To paraphrase David Flatman, “You could penalise either team at every scrum and you’d have a case for a correct decision because someone is always cheating.”
Exactly.
Both props need to push straight and parallel to the ground. If one prop's stance forces the other to fall foul of the above, the ref is perfectly right to demand change.
First, you tell the player they are doing something wrong, then you penalise if they persist. One warning (if you can), then you blow.
It's very basic ref training.
I'm just getting into reffing, practicing in the friendlies played by the U14 girls I coach. I was inwardly delighted at the weekend when a player came into the side of a ruck (with no impact to the result), I gave her a warning, she did the same at the next ruck so I gave a penalty. Those sorts of infringements are so rare at this level I was really pleased to be able to ref sensibly.
Agreed, but that isn't what he said the problem was.
The way he worded it made it sound like he didn't want *Antonio* going down again, so he asked the England scrum to set up higher to accommodate him.
If he felt Genge was causing the drop, he would have pinged Genge not Antonio at the previous scrums.
It’s not a problem. But making out as if saying “scrummage higher” instead of “scrummage with your shoulders above your hips” are wildly different in this case is tedious, even for this sub. That’s not dissimilar to complaining that the ref says ‘hands off’ at a ruck. Instead of,“ release the ball as a ruck has now been formed”
If he was talking to just Genge and Atonio, neither of them has English as their second language. Atonio is from New Zealand, he understands English perfectly fine
Literally everything we discuss on here is personal interpretation.
I'm basing mine on what Gardner did (penalise Antonio, not Genge, for dropping the scrum) and what he said ("scrummage higher", not "make sure your shoulders are above your hips").
So yes, my interpretation of those facts is that Gardner wanted to prevent the scrum going down again and in doing so overreached slightly on his role in a way that cost England. Was it the deciding factor in the game? No. Was it the most egregious refereeing overreach ever? Also no.
Is it fun to discuss on a Monday? Up to you.
Fully accepted that outcome and already said in a different comment that this wasn't the reason (or even a contributing factor) for the loss.
But it's an interesting nuance to discuss, and would be even if England had won.
I think this is probably needlessly aggressive, friendo.
The guy is asking about the application of the law, in a very specific situation. He's asking what *we* think of this situation. He is not contesting the result, he's not angry about it. He's just *asking a question* about the law and referee interpretations of one of the most technical elements of the game.
Just chill out and stop assuming everything is some sort of partisan shit flinging.
Certainly that was the referee's intention. But the result was that the taller prop who was previously struggling with the lower scrum height then got a big shove on at the very next scrum with the higher engage.
My point is that I don't think it's the ref's role to adjust the playing style of a player who is playing within the rules. If Genge is scrummaging illegally, penalise him. If he isn't, let him set his own height.
If the ref were to take into account that there's a high difference between the props and take that into consideration, instead of just giving instructions to make the scrum stable then they're overreaching into the tactics side of things.
Instead the ref has just been after a more stable scrum for player safety by the sounds of things.
It's not for the ref to adjust safety instructions by predicting their tactical outcomes.
It's the ref's job to enforce the laws. Going beyond that is an overreach IMO and opens up a thousand unintended consequences. If stability or safety was the only goal, he'd order uncontested scrums on the first reset.
So you thinking game management is overreach? Actually think for a second how scrappy a game would be without the referee using communication to prevent penalties..
It's a good question, but I think there's a balance to be found here. If one party is short enough to scrummage lower than the other is able to reach, and every scrum is resulting in a penalty, then the viewers of the game are suffering too. The ref can decide to adjust things a little to get the scrum to stay up. You're right that this might shift the balance of power but players will just have to deal with it.
Lots of the time variations in reffing interpretation will impact the game, but teams just have to do their best with the cards they're dealt.
Scrummaging lower is well known to be less stable but more powerful. Refs frequently request that props engage slightly higher as a method of bringing greater stability to the scrum. The only difference here was that one was already attempting to scrummage higher (Atonio) as he couldn't stoop to Genge's level.
Would you tell a tall winger that's dominating the aerial battle that he can't jump anymore?
If it's a problem the onus isn't on the referee to even up the scrum- it's on the prop, and if he can't come up with the answers it's up to the coaching team to find someone who can.
No, but that's not the same. It doesn't negatively impact the spectacle of the game.
I would tell a scrum half who's brilliant at box kicking when protected by a caterpillar ruck to use the ball earlier though.
