Time to get rid of the scrum?

Ok, this might be a little bit sensationalized heading, but.....

The way the scrum is now can not, and should not be allowed to continue

All 3 games (and almost every game that now is played) were mired by the inconsistent and frankly baffling scrum decisions - with most scrums not ending up with the ball coming out. No-one had a clue why one team got awarded free kick / penalty / re-set vs the other and it seemed to be random decisions

It is ruining the game of rugby!

The scrum is now determining the outcomes of matches and is becoming too much of an important factor in a game.

It is being used to get points, win games and get players sin binned, rather than a way to re-set the game while tieing in some players

It is not what the scrum was created for

The way it is now is the same as awarding a penalty for a squint throw at a line out - the 'penalty' far out ways the crime

So how do we fix the scrum, because in actual fact I like the concept of the scrum and the real battle for the ball

My thought - instead of awarding a penalty for an infringement award a free kick instead - less incentive to 'drop' the scrum or cheat (which all teams try to do) and means that you can have a royal battle for the ball without fear of being sent of

What your thoughts

Rog had an interesting solution during the italy game. He said that there could be a former front forward sitting in the TMO box watching the scrums and advising the ref what's going on. Not sure how feasible it is to add another person to the refereeing ticket. Maybe all TMOs should be former front rowers so there's only no extra person needed.

Its not perfect but if anyone is looking for perfection then you won't find it in any sport that has a ref.

The scrums are better than they were and most of the time a dominant scrum will get most of the decisions. It could be better but it isn't a concern now.

Riskysports wrote:
The scrum is now determining the outcomes of matches and is becoming too much of an important factor in a game.

It is being used to get points, win games and get players sin binned, rather than a way to re-set the game while  tieing in some players

I personnaly think it is better than say 2 or 3 years ago. it is far from perfect but hardly as decisive and slightly less of a lottery than it was (but still is). At least there is less resets now. France and most french teams used to try to get penalties from every scrum before and thanks heaven they try to get the ball out sometime now (even more the case in the T14).

Progressive binding would help I think - front rows then seconds then back rows. Also technical infrigements a free kick 10 m forward.

Saxons / wolfhounds game had good scrums

What about allowing teams to use a 3 man scrum if they want to, as was the case when NZ used this V the Lions in 1977.

Riskysports wrote:Ok, this might be a little bit sensationalized heading, but.....

The way the scrum is now can not, and should not be allowed to continue

All 3 games (and almost every game that now is played) were mired by the inconsistent and frankly baffling scrum decisions - with most scrums not ending up with the ball coming out. No-one had a clue why one team got awarded free kick / penalty / re-set vs the other and it seemed to be random decisions

It is ruining the game of rugby!

The scrum is now determining the outcomes of matches and is becoming too much of an important factor in a game.

It is being used to get points, win games and get players sin binned, rather than a way to re-set the game while  tieing in some players

It is not what the scrum was created for

The way it is now is the same as awarding a penalty for a squint throw at a line out - the 'penalty' far out ways the crime

So how do we fix the scrum, because in actual fact I like the concept of the scrum and the real battle for the ball

My thought - instead of awarding a penalty for an infringement award a free kick instead - less incentive to 'drop' the scrum or cheat (which all teams try to do) and means that you can have a royal battle for the ball without fear of being sent of

What your thoughts

You are playing against a stronger scrum and a scrum is awarded five yards out. Under your rules you woukd always drop the scrum. The opposing team then have the option of another scrum where you do the same thing or a free kick which is worth less to them than a scrum.

Deliberate drop - yellow card. trouble is a lot of scrum infringements are technical ones - and also I hate to see teams playing for penalties at scrums.

whocares wrote:

I personnaly think it is better than say 2 or 3 years ago. it is far from perfect but hardly as decisive and slightly less of a lottery than it was (but still is). At least there is less resets now. France and most french teams used to try to get penalties from every scrum before and thanks heaven they try to get the ball out sometime now (even more the case in the T14).

I agree. Sides like France and Wales are no longer able to milk the scrum for penalties in the same way they used to. What we now need to do is to work on encouraging scrums to stay up and refs to penalise in the right way.

