The roll of the pack in modern RL

[georgeorwell]

I would like some help please, from those with more knowledge of the intricacies of the game than I possess.

Before the introduction of uncontested scrums it seemed fairly obvious, even to a numpty like me, what the pack players did. Now I'm puzzled on several fronts viz:
1) I hear people saying how important it is to have a good hooker. Why? Surely anyone could act as hooker in an uncontested scrum?
2) It's the same question regarding the props. Why are they important when there is no active hooker to prop up?
3) Are second rowers now no more than second class centres?
4) What is the true role of the loose forward?

For what it's worth, I feel the game is devalued by not having proper competitive scrums. There was always something exciting seeing the leviathans of the two teams fight it out in close combat. It now seems to me the ref might just as well give a play the ball to get the game started, as the scrum is just a bad joke.

This is a genuine request for help and information, and is not a daft wind-up. It will enable me to enjoy the game even more.

[cpwigan]

George,

The hooker touches the ball more than any player in a RL game. That alone makes him important. He touches the ball anywhere on the pitch, be it on his own 20 or in the opposition 20 so he often plays a bigger role than the halfbacks who require go forward and field position before they can play. The modern hooker is a brilliant playmaker / passer with the ability to run with the ball and defend as well as anybody in the team. As far as scrums go, they are a non entity. Nicky Kiss was the last scrummaging hooker Wigan had, Martin Dermott was the modern hooker and his role in providing fast accurate ball for Edwards and Gregory is often forgotten. Most players in modern RL are fixed into position but some have to move all around the pitch, Hooker and fullback are two such positions. Cameron Smith is the best example of modern day hooking.

Props - scrums again are now irrelevant. Their role is to get their team going forward and hopefully on a roll (momentum) to allow others to play. They have to bve as tough as because they often take the ball up v 3 or 4 defenders making hard yards. Props do the donkey work. In defence, they have to have the ability to knock down any opposition forwards that dare take the ball up the middle and ideally have a fear factor wheeby they intimidate the opposition.

[cpwigan]

Second rowers are forwards that can punch holes but are faster more athletic and have superior ball handling skills that allow them to either go up the middle of the pitch or run out wide. Their skills are not disinmilar to a centre, they tend to be bigger, better defensively and more robust whereas centres can be smaller, should be faster, have better footwork and read defence better because often they have to make 1 v 1 tackles.

Loose forward. Nothing like the old cover tackling ball handling loose forward of the old days. Not much different than a back rower but they have more freedom to move left or right whereas second rowers tend to be left or right.

[cpwigan]

Think of a modern RL team as

LW LC LSR LHB PROP PROP RHB RSR RC RW

With the Hooker moving around following the ball. The fullback and loose forward having more freedom to play anywhere right or left.

Some teams are now gradually reverting to the old style of scrum half to stand off, particularly when in the opposition 20. However, generally half back play on opposite sides of the POTB. Personally I would like to see scrum halfs sniping in and around the pack more. I prefer the pack to play more as a pack in your own half with decoys / runner drawing heat off the ball carrier and allowing him to make yards. The hooker draws heat off his forwards also by being a threrat by playmaking. If I am critical of Noble is that his system saw the forwards spread wide too early. I prefer the Monie Wigan where you could throw a net over the Wigan pack in their own half at times.

Right or wrong by having the team set out fairly fixed when they then lose possession they are in a good defensive formation.

[georgeorwell]

cp. Thanks for taking the trouble to reply to my post. I think I understand and will look out for the formations you pointed out.

Dog with a bone where scrums are concerned though! Generally speaking I find Union to be unsatisfying and fairly predictable, with one exception; the scrum. It gives the side defending the "put in" the opportunity to "steal" the advantage, by dint of a good hooker. It also gives both sides the opportunity to push the opposition back, thereby gaining ground. It's a fair way of getting the ball back into play. In League, feeding the ball to the second row, thereby negating the positives mention above, is just daft imo. It's not worth forming a scrum; just give the ball to the side that would have got the "put in" and get on with the game. If the changes were made because the scum's became difficult to referee then I feel the RFU, as usual, adopted the easy option and in so doing reduced the quality of our game. All they had to do was bring in really stiff penalties and the coaches would soon stop their players offending.