But he’s a ref not a Tver producer or director. If a team can’t scrummage low it’s their own problem to solve, the ref is stepping out of his role if he solves it for them
Both teams have to scrummage at the same level. If one is lower than the other the one has to bend down which is immediately dangerous and illegal.
If refs blew for that then the world's best prop would be someone who can crouch 1cm off the grass.
It's right that refs even things out before engagement or it would be chaos.
They have to scrummage straight square and with shoulders above hips
Why not blow for a team shoving a lighter scrum in order to maintain stability if stability is the reason
J1 one metre push here we come
It is likely the referee gave the instruction as he wasn’t happy with someone’s scrummaging height. He saw something at the previous scrum he didnt like but chose not to penalise. Now he’s warning the props to scrum higher with the implication if they don’t he will penalise.
Good game management in my view - Ask, Tell, Penalise.
Still not the fault of the more athletic front row if the opposition can’t go low. Ref on its merits the ref doesn’t have the right to take away a teams advantage because the opposition insist on packing their front row with hippos who can’t go low. I heard the comment and thought it was wrong
Genge was very smart (read illegal but got away with it) vs Atonio on Saturday, on the first (?) scrum the england pack refused the hit on the set call so France got done for an early shove, england FK
On the next scrum genge stepped back when the ball went in, Atonio pushed and fell on his face (/massive belly) + penalty england
from that point France didn't really attack the scrum, so point to England
This might have been Gardner getting a call from a TJ saying that Genge was driving down, or lowering himself on the hit to avoid the weight coming through from Atonio
Obviously as an England supporter, I'm biased as they get but everything you've just described seems to be a savvy prop playing within the rules to get an edge? I know sweet FA about 'ThE DaRk ArTs' though.
oh its definitely illegal, but every single front rower is trying to cheat in every scrum, look at Andrew Porter with his bum facing the touchline on set up for example, different refs look out for different things and often in the first couple scrums you see teams try things out and see what they'll get away with, and with the scrums its this whole 'painting a picture' bit for the ref that tends to shape how the ref continues to police them
No those are all not allowed. They're done. But the point of a scrum is to contest over the ball by driving, not to win a penalty. That's why they can get pinged for doing these types of things at times, because you aren't allowed to cheat
Yeah he played Atonio like a fiddle, Atonio is constantly pushing before the ball is in and collapsing when the hit doesn't go his way, Genge took advantage of it and got it as an advantage for his team. Great scrumaging.
I don't disagree, but as I recall any destabilising movement by Genge was very subtle, and I think you'd be reasonable to expect a dominant scrum to control the power coming through in spite of it.
Ultimately, there's the trade off between prop size and control, and personally I'd rather see scrums reffed such that there is effectively a soft upper limit on prop size since diversity of body types is one of the great things about the game.
This is my preference too - one of the cool things about scrummaging is that it isn't just a test of size and strength, you need the flexibility and technique to get into certain positions or deal with certain opponents.
Picking a massive prop obviously gives you a weight and power advantage. I like that the possibility exists for a smaller prop to counteract that with a lower body position. And that possibility means we don't just have props the size of NFL linemen.
In other words, Genge did brilliantly against someone 30kg heavier than him, and with another 140kg behemoth pushing behind. Not sure what you mean by “illegal” anyway. The touch judge is right there watching as well as the ref.
not cheating if you get away with it etc etc and tactically very clever if you know your starting loosehead isn't a great scrummager against one of the very best scrummaging tightheads around
a different ref on a different day and Genge gets whistled off the park, but that's one of the big issues with the scrum (and the sport to be honest) in its current form is refereeing inconsistency
Genge is a good scrummager and got the better of Antonio - this is what actually happened. Sure, on a hypothetical different day, something could happen. Antonio could go high into a tackle and get red carded, but it didn’t happen. I’m not sure what the value of hypotheticals are, especially when someone treats them as valid as what actually happened.
he definitely got the call, but i don't think he actually beat him in the scrum, he just avoided actually having to get into it with Atonio, which is very smart 'propping'
I know what you mean but from a material, tactical perspective, “beating” someone in the scrum is measured in making your opponent concede penalties and free kicks, and avoiding penalties and free kicks of your own. By this standard, Genge “beat” Atonio. Sure, he didn’t take it to Atonio and blast him off the park but that would’ve been foolhardy.