That means:
1) Teach refs what to look for - in particular for binds and body angles. I've seen a number of penalties given recently for players being so low they aren't stable, which I think is a good trend. Get that right, and the vast majority of scrums stay up
2) Teach refs what the different failure modes of a scrum look like and who is at fault. Brian Moore put a good list in the Telegraph a few years back where he outlined what the guilty party would look like after most scrum offences
3) Adopt interpretations that encourage getting the ball in play - the "use it" call when the ball is available and awarding a free kick to the side with put in if it's not clear who is at fault.

You could always go and watch league...they don't have scrums

Stop the reset, that is what wastes time.

Change penalties to free kicks and yellow card the culprits who drop the scrum

"Time to get rid of the scrum?" BLASPHEMY!!!!!

The following was my proposal for a "blue card" system copied and pasted from a similar thread:

The ref has a couple of cards in his pocket. If he starts waving them around the players will start to behave themselves.

The scrum is a tough one. Because so much goes on in the front row it is hard to see who is at fault. If a prop drops to his knees he isn't automatically responsible, his opposite number for instance might have been driving squint or something, I know all about it being prop myself and having to deal with a cheating loosie opposite me who clearly new what the refs favourite whisky was.

However the players themselves as have a responsibility, I wouldn't be opposed for refs to cite for scrummaging penalties after the game, call them blue cards or something. Hand them out to props who have infringed and gotten away with it over the course of the match.

It's pretty obvious sometimes who's at fault if you can spend 5 minutes watching any given scrum after the match.

3 Blue cards in a season sees you banned for 2 matches or something like that. (just a suggestion)

It seems to be a pretty fair way to ensure the front rows are on their best behavior for the duration of the match.

You could even recruit former props/hookers to be the judges. Brian Moore get that CV polished up.

Aye - rtetrospective punishments might work as well. Inleague they put things " on report" if they are not sure its foul play IIRC

Some people think running rugby equals great rugby... IMO it doesn't necessarily.  What matters is a genuine contest whether it be North vs. Folau or Cole vs. Jenkins.

Saying people hate the scrums should remember how much penalty tries have been celebrated by both fans and players alike... recall England's vs. Ireland in 2012? Take away the scrum and pretty soon you'll have rugby league without the 5 shot handover. Everyone will be 6'2-6'3... 100kgs. Seriously, if that's what you want, watch league.

One thing I would say is that common sense needs to come into refereeing a little more. Currently the refs look for infringements but not necessarily reasons for the scrum collapsing.

Look at chaps like Gethin. I think he has been unfairly picked on a little because of changes to his technique. He's at fault for not changing it but still.. oh poor binding... PING!!! even though the scrum collapsed on the opposite side etc.
The issue is... whilst its technically correct, its not the root cause which I feel is more important.

I agree with Risky that penalties are too rich a reward for supposed infringements there.

Yes, you could argue that less of a reward would mean that the scrum would become even more contentious and more 'messing' would go on in there, but I do think the use of scrums as means of gaining penalty advantage is just too generous and gives that part of the game too much leverage in deciding score lines (if you have a metronomic kicker)

I'd prefer just a free kick, or even a simple tap and go allowance, given to the side that won the battle of the scrums.  Therefore, if it's not your put-in you still have incentive to compete at the scrum but the advantage you gain is more in keeping with the flow of the overall game rather than hoisting your score artificially high using possibly the only area you have a clear advantage in. It forces good scrummaging sides to be more versatile in the methods they seek to score.

But the scrums themselves stay. I personally don't get as ratty about them as others seem to. And rather than people being annoyed at the time it takes to have them, with the constant resets, I think people's real problems always tend to be more honestly about the frustration that their side were winning those scrums but the ref wasn't appreciating the fact!

I think that only deliberate offences within the 22m area should allow a kick at goal. The kick should be in front of the posts and worth 5 points.

At scrum a deliberate offence would include any disruption if being shunted backwards significantly. Similar to apply for a driving maul.

Technical offences should never be a kick at goal no matter where they happen.

