sixo_clock.
The grudges that I speak of, and I’m sure others speak of, are not bad blood grudges. They are traditional rivalries. Players will smash each other senseless on the field, and then help each other up. Any bad blood is normally left on the field and the bars are a place to compare war stories. I’ve never known players to loath each other because at some point they may be team mates, so the rivalries are a brother vs. brother smash up – similar to State of Origin / mate vs. mate. On Wednesday night players are almost decapitating each other, the next Friday or Saturday they are playing alongside each other.

No one really holds a personal grudge, as far as I’ve seen.

I think that we can all agree that Meyer is a much better coach than PdV. There have been some issues that if you have a coach from a particular province, he may favour players from his province, but this hasn’t really been the case.
Yes, Meyer may select players from The Bulls, but look at the performance of the Bulls. They are a strong team, but Meyer will also look to other provinces for the best players. Coaches of his calibre are more professional than that. They have built a team around themselves so that they can bounce ideas off his chosen command to get the best result. He has Rassie Erasmus as his technical/performance advisor, who is a Western Province boy, he is looking at captains from Western Province, Cheetahs and Sharks as his leadership group and he is looking at the Currie Cup teams for specialised players. He my have hired skills coaches from The Bulls, but that is due to the fact that he knows these guys and they are on the same page as he is, instead of trying to hire an unknown and working out the kinks before game time.
Meyer may be the answer to South African rugby and may take the team to the top once again, but it’s not a surety. He did forge The Bulls into a championship franchise and may do the same at the international level, but a great Super Rugby coach doesn’t always translate into a great international coach, most recently Robbie Deans.

Springbok Rugby also have the proud tradition of using local coaches and don’t always hire head coaches from other countries, so most of the time, the coaching ideas are localised and reflect a Super Rugby teams’ game plan or something similar, which may be interpreted as favourtism towards a particular team.

This situation of non-rivalry can go back to the lack of grassroots rivalry and traditional ‘enemies’. I can only speak from a South African perspective, so I apologise to the ITM Cup and Australian domestic rugby if facts don’t line up.
The Currie Cup in South Africa is a traditional slog fest between the different provinces of South Africa. Only in the last 16 years or so, it has taken a back seat to the Super Rugby series (be it Super 12, 14 or 15). These rivalries in the Currie Cup were established long before teams were professional and passion and dedication were forged in players wanting to play for a team not for money, but rather for pride. This mentality comes from school and university/college rivalries. South Africa has some traditional rugby schools/colleges such as TUKS, Greys, Stellenbosch, etc. and these establishments have forged grudges over time. Even at school level, South Africa have an annual schools competition called Craven Week, again forging grudges. These grudges and traditions filter up into the professional echelons of rugby creating old enemies like Northern Transvaal (now Blue Bulls) vs. Transvaal (now Golden Lions), Western Province (still WP or Stormers in Super Rugby) vs. Natal (now The Sharks) or Eastern Province (now Southern Kings)
There aren’t traditional days that teams play, but when they play, crowds flock to the stadiums, especially if there is pride or trophies at stake and the media has done their part to build up the match. Very rarely there is a blow out, so spectators are in for a good match.

The problem that I’ve seen in Australia, is that there is no traditional enemies, be it universities, clubs or schools. Rugby Union has generally been played in private schools with the majority of public schools play AFL. Since the number of clubs and schools that play AFL outnumber the schools/clubs that play Union, no enemies are forged. Australia’s attempt at making a domestic competition has been half-arsed in the past and the window of opportunity has passed as the professional era dictates what is viable or not. To establish grudge matches, Australian rugby needs to focus at grassroots and create school matches or university matches that excite the crowds. Make competitions that don’t require a professional aspect as all players are still amateurs, and involve local media to hype up the matches. Trying to hold a match on a traditional day is too difficult, so rather focus on team rivalries and eventually the day won’t matter.

I spoke of tradition earlier and it seems that Australia lack the tradition of rugby grudges at school/uni/club level while the international tradition thrives (Bledisloe being the cream of the crop).