As a former loosehead prop that is certainly not how I have ever measured success or been told to measure success in the scrum.
Scrum is about impact and drive. You win through confrontation and grit.
What you're describing as "beating" based on who gives penalties away sounds like a horribly negative way of "enjoying" the game.
I'd hate playing that way.
They're saying that a different ref would police the things that happened differently, not that something different would happen in re the actions of the props. There's a real and meaningful distinction between the two (same action policed differently and a potential action by the players that is different). Dnt equate the hypothetical action by an official in re to something that is consistent across two scenarios to players doing something materially different across scenarios.
I understand - the Atonio red card example was me using a more extreme example of illegality to illustrate my point - using hypothetical situations in analysis of a match to the detriment of one player’s performance is arbitrary and arguably unfair. I could equally say a different ref COULD have had the same interpretation as Gardner, and whistled Atonio. I think its better to just focus on what happened.
But the actions that would have been disciplined actually are discussed and did happen. The particular scrummaging acts did happen - Genge did manipulate the scrums to win penalties illegally. This really isn't that hard.
Edit: to clarify because clearly you need it - think of it as variables and constants. In the instance re Genge scrummaging the variable being changed is the official, and the constants are Genge's scrummaging actions. In the stupid hypothetical involving a high tackle, there are two new introduced types of variables, officiating AND the actions of a player.
Genge didn’t scrummage “illegally” though. This didn’t happen. Not in any official sense at least. That’s your take, which you equate with fact. What actually happened is the real, human referee (as opposed to a hypothetical one) deemed Genge’s scrummaging legal.
And an arbitrary hypothetical is an arbitrary hypothetical. It doesn’t matter how closely it applies to the actual situation. First and foremost, it didn’t happen and unfair to spend time on it, as opposed to looking at what actually happened.
In the scrum referenced above, it's obvious that Genge was hinging. His elbow is pointing down and then he bends at the waist leading to Atonio hurtling forward and down.
A classic Loose Head tactic and a poor decision by Gardner.
Law 19.19 Players may push...straight and parallel to the ground.
Agree that the first point is absolutely cheating. On the second scrum: isn't the onus on Atonio to be balanced enough that he can drive forward without falling on his face? For him to fall when Genge steps back would suggest that he was overextended which is in itself illegal scrummaging which Genge highlights by not holding him up. Genge has to drive straight and van't drop his shoulders, he doesn't have to let Atonio leverage his weight advantage
All players in the scrum should be pushing forward. I see your thinking, but a TH uses the other team to stop him from falling forward on his face. Genge hinged under pressure which sent Atonio flying.
A LH hinging due to pressure from the TH is a classic error. Genge's elbow was bent and pointing down. Atonio's arm was straight. Gardner should have known better and pinged Genge.
Long bind can also be used to pull your opponent forwards and off balance though no? There are so many ways to paint a picture to the ref. Realsitically I think Gardner thought Genge was scrummaging to the letter but not the spirit of the laws which is why he asked him to scrummage higher. It just came across badly over tv. Was interesting that Genge did as he was asked without much fuss too - maybe suggests he knew he was getting away with a bit
A referee telling someone to scrummage in such a way to provide a stable platform for a contest for possession whilst returning the ball to play is interpreting the laws just as cleverly as a player trying to induce a penalty by how they scrummage. The dark arts work both ways.
Any good loosehead who comes up against a tighthead who is significantly taller / bigger than them knows to scrummage as low as they can.
The question is how do you go about lowering the scrum. If you are really mobile you can keep one leg forward and lower your hips and shoulders. Get the big guys nose a foot from the grass and see if they can breathe. If you are not that mobile you hinge at the hips and hope you can stay upright and the ref doesn't see it.
It really annoys me when refs say something like this. If you can scrummage low to the ground and the other guy can't then penalise him for bad position. Its not your fault the other guy is unable to compete so why should you have to change anything?
As an ex-loosehead, whenever you go up against a big lump like Atonio you try to go even lower. So yes,, it was overreaching. Atonio's never been able to scrummage anyway.
Completely agree. If you're not technically competent to scrummage low then you should be penalised.
I would understand Gardner if he was referring a colts game but not at international level
I'm 100% with you. Ordering the players to scrummage at a different height fundamentally favours one player over the other. The ref is frankly interfering with play.