If you are inside the oppositions 22 and have a dominant scrum and the defending team infringes a free kick to the attacking team is actually punishing the attacking team. they don't have the line out if they kick the ball out and you are effectively saying that you are to dominant so have you have to tap and go instead.

The only way this would work is if the infringing defending team are always shown a yellow card if they infringe inside there own 22.

sorry to cover the same point as you London Tiger..... I think we typed that at the same time

No.

For all the reasons I have explained before, changing what penalty is awarded on a fault, yes.

Players are told the rules (they should know already) before most matches and yet they still cannot hold position and contest a straight ball. The straight feed should be enforced as per the instructions by IRB at the beginning of the season.

Some of the dodgy scrums it has to be said is a result of woeful pitch/turf conditions.

See the French italian game where the scrums did their best to stay up, yet could not push for fear of losing their footing

players should be allowed to drop a bind briefly to stabilize.

LondonTiger wrote:I think that only deliberate offences within the 22m area should allow a kick at goal. The kick should be in front of the posts and worth 5 points.

At scrum a deliberate offence would include any disruption if being shunted backwards significantly. Similar to apply for a driving maul.

Technical offences should never be a kick at goal no matter where they happen.

But the problem is the attacking team will cheat every time to fool the ref - which is what happens now

props shirts with handles? Progressive binding? Both would mean proper binds could be got.

I don't mind resets, it means the ref don't want to take a gamble and ping the wrong player. What we need is one ref on each side of the scrum and every loosehead boring in pinged.

I do say in all seriousness though that I really do believe the resets are sometimes done to give the ref a breather if its been a frenetic game.

I'm not joking, I've simply seen far too many needless resets sometimes (particularly in club games) to believe it's nothing more than giving the ref a chance to take the sting out of their legs..... call me cynical but ref puff is a factor on occasion

Just let the ball be played if it is available no matter what the fat boys are doing. Only reset if the ball can't be played. Abolish nearly all pens/FKs. If the scrum requires a third reset then give a FK with no possibility of another scrum.

ie, take away virtually ALL the reasons for scrums to do anything other than restart the game.

I do thin there is some point in that. Some teams seem to play for penalties. remove the penalty and then they might play for the advantage a dominant scrum gives.

You need the penalty option for dangerous play or for preventing a try, but fewer penalties would be better

TJ wrote:I do thin there is some point in that.  Some teams seem to play for penalties.  remove the penalty and then they might play for the advantage a dominant scrum gives.

I agree with this and I've said it for a while, but I would reward most scrum penalties with a free kick instead, encourages faster play and reduces time wasted in scrums.

Its not a perfect solution as there will still be collapses, but I don't think having an expert scrummager as the TMO would help things as in any given scrum there could be a number of infringements by both sides they could pick up on, so who do they penalise?

The way I see it, if neither team wants to scrummage as a means to reset play then sod them and force them to move on.

The problem with getting rid of the scrum is that you get rid of the fatties. I'm being serious! Hear me out.

One of the beautiful things about rugby is the creation of mismatches due to the size difference in player positions. Ok, the lines have blurred slightly in the modern game at the elite level with props often being very fit and mobile and some wingers being 6'5", but getting rid of the scrum means there is no need for props. Which means you replace them with either more back row type players or more try scorers. There's then more similarities across the teams and less mismatches. We see this homogeneity more and more in rugby league. 13 players all of similar proportions. And that's not a good thing IMO.

One of the great things about watching Shane Williams, for example, was when he would look up and see a prop in midfield and show him a clean pair of heels on the outside. The prop could then get his advantage later on by showing up on the wing to smash williams out the way for a try! But this game is predicated on creating space and overlaps and taking advantages of the mismatches. At the youth level a lack of props means a lack of opportunities for the fat kids - rugby has always been the place for kids of all sizes. It's like a freak show in a positive sense, opening its arms to the over tall, the overweight, the too small, the small but nippy, the athletic, etc. There's a position for all. It would be a shame to lose the need for the front row boys. At the elite level the effect will be to make the game a bit more league like and a bit less entertaining (IMO). Teams seem to struggle for space a bit as it is without getting rid of the slow players!

Yes the scrum is a problem, but for me the solution is to work on the scrum rather than take it out. But I do understand the suggestion made here.

