Let’s play it down the middle
Roar Pro By Wally James, 20 May 2009 Wally James is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- lineout, Rugby Union, scrum, Super Rugby
The law does not just say that the scrum feed must be straight. It also says the ball must be thrown in along the middle line. More and more the feed into the scrum may be straight but not along that line.
The half back stands to his team’s side of the scrum, not the middle line, and puts it in from there.
Without this the team with the feed already has an advantage – their hooker is closer to the ball with his loosehead nearer the halfback. With such a feed the hooker is closer still.
Should they have an added advantage? I think not.
Its even worse when the ref stands on the tighthead side of the scrum. Not only is it not down the middle line but also under the second row’s foot, let alone the hooker’s.
The beauty of our sport is the contest. We have it at tackle, ruck, maul and lineout – especially lineout where both touch judge and ref are quick to pull the throw up for not straight.
But I have not once heard a ref at Super 14 or test level pull it up for not down the middle.
Once upon a time hookers did not care about the score, only the tighthead count. No wonder that does not happen anymore.
We rarely get tightheads because halfbacks, as is their wont, cheat.
Can we not get more unpredictability in our game and have more contest at the scrum by a simple application of law? It would make an old hooker happy.
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- lineout, Rugby Union, scrum, Super Rugby
May 20th 2009 @ 7:41am
Geoff said | May 20th 2009 @ 7:41am | Report comment
The law allows a channel of two ball widths – one each side of the centre – as long as the ball travels straight within that channel then the feed is OK.
May 20th 2009 @ 8:03am
Spiro Zavos said | May 20th 2009 @ 8:03am | Report comment
My understanding, too, is that the middle line is the line between the two rows of feet. Props tend to pull their feet as far back as they can to bring the ‘middle’ line closer to their own shoulders and side of the scrum.
But I can never understand why a marginal line out throw is called but not blatant crooked feeds. The degree of difficulty in the two operations greatly favours the throwers yet the non-insistence on absolute accuracy favours the ‘cheating’ scrum feeders.
Halfbacks should not be allowed to wait before feeding the ball until their weaker scrum finally gets a good hit.
They shouldn’t put it under their props feet like the Reds last week.
And referees should allow dominant scrums to be dominant and penalise perennial collapsers like Al Baxter.
May 20th 2009 @ 8:05am
Longy said | May 20th 2009 @ 8:05am | Report comment
“Law 20.5 (d) states ” The scrum half must throw in the ball straighit along the middle line …”
Definition – “The middle line is an imaginary line on the ground in the tunnel beneath the line where the shoulders of the two front rows meet”
Geoff what book are you reading???
The ARU directive is that feeds need to be “credible”. What does that mean? What absolute rubbish.
Yes it should be a competition for tha ball and we should see wins to the tight head and we’ll see less collapsing as front rows will be in a position to win the ball. What happened to “forwards win the ball and backs score the tries”?
Why does a team with the ball be allowed to do whatever they want at the breakdown?
Without a competition for the ball we may as well be playing league.
May 20th 2009 @ 8:12am
Knives Out said | May 20th 2009 @ 8:12am | Report comment
Paddy O’Brien (I think. I’m sure Mr. Zavos will be able to correct me if I’m wrong.) responded to calls from the IRB to regulate straight feeds, who in turn, passed this down to the appropriate referees. Effectively no real progress was made and crooked feeds were still blatant as ever. O’Brien, when questioned by the media, told the press that he had informed the appropriate referees and that he was not sure why they had not acted on the IRB’s unofficial demands.
What on earth is going on?
–
Mr. Zavos, I think that the problem is that referees simply do not have the necessary scrum education to rule upon the set-piece. In an ideal world I think it would be fantastic were referees sent to ‘scrum school’ or mentored by ex-pros. Further, I think it would be a good idea to integrate specific ex-pros into the refereeing panel – specifically an ex-front rower. As much as I find Brian Moore a reasonably contentious character I think that he would be an excellent referee, for example. Characters like Moore, Michael Foley, John Eales, David Wilson etc would surely make objective, articulate referees.
May 20th 2009 @ 8:25am
Hammer said | May 20th 2009 @ 8:25am | Report comment
Bravo Wally
This site like most others I read will discuss every aspect of rugby union but rarely do they venture into one of the core problems of our game. The real reason our game became so great.. Men battling for possession of the pig skin regardless of skill level, age, fitness, shape, or height. It did not matter if you wanted to play rugby there was a game in a club for you.
I believe we need to get the competition for the ball back into the game and, yes it will slow the game down a bit but so what? Not only put the ball in straight down the middle of scum’s and LO’s, get rid of “The Gate”, bring back rucking, enforce the “no bridging law, penalise all instances of “diving in” from anywhere ETC.
So let’s start with not putting the ball in straight. Now that it is common practice (all 9’s everywhere at every level had tricks and diversions to get a benefit) and opposition scrums can never get into a position to hook or kick a ball back they concentrate on the hit and drive. If they don’t get the hit more often than not they will drop it for a reset.