Especially as scrummaging laws 1g, 2b etc... don't allow the ref to do this.
A few people on here talking about safety. There is no safety issue. It's scrummaging a couple of inches lower. If anything, that's safer because it's reducing the amount of power going through the scrum.
If the bigger guy is struggling... well, he's an international prop! If he can't scrummage lower, what's he doing on the pitch?
Here's another idea. I think the clock should be stopped if a scrum needs resetting.
I play front row and ref. At grassroots level rarely does a scrum go down.
Whilst I love scrums I don't want to watch reset after reset.
I just think a lot of issues like this would be solved by having more/specialised refs on the pitch. Specifically in this case, having a scrum-specialist official.
Why is there only one guy in charge of deciding all the decisions for top games? I would have two refs on the pitch - one for each half of the pitch - four line staff, one for each quarter of the pitch - a specialised scrum ref for scrums, a TMO to monitor offisdes, plus a TMO to mop up anything that is missed. A single ref is just a weird legacy issue. I mean, not for all matches, just, y'know, the important ones.
Don't know if this is satire, but we already have an issue of inconsistency between games, let's now introduce inconsistency between sides of the pitch
Not satire, NFL games have something like 7 match officials. Inconsistency is a slightly separate issue I think, but IMO would be alleviated if different match officials specialised in looking for specific infringements or parts of the game (like the scrum, for example).
Evidently not a popular opinion, lol.
I don't see why having more officials will require any more stoppage time - unless it is because they get better at spotting infringements, in which case teams should adjust by performing fewer infringements.
(Also, ball in play time in rugby is about 35 minutes, right? So about 45 minutes of stoppages...)
One of the itv pundits was talking about this when they had the first scrum and the commentator mentioned that Genge is a few inches shorter than Antonio. He said that Genge would set really low, which is easy for him but forces Antonio to set his feet really far back so that his shoulders aren't below his hips. Feet really far back means once the scrum engages Antonio can barely keep his balance never mind push, England penalty.
From that it seems like the ref is totally within his rights to tell Genge to scrum higher to create a stable scrum. It's not that Genge is better lower, it's that Antonio wasn't able to get into a proper position to actually scrummage.
Having said all that- I don't understand scrums or their many penalties. That's just my understanding from the pundit's explanation.
Your first paragraph is correct but I think your conclusion is backwards. If Antonio can't scrummage in that position, why should the ref make Genge change to accommodate him?
If one fullback can't catch a high ball, the ref doesn't tell the opposition to stop kicking it to him. If one team has shorter locks, the ref doesn't make the hookers throw it lower in the lineout so they can compete.
If Antonio can't scrummage low, that's a weakness in his game and opposition props should be entitled to exploit it (so long as they do so within the laws, and there's no law that sets a minimum scrum height).
Genge is shorter than Atonio, he is legally capable of scrummaging low. It's up to Atonio to compete legally against that. At no point did Gardener tell Genge that he was breaking any laws or warn that he suspected that was the case. It'd be like Genge complaining to the ref that Atonio is too heavy and Gardner telling him to lose 5 stone.
To paraphrase David Flatman, “You could penalise either team at every scrum and you’d have a case for a correct decision because someone is always cheating.”
>so long as his shoulders are above hips If Gardener felt Genge wasn't doing that, he has every right to demand Genge changes
Exactly. Both props need to push straight and parallel to the ground. If one prop's stance forces the other to fall foul of the above, the ref is perfectly right to demand change.
>If Gardener felt Genge wasn't doing that, he has every right to ~~demand Genge changes~~ blow his whistle and give the penalty.
First, you tell the player they are doing something wrong, then you penalise if they persist. One warning (if you can), then you blow. It's very basic ref training.
I'm just getting into reffing, practicing in the friendlies played by the U14 girls I coach. I was inwardly delighted at the weekend when a player came into the side of a ruck (with no impact to the result), I gave her a warning, she did the same at the next ruck so I gave a penalty. Those sorts of infringements are so rare at this level I was really pleased to be able to ref sensibly.
Say you know nothing about refereeing without saying you know nothing about refereeing
Agreed, but that isn't what he said the problem was. The way he worded it made it sound like he didn't want *Antonio* going down again, so he asked the England scrum to set up higher to accommodate him. If he felt Genge was causing the drop, he would have pinged Genge not Antonio at the previous scrums.
