Bath v Wasps: Post Match Thoughts.

[Chunky24]

Watching Saints v Tigers was along the same lines today. Saints got ahead through expansive phases and identifying the space Tigers were exposing with their kick chase.

Saints had a solid lead so Tigers tightened up and took the ball into contact, winning collisions and drawing numbers into the ruck and the physicality did for Northampton. I think we need to be wary of numbers in the ruck as we seem to be on the backfoot at the breakdown once momentum shifts and opponents look for the arm wrestle.

Having said that Tigers were helped by an atrocious refereeing performance by Dickson, who really is over excitable and pushing the levels of competence at the moment.

Don't forget the Tigers dominant set piece!

[Rossm]

Watching Saints v Tigers was along the same lines today. Saints got ahead through expansive phases and identifying the space Tigers were exposing with their kick chase.

Saints had a solid lead so Tigers tightened up and took the ball into contact, winning collisions and drawing numbers into the ruck and the physicality did for Northampton. I think we need to be wary of numbers in the ruck as we seem to be on the backfoot at the breakdown once momentum shifts and opponents look for the arm wrestle.

Having said that Tigers were helped by an atrocious refereeing performance by Dickson, who really is over excitable and pushing the levels of competence at the moment.

Don't forget the Tigers dominant set piece!

I'd always rather see a dominant scrum used to restart a game rather than milk penalties. With the kind of scrum strength that Tigers had, I can almost see them deliberately knock on to gain a scrum, get a penalty and then kick for goal and gain 3 points. That's not rugby to me.

[Chunky24]

Watching Saints v Tigers was along the same lines today. Saints got ahead through expansive phases and identifying the space Tigers were exposing with their kick chase.

Saints had a solid lead so Tigers tightened up and took the ball into contact, winning collisions and drawing numbers into the ruck and the physicality did for Northampton. I think we need to be wary of numbers in the ruck as we seem to be on the backfoot at the breakdown once momentum shifts and opponents look for the arm wrestle.

Having said that Tigers were helped by an atrocious refereeing performance by Dickson, who really is over excitable and pushing the levels of competence at the moment.

Don't forget the Tigers dominant set piece!

I'd always rather see a dominant scrum used to restart a game rather than milk penalties. With the kind of scrum strength that Tigers had, I can almost see them deliberately knock on to gain a scrum, get a penalty and then kick for goal and gain 3 points. That's not rugby to me.

OK let's nullify any team getting a scrum advantage in case it leads to penalties, how about we get rid of the flankers, front row barely bind and ball is thrown even more directly to 8 (or loose forward) so the or has that already been done in RL? Be plenty of us on here who would not have had a role in RU if that was the case.

[Rossm]

Watching Saints v Tigers was along the same lines today. Saints got ahead through expansive phases and identifying the space Tigers were exposing with their kick chase.

Saints had a solid lead so Tigers tightened up and took the ball into contact, winning collisions and drawing numbers into the ruck and the physicality did for Northampton. I think we need to be wary of numbers in the ruck as we seem to be on the backfoot at the breakdown once momentum shifts and opponents look for the arm wrestle.

Having said that Tigers were helped by an atrocious refereeing performance by Dickson, who really is over excitable and pushing the levels of competence at the moment.

Don't forget the Tigers dominant set piece!

I'd always rather see a dominant scrum used to restart a game rather than milk penalties. With the kind of scrum strength that Tigers had, I can almost see them deliberately knock on to gain a scrum, get a penalty and then kick for goal and gain 3 points. That's not rugby to me.

OK let's nullify any team getting a scrum advantage in case it leads to penalties, how about we get rid of the flankers, front row barely bind and ball is thrown even more directly to 8 (or loose forward) so the or has that already been done in RL? Be plenty of us on here who would not have had a role in RU if that was the case.

Ooooh Chunk, you're a bit spikey this morning When I played, 'not straight' was quite rigorously enforced and a dominant scrum rarely lost one against the head and took their share as well. That to me was what dominant scrummaging meant. I played hooker/TH. As we were often lighter in the pack, my instruction to the scrummie was 'get it in as soon as we're down'. Hoping that the oppo weren't quite ready.

[Chunky24]

Watching Saints v Tigers was along the same lines today. Saints got ahead through expansive phases and identifying the space Tigers were exposing with their kick chase.

Saints had a solid lead so Tigers tightened up and took the ball into contact, winning collisions and drawing numbers into the ruck and the physicality did for Northampton. I think we need to be wary of numbers in the ruck as we seem to be on the backfoot at the breakdown once momentum shifts and opponents look for the arm wrestle.

Having said that Tigers were helped by an atrocious refereeing performance by Dickson, who really is over excitable and pushing the levels of competence at the moment.

Don't forget the Tigers dominant set piece!

I'd always rather see a dominant scrum used to restart a game rather than milk penalties. With the kind of scrum strength that Tigers had, I can almost see them deliberately knock on to gain a scrum, get a penalty and then kick for goal and gain 3 points. That's not rugby to me.

OK let's nullify any team getting a scrum advantage in case it leads to penalties, how about we get rid of the flankers, front row barely bind and ball is thrown even more directly to 8 (or loose forward) so the or has that already been done in RL? Be plenty of us on here who would not have had a role in RU if that was the case.

