RUGBY CODE

Waipukurau Press, Volume XXVIII, Issue 117, 12 May 1932, Page 7

RUGBY CODE

THREE-FRONTED SCRUMS

THREE-THREE-TWO BEST?

(Notes by “Blue and Black’’)

All discussions of three-fronted scrum formations must take into account the disposal of the loose head —that is, thp man who must be on the outside when three men -pack down against three. It is the loose head who is chiefly responsible for latter-day scrummage problems in Great Britain and Ireland, and, consequently, for changes in the scrum-

mage law. Unfortunately, the legislators of Rugby have, not yet awakened to the fact that the logical way of dealing with loose-head troubles is to remember that the scrummage is a way of restarting play after a minor breach of the laws has occurred, and to legislate for giving the, loose head on the side in which the ball is put in to the team which has not committed the offence that requires a scrummage to be formed. When the legislators of Rugby take the logical course, the loose-head troubles will be ended. For the present, then, scrum formations must be considered in relation to an illogical law. Until many club teams, and at least one international side, in the Home countries adopted the South African 3-4-1 formation, the most frequent variation there from the 3-2-3 was a 3-3-2 scrum. Indeed, some of the leading administrators at Home had been advocating 3-3-2 formations before the South African’s tour. Of two 3-3-2 methods which have been, and still are, used at Home, the more interesting, to New Zealanders, is the commoner, for it is more easily adaptable to players who have been accustomed to the New Zealand 2-3-2, now officially discarded. It is the scrum advocated by AV. J. Wallace, famous All Black back, now a member of the New Zealand Rugby Union's Management Committee. But Wakefield and Marshall do not favour it, though they do favour another form of 3-3-2. The reason for this difference of opinion is, I think, that Wakefield and Marshall are obsessed with the idea of the straight-ahead push throughout the scrum, whereas the 3-3-2 should be based on the theory of the converging push, which is part-

ly the basis of AVallace’s idea, as I understand it. AVallace advocates the 3-3-2 in order to retain the great advantages of the 2-3-2 when used properly—the more scientific application of weight and the clearer channel for the ball to come through when it is hooked —and also to dispose of the old wing-forward by making him a loose head to further compliance with the new law about when the ball is' fairly in the scrum. There is another point of difference between AVallace, on the one hand, and AVakefield and Alarshall, on the other. AA’allace’s idea, I am informed, is that the loose head should go down at that end of the front row from which the ball is being put into the scrum, thus providing the two feet which the ball must pass before the centre man may move his farther foot. But that means, of course, that the loose head would be a shifting quantity, the same man changing from side to side of the scrum according to which side the ball was put in. AVith both teams in a match playing this formation there would be j a lot of “scrapping” for the loose j head. In the 3-3-2 formations which have been used in Great Britain, the men in the front row are always in the same position. Taking, for the time being, that form of 3-3-2 which is in shape the 2-3-2 with a loose head added, it may be noted -that AVakefield and Alarshall object that in it one forward less than in the 3-2-3 has his head clear, for, they say, “in our conception of the modern game it is essential that there should be two forwards ready and unhampered, one on each side of the scrummage, for instant co-operation in attack and defenc.e” They also think that it is not such a good scrum for Wheeling. On that point, however, their “complex” of the straight-ahead push should be remembered. —A.L.C. in the “Alanawat.au Times.”