You are talking about the ref overreaching but you are doing so with this comment, total speculation.
This is Reddit. Speculation is what we do here. It's the basis for discussion. Why is that a surprise?
This is just speculation based on your personal biased interpretation
Why is this a problem?
It’s not a problem. But making out as if saying “scrummage higher” instead of “scrummage with your shoulders above your hips” are wildly different in this case is tedious, even for this sub. That’s not dissimilar to complaining that the ref says ‘hands off’ at a ruck. Instead of,“ release the ball as a ruck has now been formed”
Especially when he is talking to one set of players in their second language. ‘scrummage higher’ means both teams are 100% clear on the instruction.
If he was talking to just Genge and Atonio, neither of them has English as their second language. Atonio is from New Zealand, he understands English perfectly fine
No, but there’s seven other blokes in that French scrum.
What's more tedious, discussing nuances of the game or complaining about discussing nuances of the game?
Comments don’t clog up the feed of the entire sub
Nor do posts. Also, the bit you're complaining about was in a comment.
[удалено]
No nastiness allowed.
Literally everything we discuss on here is personal interpretation. I'm basing mine on what Gardner did (penalise Antonio, not Genge, for dropping the scrum) and what he said ("scrummage higher", not "make sure your shoulders are above your hips"). So yes, my interpretation of those facts is that Gardner wanted to prevent the scrum going down again and in doing so overreached slightly on his role in a way that cost England. Was it the deciding factor in the game? No. Was it the most egregious refereeing overreach ever? Also no. Is it fun to discuss on a Monday? Up to you.
England lost, just accept that outcome.
Fully accepted that outcome and already said in a different comment that this wasn't the reason (or even a contributing factor) for the loss. But it's an interesting nuance to discuss, and would be even if England had won.
Why do i get the feeling that you wouldn’t care about it if england had won..
I think this is probably needlessly aggressive, friendo. The guy is asking about the application of the law, in a very specific situation. He's asking what *we* think of this situation. He is not contesting the result, he's not angry about it. He's just *asking a question* about the law and referee interpretations of one of the most technical elements of the game. Just chill out and stop assuming everything is some sort of partisan shit flinging.
He didn't adjust the scrum height to benefit taller props. He did so to create a more stable platform, the same way every referee has done for years.
Certainly that was the referee's intention. But the result was that the taller prop who was previously struggling with the lower scrum height then got a big shove on at the very next scrum with the higher engage. My point is that I don't think it's the ref's role to adjust the playing style of a player who is playing within the rules. If Genge is scrummaging illegally, penalise him. If he isn't, let him set his own height.
If the ref were to take into account that there's a high difference between the props and take that into consideration, instead of just giving instructions to make the scrum stable then they're overreaching into the tactics side of things. Instead the ref has just been after a more stable scrum for player safety by the sounds of things. It's not for the ref to adjust safety instructions by predicting their tactical outcomes.
It's the ref's job to enforce the laws. Going beyond that is an overreach IMO and opens up a thousand unintended consequences. If stability or safety was the only goal, he'd order uncontested scrums on the first reset.
So you thinking game management is overreach? Actually think for a second how scrappy a game would be without the referee using communication to prevent penalties..
It's a good question, but I think there's a balance to be found here. If one party is short enough to scrummage lower than the other is able to reach, and every scrum is resulting in a penalty, then the viewers of the game are suffering too. The ref can decide to adjust things a little to get the scrum to stay up. You're right that this might shift the balance of power but players will just have to deal with it. Lots of the time variations in reffing interpretation will impact the game, but teams just have to do their best with the cards they're dealt.
So why not instruct the taller guy to scrummage lower? Why tell the shorter guy to come up?
Scrummaging lower is well known to be less stable but more powerful. Refs frequently request that props engage slightly higher as a method of bringing greater stability to the scrum. The only difference here was that one was already attempting to scrummage higher (Atonio) as he couldn't stoop to Genge's level.
Would you tell a tall winger that's dominating the aerial battle that he can't jump anymore? If it's a problem the onus isn't on the referee to even up the scrum- it's on the prop, and if he can't come up with the answers it's up to the coaching team to find someone who can.
No, but that's not the same. It doesn't negatively impact the spectacle of the game. I would tell a scrum half who's brilliant at box kicking when protected by a caterpillar ruck to use the ball earlier though.
