Deans exasperated by scrum calls

Watching the third scrum again, I think Woodcock did a number on him that time. No tighthead worth his salt should have his shoulder exposed like that. The tighthead needs to make sure he has the loosehead’s head under his shoulder throughout the scrum. Intially, I thought was such poor technique could only be a result of Baxter trying to raise his bind and therefore getting down in the scrum with an open shoulder, but look at the first two scrums. The first scrum in real time looks like Baxter is pulling down the arm and you can see Joubert checking where his hand is. On the replay, Baxter once again has his shoulder open. Cowan's in the way of the second scrum, but I don't think Baxter's scrummaging technique is anywhere near as solid as suggested. Just because Woodock appears to collapse first doesn't mean it was a result of Baxter's hit. The tighthead is in a more stable position because his shoulders are supported on both sides, while the loosehead's left hand shoulder is unsupported (which is why you need the tighthead to bind after all.) I'm no expert, so if there's a prop out there, take me to task.... but it seems to me that Baxter's shoulder isn't hunched enough before the hit. His shoulder ought to be behind Woodock's head, on his neck, and it doesn't appear to be that way to me. Plus, he's just not getting a secure bind on Woodock. If he were truly in control of the hit, I don't see how that would be happening.

Mike, Woodcock may be dropping with the hit, but Baxter never attempts to bind until after the hit is made, so in real time when Jourbert sees the scrum collapse, Woodcock's "grip" is in the right area and Baxter's isn't. Instead of playing shaolin before the hit, I recommend Baxter times his bind with the hit.

Good to see former Wallabies prop Ben Darwin has supported Baxter and questioned Joubert's decisions: http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,25809848-23217,00.html

AndyS, I note your points and thank you. However: 1. I have looked at it again, and I can't see Baxter gripping the sleeve at any time. The first time I don't think he ever succeeds in gripping anything, but he is at least attempting. The second time the arm is all he can reach as Woodcock drops down to prevent him getting the spot he is after. Bear in mind that when a scrum collapses, the props on the ground may have their hands up the opponent's armpits - but it doesn't mean they gripped the sleeves, its just how you come down. 2. Re saying he wants a higher bind, this is where it gets even weirder: Baxter is quoted in today's paper as saying Joubert told him 'I need your bind higher on the opposition'. Now, I agree that is the sort of thing that a referee might say if he is re-setting a scrum without penalty: "Tight, I want you to bind higher; Loose, if you are going to bind long then get it really long, okay lets go again" or whatever. i.e. the referee having seen how the different shaped bodies fit together can give them pointers on how to achieve a mutual tight bind. But you don't say "I want you to bind higher" as a reason for awarding a penalty for collapsing the scrum! It doesn't mean anything. You have to give a coherent reason: "You didn't attempt to bind", "you bound on the arm", "you pulled down" or whatever. This further indicates to me that Joubert blew the whistle, and then tried to come up with a reason afterwards. 3. "In this instance, it would have been easy enough to give the ref what he was looking for and show where the problem lay." He tried. This is not just an instance of Woodcock not binding, but of Woodcock simultaneously pulling out of the engagement, i.e. dropping his shoulders.

I thought Baxter's binds were illegal, as he is clearly gripping the sleeve rather than the back or side. But for mine, Woodcock certainly didn't bind at all in the first scrum. If he did in the second, he had his elbow pointing straight down and couldn't help but be pulling down. Personally I thought Woodcock's offense was the greater, but the ref made the call the other direction each time, c'est la vie. He told Baxter he wanted a "higher" bind, which I thought was pretty clear. If there is a perception problem, it is a cross he has to bear. In this instance, it would have been easy enough to give the ref what he was looking for and show where the problem lay.

Baxter at no point grips the arm or sleeve. I will spell it out in really simply language: 1. Baxter sends his hand forward to grip Woodcock's jersey on the side. 2. Woodcock fails to bind at all, he places his arm next to Baxter's body and does not attempt to grab the jersey. 3. At the same time, Woodcock drops his shoulders, in fact folds his whole body, so that Baxter can't grab his jersey, and heads downwards. 4. In those first two penalties Baxter is not left holding Woodcock's sleeve, he is still grasping for the jersey all the way down. Summary, Baxter attempted to bind but was prevented by Woodcock folding. Woodcock didn't attempt to bind and brought the scrum down. Bloody dangerous play by Woodcock. The prop "must grip" the opponent's jersey - there is a reason for that.

Whether Woodcock is gripping Baxter's jersey or tickling him, the tighthead prop is not allowed to grip the arm or sleeve.

OJ, Woodcock simply reaches forward and rests his hand against Baxter's rib-cage. That is not binding. What Woodcock does in those scrums is not only illegal, its also dangerous.

What are you talking about? Woodcock binds on the first two scrums, it's Baxter who's binding illegally. Whether that caused the scrum to collapse is another matter, but he's not binding according to the laws. Woodock doesn't bind in the third scrum, but how stupid was Baxter to pull on his arm like that? That was out of frustration. My personal feeling is that Joubert should've reset the first scrum, warned both players about their binding and then gone to penalties, but people around here are always saying that the refs need to nip things in the bud straight away. In that case, the onus is on Baxter to bind correctly. Woodcock could shadowbox with him all day if he keeps grabbing the arm like that.

