, and a message passed to Rhys to let the ref know about it. Do they not do real-time video analysis to see what's going wrong / where space exists / etc? If not they should.

Leo said after the game something to the effect that they couldn't figure out what was going wrong in the scrum. It was pretty stealthy from O'Mahony, but pretty concerning between the entire coaching team and players on the pitch we couldn't figure that out. But against a scrum with only two locks I think we're ok.

Maybe it was just so blatant that we were totally blind to it.

Sometimes you hear stories about crimes carried out in broad daylight with witnesses completely ignoring it as they just assume the person couldn't be committing a crime!

[artaneboy]

Can't help thinking that this should have been picked up by the coaches, and a message passed to Rhys to let the ref know about it. Do they not do real-time video analysis to see what's going wrong / where space exists / etc? If not they should.

Leo said after the game something to the effect that they couldn't figure out what was going wrong in the scrum. It was pretty stealthy from O'Mahony, but pretty concerning between the entire coaching team and players on the pitch we couldn't figure that out. But against a scrum with only two locks I think we're ok.

Maybe it was just so blatant that we were totally blind to it.

Sometimes you hear stories about crimes carried out in broad daylight with witnesses completely ignoring it as they just assume the person couldn't be committing a crime!

What’s really amazing is the fact that there’s so little comment in the National media on this. They carry on this narrative of the great performance of the Munster scrum and no mention of deliberate- and clearly demonstrable illegality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[blockhead]

"Big Blue squash's bug" wouldn't get as many clicks.

[riocard911]

"Big Blue squash's bug" wouldn't get as many clicks.

You've me in knots!!!!

[Ruckedtobits]

Has Cian's loss of Kgs had any impact on his scrum effectiveness?

Bealham (123kg), Archer (121 kg) and Brooks (129kg) have all caused him some problems this season and his official weight is now 115kg so he is certainly giving these guys a head start, if they can apply their poundage. Certainly giving up 14 kg to Brooks is a big differential and must have an impact if there is a series of scrums.

There's no doubt that on the evidence so far this season, Cian is right back to the top of his game around the pitch and in his defensive work, but our scrum is the only area we haven't looked dominant this year.

Jack McGrath looked really comfortable when he took the field and maybe he should be our starting option and let Cian explode off the bench. To me it's incredible that Jack is only listed at 118 kg, as he looks a much bigger frame than Cian. But Jack also appears to have a much 'stronger' impact at scrum time.

[neiliog93]

Has Cian's loss of Kgs had any impact on his scrum effectiveness?

Bealham (123kg), Archer (121 kg) and Brooks (129kg) have all caused him some problems this season and his official weight is now 115kg so he is certainly giving these guys a head start, if they can apply their poundage. Certainly giving up 14 kg to Brooks is a big differential and must have an impact if there is a series of scrums.

There's no doubt that on the evidence so far this season, Cian is right back to the top of his game around the pitch and in his defensive work, but our scrum is the only area we haven't looked dominant this year.

Jack McGrath looked really comfortable when he took the field and maybe he should be our starting option and let Cian explode off the bench. To me it's incredible that Jack is only listed at 118 kg, as he looks a much bigger frame than Cian. But Jack also appears to have a much 'stronger' impact at scrum time.

Jack is definitely heavier than that, he's previously been listed in the 120-123kg range and I'd say the upper end of that is accurate. Weight helps in scrummaging but it isn't decisive - remember Tony Buckley was 138 kg, John Hayes 127 kg, and both struggled badly in the scrum at different times (only in the earlier part of his career for Hayes). Then a commonly acknowledged destructive scrummager like Jean-Baptiste Poux was only 108kg, Thomas Domingo 109kg, etc.

[Oldschoolsocks]

Has Cian's loss of Kgs had any impact on his scrum effectiveness?

Bealham (123kg), Archer (121 kg) and Brooks (129kg) have all caused him some problems this season and his official weight is now 115kg so he is certainly giving these guys a head start, if they can apply their poundage. Certainly giving up 14 kg to Brooks is a big differential and must have an impact if there is a series of scrums.