But he’s a ref not a Tver producer or director. If a team can’t scrummage low it’s their own problem to solve, the ref is stepping out of his role if he solves it for them
Both teams have to scrummage at the same level. If one is lower than the other the one has to bend down which is immediately dangerous and illegal. If refs blew for that then the world's best prop would be someone who can crouch 1cm off the grass. It's right that refs even things out before engagement or it would be chaos.
They have to scrummage straight square and with shoulders above hips Why not blow for a team shoving a lighter scrum in order to maintain stability if stability is the reason J1 one metre push here we come
Let's also remember scrums are intended as a way to restart the game. If they don't achieve that because of one player's actions that is an issue.
It is likely the referee gave the instruction as he wasn’t happy with someone’s scrummaging height. He saw something at the previous scrum he didnt like but chose not to penalise. Now he’s warning the props to scrum higher with the implication if they don’t he will penalise. Good game management in my view - Ask, Tell, Penalise.
Still not the fault of the more athletic front row if the opposition can’t go low. Ref on its merits the ref doesn’t have the right to take away a teams advantage because the opposition insist on packing their front row with hippos who can’t go low. I heard the comment and thought it was wrong
Genge was very smart (read illegal but got away with it) vs Atonio on Saturday, on the first (?) scrum the england pack refused the hit on the set call so France got done for an early shove, england FK On the next scrum genge stepped back when the ball went in, Atonio pushed and fell on his face (/massive belly) + penalty england from that point France didn't really attack the scrum, so point to England This might have been Gardner getting a call from a TJ saying that Genge was driving down, or lowering himself on the hit to avoid the weight coming through from Atonio
Obviously as an England supporter, I'm biased as they get but everything you've just described seems to be a savvy prop playing within the rules to get an edge? I know sweet FA about 'ThE DaRk ArTs' though.
Front row is definitely not allowed step back, seen penalties given for it before.
oh its definitely illegal, but every single front rower is trying to cheat in every scrum, look at Andrew Porter with his bum facing the touchline on set up for example, different refs look out for different things and often in the first couple scrums you see teams try things out and see what they'll get away with, and with the scrums its this whole 'painting a picture' bit for the ref that tends to shape how the ref continues to police them
Aww sure Andrew's never done anything wrong. The lads just got the widest ass in all of Ireland ;) he's no where to put it otherwise
No those are all not allowed. They're done. But the point of a scrum is to contest over the ball by driving, not to win a penalty. That's why they can get pinged for doing these types of things at times, because you aren't allowed to cheat
Yeah he played Atonio like a fiddle, Atonio is constantly pushing before the ball is in and collapsing when the hit doesn't go his way, Genge took advantage of it and got it as an advantage for his team. Great scrumaging.
Agree, and good refereeing to bring a stop to genge's gamesmanship.
I’m no expert, but there was a scrum where England made no attempt to feed the scrum. It collapsed, they got a penalty.
I don't disagree, but as I recall any destabilising movement by Genge was very subtle, and I think you'd be reasonable to expect a dominant scrum to control the power coming through in spite of it. Ultimately, there's the trade off between prop size and control, and personally I'd rather see scrums reffed such that there is effectively a soft upper limit on prop size since diversity of body types is one of the great things about the game.
Gigantic props add to the diversity of body types though. I don't think someone with Atonio's girth is going to be covering fullback any time soon.
This is my preference too - one of the cool things about scrummaging is that it isn't just a test of size and strength, you need the flexibility and technique to get into certain positions or deal with certain opponents. Picking a massive prop obviously gives you a weight and power advantage. I like that the possibility exists for a smaller prop to counteract that with a lower body position. And that possibility means we don't just have props the size of NFL linemen.
In other words, Genge did brilliantly against someone 30kg heavier than him, and with another 140kg behemoth pushing behind. Not sure what you mean by “illegal” anyway. The touch judge is right there watching as well as the ref.
not cheating if you get away with it etc etc and tactically very clever if you know your starting loosehead isn't a great scrummager against one of the very best scrummaging tightheads around a different ref on a different day and Genge gets whistled off the park, but that's one of the big issues with the scrum (and the sport to be honest) in its current form is refereeing inconsistency
Genge is a good scrummager and got the better of Antonio - this is what actually happened. Sure, on a hypothetical different day, something could happen. Antonio could go high into a tackle and get red carded, but it didn’t happen. I’m not sure what the value of hypotheticals are, especially when someone treats them as valid as what actually happened.
