Stones and Glasshouses
By Beef
September 26 2005
There has been much comment across SportNetwork over the last few days, about the Saints ‘cheating’ at Glaws. Much rending of shirts and gnashing of teeth, the sky’s falling down, Hell and Damnation and indignant condemnation.
But, is what happened really as bad as is being made out? The Management Team made a decision that, whilst not breaking any Laws, certainly bent the spirit of them a bit. And what tactical advantage did we achieve? Or, for that matter, what advantage did Glaws lose? Dean Ryan was incensed that his team had lost a major weapon, so let’s analyse that for a moment.
Uncontested scrums meant that the Glaws couldn’t turn the Saints pack or push them off their own ball. There were only 4 scrums that were uncontested, the first of which Glaws scored. The following 2 were in the middle of the paddock, Glaws ball. Saints were, effectively, 2 back rowers down. As the aim of turning a scrum is to nullify the back row and open up one side to attack, this had already been achieved (with the added bonus of both sides of the scrum open to attack). Net loss to Glaws? Nothing.
Saints had 1 scrum, again in the middle of the paddock. At previous scrums, Glaws had disrupted our pack to some extent, resulting in rushed, but not untidy ball. One argument says that if Glaws could have contested that scrum, they may have pushed us off the ball. Maybe, maybe not. The other side of the coin says that Sharky would have fed the ball straight down channel 1 and quick ball out the back. Net loss to Glaws? A definitely possible, perhaps, win against the head. Maybe. The next scrum was back to normal and the Glaws pack had the ascendancy.
What advantage did Saints have? Well none that are immediately obvious. We conceded 5 points from the first scrum. We would have conceded them anyway, perhaps even a penalty try. We got clean ball from the fourth scrum. Didn’t do much with it. What then? Well, put yourselves in the tight 5. 6 v 8, your going to get mullered. 10 minutes of uncontested scrums means your not using up all your energy just trying not to lose ground. Very tiring and disenchanting. That’s about it really.
So did it really affect the overall match at all? Not really. The Saints tight 5 may have been a little bit fresher, but with the fitness and conditioning of the players these days, 4 scrums are nothing.
As for bending the rules, was it any different to Neil Back handling a ball from a scrum, Kevin Yates elbowing Blowers and breaking his cheekbone, Jamie Forrester blatantly disrupting a certain try from an offside position, Mercier taking a dive worthy of the Carling Premiership to get a penalty, any one of 3 Glaws players laying over the ball 2 yards out and getting off scot free, any prop who has ever played at any level boring in? Oh, or going to uncontested scrums because the Ref asked the wrong prop if he’d ever played hooker. No, it’s part of the game.