A frustrated Ewen McKenzie has fired off a lengthy submission to the International Rugby Board demanding answers for unfair treatment of the Wallabies scrum.
Australia’s set-piece has traditionally been its achilles heel, but McKenzie staunchly believes it’s continued to be harshly adjudicated by Test officials due to history and perception.
A former tight-head prop, who played 51 Tests, the Wallabies coach was incensed by what he saw as blatant inconsistencies by Irish referee George Clancy in the weekend’s 20-13 loss to England.
McKenzie was pleased overall with how his scrum confronted the English, particularly on their own feed, but was flabbergasted they copped seven penalties.
He and scrum coach Andrew Blades, another former Test front-rower, went over each scrum with a fine tooth comb in their analysis and feels they need to tackle the issue head on.
“I know a fair bit about the scrum, more than most, so I know what was going on, and I’ve made a submission (to the IRB),” said McKenzie in Turin ahead of Saturday’s clash with Italy.
“I actually thought we did some good stuff out there. The referee didn’t think we did some good stuff, but I actually thought we did, so we will address that through the official channels.
“It’s down to matters of consistent interpretation. I haven’t got my mind around the fact you can win your own scrum ball cleanly and you get seven scrum penalties against you and they get none.
“It defies some logic there.”
The lowest points of Australia’s professional era have always come with poor scrummaging displays, highlighted by the 2005 and 2007 demolitions by England at Twickenham and Marseille, respectively.
The Wallabies have struggled to adapt to the new soft-engagement laws since they were introduced in August and that has significantly contributed to their dreadful 3-8 win-loss record this year.
McKenzie – who has stuck by his front-row of James Slipper, Stephen Moore and Ben Alexander – feels his pack has improved throughout the season but is haunted by perception.
“If you’re seeing a penalty for one thing and then later in the game seeing the same thing happen on the other side and the penalty still goes against you then you go ‘what’s going on here?’,” he said.
“You clearly have to have a good day at the office but we are actually doing some good things there but we are not getting any reward there.”
Against England, the Wallabies did set a stronger platform on their attacking scrums, which had been their main worry as the hooker now has to strike with his foot, disrupting the push.
“The initial communication that I sent has been acknowledged that there was, even on outset, some inconsistencies and they would have to get back to us,” McKenzie said.
Australia made just one change, starting lock Rob Simmons at blindside flanker, to their starting XV for this weekend’s Test against Italy at Stadio Olympico.
Birdy
Guest
The ABs are much more subtle than this. They ensured Paddy O'Brien was installed as the Ref overseer in the run-up to the 2011 WC, and he sheperded in a number of directives that, strangely enough, suited the ABs style. Finally, of course, he also ensured that the "ABs favourite referee" got the final, with predictable results. I think McCaw could have entered a ruck and shot two French players and Joubert wouldn't have given a penalty that day. Then, job done, Paddy retired.
Birdy
Guest
I blame the gate security at Twickenham. Because the security guards opened the gate it meant the players and fans could get into the stadium. Because they could get in it meant the match kicked off. Because the match kicked off it meant that the Wallabies lost.
Lachie
Guest
The wallabies cannot to expect to win games agains't the top 4 without scoring a single point in the second half-I do not believe the Saffas or the ABs would expect to win a game under those circumstances and I believe their message to their players would have been regardless of the referee you had 40 minutes to fix it but you didn't end of story. Clearly not so for EM and his partner Andrew " Woodcock is a myth " Blades
Old Bugger
Guest
What a great blogger name you have my friend and if you're a WB fan, then you realise that's the only direction left for the team - Upfromdown.... BTW, I think Shag is top o' the heap atm, but holier than thou.....mmmmm, stretching it somewhat. As for your man Link, well I guess he can only go UPFROMDOWN, if he wants to be top o' the heap. All the best to him but he needs to start sorting out his own backyard before jumping the fence to sort out someone else's.
Jerry
Guest
Uh, this part of the discussion started with Jiggles saying "I've got no problems with a please explain" then claiming the NZRU had tried to have refs removed. Well, the worst the NZRU or Henry did was a 'please explain' with Dickenson and not even that with Barnes.
