Sorry ,

the furthur apart the front row are the less stable it will be and thus HARDER to manage /ref, ideally esp at lower levels and underage you try and have them close.

its reffed and played totally differently in the SH, not sure im a big fan of it as its close to a game of basket ball at times.

Shelflife wrote: The furthur apart the front rows are the less stable the hit will be and easier to manage/ref.

mauls: the only way to defend a maul is to stop it, hold it up or collapse it (this is illegal), so when it collapses legally the ball has to immediatley available or else its a turnover. if as you say the oppostion had to release then there would really be no way to legally stop a maul.

changing the touch command to hold wouldnt work as the touch command ensures that the front row are close enough to take the hit.

there has been a big effort to stop sealing off at the breakdown, we are instructed to penalise anything that will stop a fair contest for the ball at the breakdown, for me thats a big step in the right direction.

if the hit is unstable then there will potentially be more resets and penalties so how does that help the scrum? i thought the new engagement rules were designed to make the scrum more stable and avoid resets?

im not sure id agree re the breakdown. how does it encourage a running game if theres a high risk of turnover at every breakdown? it definately appears to be interpreted very differently in super 15 and 4 nations(in favour of team in possession).

dont think that im shootin the messenger, im not, and thanks for the feedback.

The furthur apart the front rows are the less stable the hit will be and easier to manage/ref.

mauls: the only way to defend a maul is to stop it, hold it up or collapse it (this is illegal), so when it collapses legally the ball has to immediatley available or else its a turnover. if as you say the oppostion had to release then there would really be no way to legally stop a maul.

changing the touch command to hold wouldnt work as the touch command ensures that the front row are close enough to take the hit.

there has been a big effort to stop sealing off at the breakdown, we are instructed to penalise anything that will stop a fair contest for the ball at the breakdown, for me thats a big step in the right direction.

Shelflife, thanks for picking up on my post. its good to get a refs perspective on matters such as this. i hope you havent brought a heap of misery on yourself in future now that you hve outed yourself as a ref here LOL.

I can only assume that the opinions i have read re the term taking the hit is an interpretation of the phrase as these commentators concider the practise dangerous and not required under the laws.
Do you think my idea of changing the touch command to hold with an immediate set command would make any difference to the process?

I watched scotland v the all blacks and i thought they were very effective in the engagement. There front row closed the gap completely so that their heads were practically touching and scrummed quite effectively imo against them.

the hit as its currently enforced really does suit the bigger team and the illgal feed allows the pack to put all their concentration and effort into the hit as there is no requirement on them to secure the ball. imo its wrong to ignore one rule while vigourously enforcing others in the same facet of play.
To be fair the feed isnt refereed at all.

The maul- it appears we may misunderstand each other here. im talking about when the maul does collapse? if you are talking about this scenario then it would appear that the rules favour the defending team in this scenario when they should favour the attacking team. ive no problem with the choke tackle scenario but every opportunity to recycle the ball should be afforded to the attacking team when the ball is on the deck imo.right now its to the advantage of the defence to pull the maul down.

What in your opinion would improve the breakdown in terms of continuity while keeping it alive as a contest?
i agree that pros, in fact all players will chance pushing the boundries. its human nature i guess.

there are two forms of rugby and league has been professional for a long time. The two significant differences are the scrum and breakdown. I can only assume that they arrived at their rules tru an inability to satisfactorily sort out the problems in their game that union are currently facing. Hopefully we succeed where they failed.

A couple of points Rossie on your post, as a former prop (j2 level) and now a ref id like to clarify a few things.

Taking the hit isnt a made up law. law 20.2a All front row in a position to shove.

Not taking the hit or allowing the scrum to go straight down is very dangerous for both teams.

Props must bind on the body, not the arms its not rocket science, the reason they want to bind elsewhere is to gain an illegal advantage.having a binding pad on the jersey raises safety issues and basic cost issues as they would just rip them off or get their fingers caught.

I accept the feed isnt policed as rigidly as it could be, but the accepted thinking is that as long as they arnt tearing the arse off it, there are more important thing to get right at scrum time.

At the maul, the only legal way to combat it is to get your hands on the ball and not let it go to ground, if you forced the opposition to release and roll away, then everytime a maul went wrong the team that brought the ball in would just bring it down to force the opposition to roll away and release.

The breakdown is a tricky area, but i feel that if a ref is getting there early then it makes the policing of it a lot easier.

At every breakdown,scrum or maul there are umpteen opportunities to penalise players, the thing that refs try to do is minimise them by talking to the players and then deciding if a particular infringement is material or not.

The main problem at junior level is that a lot (most) of the players havent a scooby doo about the rules, a basic overview yes but nothing beneath the surface.