You were lucky to play rugby in a country that knows and respects the game. I currently play amateur rugby in Japan and every official that I have come across at all amateur levels are completely clueless on the application of law and the the safety of the game.
There are some scrums that can be called an anti-climax, but referring back to an earlier comment, the internal workings of a scrum and the anticipation of an attacking run are what I most look forward to.

nickoldschool.
There are coaches who coach a trick or two to milk a penalty, but the amateur scrums are a mess. The are not coached correctly, they are overseen by amateur and highly under-educated referees and techniques used can cause immense injury. In fact, the number of spinal and neck injuries are higher in the amateur ranks compared to regulated/professional ranks.
Scrums are a very specialised part of rugby that has the potential to cause catastrophic injuries and require as such, coaches a referees properly educated in scrum techniques. It’s a great part of the game of rugby, but needs to be properly supervised and monitored and referees need to be able to identify dark arts and ‘milking’ techniques.

The current process of a four step engagement is too long and I believe that a large majority of scrummagers would agree. It does create a larger margin for error and the potential problem of mis-timed contact. A two step process may be a bit difficult, so let’s cut it down the middle and have a three step process. Something along the lines of “crouch”: As stated before, the locks and loose forwards lift their knees off the ground, “pause”: A chance for the referee to quickly asses the stability and safety of the scrum. “engage/scrum”: The point and time of contact.
To have the referee oversee and avoid any danger, he or she must be educated (by a proper coach/experienced player or what-have-you) in proper scrum techniques and the dynamics of force generated by a scrum. There are many aspects to create a safer scrum, such as correct spacing between front rows, the contact area between the heads of players, the height of a front row once in position, etc. He or she will then apply this knowledge when they are in the “pause” process of scrum. They will quickly asses whether to abandon the scrum or go ahead. If the referee needs assistance, a touch judge can be called onto the field to asses the opposing side of the scrum and to give the all clear. Responsibility also relies on coaches and players to prepare for a scrum. This comes in many forms from correct gym work outs, practice field training and specialist players focusing on the correct scrum techniques, which ideally would be standard across all teams and levels. Below is a 10 minute link bringing up some safety and proper techniques in a scrum.
I would actually like to read this upcoming book as I am very interested in the scrums and the force, skill and technique needed to create a perfect unit as well as all other peripheral subjects.

Rowdy.
Agree with 2 of your points but the third point about the hit – that is part of the scrum at determines whether a prop can dominate or not. If you a prop gets a good hit, the opposition can be unstable allowing for the strength of the scrum to be determined. It comes down to technique, timing and correct body positioning.
The jerseys worn today by the players don’t allow for props to take a quick bind, so they land up grabbing a handful of skin. The jerseys worn by props should be a looser fit, but the “handles/tags” idea may hinder the player in open play. There is nothing wrong with wearing a looser jersey made of the same composition. Besides that, a prop doesn’t have the body for these ultra tight jersey. Imagine Salesi Ma’afu running around in skin tight compression-type gear. Not too pleasing to the eye. (No offence Salesi).

mitchwally
There are the rare occasions at international level when a tighthead scrum is forced, and this can be down to a number of things. I think that one of the reasons we don’t see tightheads that often is because the ball is generally fed screw into the scrum by the scrumhalf/half-back, which according to the law warrants a free kick but refs seem to let this slide more often than not unless the ball is fed into the locks channel and a blatant mis-feed is made.
Another more legitimate reason is because the attacking scrum knows when the ball is being fed into the scrum. When the attacking hooker is ready, he’ll signal his scrumhalf by either tapping his hand on the loosehead prop or another signal, and the scrummy feeds the ball as soon as the hooker lifts his foot to strike. The hooker cannot lift his foot before the ball is fed, so it comes down to timing. Since the defending hooker cannot see this signal, he is generally a half step behind the attacking scrum, so generally focuses on counter-scrumming.
If the front row has timed their engagement hit right and the 8-man unit pushes at the right time, it is possible to force the attacking scrum to back pedal allowing for the ball to bobble about in the tunnel and then the defensive hooker or props can strike it backwards, causing a tighthead. There is some skill, but normally on a defensive scrum, the tight five dig in and the loose forwards have their heads up watching for a sniping player or lining up a fly half or aiming for a channel to hinder an attacking play.