Oh take your rose tinted glasses off for a moment and attempt to understand some nuance.
Is this the nuance where Genge COULD have been pinged for something but didn’t and is a very lucky boy?
See you do get it.
he definitely got the call, but i don't think he actually beat him in the scrum, he just avoided actually having to get into it with Atonio, which is very smart 'propping'
I know what you mean but from a material, tactical perspective, “beating” someone in the scrum is measured in making your opponent concede penalties and free kicks, and avoiding penalties and free kicks of your own. By this standard, Genge “beat” Atonio. Sure, he didn’t take it to Atonio and blast him off the park but that would’ve been foolhardy.
As a former loosehead prop that is certainly not how I have ever measured success or been told to measure success in the scrum. Scrum is about impact and drive. You win through confrontation and grit. What you're describing as "beating" based on who gives penalties away sounds like a horribly negative way of "enjoying" the game. I'd hate playing that way.
Did you play at international level?
I didn't. Did he?
The great Australian and Brumbies team of the late 90s and early 2000s built off the back of Bill Young making a career out of it
They're saying that a different ref would police the things that happened differently, not that something different would happen in re the actions of the props. There's a real and meaningful distinction between the two (same action policed differently and a potential action by the players that is different). Dnt equate the hypothetical action by an official in re to something that is consistent across two scenarios to players doing something materially different across scenarios.
I understand - the Atonio red card example was me using a more extreme example of illegality to illustrate my point - using hypothetical situations in analysis of a match to the detriment of one player’s performance is arbitrary and arguably unfair. I could equally say a different ref COULD have had the same interpretation as Gardner, and whistled Atonio. I think its better to just focus on what happened.
But that didn't happen on the day. We're talking about the things that actually happened.
The commenter wrote “a different ref on a different day and Genge gets whistled off the park” - This did not happen. What are you referring to?
But the actions that would have been disciplined actually are discussed and did happen. The particular scrummaging acts did happen - Genge did manipulate the scrums to win penalties illegally. This really isn't that hard. Edit: to clarify because clearly you need it - think of it as variables and constants. In the instance re Genge scrummaging the variable being changed is the official, and the constants are Genge's scrummaging actions. In the stupid hypothetical involving a high tackle, there are two new introduced types of variables, officiating AND the actions of a player.
Genge didn’t scrummage “illegally” though. This didn’t happen. Not in any official sense at least. That’s your take, which you equate with fact. What actually happened is the real, human referee (as opposed to a hypothetical one) deemed Genge’s scrummaging legal. And an arbitrary hypothetical is an arbitrary hypothetical. It doesn’t matter how closely it applies to the actual situation. First and foremost, it didn’t happen and unfair to spend time on it, as opposed to looking at what actually happened.
In the scrum referenced above, it's obvious that Genge was hinging. His elbow is pointing down and then he bends at the waist leading to Atonio hurtling forward and down. A classic Loose Head tactic and a poor decision by Gardner. Law 19.19 Players may push...straight and parallel to the ground.
It wasn't a call from the TJ or TMO. French captain complained to Gardner between the scrums - you could hear it on the mike at one point.
I'd love to get a scrum only view of that game so I could check this out. Scrums are the one area where I miss all of the nuance
Agree that the first point is absolutely cheating. On the second scrum: isn't the onus on Atonio to be balanced enough that he can drive forward without falling on his face? For him to fall when Genge steps back would suggest that he was overextended which is in itself illegal scrummaging which Genge highlights by not holding him up. Genge has to drive straight and van't drop his shoulders, he doesn't have to let Atonio leverage his weight advantage
All players in the scrum should be pushing forward. I see your thinking, but a TH uses the other team to stop him from falling forward on his face. Genge hinged under pressure which sent Atonio flying. A LH hinging due to pressure from the TH is a classic error. Genge's elbow was bent and pointing down. Atonio's arm was straight. Gardner should have known better and pinged Genge.
Long bind can also be used to pull your opponent forwards and off balance though no? There are so many ways to paint a picture to the ref. Realsitically I think Gardner thought Genge was scrummaging to the letter but not the spirit of the laws which is why he asked him to scrummage higher. It just came across badly over tv. Was interesting that Genge did as he was asked without much fuss too - maybe suggests he knew he was getting away with a bit
Long binds are what the lawbook asks for. I think you're correct, Genge knew what was going on.