What do you think?

[cpwigan]

George I think the scrums now are not a contest and probably never will be. When they were they often had to be reformed / retaken and were messy but they did create an opportunity to contest possession. A union scrum will always look better with two extra forwards. A League scrum, it is just a means of restarting play but trying to make it backs v backs.

[georgeorwell]

I take your point cp; the two extra men in Union do make a big difference. I guess I'll have to move on and enjoy the game for what it is today!

Roll on next season. Friday nights without a game are so boring.

[gpartin]

Have to say that I agree with the point that scrums in Rugby Union are not actually competitive other than in games where one team has a clear physical advantage over another. The scrum in RL does indeed serve the purpose of creating a back v back situation and imo teams are generally very poor at taking advantage of this. One recent example where they did was during the cup I think when Kevin Brown took everyone by surprise by kicking on the first tackle straight from a scrum, If my memoy serves me correctly it resulted in, or very nearly resulted in a try. There was also the innovation in the NRL where Canberra split the scrum in two and a player ran through the middle to score, unfortunately in this instance the try was disallowed as the Canberra forwards were adjudged to have held back the opposition players.

My main reasons for being against the idea of competitive scrums are firstly that if a team knocks on or knocks the ball out of play they deserve to be disadvantaged, losing possession and having to defend a potential move from the scrum seems like a fair punishment to me. Secondly and mainly RL forwards are able to concentrate on handling, passing, running and making yards whilst carrying defenders, whereas in RU the forwards spend so much time on scrummaging so as not to be disadvantaged their forwards are far less mobile and props in particular are very unlikely to make more than 2 or 3 yards at a time with the ball before falling over. The result is you get props like this playing at international level:

[Panchitta Marra]

cp. Thanks for taking the trouble to reply to my post. I think I understand and will look out for the formations you pointed out.

Dog with a bone where scrums are concerned though! Generally speaking I find Union to be unsatisfying and fairly predictable, with one exception; the scrum. It gives the side defending the "put in" the opportunity to "steal" the advantage, by dint of a good hooker. It also gives both sides the opportunity to push the opposition back, thereby gaining ground. It's a fair way of getting the ball back into play. In League, feeding the ball to the second row, thereby negating the positives mention above, is just daft imo. It's not worth forming a scrum; just give the ball to the side that would have got the "put in" and get on with the game. If the changes were made because the scum's became difficult to referee then I feel the RFU, as usual, adopted the easy option and in so doing reduced the quality of our game. All they had to do was bring in really stiff penalties and the coaches would soon stop their players offending.

What do you think?

Personally George, I like fast flowing Rugby, a game where the main acheivement is to score attractive fast, flowing tries.
Whatever it takes to acheive this, entertains me.
For me, having forceful competative scrums is no longer required as part of this.
In League we often have good tries where the ball passes through many pairs of hands.
In Union with the competative scrum, the ball is often dragged over the line with a player then flopping on it to score.
Personally, I just dont see that as entertaining.
I like to see a good "hooker" scuttling away from the play the ball, creating space and breaking the game line, Cameron Smith is a superb Rugby League player, based on this.
The forwards in League are now clipped out athletes, not blown up pot bellied pigs, as they used to be.
These forwards can run like centres, can hit like Garth in a the tackle.
To be honest, I would not be fussed if the scrums were taken away from the Rugby League game, instead having just the play the ball as its replacement.
My opinion, as you asked.

[weststand-rich]

Think of a modern RL team as

LW LC LSR LHB PROP PROP RHB RSR RC RW

With the Hooker moving around following the ball. The fullback and loose forward having more freedom to play anywhere right or left.

The formation CP describes here is correct for attack but tweaks around slightly in defensive structure. Last year, like most of the SL teams, we had the defense organised in 3 sliding blocks of 4 with the hooker slotting in the middle section. The stand off and scrum half usually slotted in next to the winger on each side of the field. The full back would then operate behind the line tracking the ball and predicted play.

Early on last year our main defensive liability came on the outside edge of the right hand channel where Tim Smith had the tackling presence of rice pudding.