Jeznez,
When I have the time and gather my resources, I’ll have a go at writing a technical aspect of the scrum. A project for another day and it’s something that I have been studying for years, so it’ll be interesting to see what I can personally bring to the table.

Jim.
Agreed completely. Recently Super Sport contracted Vic Matfield as a commentator and use him for his experience and knowledge and he can usually call a play accurately and explains well what is happening in the scrums and lineouts.

Oikee.
I agree that there should be better maintained fields for rugby and sports that potentially damage the fields, but AFL fields are a last option.
AFL is an aerial game so stadium seats are built lower to the ground in a gentle terrace style. Rugby is mainly played at ground level, so seats are built higher off the ground with a dramatic terrace. I remember watching a rugby match at Subiaco Oval and spending more time watching the big screen than the action on the field, because we couldn’t really see what was happening on the field. Compared to the colosseum style stadiums, where you are able to look down into the action, the AFL fields allow you to look up. I can only speak for Subiaco, so I’m not sure about the other stadiums, but on TV, the seats seem to be set up in a flat structure.
There maybe nothing wrong with the field itself, rather the stadium seating structure.

Topo.

All points taken into consideration, but I do elude to skill and technique when talking about the scrum. If I had to get into a discussion about correct technique and skill, I would be creating a whole new article. What we see on TV, is the brute strength that is generated by proper technique and skill. I can get into all the intricacies of proper scrumming and technique, but I’ll create another article, an article based in physics and the human skeletal positions and anatomic motions, which would be a boring read. (and I would need a number of visual aids).

As far as I have seen, the refs are communicating more openly with players. The refs call front rows for a quick meeting before a match and the good referees communicate on the field with the front rows, which can be heard via the ref’s mic. I didn’t not say anything about them knowing more about scrumming than the players – in fact I agree with you completely that they really don’t know a thing about scrums besides the application of the law. I state that refs often penalise a player when clearly there is no need to.

I watch a ton of rugby, close to 80% of the Super Rugby games and every Southern Hemisphere test match. I have grown up in the scrumming ranks and have played the game for over 25 years. I have gained coaching certification and IRB law administration at school level matches. I consider myself well versed in the game of rugby.

If you doubt the fact that refs have sped up the process of scrumming times, just look at the number of resets per game compared to a few years ago. I remember watching a 6 nations match (I cannot recall what teams were playing) and the broadcaster timed the phases of play dedicated to scrums. At the end of the match, the clock read 15 minutes and some odd seconds dedicated to scrumming and resets, which wasn’t that unusual for the time. If compared to now, the time dedicated to scrumming is nowhere near this as the refs either award penalties or free kicks (unjust or not) to keep the game moving.

To finish off, there are 15 men on the field and all 15 men work towards winning. In open play, it doesn’t matter if you are wearing number 1 or 15, if you are there in support, your teammate will look for you and use you, working together to score points.

You have a point there. It never crossed my mind to think of the 7’s as a counter argument to the lack of entertainment in XVs. It is an entertaining spectacle and has been used to sell rugby to the public hence it’s inclusion in the Olympics 2016.
But I was talking about faked and practiced moves a la WWE, but again, as I stated before, I doubt an idea like that would take traction or be feasible or even be logical.

I know, but you know what I mean. The Globetrotters entertain fans of the NBA with slick moves and choreographed moves, etc. I still wonder if that could translate into rugby?

I wonder if rugby codes should look into something the NBA has – the Globetrotters? Have a team or teams that train and choreograph plays, etc. I know it’s an idea from left field, but if entertainment is the issue to be confronted, then an entertainment team could be an option?
I know it’s an idea that will never gain traction or support, but I believe that supporters want wins and trophies over entertainment. The All Blacks are happy with their World Cup win, but the score was 8 – 7. A very low score considering that both teams were known for flair and running rugby. It was an “ugly” rugby game, and won as an “ugly” test match should be won. This win could and did generate a lot of revenue for New Zealand and the spectators and supporters were happy (on the New Zealand side of the fence). This is one of many examples where the match was a gripping encounter but the ‘entrainment’ factor was found in the different technical elements of the game as opposed to the flair and backhanded passes of Super Rugby.

