WALES ARE TRYING IT ON WITH SCRUM PLOY
Wales trying it on with hooker ploy ...and Lancaster must fight it NOW
England and Stuart lancaster should be kicking up merry hell right now over Wales and australia’s decision to go into the World Cup with only two specialist hookers.
It will be way too late when the World Cup starts in a fortnight if matches against England’s pool rivals suddenly get reduced to uncontested scrums (scrums where nobody is allowed to push) because our opponents have not got sufficient front-row cover.
It’s a scenario which I suspect neither Wales nor australia would be unhappy with given their desire not to really engage with the England pack in the tight any more than they have to.
What is going on here is open to interpretation, but it is just so wrong. Since the last World Cup the size of the squads has been increased from 30 to 31 specifically to allow for an extra front-row forward to be included for wellfounded safety issues.
and there are real safety concerns. If we want proper scrummaging contests — and everybody seems agreed that we do — we must also have proper player welfare measures. That is non-negotiable.
Every squad must have three specialist hookers and it should be mandatory. and I am sure that is what rWC intended even if they seem to have left a loophole by actually insisting on just six specialist front row forwards in a match day 23.
rWC will not be making a judgment on whether a prop is able to play hooker, that is the union’s responsibility, and liability.
The two hookers selected by Wales and australia will be in action every match day, potentially seven games in some shape or form each, if a team reaches the final. Even the pool stages consists of four matches one week after another. a third specialist hooker is clearly needed to provide essential cover.
I look at Wales and australia naming just two hookers and I wonder if they are being really fair to their own players, let alone the opposition, and the paying public.
Firstly, what happens if one of those hookers falls ill or gets injured within 48 hours of a match? don’t forget a replacement hooker needs to have spent a minimum of 48 hours physically with the squad before he is eligible to play. and that is after all the paperwork has been sorted and the outgoing player signed off as injured.
Having made a few inquiries I am assured that if a team hasn’t got two fit specialist hookers 48 hours before a game a medical replacement in that position will be allowed enabling the match to take place.
But potentially there could be ramifications and penalties from rWC for teams who find themselves in such a predicament having only named two hookers in their 31 man squads.
In such a scenario there could be huge pressure on the medical staff f to declare the player fit, or for the player himself to answer the call and play at hooker.
That’s what well-motivated rugby players do, they are always willing to go the extra yard. But sometimes they have to be saved from themselves. and here’s another scenario which England should be highlighting to the authorities.
Wales or australia start with their no 1 hooker against England but their second- choice hooker is on the bench despite being at 80-90 per cent with a shoulder niggle or slight hamstring twinge. With a genuine third hooker in the squad you wouldn’t have to take that risk.
Say the first-choice hooker goes off in the first half with a bad injury and the replacement goes on and immediately aggravates his shoulder or ankle and has to go off. What happens next?
With no specialist hooker available for one side, the referee — under my reading of the regulation — would have no option but to order uncontested scrums, that is both sides leaning gently against each other. It’s not the referee’s fault, he’s in an impossible situation. Of course two hookers from the same side could become injured in a match regardless, forcing uncontested scrums anyway.
But by only taking two hookers for the entire tournament and expecting them both to remain match fit is a big risk to the game and the players. and it is players on both sides of the scrum who are at risk. If a scrum goes down because a Welsh or australian hooker is only half- fit, a front rower in the opposition’s pack is just as vulnerable to serious harm.
The front row is just not an area to tread lightly when safety is concerned.
The notion that a world- class prop can cover for hooker at this level, even if he dabbled in that position coming up through the age grades, is fanciful and misguided in the modern game.
Propping alone is so specialised these days that they themselves don’t even switch over from loosehead to tighthead at the elite level as was the case in the past with the likes of Jason leonard.
I spoke to a recently retired England prop just this week and he, the expert, insisted it was inconceivable and dangerous to ask a prop to hook in elite Test rugby.
In fact, he was emphatic that it should not even be allowed in professional club games either. The game has moved on. It can never be right to pressurise a specialist prop to ‘cover’ at hooker. It has become an even more specialist position in the last couple of seasons with the return of proper hooking — when you have to strike for the ball, take one foot off the ground and twist.
You really need to know what you are doing there if serious injuries are to be avoided.
In my estimation, if any nation is putting forward a prop as an emergency hooking option they should provide documentary evidence of at least 20 starts at hooker in professional 15-a-side rugby.
I am frankly surprised Wales, given the health concerns over george
6 SIX of the 20 teams at the World Cup have selected just two hookers — Argentina, Australia, Namibia, Uruguay, USA and Wales
North last season, could even be contemplating taking this risky route with another player — but looking at their squad that is the only conclusion you can draw.
it is not Lancaster’s style to engage in public shouting matches. When Warren Gatland called him out about his squad selection he had the chance to strike back on this very point but remained tight-lipped.
But i hope behind the scenes he is throwing tea cups around and putting pressure on the world of rugby to address the situation.
This is going to become a big issue unless it is sorted out right now.