There's no doubt that on the evidence so far this season, Cian is right back to the top of his game around the pitch and in his defensive work, but our scrum is the only area we haven't looked dominant this year.

Jack McGrath looked really comfortable when he took the field and maybe he should be our starting option and let Cian explode off the bench. To me it's incredible that Jack is only listed at 118 kg, as he looks a much bigger frame than Cian. But Jack also appears to have a much 'stronger' impact at scrum time.

Jack is definitely heavier than that, he's previously been listed in the 120-123kg range and I'd say the upper end of that is accurate. Weight helps in scrummaging but it isn't decisive - remember Tony Buckley was 138 kg, John Hayes 127 kg, and both struggled badly in the scrum at different times (only in the earlier part of his career for Hayes). Then a commonly acknowledged destructive scrummager like Jean-Baptiste Poux was only 108kg, Thomas Domingo 109kg, etc.

i fairness, tight head is a much more technical position that loosehead - having played both Loosehead is a walk in the park on a nice summers evening with a pretty girl on your arm compared a tough match on the right hand side of the scrum.

also Jon Hayes struggled for most of his career in the scrum - his biggest asset was his ability to throw 120kg locks in the air by himself - Mushy had nice hands, but was a truly awful scrummager

[backrower8]

Given we have at least 3, possibly 4, of the Irish starting front 5 - it was disappointing that we did not get more change out of the Toulouse scrum.

Tadhg was up against a 22 year old. Porter then faced an 18 year old who is in his first year with the club. Both were backed-up by the lightweight Verhaegue.

There was one collapse late in the second half, I thought their loose-head went down with the ball in their second row...but nothing from Wayne!

[curates_egg]

Given we have at least 3, possibly 4, of the Irish starting front 5 - it was disappointing that we did not get more change out of the Toulouse scrum.

Tadhg was up against a 22 year old. Porter then faced an 18 year old who is in his first year with the club. Both were backed-up by the lightweight Verhaegue.

There was one collapse late in the second half, I thought their loose-head went down with the ball in their second row...but nothing from Wayne!

Barnes kept saying how "dangerous" the pitch was. I think they were just trying to keep the scrums safe. Their scrum is no pushover though, so I thought we did well to go 5/5 with a solid platform on each occasion. We put theirs under a little pressure.
My personal belief is that the title of this thread is a fallacy.

[backrower8]

Barnes kept saying how "dangerous" the pitch was. I think they were just trying to keep the scrums safe.

That's interesting,especially in the context that we all knew and spoke in advance about their pitch being a glue-pot. It didn't help either team, but as a team with a lot more precision in our game, we would have profited more from having a pitch of a decent standard. It's not an excuse for losing the game either but, given the investments being made at every level of the game, a competition like this in its 24th year, should not have a pitch like that...especially in the ground of the 4 time Champions. They have an alternate municipal ground nearby.

If a referee, especially one of Barnes stature in the game, thinks a pitch is dangerous then there should be follow-through and improvements demanded by EPCR. They can't tolerate dangerous pitches. Its not even the middle of Winter yet!

[neiliog93]

Given we have at least 3, possibly 4, of the Irish starting front 5 - it was disappointing that we did not get more change out of the Toulouse scrum.

Tadhg was up against a 22 year old. Porter then faced an 18 year old who is in his first year with the club. Both were backed-up by the lightweight Verhaegue.

There was one collapse late in the second half, I thought their loose-head went down with the ball in their second row...but nothing from Wayne!

Porter got two penalties off the 18 yr old sub. But I agree, he could (should) have been more dominant.

[EarthGorilla]

Given we have at least 3, possibly 4, of the Irish starting front 5 - it was disappointing that we did not get more change out of the Toulouse scrum.

Tadhg was up against a 22 year old. Porter then faced an 18 year old who is in his first year with the club. Both were backed-up by the lightweight Verhaegue.

There was one collapse late in the second half, I thought their loose-head went down with the ball in their second row...but nothing from Wayne!