Ever since I was young, my father took me to local Currie Cup matches (long before the super rugby series) and I watched countless matches on TV with him. Through this exposure as a young lad, I took up the game and have grown with it so it’s part me, my blood and my psyche. The rules have been changed dramatically over the years and especially during professionalism in the sport. These rules have been changed or adapted for two main reasons. The safety of the game and to open the game up to allow for fast flowing rugby, which attracts spectators.
I have witnessed young kids at games and a new generation growing up with the game. They dress in their teams’ colours and strips and head to the stadium to watch their team. The key component is that kids and adults alike are passionate about their team. They have something to relate to and something to follow and believe in. This anchor of support allows for the opening for people to become interested in the game. If there is nothing that relates to non-players, they simply turn to another channel that has something they are interested in. Once this relation between a spectator and team is established (through various marketing and touring campaigns), then they have hooked their audience. Once the bait and hook is set, then passionate followers can begin to teach them about the intricacies of the game. I think it’s best for players or even just spectators who are passionate about the game, to learn more about the ‘dark arts’ of scrumming or the different running lines of a winger, or the support running of a centre or the skill and strength it takes to jackal a ball from a ruck. Once a passionate supporter knows the basics of these elements, they can go on a teach a new comer, who has been baited, about the different elements of the game and the rules that apply.
I’ve tried to teach my Japanese wife about the game, but my teachings have fallen onto deaf ears and I think that the reason is that there is no team or player that relates to her or her interests. And before you ask, there are a lot of female Japanese rugby supporters about.
The key is for a new supporter to relate to a team or player. When I was young, I grew up watching Western Province playing against Eastern Province or Natal against Transvaal. The local rivalries were things that I could relate to as it stirred up passion in the heart of every South African. You can compare this passion to the AFL rivals or even the State of Origin clash. This passion creates a generation of well versed spectators and players.

@Lippy. I have thought about writing something about the Kings wanting to join the Super Rugby schedule, but they will only likely join, as you have hinted at, if a team is relegated, but again this a money power game. The Kings are more of a political pawn than a financial contributor, so there is that angle. The Kings have danced about legal action and all sorts of underhanded tactics to be included, but have been shut out of the process with a very simple counter argument. If South Africa gets 6 teams, then soon Australia would want a sixth team and New Zealand would want a sixth team. This of course will burden the playing schedule for the players and the wiser, experienced or older ones will pack their tent and head to more fortune and less burden in Japan or Europe. This isn’t an ideal situation for anyone, teams/franchises and broadcasters alike.
This Kings inclusion story won’t die easy, but as long as South African politicians want to have a hand in sport, especially rugby, The Kings will be their chosen team to get around an affirmative action quota system and include players of colour in the echelons of rugby. The politicians don’t realise that a bloodbath is on the table if they push too hard and they should realise that if they focus on the good that they have, they can exploit players of colour that have already been established in legitimate, competitive teams (Habana, Ralapele, Aplon, du Jongh, Pietersen, Mvovo, etc). This is an argument that clearly has no winner except politics.

I have to laugh and chuckle at these comments. It’s become a full out mudslinging competition and seemingly brought about by the edited and misleading headline which was The Roar’s choosing – not mine. The conference system is as fair as it is going to be as long as the point of the blog has been recognised. There are more local derbies and every country has a chance to get into the play offs because it is manipulated and mastered by sports television networks and the money that they control.
If an epic match is lined up for the weekend, let’s just say for arguments sake, Crusaders vs. Bulls and again let’s just say they play in a neutral stadium. If there were no broadcasters willing to screen the game, the only people privileged to watch a match like this would be the ticket holders and ball boys. The revenue from ticket sales is nowhere near enough to generate a profit to maintain a stadium, player’s salaries, off-field crew and other costs that are incurred. A very large chunk of money comes from broadcasting revenue, therefore the networks have a huge vote on how things should be. If it seems that one country benefits over another, the play offs are a place for these issues to be sorted out, the point is that the puppet masters and manipulators are in fact television networks. The more viewers that they can get by broadcasting local derbies, or getting viewers to watch/support their local team in the finals, the more advertising space/commercial space they can attract, therefore a larger revenue can be generated and then filtered into the SANZAR unions and distributed as per policies.
Remember that the Super Rugby is not just Super Rugby – It’s Vodacom Super Rugby (South Africa); FX Pro Super Rugby (Australia) and Investec Super Rugby (New Zealand). These companies paid more than we can imagine to have title sponsorship and these type of advertising markings occur throughout programming and stadium branding. All of this money has a say in how things operate.
The overall impression is that no-one can fight against this monetary giant, so what they (advertisers, broadcasters, etc) want and say has to be taken into serious consideration. Get over the fact that one country/team is better than another, this is a small argument compared to the point of my blog.