At pro levels the problem is that players are trying to constantly gain an edge by pushing the laws as far as they can some like Mccaw are masters at it, many others aspire to be like him therein lies the real problem.

Interesting articles guys. As someone who only ever played in the backs I'm not privy to the 'dark arts' so thank you for enlightening me. Gotta say listening to Schmidt and Feek now it makes a whole load of sense what there saying and why a good second rower is worth nearly as much as a good prop. I think I remember Feek talking about how happy he was with the balance of the scrum with the new guys so obviously Macca knows his job in the scrum. I think an project player might be in order if we could get one as we could be competing with Leinster for any IQ second row who comes on the market. I for one would love to get Andrew Farley back in a pinch.

I dont think there is any doubt that a good big player is better than a good little one but, as seapoint alludes to, talent is equally important. Take two current connacht players as an example-
Rodney AH You is listed as nearly 130kg if i remember correctly and Loughs is 114kg or something like that. i know which one i prefer. Mata Mafita is a huge man for a 12 but give me Mcsharry anyday etc.

The All Blacks scrum has consistantly outscrummaged heavier packs over the years because their technique has been better. They have cosed the gap bulk wise yes but the Saffers, France and even the english have consistantly had bigger packs over the last 5 even 10 yrs. Wales have performed well in the scrum in spite of giving big weight advantages to France and england etc.

The new buzz word in scrummaging is the requirement to take the hit. I have looked into this a bit recently and most prominent scrum experts such as brian moore and jeff probyn to name just two claim that no such requirement exists within the rules of the game. it appears to be a term which the referees have come up with in association with the irb spin doctors.
its the enforcement of this non existant rugby rule which sorts the men from the boys in propping terms. The top props take and give the hit extremely well. The weaker willed tend to go down too often. Its only after a successful hit that the power of the unit comes into the equation and every team differs in how they exert that force.
Northampton for example use tongahuaia and hartleys power to drive across the tight head which has the effect of depowering the opposition scrum as their loosehead end up with noone to push against.

Munsters tight head and hooker tend to push from opposite sides through the opposition hooker forcing him to pop up. this is an approach many teams use.

the biggest challenge facing rugby union imo is how we referee the game and particularly the breakdown, maul and scrum. the rules are either too complicated, not enforced or not effective in these areas.
the scrum where size and power count most- this is probably the most fascinating and frustrating aspect of the modern game. The referees imo are largely responsible for this. their attitude is completely contradictory imo. You must bind on the arm, follow my instructions to the letter or il penalise you no matter how hard you try to do so but il just ignore one very important rule and not referee the feed while enforcing vigourusly my own made up rule if you fail to take the hit.
the new engagement process has helped but not gone far enough imo. change the touch command to Hold and give the set command immediately and we are onto something. in addition introduce binding pads to the jerseys to give the props something to hold onto. we have lifting pads why not binding pads. A huge amout of pens are for not binding in the right way or area so help the players.
above all though ref the feed and make it a fair contest.

The Maul which is the next area where size and power count- There isnt a huge amount wrong with this atm but i think the rule where you are not required to release and roll away when the mall is collapsed and effectively becomes a ruck is rediculous. Change that and the maul is okay imo.

The breakdown- where to begin and unlike the scrum im not sure what the ref can do here.There is just too much for them to ref here. almost every action a player can take here can be interpreted as illegal. its a nonsensical scenario which the irb have created.
The tackled player must release the ball immediately on hitting the ground. supporting players must stay on their feet (Even if your pulled off your feet)and must enter the ruck trough the gate or from the hind most foot etc. no sealing off allowed etc.
on the defence side the tackler must release and roll away, stay on his feet and come in through the gate etc.
allow sealing off to promote continuity subject to the support players entering the ruck through the gate. the amount of turnovers through penalties is just too much and the pens in general too much imo.
thats my 10 cents worth anyway.

connachtexile wrote: I remember Schmidt going on about this when asked about second rows and citing that I think he called it a 'Tight side row?' in which he stated that they needed to be heavier to get a better scrummage as they off-put the weight of the prop and hooker on that side. He sited Damien Browne as a reference as a good example. (I don't get it either)

Apparently Greg Feek is all on about balance when he coaches scrums and how to get the perfect balance. Seemed to work against Argentina and Leinster have really well there since he's started coaching them. I'm no expert on scrummaging but I think even the off-set on one powerful second rower could make the world of difference to us. Can't see Leinster letting Browne go either with their second row shortage.

Ok the reason lets break it down:

The reason a Tight Head prop is Bigger than a Loose Head relates to extreme forces they are taking (the weight of the oppo Hooker and LH Prop either side of them) which are far greater on every engagement. A loosehead is on the outside of the scrum so only binds on the outside of the opposition TH. So to that end the second row supporting that side of the scrum (Tight Head Second Row) tends to be bigger also to help manage the extra load that the TH is handling.

