Scrums. What are they for?

[Bobbievee]

The Telegraph shared article

http://digitaleditions.telegraph.co.uk/ ... rticle/NaN

Brian Moore's thoughts on Baxters theories.
A wee treat for all you scrummaging fanatics to get your teeth into.

Last year's Ireland v Francegame only had 5 scrums?

[Jetstream]

Raynal finished his lively interview by answering the question about the rugby law that he wants to change. “One thing in the law so important to me, it’s the law with the substitutions – there are too much subs and they arrive in the second half so that is cutting the flow of the game.

“You have 20 substitutions (sic – 16) in the second half, so honestly if we can have less substitutions for rugby that will in my view create more space so that is so important.

I agree. We have too many subs.

[Sir Ivor]

If you add HIA subs (and fiddle a few suspected shoulder concussions) you could have around 20 subs used. Agreed, far too many.

[solidarity]

What's the logic behind so many subs. I can understand how the front row is very abrasive but, at the end of the day, it's only 80 mins, with maybe a dozen scrums (or 100 if you count those frustrating resets!).

On the other hand, it gets game time for a bigger number of players and allows young lads to be introduced or old blokes to play longer.

[Lurgan Lad]

I think if World Rugby has any interest in health and safety it wouldn't allow multiple forward substitutes late in a game, clearly a recipe for increased injuries.

[Bobbievee]

Baxters premise in the article seems to be that if we tire forwards out ( by requiring more shoving?) and get back to scrums being ball winning contests instead of penalty winning contests ( and a scrum penalty as an outcome of a simple knock on in your won 22 for example is a severe punishment) , then......

there will be more space to allow the "real" rugby to flow?

A strange view from a leading coach?

.

[thecrouch]

I think if World Rugby has any interest in health and safety it wouldn't allow multiple forward substitutes late in a game, clearly a recipe for increased injuries.

Fewer subs would force players to get smaller and fitter. Front row players in particular these days are basically built to be 50 minute players, if these lads had to do an extra 30 mins every game you'd soon see a shift in body type.

[thecrouch]

On the subject of scrums, I don't know how to fix them. They are better than they used to be, but they're still a time sink. The underlying issue is that they are incredibly difficult to referee, it's pure guess work half the time. It's an area where teams deploy so many dark arts to try and paint a picture for the ref.

It's mind numbing watching a scrum reset 2 or 3 times.

Maybe they need a clock, 10 seconds maximum to get fully bound ready for the crouch call, free kick to the opposition if it takes longer than that.

[solidarity]

Or remove almost all regulations and let them get on with it hoping that self preservation will lead to a 'gentleman's agreement' between front rows.

[CIMANFOREVER]

What's the logic behind so many subs. I can understand how the front row is very abrasive but, at the end of the day, it's only 80 mins, with maybe a dozen scrums (or 100 if you count those frustrating resets!).

On the other hand, it gets game time for a bigger number of players and allows young lads to be introduced or old blokes to play longer.

Ref FR subs, it's the safety aspect , although scrums have never been safer, since the full hit has been taken out, and props have to keep their elbows up with shoulders allegedly above the hips ie no more dropping, boring, or turning your opposition in by pivoting and levering in on his elbow.

The rationale of forcing hookers to actually hook again ( a skill in itself,) rather than being just a prop between 2 other props, has the benefit, if enforced, of ensuring 9's have to abandon the bizarrely crooked feed, and put in straight again.

BTW Mooro is always worth listening to. His analysis is spot on

[CIMANFOREVER]

On the subject of scrums, I don't know how to fix them. They are better than they used to be, but they're still a time sink. The underlying issue is that they are incredibly difficult to referee, it's pure guess work half the time. It's an area where teams deploy so many dark arts to try and paint a picture for the ref.

It's mind numbing watching a scrum reset 2 or 3 times.

Maybe they need a clock, 10 seconds maximum to get fully bound ready for the crouch call, free kick to the opposition if it takes longer than that.

They are things of exquisite beauty- rugby's erogenous zones

[Cap'n Grumpy]

BTW Mooro is always worth listening to. His analysis is spot on

Worth listening to if you want a laugh. The guy is a prat.

Worst thing he ever did was doing a refereeing course and instantly became an expert on everything to do with rugby just because he had learned some laws that he never knew about when playing.

Only problem being his new-found knowledge wasn't always accurate, or if it was, his interpretation of how it should be applied was usually faulty.

Time spent listening to Brian Moore is time you'll regret never getting back again.

[MightyRearranger]

I've always found Moore utterly unbearable when commentating on England, but for games where be is neutral he can be interesting. There are a number more insightful, but enjoy his passion and straight talking.

Also, credit to him for doing the refereeing course, remember reading an interview with him where he said be both wanted to give back to the game at grassroots level and also thought if he was to criticise refs be should try and get some experience from their perspective. It doesn't mean he's always right with his interpretations, but anyone willing to give up their Saturdays for free so that 30 strangers can play a game of rugby gets a fair bit of respect and appreciation from me.

[CIMANFOREVER]

BTW Mooro is always worth listening to. His analysis is spot on

Worth listening to if you want a laugh. The guy is a prat.

Worst thing he ever did was doing a refereeing course and instantly became an expert on everything to do with rugby just because he had learned some laws that he never knew about when playing.

Only problem being his new-found knowledge wasn't always accurate, or if it was, his interpretation of how it should be applied was usually faulty.

Time spent listening to Brian Moore is time you'll regret never getting back again.

Cap'n regardless what you think of him as an individual, his analysis of front row play past and present is on the money. 64 England caps and 2 Lions tours as first choice hooker gives him a significant degree of kudos, playing in an era of extreme violence and confrontation. I also admire his abrasive commentary in contrast to the pablum served up on TV these days. E.Butler (RIP) and him were great entertainment.
His life story/ biography is also a good read- honest and open. It may also help to explain a man of contradictions and complexity.
Never dull

[justinr73]

Hmmmm.

Strikes me as a bit of a dick too.

He bustled past me at Twickenham once, with his security guard, as though he owned the place.

Saw Lawrie Sanchez outside Bristol Rovers v PNE in what must have been the late 90s. He was wearing sunglasses, despite it being very miserable winter weather.

He proceeded to trip over a police cone.