Ooooh Chunk, you're a bit spikey this morning When I played, 'not straight' was quite rigorously enforced and a dominant scrum rarely lost one against the head and took their share as well. That to me was what dominant scrummaging meant. I played hooker/TH. As we were often lighter in the pack, my instruction to the scrummie was 'get it in as soon as we're down'. Hoping that the oppo weren't quite ready.

Apologies if came across spiky just feel a powerful / competitive scrum is becoming an annoyance to many and as soon as a team has one they are labelled as anti-rugby or boring despite it not being their fault an opposition cant cope and give penalties away.
Think the term dominant in modern rugby is all about overpowering and physical disintegration, we hear of dominant tackles, dominant collisions, dominant gain  line etc like you say taking one or more against the head used to count as dominant but now it is about wearing those  opposition forwards down physically to create space around the field.
We also didn't need 5 minutes, 3 collapses and resets to get a scrum done in our day either!

[Rossm]

But now you don't wear forwards down physically as there are another 5 or possibly 6 on the bench, waiting with fresh legs to come on. My gripe about milking penalties is that it can become predictable as it did yesterday and, as it is a strength, then teams play to it. Also, potentially 3 points or more if the penalty is kicked into the 22, is IMO too much of a possible sanction for what might have resulted from just a dropped pass or a little fumble.

[wycombewasp]

+1

[mike909]

But now you don't wear forwards down physically as there are another 5 or possibly 6 on the bench, waiting with fresh legs to come on. My gripe about milking penalties is that it can become predictable as it did yesterday and, as it is a strength, then teams play to it. Also, potentially 3 points or more if the penalty is kicked into the 22, is IMO too much of a possible sanction for what might have resulted from just a dropped pass or a little fumble.

Agree with this both from the POV of playing as a prop in a dominant pack at times and IRO how the Laws are written.

The purpose of a scrum is to restart play with a contest for possession after a minor infringement or stoppage

And you can see how that "purpose" is interpreted differently between hemispheres when watching (say) NZ Provincial Rugby - where once the ball is won, that team is more often required to play the ball. It seems out of proportion that conceding a "minor infringement" can mean a penalty, kick and lineout from what - as you note - was probably an accidental infringement.....

I'd want the scrum to be a contest for possession - per the Laws' intent - except for 5m scrums, where a push over might be considered ok. But I'd also want the Laws thought about such that the ability to push over is related to more serious infringements - deliberate maul drops, offside, in at the side etc. BUT....preferably in conjunction with a wide ranging review of the Laws re the maul and obstruction. And other matters around how players approach trying to get over the line with heads held at 10cm off the ground...
 

[RogerE]

My view is why, if you've got a dominant scrum, should you be awarded a penalty?

You don't award a penalty to the team that has the fastest winger.

Nearly all scrum penalties should be changed to  free kicks. Only remain penalties for repeated infringements (e.g. dropping bind, wheeling etc.) or foul play. Enforce the straight put-in and don't reset if the scrum collapses once it has been hooked.

In fact I'd replace all non-foul play penalties with free kicks

[Chunky24]

My view is why, if you've got a dominant scrum, should you be awarded a penalty?

You don't award a penalty to the team that has the fastest winger.

Nearly all scrum penalties should be changed to  free kicks. Only remain penalties for repeated infringements (e.g. dropping bind, wheeling etc.) or foul play. Enforce the straight put-in and don't reset if the scrum collapses once it has been hooked.

In fact I'd replace all non-foul play penalties with free kicks

You also don't tell the fastest winger to slow down because his pace is too dominant!

[wycombewasp]

but you don't send the opposing winger off because he's slower.   

[Chunky24]

but you don't send the opposing winger off because he's slower.

If he resorts to doing something illegal to nullify the faster wingers dominance e.g repeated offside, early tackles etc then he runs the risk of that, same as a dominated prop repeatedly collapsing, early engage etc.

[Heathen]

Another aspect of the game that pleased me is that Josh seems to have got his mojo back.

[Neils]

Another aspect of the game that pleased me is that Josh seems to have got his mojo back.

Mojo or not Josh certainly suffered from service denial by others!

[wasps]

In general, teams are aware that they can't solely focus on scrum dominance, otherwise we'd have 22 stone props, and bigger hookers.


What we have are converted flankers as hookers, and in general, rare athletic freaks at prop.
The combination of scrummaging power, pace, stamina etc. that we see from modern props is a rare physical skillset which is why top level props are usually expensive.


I tend to think that those teams that really excel at scrummaging are those that maybe do put sightly more emphasis on it at recruitment time, but who also invest significantly more time on the practice field.


Especially with changes to law interpretation, the extra time practicing allows the team to adapt quickly and for the forwards to become a tighter scrummaging unit.




It is a little awkward though with regards to the penalties when a scrum is more dominant than another one.
A knock on is seen as a minor offence so shouldn't lead to a penalty. So knock on --> scrum --> penalty is not something that was really intended.
Free kicks for knock ons solves this, but it's a big step towards rugby League rules