Barnes kept saying how "dangerous" the pitch was. I think they were just trying to keep the scrums safe. Their scrum is no pushover though, so I thought we did well to go 5/5 with a solid platform on each occasion. We put theirs under a little pressure.
My personal belief is that the title of this thread is a fallacy.

I agree re the fallacy. Think we are ok here. The Munster issue was well documented cheating with sideways shove and POM's bind. Nothing you can do if the ref won't ref it properly at the time. I presume Leo and Stewart will have the refs well aware for it in Thomand if they are still doing it by then. But otherwise, within the laws of the game, I think we are doing fine.

[FLIP]

Given we have at least 3, possibly 4, of the Irish starting front 5 - it was disappointing that we did not get more change out of the Toulouse scrum.

Tadhg was up against a 22 year old. Porter then faced an 18 year old who is in his first year with the club. Both were backed-up by the lightweight Verhaegue.

There was one collapse late in the second half, I thought their loose-head went down with the ball in their second row...but nothing from Wayne!

Porter got two penalties off the 18 yr old sub. But I agree, he could (should) have been more dominant.

Most scrum penalties these days are given for nothing more than reputation due to the inability of top level refs to comprehend the scrum. Neither Mike Ross, Furlong, or Porter had or have a reputation as a destructive scrummager but have had plenty of moments when they've twisted their opponents apart - the lack of returns is based on their reputation, not their skills.

The answer, as it is always, is better training for referees and calling on the experiences of retired top level front rows to provide it.

[hugonaut]

You don't get penalties for being a dominant scrum, just like you don't get penalties for being dominant in a collision ... the opponent has to commit an infringement. If your scrum is dominant and moves forward, that tends to put pressure on the scrummaging mechanics of the opposition team and they commit an infringement, but you don't get a penalty just for going forward.

The scrum laws are here: https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=19

They're well worth a read.

There is scope in the laws to reset a scrum because there is no infringement; the referees aren't making that one up on the spot. Some of the quirks that we don't often see at pro level are that the scrum-half can choose which side to feed the ball in from, and that any of the front row players can strike for the ball ... but the hooker of the side in possession must strike.

[FLIP]

You're completely right about dominance in itself not meaning penalties. But scrum dominance often results in the opponent resorting to illegal means to counteract that scrum dominance - be that wheeling, collapsing, driving up or boring in. Or the act of dominance can be from the use of those techniques.

And yes, just because a scrum has collapsed, it doesn't mean someone is at fault. But more often than not, it's the result of illegal play - and referees are ignoring that to either get the ball out more quickly or because they don't actually know what has happened because of a lack of understanding.

Through that lack of understanding, they do not understand the use of illegal techniques to either stymie or gain dominance, and so will often grant penalties based on nothing but reputation - hence why Northampton Saints were seen to be dominant in the scrum in the first half of the HC final in 2011, because their illegal scrumming was rewarded. They had a reputation for being a strong scrumming side, whereas they should have been penalised for driving in and up.

[hugonaut]

You're completely right about dominance in itself not meaning penalties. But scrum dominance often results in the opponent resorting to illegal means to counteract that scrum dominance - be that wheeling, collapsing, driving up or boring in. Or the act of dominance can be from the use of those techniques.

And yes, just because a scrum has collapsed, it doesn't mean someone is at fault. But more often than not, it's the result of illegal play - and referees are ignoring that to either get the ball out more quickly or because they don't actually know what has happened because of a lack of understanding.

Through that lack of understanding, they do not understand the use of illegal techniques to either stymie or gain dominance, and so will often grant penalties based on nothing but reputation - hence why Northampton Saints were seen to be dominant in the scrum in the first half of the HC final in 2011, because their illegal scrumming was rewarded. They had a reputation for being a strong scrumming side, whereas they should have been penalised for driving in and up.

I agree completely. I also reread my post and it sounded snippy as f*ck! I didn't mean to imply that you weren't familiar with the scrum laws, it's just that there were elements there which I wasn't familiar with myself.

There are also decisions in games that are regularly made by referees which refer to a small part of a very comprehensive set of laws. The frequency with which teams are penalised for 'whip-wheeling' is questionable, for example.