This is an excellent compilation of the low-lights of Joubert's performance on Saturday night. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=spotlight+on+joubert&search_type=&aq=f It is obvious that Woodcock simply fails to bind at all in the first two penalties. Given the stats quoted by Sam (assuming they are accurate), it would seem that this has been going on for a couple of years - AB and Bok front-rowers failing to bind, in the expectation that the referee will simply penalise Baxter. How can the Tri-Nations be taken seriously as a competition, until this is cleaned up?

Mike / Jameswm, I recall many a face plant from Baxter and Dunning on northern hemisphere tours over the last 3 or 4 years. Scrummaging came back into fashion after the poms won the WC and the Wallabies were slow to react. Granted reputations do stick and will influence refs but the stats are overwhelming. Possibly too much focus on the front row though. Those packing down behind the front row play a massive part in a successful scrum, so probably best to point the finger at the whole pack rather than single out individuals.

Like Mike - I put the stats down to NZ and SA trying to get away with murder against the Aussies in the scrums, because they think they can get away with it. And when Joubert refs, they can. Sctrum penalties aren't always obvious, but some were blatantly wrong last Sat night.

Sam, Knives, etc, Before you go playing with statistics, you have to understand what they mean and what they don't. What we saw on saturday night epitomised the problem that Australia faces: Woodcock simply failed to bind. He knew he could do that and force a penalty against Australia for collapsing the scrum, because an ignorant referee in the spirit of Alan Lewis he was always going to blame Baxter. In other words, of course you are going to see more scrum collapses in Australian matches against South Africe and New Zealand - this has been going on for a couple of years now. Baxter's scrummaging is technically quite good, and a huge improvement on his early days, but all his opponents have to do is not bind, or drop their shoulders after the bind, and the "right" referee will award the penalty against Baxter without further thought. I had suspected this for a long time, but the examples on Saturday were so blatant as to leave absolutely no doubt what is going on. The onyl way this is going to be fixed is with greater scrutiny of refereeing performances, and weeding out the incompetents like Joubert.

Thanks, Sam. Hard data... beautiful.

Knives Here's the link http://www.rugby365.com/tournaments/trinat/news/1151000.htm I find this site very useful, particularly with the law discussions and statistical data.

Interesting stuff, Sam. I knew I wasn't incorrectly recalling excessive collapses during the Australia v NZ tests. I knew it.. damn straight! Take that forgetfullness. Where did you find those stats, btw?

thanks Sam Yep, th Wallabies have a problem The other problem we have if we want to thorw the pill around is night games. All those dropped balls due to the dew on the ground back to 3pm kick offs please

Bonza The personnel for the Wallaby front row last year was consistent. Baxter, Moore and Robinson started all Bledisloe Cup tests and the first Tri Nations test against SA in Perth. Dunning was the preferred tighthead against SA in the republic before being subbed by Baxter and Polota Nau started against SA in the 53-8 drubbing before being subbed by Moore. I don't profess to know much about scrummaging but the culprit seems to be the problematic tighthead position and I'm only basing this on anecdotal evidence as I haven't yet read about Robinson being criticised for collapsing nor do I recall watching the scrum go down regularly (if at all) on Robinson's side. Baxter has as many supporters as detractors and whether he's unable to shake the stigma of previous sins or not in the referees eyes that is an awful lot of reset and collapsed scrums.

Great stuff Sam - looks like there a statistical pattern that exists regardless of the ref so we might have to grin and bear or change something technically or personel

Photon Here is the stats you referred to regarding the scrums from last years tri nations. Not pleasant reading if you're a Wallaby supporter. In the first Tri-Nations match, between New Zealand and South Africa, the scrums were 23, 2 resets, 3 collapses. In the second Tri-Nations match, between New Zealand and South Africa, the scrums were 13, 1 resets, 3 collapses. In the third Tri-Nations match, between Australia and South Africa, the scrums were 23, 10 reset, 16 collapses. In the fourth Tri-Nations match, between Australia and New Zealand, the scrums were 16, 6 reset, 13 collapses. In the fifth Tri-Nations match, between New Zealand and Australia, the scrums were 11, 7 resets, 12 collapses. In the sixth Tri-Nations match, between South Africa and New Zealand, the scrums were 24, 5 resets, 2 collapses. In the seventh Tri-Nations match, between Australia and South Africa, the scrums were 18, 3 reset, 5 collapses. In the eighth Tri-Nations match, between Australia and South Africa, the scrums were 16, 7 reset, 6 collapses. In the ninth Tri-Nations match, between Australia and New Zealand, the scrums were 16, 7 reset, 13 collapses. In matches involving only New Zealand and South Africa, there were 60 scrums, 8 resets and 8 collapses. In matches involving Australia, there were 100 scrums, 40 resets and 65 collapses.