Sage
Guest
Understand? I understand your high handed response but you seem a bit lost. My reference about not understanding the laws was about Link, which is what you said and twice. Nothing to do with Uncle. No comment on the public outburst claim either. Maybe someone else doesn't understand. As a Reds and WB's supporter my opinions would align with Uncle more often than you I think but I've never jumped to uncles defence before and I wasn't now. Perhaps to Link's defence but moreso just rebutting your inaccurate claims. Just making a point and being "colourful".
Ben.S
Roar Guru
He didn't blame it on the referee, he asked for clarification regarding scrum calls. Bit of a gaping difference.
Jerry
Guest
soapit - it's really simple, if you're in a ruck and ahead of the ball, you're not allowed to reach back and pick it up. It was pretty marginal in Moore's case, but it's not wrong in law.
richard
Guest
Ben,what Rowntree said was incredibly stupid.You don't see your team get tonked 30-3,and blame it on the referee.He would have been better off keeping his opinions in-house.
soapit
Guest
i'm still trying to get my head around how you can be offside for a pick and go from your own ball
soapit
Guest
no worries, thats been happening to me a bit lately
Upfromdown
Guest
Because shag is holier that though? Get real.
Upfromdown
Guest
Like EM. Why is asking for clarification different in Henrys's case and EM? A complaint is " you have got this wrong so please admit it". A question is "we are confused so can use please clarify why certain decisions were made"
Upfromdown
Guest
Amen to that. Use or lose it should apply. If we want a leaning contest then let's invent another game to play.
Anto
Guest
EDIT: Not "George's" gumby box kick [living in a different era, am I]. Will was the resident gumby in this instance.
Anto
Guest
Having watched the footage a number of times, the touch judge's mistake in not ruling the English fullback out had a serious chain reaction of negative consequences. The sequence was as follows: 1. TJ misses feet on sideline. 2. On subsequent English attack, Fardy is knocked out, so WB playing with 14 men. 3. A number of phases proceed, with WB outnumbered, until halfway line, when English penalty is awarded for breakdown infringement. 4. Despite a stretcher being on the field, together with 4 or 5 attendants, the referee does not call timeout, but allows the English to tap the ball 3 metres from where he was standing and 1 metre in front of where he was standing (in other words, only vaguely close to where the offence occurred). 5. From that quick tap, the tapper threw the ball forward. 6. The player who picked the ball up from the forward pass had it knocked loose in the next tackle, but the referee called this a knock-back. 7. The English winger made a great break down the line (remember - WB are still down to 14 men, as Fardy is being attended to downfield). It took a special effort from AAC to stop the try. 8. As a result of this effort, AAC copped a flying tag above his eye, which sliced him open and required him to go off for attention. 9. England scores off George's gumby box-kick. So, as a consequence of the TJ's mistake, we lost a defender, the referee didn't stop play at the earliest opportunity, he allowed a tap to be taken from the wrong position, he ignored a forward pass and a knock-on, and we lost a second player to a blood rule. At the time, we were leading 13-6.
Ben.S
Roar Guru
Don't follow?
Anto
Guest
I was also impressed by Scott's analysis, although I didn't agree with every point he made, nor with every assessment of who was at fault in the scrums. What is beyond doubt, however, is that the Wallabies backrowers are meerkating all of the time and leaving the front row and locks to push against 8 men on the other side. For MacKenzie not to address this, being a former front-rower himself, is negligence of the first order. I know that earlier in the season, the All Blacks in particular were tearing us up with quick darts off the back of their scrums, but the solution that seems to have been decided upon is for the flankers and No. 8 to cover off this attacking possibility, at the expense of a decent scrum. Four guys in a scrum will never beat eight, Ewen.
Dally M
Guest
If that's the case then fair enough,however: a) I don't recall hearing that when I watched the replay of the game, b) The players certainly didn't act like that was the explanation given, c) The press over looked that in the days after, and d) Someone still hasn't told Link or the press that ran the story today
Simoc
Guest
This is sourgrapes from a poor sportsman. The refereeing was poor in that The English fullback was out when he took the ball right in front of a linesperson, and there was a blatant and slow forward pass in the next movement eventually resulting in a chargedown try to England. Also a blatant obstruction to any impartial viewer was somehow only partial blocking (the Englishman was real, offside and right in the way) which the No 10 used as a shield to score his try. Would McKenzie be complaining after an Oz win, No. Poor sport.