These comments are actually very interesting when compared with what the South African supporters have had to say. I’ve posted this blog on South African sites and Australian sites, but not New Zealand sites. South Africans have the general opinion that the Australians benefit from the conference system and Australians generally think that Kiwis and Saffas benefit. I wonder what the New Zealand opinion would be?
I do state in the article that an underperforming team will be dealt with in the play offs, even if they are conference leaders. In fact, the last time that an Australian team were in the final playoffs pre-2011 was 2010 when the Waratahs were beaten in the semifinals, so all countries have had a team make it to the finals recently.
The title of my blog was “Conference System – Who is the winner?” but The Roar editors changed it to reflect how Australian teams are disadvantaged. This is bias and untrue. The blog is meant to outline that broadcasters and their money influence how teams would make it into the finals. It has nothing to do with what country brings more or less to the table. I did use the fact that the last time and Australian team won the competition, before the Reds, were the Brumbies, but this was to reinforce the fact that it has been a while since Australia won the title before the conference system and that the first year of the new system, an Australian team won it, which may lead to a favourable coincidence. But again, I say that broadcasters seem to be the puppet masters.
The Currie Cup and NPC are not taken into consideration when the Super Rugby is scheduled hence sports channels having more than one channel, so that domestic matches can be broadcast live even if there is a Super Rugby match.
Please read a little further into the article before complaining that the conference system benefits one country over another – the best team has always won the tournament, regardless of what teams they had to beat in the play offs. There has never been a controversial winner or a team riding on the coat tails of technicality to raise the winner’s trophy.

@Stellenbosched. You are correct, that the Wallaby logo has been put onto the sleeve for this World Cup, but this doesn’t seem to be a problem with the Australian public. Your comment backs up my point of my article – the passion for a simple logo/badge runs deep. I am not saying what is correct or not, I’m just saying that the support for a symbol is passionate and loyal.

Sean. I may be wrong about the history of the Australian badge and logo, but the point of my article was to raise the issue of public reaction in dropping the logo for the World Cup, especially from a South African point of view. I now that the ‘nickname’ of the Wallabies was given to the Australian team in the early 1900’s when on tour and the gold strip was adopted permanently in the 1960’s. I apologise for the incorrect history of the Wallaby logo, I hope that this soesn’t interfere with the point of the article.

A good read and totally accurate with your criticism of the ref’s. I liken it to the recent article around on the rugby websites. Here’s one: http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/4763648/Lyndon-Bray-blows-whistle-on-Super-referees

This is what I read that gave me the impression that Northern Hemisphere rugby is lagging behind the South.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/news-comment/peter-bills-sobering-assessment-of-northern-hemisphere-rugby-2160129.html
As well as watching a few games over the years – ever since Francois Pienaar played for Saracens and since then as well.

I love these ideas of playing some of the matches in localised stadiums as opposed to the big cauldrons and fortresses. It’ll give a chance for rugby in the area to gain ground support and areas won’t feel isolated. I think that the biggest isolated area belongs to the Western Force. A team that represents nearly a 1/3 of the land area of Australia needs to play in the local stadiums. I know that some stadiums cannot hold more than a few thousand people, but a few matches in these areas won’t really hurt anyone…or would it?

Twickenham and ERU has since turned down the prospect of Crusaders vs. Sharks in England. It’ll be only a matter of time before Super Rugby goes North.