uncontested scrums v Saints

TomWeston · Post by **TomWeston** » Tue May 19, 2015 3:35 pm

[quote="The Boy Dave']
I have never rated Ma'afu, like Mujati and Tonga'uhia before him he has always struggled beyond three or four scrums and Denman is no match for Ayerza.[/quote]

I'm wracking my (addled) brain to think of someone who is!

Christophelp · Post by **Christophelp** » Tue May 19, 2015 3:38 pm

TomWeston wrote:
The Boy Dave wrote: I have never rated Ma'afu, like Mujati and Tonga'uhia before him he has always struggled beyond three or four scrums and Denman is no match for Ayerza.
I'm wracking my (addled) brain to think of someone who is!

Dan Cole?!

The Boy Dave · Post by **The Boy Dave** » Tue May 19, 2015 3:47 pm

Christophelp
Posted: Tue May 19, 2015 2:38 pm

Re: uncontested scrums v Saints

TomWeston wrote:

The Boy Dave wrote:
I have never rated Ma'afu, like Mujati and Tonga'uhia before him he has always struggled beyond three or four scrums and Denman is no match for Ayerza.

I'm wracking my (addled) brain to think of someone who is!

Dan Cole?!

Be interesting next weekend, some big names coming together at the Rec.
I am keen to see Auterac scrummage at Cole's level and the outcome, both I rate very highly along with Ayerza obviously.
Any news on Mulipola who limped off against Saints?

FrontRowUnionMember · Post by **FrontRowUnionMember** » Tue May 19, 2015 3:51 pm

This never occurred to me at the time, but at Midlands leagues levels, if you are unable to compete a scrum and need to go to passive scrums in a league game, you have to surrender a player as a penalisation. Saints should have lost an extra player as a result of that. Though in the grand scheme of things, it made no difference to the outcome.
Going forwards, will Brookes be any better in the set piece for them?

The Boy Dave · Post by **The Boy Dave** » Tue May 19, 2015 4:02 pm

Going forwards, will Brookes be any better in the set piece for them?

It will be good to see Brookes now at Premiership level alongside Corbisiero or Alex Waller, two looseheads I rate very highly.
Along with Cole and Auterac there are some quality English props around but at this point only one tighthead in Cole which makes the Brookes move interesting!

Norfolk & Goode · Post by **Norfolk & Goode** » Tue May 19, 2015 4:30 pm

mightymouse wrote:get your arm up and play advantage and see if the destruction of their scrum leads to a try.

Do you really expect to play advantage when boring in, no bind or collapsing? The only destruction will be of players welfare.

You blame everyone but the guilty, and that is the players themselves.

TomWeston · Post by **TomWeston** » Tue May 19, 2015 5:42 pm

Christophelp wrote:
TomWeston wrote:
The Boy Dave wrote: I have never rated Ma'afu, like Mujati and Tonga'uhia before him he has always struggled beyond three or four scrums and Denman is no match for Ayerza.
I'm wracking my (addled) brain to think of someone who is!
Dan Cole?!

Statement of the Bleddyn Obvious, but thankfully (for all but the purists) they don't compete publicly very often. Must be like male water buffalo at the beginning of the mating season!

mol2 · Post by **mol2** » Tue May 19, 2015 9:12 pm

I would like the laws changed to allow the opposition to nominate a player to go off if a front row player is carded for a technical offence (if that would result in uncontested scrums).
This couldn't apply for foul play or strait reds but in such circumstances the side unable to put out a front row would be forced to place a full 8 into the uncontested scrum.

northerntiger · Post by **northerntiger** » Tue May 19, 2015 10:42 pm

If you don't have to put a full 8 into an uncontested scrum, can the side who will loose the scrum just put a front row in and leave the rest out, freeing them up for the next phase?

InGuinnessVeritas · Post by **InGuinnessVeritas** » Wed May 20, 2015 5:20 am

northerntiger wrote:If you don't have to put a full 8 into an uncontested scrum, can the side who will loose the scrum just put a front row in and leave the rest out, freeing them up for the next phase?

Loose = not tight
Lose = not win

G.K · Post by **G.K** » Wed May 20, 2015 7:58 am

InGuinnessVeritas wrote:
northerntiger wrote:If you don't have to put a full 8 into an uncontested scrum, can the side who will loose the scrum just put a front row in and leave the rest out, freeing them up for the next phase?
Loose = not tight
Lose = not win

Deffo BJ then.

Norfolk & Goode · Post by **Norfolk & Goode** » Wed May 20, 2015 1:23 pm

northerntiger wrote:If you don't have to put a full 8 into an uncontested scrum, can the side who will loose the scrum just put a front row in and leave the rest out, freeing them up for the next phase?

You have to have a minimum of 5 ie 3 front row 2 second row. You only need parity in numbers for u19's and below. Can't see a significant benefit in defence or even attack though!

mol2 · Post by **mol2** » Thu May 21, 2015 6:33 pm

If you have to put a full 8 into an uncontested scrum, a side with 14 men will only have 6 backs to form a defensive line. If you just put the minimum 5 in to the scrum, you can still form a solid defensive line, and the 5 can more quickly disengage from the scrum than if bound with a full back row behind them.

It would perhaps be harsh for a side unable to field a front row through genuine injury but where the problem is a card taken to avoid being driven back and avoid scrums, there has to be some penalty.

It has been less of an issue since the bench was expanded to contain a full front row among the replacements, but it is still infuriating for a dominant pack to have their advantage nullified by the old Wasps tactic of:

"Sir, Sir, both of our hookers are too injured to scrummage, but one is fit enough to play on, tackle like a demon, run like the wind and throw to the line outs, so can we bring on our bench flankers for the props and not do any of that nasty scrummaging that we are no good at?"