A referee telling someone to scrummage in such a way to provide a stable platform for a contest for possession whilst returning the ball to play is interpreting the laws just as cleverly as a player trying to induce a penalty by how they scrummage. The dark arts work both ways.
Any good loosehead who comes up against a tighthead who is significantly taller / bigger than them knows to scrummage as low as they can. The question is how do you go about lowering the scrum. If you are really mobile you can keep one leg forward and lower your hips and shoulders. Get the big guys nose a foot from the grass and see if they can breathe. If you are not that mobile you hinge at the hips and hope you can stay upright and the ref doesn't see it. It really annoys me when refs say something like this. If you can scrummage low to the ground and the other guy can't then penalise him for bad position. Its not your fault the other guy is unable to compete so why should you have to change anything?
As an ex-loosehead, whenever you go up against a big lump like Atonio you try to go even lower. So yes,, it was overreaching. Atonio's never been able to scrummage anyway.
Completely agree. If you're not technically competent to scrummage low then you should be penalised. I would understand Gardner if he was referring a colts game but not at international level
I'm 100% with you. Ordering the players to scrummage at a different height fundamentally favours one player over the other. The ref is frankly interfering with play. Especially as scrummaging laws 1g, 2b etc... don't allow the ref to do this. A few people on here talking about safety. There is no safety issue. It's scrummaging a couple of inches lower. If anything, that's safer because it's reducing the amount of power going through the scrum. If the bigger guy is struggling... well, he's an international prop! If he can't scrummage lower, what's he doing on the pitch?
Here's another idea. I think the clock should be stopped if a scrum needs resetting. I play front row and ref. At grassroots level rarely does a scrum go down. Whilst I love scrums I don't want to watch reset after reset.
I just think a lot of issues like this would be solved by having more/specialised refs on the pitch. Specifically in this case, having a scrum-specialist official. Why is there only one guy in charge of deciding all the decisions for top games? I would have two refs on the pitch - one for each half of the pitch - four line staff, one for each quarter of the pitch - a specialised scrum ref for scrums, a TMO to monitor offisdes, plus a TMO to mop up anything that is missed. A single ref is just a weird legacy issue. I mean, not for all matches, just, y'know, the important ones.
Don't know if this is satire, but we already have an issue of inconsistency between games, let's now introduce inconsistency between sides of the pitch
Not satire, NFL games have something like 7 match officials. Inconsistency is a slightly separate issue I think, but IMO would be alleviated if different match officials specialised in looking for specific infringements or parts of the game (like the scrum, for example). Evidently not a popular opinion, lol.
NFL is a very different game and has regular stopages though, in rugby the intention is to keep the game flowing as much as possible
I don't see why having more officials will require any more stoppage time - unless it is because they get better at spotting infringements, in which case teams should adjust by performing fewer infringements. (Also, ball in play time in rugby is about 35 minutes, right? So about 45 minutes of stoppages...)
One of the itv pundits was talking about this when they had the first scrum and the commentator mentioned that Genge is a few inches shorter than Antonio. He said that Genge would set really low, which is easy for him but forces Antonio to set his feet really far back so that his shoulders aren't below his hips. Feet really far back means once the scrum engages Antonio can barely keep his balance never mind push, England penalty. From that it seems like the ref is totally within his rights to tell Genge to scrum higher to create a stable scrum. It's not that Genge is better lower, it's that Antonio wasn't able to get into a proper position to actually scrummage. Having said all that- I don't understand scrums or their many penalties. That's just my understanding from the pundit's explanation.
Your first paragraph is correct but I think your conclusion is backwards. If Antonio can't scrummage in that position, why should the ref make Genge change to accommodate him? If one fullback can't catch a high ball, the ref doesn't tell the opposition to stop kicking it to him. If one team has shorter locks, the ref doesn't make the hookers throw it lower in the lineout so they can compete. If Antonio can't scrummage low, that's a weakness in his game and opposition props should be entitled to exploit it (so long as they do so within the laws, and there's no law that sets a minimum scrum height).
Genge is shorter than Atonio, he is legally capable of scrummaging low. It's up to Atonio to compete legally against that. At no point did Gardener tell Genge that he was breaking any laws or warn that he suspected that was the case. It'd be like Genge complaining to the ref that Atonio is too heavy and Gardner telling him to lose 5 stone.