Whenever there is a scrum debate I always post a link to this video. Why we can't go back to this I don't know (before my time playing wise so not talking from experience). Newport v Pontypool 1992. See the scrum on 30 seconds. Soft engage, no hit, wait til it's stable and then shove when the ball goes in. The opposition get one against the head on this occasion. Is that too antiquated to return to??? There were very few collapses because of the lack of hit and the scrum would to and fro (on their feet) until it was settled and the ref was happy. What did we move away from this style of scrummaging???

https://youtu.be/Ksa2rKcKf8c

IronMike wrote:

TJ wrote:I do thin there is some point in that.  Some teams seem to play for penalties.  remove the penalty and then they might play for the advantage a dominant scrum gives.

I agree with this and I've said it for a while, but I would reward most scrum penalties with a free kick instead, encourages faster play and reduces time wasted in scrums.

Its not a perfect solution as there will still be collapses, but I don't think having an expert scrummager as the TMO would help things as in any given scrum there could be a number of infringements by both sides they could pick up on, so who do they penalise?

The way I see it, if neither team wants to scrummage as a means to reset play then sod them and force them to move on.

Aye -0 combined with yellow cards and retrospective checking and punishments

Griff wrote:The problem with getting rid of the scrum is that you get rid of the fatties. I'm being serious! Hear me out.

One of the beautiful things about rugby is the creation of mismatches due to the size difference in player positions. Ok, the lines have blurred slightly in the modern game at the elite level with props often being very fit and mobile and some wingers being 6'5", but getting rid of the scrum means there is no need for props. Which means you replace them with either more back row type players or more try scorers. There's then more similarities across the teams and less mismatches. We see this homogeneity more and more in rugby league. 13 players all of similar proportions. And that's not a good thing IMO.

One of the great things about watching Shane Williams, for example, was when he would look up and see a prop in midfield and show him a clean pair of heels on the outside. The prop could then get his advantage later on by showing up on the wing to smash williams out the way for a try! But this game is predicated on creating space and overlaps and taking advantages of the mismatches. At the youth level a lack of props means a lack of opportunities for the fat kids - rugby has always been the place for kids of all sizes. It's like a freak show in a positive sense, opening its arms to the over tall, the overweight, the too small, the small but nippy, the athletic, etc. There's a position for all. It would be a shame to lose the need for the front row boys. At the elite level the effect will be to make the game a bit more league like and a bit less entertaining (IMO). Teams seem to struggle for space a bit as it is without getting rid of the slow players!

Yes the scrum is a problem, but for me the solution is to work on the scrum rather than take it out. But I do understand the suggestion made here.

Whenever there is a scrum debate I always post a link to this video. Why we can't go back to this I don't know (before my time playing wise so not talking from experience). Newport v Pontypool 1992. See the scrum on 30 seconds. Soft engage, no hit, wait til it's stable and then shove when the ball goes in. The opposition get one against the head on this occasion. Is that too antiquated to return to??? There were very few collapses because of the lack of hit and the scrum would to and fro (on their feet) until it was settled and the ref was happy. What did we move away from this style of scrummaging???

https://youtu.be/Ksa2rKcKf8c

Wasn't it to do with certain teams pushing simultaneously with all 8 members of the scrum effectively creating a "hit"?

When 6 nations time comes around I rarely post on this forum as my opinions on, and what my expectations of what rugby is, are so different to most other posters frequenting the forum at this time. However....

Watching the Wales v England game I saw one of the most progressive things in Northern Hemisphere rugby for a long time.

Early/mid first half, England Knock on, a scrum is awarded - loosehead feed to Wales. Wales achieve possession but before the ball comes out, Faletau reaches in picks up the ball whilst still in the area of his locks feet, from the resulting play the Welsh half back scores a try, and anyone with any appreciation rugby would say and deservedly so. for the following reasons.

England had fouled in the first by way of the knock on, why should they come out of it with a penalty?

The ball for all intents was back in play, but technically the scrum wasnt over.

Faletau showed that he was there to get on with it and play some rugby, his attitude should be applauded and rewarded.