There are no incentives to keep a scum up if there are no opportunities to contest the put in. Might as we remove the term Hooker from the game. He does not have to hook even when it’s his put in?
I suppose the other issues I listed could be discussed individually at length as well. Some lunatic has taken what used to be the reason to play Rugby out of the game. Bring back the real contest and the fans will come back as well. It like going to the races to see the crashes,,, we just don’t have the crashes anymore!
May 20th 2009 @ 9:16am
Even looser said | May 20th 2009 @ 9:16am | Report comment
Couldn’t agree more with the points raised.
I can’t remember the last time I saw a win against the feed. More of these would add more interest for fans.
May 20th 2009 @ 10:49am
RickG said | May 20th 2009 @ 10:49am | Report comment
A big cheer from me!
I totally agree that we need to maintain the contest in the scrum. Rugby prides itself on it but tighthead scrums are so rare now. As was dicussed here a while ago the 8-man shove was adopted across the board several years ago so the hooker on the side without the throw isn’t in a position to strike for the ball as his feet are well back and the focus is on winning the hit and maintaining low body height.
I’ve come to rugby pretty late but from the footage I’ve seen from the 80s and earlier the scrums seemed to come together fairly fluidly (ie no crouch, pause, enagage) and both hookers were able to bring their feet forward to contest the ball – obviously made easier since the ball was more likely to be fed into the centre of the tunnel.
It seems now the only way to win against the feed is to win the hit and push your opponents off the ball, which seems to happen rarely, or wheel through 90 degrees.
Does anyone remember the classic league scrums of the 80s, with hookers like Benny Elias hanging off his props with his feet well out in front trying to pinch the ball from the opposition’s second row! I’d love t osee a contest like that again in rugby.
May 20th 2009 @ 11:02am
Hoy said | May 20th 2009 @ 11:02am | Report comment
Hammer, just one thing there about your post. You say “get rid of the gate” then you say “penalise all instances of diving in from anywhere”. Is that a bit of an oxymoron.
The gate is a good idea. You have to come from behind the last mans feet.
Some things that I find annoying are when refs tell the players to stop counter rucking. Why? I can do what I want until the ball is out, why do I have to stop counter rucking, if it is legal, which it is.
Why do they pull up lineout throws that aren’t straight, but weren’t challenged? To my mind, if you don’t have a jumper up, then you dip out on the “not straight call”. If the defensive team doesn’t have a jumper up, I should be able to toss it almost to the halfback (joke, or is it?). What difference does it make if it wasn’t straight, if the defensive team won’t jump?
May 20th 2009 @ 11:33am
Hammer said | May 20th 2009 @ 11:33am | Report comment
Hoy
I’m really glad you picked up on this…Gate/offside issue. I have been told many reasons to have the “gate” one was to make forwards come around thus slowing their involvement in the breakdown. This allows any player on their feet over the ball to get hands on it and progress the game. Another is that it promotes better body position and preparation for engagement and another is that it stops players diving in from anywhere.
I’m not advocating no offside at the breakdown. Just no need for the gate. The offside line should be the ball. So any player on his side of the ball can attack possession. I don’t care if a player is half a meter onside he should be able to contest ownership (as long as he is on his feet).
Rucks have been consigned to history. Even players that come through the gate and bind can’t truly drive thru a ruck without stepping on all those that have already dived off their feet. Counter rucking (A term I hate with a passion) is just plain rucking and a skill fast disappearing because we don’t need it at the tackle. Diving practice is the call. Sprint to the Breakdown and dive through the gate and kill the game.
Unfortunately I am one of those disaffected coaches that still believe speed and tries are not the only elements that make rugby great. The heart of rugby is the continual contest for possession and territory, The gate, lifting in LO’s, incorrect scrum feed, loss of rucking, loss of mauling, general play kicking, ball retention, all of these skills are disappearing from our game. I am no conspiracy theorist but it appears that in the last 8-10 years out game has constantly been de-skilled.
The introduction of the gate is one small facet that has led to many negative aspects.
Off side should be where the ball is not the last feet. If you are on-side (your side of the ball) and it’s a tackle and you are not the tackler you should be able to attack possession.
May 20th 2009 @ 12:43pm
Wally James said | May 20th 2009 @ 12:43pm | Report comment
Spiro
Good point as to the degrees of difficulty in throwing into a lineout as opposed to feeding a scrum. Especially when you talke into account not just the action itself but the person doing it. Hookers are far more fatigued after scummaging, tackling, rucking and mauling than a halfback who mainly runs and passes with the occasional tackle.
Longy
I like a blolke who knows his laws of the Game. Spot on
Knives out
Paddy seems to have become as inconsistent with the enforecement of his directives as refs are with the scrum feed. If they don’t ping as directed, drop them. They’ll soon come to the party.
Hammer
It seems to me that the change to a lack of contest started to creep in with professionalism. Get the bottoms on seats. Make the game less arcane and easier for someone to watch who might otherwise not watch it. All very well for the $ but not for old time followers. And I accept what you say about rucking. You either do it or you don’t – there is no counter about it. The Laws make no reference to it. If you’ll pardon the pun, the use of the term is counter-productive.