You will occasionally see a smaller or lighter second row fill the role, it's rare as hens teeth though and it comes down to genetics really (a smaller guy wouldn't usually have the neck and back strength to handle the pressure 99/100 times). Scrums are a unit skill, a TH is only as good as the second row behind him let's him be. If you have an underpowered second row then the prop will get screwed, simple as..

If you have played front or second rows to a decent level (1st Team Club or above) you will be familiar with the level of compression that occurs on the scrum engagement. I remember years ago making the move into the 1st XV training squad at the beginning of a season, having played 2nd's/3rd's the previous year. The scrum sessions were an eye opener as on the lower side there was far less time given in training to set pieces, I remember on the first hit on the machine nearly passing out with the pressure as we held the initial drive, squeezed and then went for a secondary one so to guess what the loads that these guys who work on scrummaging for hours on end is frightening to say the least..

Size (which nearly always impacts mobility) is only good if you know how to deliver it, so Andrew Sheridan (when fit) = Good / Tony Buckle = Bad. Smaller packs can occasionally out-manoeuvre huge one's but it is very hard to sustain for 80 minutes unless you are supremely fit as the physical toll from general play against bigger opponents will affect concentration as the game wears on.

How many times in rugby do you see the bigger prop get bested by the small guy with the better technique. It happens a lot. The difficultly comes with consistently throughout 80 mins.
The aim should be to get the right technique to make size irrelevant and to get strong enough to perform for 80 mins.

I remember Schmidt going on about this when asked about second rows and citing that I think he called it a 'Tight side row?' in which he stated that they needed to be heavier to get a better scrummage as they off-put the weight of the prop and hooker on that side. He sited Damien Browne as a reference as a good example. (I don't get it either)

Apparently Greg Feek is all on about balance when he coaches scrums and how to get the perfect balance. Seemed to work against Argentina and Leinster have really well there since he's started coaching them. I'm no expert on scrummaging but I think even the off-set on one powerful second rower could make the world of difference to us. Can't see Leinster letting Browne go either with their second row shortage.

Shelflife wrote: Just as an aside to tthe points that you are making, but why are the offical weights for Healy and Ross taken as gospel ,but doubt is cast over the official connacht players ?

On topic, aside from the scrum (which is important) Ross offers little in the loose.

Lol not taking them as gospel at all, when I first stated that players stats were questionable I definitely meant that to apply to all. However you must admit that when you look at Buckley he certainly does not look 113kg, whereas the idea of Healy being 114 seems possible, if not completely accurate. On the other hand I had never seen Healy quoted as being 6'1'' until I checked the leinster site tonight, in fact I'm fairly sure I've mainly seen him listed as 6ft or less. In contrast I was surprised to see white listed as 'only' 118 since I had assumed he would be into the 120s, as he appears to be a big man.

Also you're definitely right that Ross does not off much in the loose, which is why I personally rate White as at least on par with him, since he offers more around the field and seems to be capable of stabilising the scrum to the same or almost the same level as Ross. However I think with a few exceptions the heavier your tighthead the better off you will be, and that would seem to be extra important when the locks are lighter. I'm not sure I've seen buckley and loughney scrummaging together, maybe they were one at the same time at some point against quins, but I don't think it would be pretty against a medium to above average opposition scrum.

My overall point in making this post was that although the lighter players all over a lot and still have a great deal of potential (none of the lighter options are over the hill, or even close), but if they cannot find a way to close the gap between themselves and their heavier teammates then the scrum can and will be targetted as a weakness for a while to come.

Actually I can't remember which paper it was in, possibly the IT, but there was something about Healy having bulked up and finding it difficult to stay as fast as he had been so he dropped six kilos to I think end up at 108, which sounds more likely. I think that players weights are probably listed at their heaviest pre/post season levels, hence buckley at 113 before losing weight as porterbelly says.

I don't know enough to even guess whether the front row was the problem last night (they looked bigger than their opponents), but the rest of the pack was two 6s at lock and thress 7s in the back row. The difference in sixe between 4 through 8 in the 2 packs was staggering.

Just as an aside to tthe points that you are making, but why are the offical weights for Healy and Ross taken as gospel ,but doubt is cast over the official connacht players ?

On topic, aside from the scrum (which is important) Ross offers little in the loose.

Buckley is only about 100kg

I'd say he lost a good 6/7 kg in pre season as he wasn't remotely fit. Now he's fit but needs to gain a few kg to get to where he needs to be for scrummaging. However doing it this way is the right, no point carrying around 6/7 kg's on flab which is no good to him, might as well build muscle over time and develop his all round game, which is clear that he has.