The little French referee, could have stopped the game and awarded England a penalty, but he chose to let the game go, good on him.

Wales scored the try by drawing and beating the English defence NOT because Faletau used his hands to retrieve the ball from the scrum.

The scrum is nothing more than a means of recommencing play after a team has fouled.

Go and watch Rugby League.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

England had fouled in the first by way of the knock on, why should they come out of it with a penalty?

Because it's a penalty offence. Just like if the prop had broken his bind or gone to ground or if the attacking side wheeled the scrum illegally. Just because you were awarded the scrum doesn't mean you can't be penalised at that scrum. Surely you remember the England 6 man scrum against NZ a few years ago ?

The Saint wrote:Go and watch Rugby League.

Well said.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

The scrum is nothing more than a means of recommencing play after a team has fouled.

A bit more than that mate.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
When 6 nations time comes around I rarely post on this forum as my opinions on, and what my expectations of what  rugby is,  are so different to most other posters frequenting the forum at this time. However....

Watching the Wales v England game I saw one of the most progressive things in Northern Hemisphere rugby for a long time.

Early/mid first half, England Knock on, a scrum is awarded - loosehead feed to Wales. Wales achieve possession but before the ball comes out, Faletau reaches in picks up the ball whilst still in the area of  his  locks feet, from the resulting play the Welsh half back scores a try, and anyone with any appreciation rugby would say and deservedly so. for the following reasons.

England had fouled in the first by way of the knock on, why should they come out of it with a penalty?

The ball for all intents was back in play, but  technically the scrum wasnt over.

Faletau showed that he was there to get on with it and play some rugby, his attitude should be applauded and rewarded.

The little French referee, could have stopped the game and awarded England a penalty, but he chose to let the game go, good on him.

Wales scored the try by drawing and beating the English defence NOT because Faletau  used his hands to retrieve the ball from the scrum.

The scrum is nothing more than a means of recommencing play after a team has fouled.

Walesd id score due to Faletaus foul though as they were about to lose the ball. You would nt argue about ignoring a penalty in another facet of play (though I think they missed it rather than ignored). If you don t like contests for the ball: rugby league.

But the essence is the Scrum should not be a target for getting penalties.  Which it is now

Cardiff Dave wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

The scrum is nothing more than a means of recommencing play after a team has fouled.

A bit more than that mate.

I agree. It has always been more than that. I think the idea that it is just a restart comes from Australia and the reason is obvious.

Refereering could be improved. More yellow cards should be given. We shoukd however keep the scrum and if one team can scrum and the other can't I see nothing wrong with the second team losing the match via penalties and penalty tries.

Teams will target weak scrums. The answer for me is not to stop pens but to pick front rows for their set piece above being an additional flanker.

No because I hate losing to Australia

aucklandlaurie wrote:
When 6 nations time comes around I rarely post on this forum as my opinions on, and what my expectations of what  rugby is,  are so different to most other posters frequenting the forum at this time. However....

Watching the Wales v England game I saw one of the most progressive things in Northern Hemisphere rugby for a long time.

Early/mid first half, England Knock on, a scrum is awarded - loosehead feed to Wales. Wales achieve possession but before the ball comes out, Faletau reaches in picks up the ball whilst still in the area of  his  locks feet, from the resulting play the Welsh half back scores a try, and anyone with any appreciation rugby would say and deservedly so. for the following reasons.

England had fouled in the first by way of the knock on, why should they come out of it with a penalty?

The ball for all intents was back in play, but  technically the scrum wasnt over.

Faletau showed that he was there to get on with it and play some rugby, his attitude should be applauded and rewarded.

The little French referee, could have stopped the game and awarded England a penalty, but he chose to let the game go, good on him.

Wales scored the try by drawing and beating the English defence NOT because Faletau  used his hands to retrieve the ball from the scrum.

The scrum is nothing more than a means of recommencing play after a team has fouled.

In this case, the Wales scrum was going backwards quite quickly and were at risk of either being pushed off the ball or committing a penalty offence by losing their binds. Faletau took a chance on a marginal play in reaching into the scrum and retrieving the ball before it was definitely lost - was a sensible bit of #8 play in the context, in getting the ball clear of your weak set piece, but was not an intention to be adventurous, more a play out of necessity.