Mick Kearney has a big frame, could easily get to 115 kg. Browne could probably do the same.

Thing is, nearly every team have a big TH lock over 120kg, which is needed for scrummaging, mauling and in the tight. This is where we lack. Swifty while listed as 120kg is probably closer to 115kg.

We've always been carrying light opensides- Razor, JOC, Faloon, Grace are all under 100kg. To make up for this we could do with a big bruiser at 6/8 to come in and share the load with Mul and George.

I'd guess we'll be conceding on average 4/5 kg a man in the pack to Biarritz which again shows where we're lacking. It can be very difficult to make up for that massive disparity, especially on wet days and Quins showed that to us by gradually grinding us down.

I really think we need to recruit a couple of heavy hitters for next season, Damien Browne definitely being one. The likes of Tommy O Donnell and Dave O Callaghan have really bulked up this season and are powerful guys and while have got some games this season, could possibly be tempted. Auva'a is a massive specimen, if he could rid himself of his lazy streak he'd be an asset to us.

Someone in the Edinburgh game thread stated our pack was underpowered and somewhat underweight/light. Thought I should start a new thread about it rather than go off topic. Rugby player stats seems a bit questionable at times (optimistic might be a polite way of putting it) but they are all we have to go on. Unfortunately I was not at the Edinburgh game but I have seen games where the Connacht scrum was consistently on the back foot when the first choices were not available. This isn't so much about a single game however so I still feel ok about posting this.

Props;

Buckley is a good young prop who according to the provinces website is only a kilo lighter than healy and eight centimetres shorter than church (113 and 114kg respectively). This doesn't seem likely but even if his weight is accurate its fair to say that healy is a stronger man in general and probably a good bit leaner. This is something that buckley can work on in the coming years but in the meantime he is carrying some dead weight to an extent.

Loughney is listed as 1.86 and 115kg. I seem to remember his stated weight being around 100kg only a year or so ago so either he has gained a decent amount of weight or this is nonsense. The problem is obvious however, the scrums anchor is only 2kg heavier than the loosehead, that doesn't seem like enough, especially as Buckley is a young up and comer. In comparison Ross is listed as 127kg and 2cm taller. Ross is not even heaviest of th's although obviously he is up there. White is supposedly 118kg, Hagan is 120 and Afoa is 118.

Now I didn't see the Edinburgh game as I couldn't be there, I think the last time I remember seeing Loughney propping was against Leinster and when Healy came on in the second half he blast Loughs off his feet a number of times in a quite dangerous fashion. I realise Healy is a top level prop but still this seemed to me to illustrate Loughneys' lightness on the scale as a TH.

I don't think there are many question marks over Wilkinson's power in the scrum so we will note that he is listed as 116kg, the heaviest lh in this short list, and move on.

Second Row;

Size and strength wise I feel our first choice locks (Swift and McCarthy) tick all the boxes, 1.96 and 120kg, 1.93 and 112. McCarthy showed that he was at home dealing with the physicality of South Africa and Etzebeth so there can't be any questions here really.

Mick Kearney is listed as 1.95 and 109, and Browne 1.96 and 109. The extra mass that they give up to Swifty is obvious, and that seems to have been borne out in the Edinburgh game.

Now to try and find a point in all these stats, if you compare the heaviest possible front five and lighter option (using flavin as hooker in both cases, 102kg) the disparity is significantly magnified.
Wilks, Flav, White, Swift, Macca = 568kg.

Buckley, Flav, Loughs, Kearney, Browne = 548kg.

I won't go into the back row figures but I think its fair to say that the difference between heaviest and next heaviest would just further magnify the problem.

There is 20kg being given up just by picking two different front fives. While the second option offers considerable mobility and other options, can it really hold its own against the majority of the rabo opposition, never mind the heineken?


Kearney and Browne could potentially gain some mass over next summer, and probably match mccarthy's weight handily enough, but that still only reduces the weight disparity to 14kg, and if they try to gain mass too quickly their ability in the loose, in the lineout and overall athleticism could well take a hit.

This might not be an issue if everyone was fit and available, one could easily mix and match heavier players with lighter, as we have seen buckley matched with white and wilks matched with loughney this season. But one injury to any prop and the pressure begins to mount. With Macca away on international duty or potentially moving to Leinster(shudder) or Swift injured or retired (a looming probability) then serious question marks are raised about Connacht's ability to be competitive in the scrum in the next few years, never mind just this season.

So, that was really unnecessarily long, but if you're still with me, is it time to start worrying about scrum strength going forward?

(holy moly that's a long post)