That his pick up came early and let him take Haskell a bit by surprise in making the outside break was probably more by accident than design, although Faletau definitely did well to exploit the situation abd set Webb through for the try.

The ultimate point is that scrums are not just a way of restarting play, but are (as with lineouts) supposed to be a restart that includes competition for the ball but favours one side (i.e. that with head and feed) - it is not a foul to knock on, just an error, and it is on that basis that a somewhat biased restart is appropriate.

Firstly this is only a problem at the very highest level, very few scrums collapse outside of the professional ranks, which suggests to me that the problem is with the players and coaches looking for advantages by deliberately wheeling, collapsing, etc.

Simple solutions:
Progressive binding and no "hit/engage" whatever
No shove until the referee calls it
Proper shirts and shorts for the tight five to bind with.
Straight put ins.
Yellow cards and back 10m for deliberate collapse
Penalty try if deliberate collapse is inside 10m from the try line
All members of the tight five to have a waist measurement larger than their chest measurement

Sorted !

My issue at lower level is that too often one side shows an early dominance (usually obtained through outcheating their opposition) and the referee assumes they are the pinnacle of scrummaging ability and only looks for offences for the other team (usually us, hence the moan).

You do see it a little at international level too, with the team on the ascendancy being rewarded even if there is guilt on both sides.

Seemingly the only offences a non-dominant scrum can be given is early engage, early shove or deliberate wheeling.

I think referees need to take ownership and set the scrum better, in line with the directives. Do not allow the gap between the two scrums to increase, they should be ear to ear. Then ensure the ball is entered straight, it does make a material difference to the scrum. Finally, if you are to favour one side, favour the team who put the ball in first and look at the team who may try to cheat to disrupt the possession. If they are all fine look at the team in possession. Like the breakdown, benefit of the doubt should go to the attacking team.

Finally, any resets and you stop the clock immediately. Restart it when the ball comes out. Then every scrum takes exactly one scrum-length of time.

If you get rid of the scrums you get rid of the lumps and it becomes rugby league with rucks, the fatties allow more space on the pitch and have an important job to do. It also means that players have to choose the right balance between fitness and size whereas if we were to remove the scrum we'd end up with 8 back rowers and no space on the pitch to play which would be disastrous. I think one of the main issues at the moment is that there are so many "converts" playing front row, flankers and centres who were always very good at rugby but grew stocky rather than tall so they're stuck in the front row once they've reached a very high standard and are taught to scrummage to win the game rather than the ball. Most props you find at amateur level were handpicked as props at an early age in the same way that when they played football they were put in goal, they learn their trade over time and become adept at holding a scrum up. A reset scrum is far less common at amateur level (and even less so at junior) than at professional, so we're looking at a situation whereby props either can't scrummage properly or won't, maybe we should have some sort of front row MOT in which (don't ask me how) front rows have to prove their ability to scrum and if if they don't pass they don't get to play and if they do and scrums continue to go down both teams lose a player as no one knows what happens in a scrum anyway.

Slightly off topic but,

I think the clock should stop until the ball is put into the scrum and at lineouts when the hooker raises his arms to throw in.

It would hopefully stop time wasting & give the paying public proper value for money

I agree, but think the clock should stop if the scrum goes down. If the scrum happens properly then it is no longer than a penalty shot at goal before the ball is back in play, it's just when you get continuous restarts it takes too much time.

Compared to where the Scrums were a couple of years ago I think the current scrums are great, the ball just needs to be fed straight.

+1 Big T

The scrum is an essential part of rugby union, as previously said, without the contest you would have 15 man RL and no space.

Bigger more physical teams may dominate a scrum, but with the right technique, the ball can be back at the 8s feet very quickly, even if retreating and they just have to play it quickly. The advantage for the weaker scrum is that their pack should be lighter and more mobile and therefore quicker to the breakdown.

The great thing about RU is that there is a position for just about every size and shape from big fatties to little whippets. It would be a shame to see that change into stereotypical league type players where anyone outside of the stereotype cannot get a game.