The Scrum

It's likely that the World Cup will be tarnished by the blight on the game that we call the international scrum!

Some teams are far worse than others where scrums are used to try an win a penalty rather than as a way of restarting the game as it's intended! Sometimes this sees re-set after re-set and this chews up the clock and turns viewers off from the game.

Some have suggested changing the penalty system but I think we need to change the scrum instead!

Now stay with me here, this is controversial but who knows, I may have solved the issue!
The current scrum is set up as thus:
  
  Prop Hooker Prop
     Lock    Lock
 Flank          Flank
          No 8

Now, I'm no physics expert, but having four guys pushing into the three guys are the front puts extreme preassue on the front row.  Unless the No 8 and flankers keep things straight, the tail of the scrum also starts to move from side to side which makes things unstable and BOOM, your scrum can go down!

So I'm think we should try a different scrum formation!

 Prop Hooker Hooker Prop
    Flank  Lock  Flank
              No 8

You then have a wider base at the front with more guys keeping the bloody thing up rather than trying to push through! Makes for a much more solid foundation and maybe we'd see less collapses and re-sets?

You could even allow teams to choose  what kind of players they want in the scrum. For example, many say that hookers and back row players are much the same, so you could have your flankers in the front row instead of two hookers! You could then have three locks to give your pack more shunt! More power but less pace and breakdown specialists!

The number 8 could also pick more channels to slot into! currently they float about between the locks and the flankers as it is, this new four man front row scrum would just extend the options but keep the scrum more stable at the front!

Genius or madness?

That's actually not a bad idea

Extra fatties on the field?? God no

BamBam wrote:Extra fatties on the field?? God no

Extra fatties would mean more fatties for the backs to run round so more tries.

I am unconvinced by the idea though. Tigertatties seems under the impression that the front rows are trying to keep the thing up and are struggling against insuperable forces. Most international front rows are of course trying win cheat themselves a penalty.

Don't see how you are going to stabilise a scrum better with four guys in front.

The tighter the bind the easier to control the bodies.

Tigertattie raises the point that the game is becoming almost unwatchable due to constantly resetting scrums.

There is an article on the BBC which points out that in the first World Cup 4% of scrums resulted in penalties and that in the most recent it was 49%.

So every time there is a scrum it's as likely to end in a penalty as a continuance of play. This is farcical at best and an open invitation to cheating at worst.

The IRB has to ensure that scrums are refereed properly: early yellow cards, reds for repeat offenders, ball in straight, hookers hooking, no early pushes and rugby is actually played. Anything else is cheating both the people who have paid to watch a game of rugby and the players who are wasting their careers learning how not to scrum.

Not convinced the extra hooker would make much difference to the stability of the scrum Tattie, that scrum formation would certainly give the backs more time though as the flankers would be tied in. For me the answer to the wasted time element of the problem is reasonably simple, stop the clock on the referees whistle and don't start it again until the ball is put into the scrum. This won't stop teams trying to milk penalties but it would be a start. Maybe to have a retired prop with the fourth official to advise the ref who's collapsing what may help with that but even then it's relying on opinion albeit a more educated one.

There does not seem to be a problem when playing with a ref that knows what is going on and a decent pitch, Sarries do not have the problem on their artificial pitch and neither do England or Ireland when the ref starts to penalise illegal binds, boring in, wheeling etc.

Do you think coaches put the same onus on scrums?

Many now seem to just want a scrum that is solid. Theres very few "destructive" scrums in the games these days.

The only way to fix the scrum is to abolish it. It's just an eyesore and waste of time. Slows the whole show down and it's bloody boring.

Then we have rugby league

Ps I don't find anything boring with a real destructive scrum. Its great to watch.

Trouble is its all the scrums that arent great to watch.

aucklandlaurie wrote:Trouble is its all the scrums that arent great to watch.

As an England fan theyve been far more enjoyable to watch than New Zealand running in endless tries.

quote="GeordieFalcon"]Then we have rugby league

Ps I don't find anything boring with a real destructive scrum. Its great to watch. [/quote]

The rugby league scrum is a bit of a joke in terms of alignment, feeding etc, but at least it does provide a set piece that ties the forwards up and gets the ball back into play quickly. Works OK given the ethos of RL (which is a game of possession), but would not be a good model for RU, where the ethos is about the contest for possession.

At the moment though, the scrum is still something of a disaster area - even when correctly set and the ball fed (nearly) properly and hooked, scrums wheel, pop up or collapse. The reason is simple: front rows are not prepared to move their feet backwards under pressure to maintain stability, and will instead try to twist, slip binds or otherwise adjust to accommodate the pressure. There needs to more of be an onus on the packs to keep the scrum stable as much as reasonably possible (obviously there are allowances for bad footing etc), so yielding ground under pressure rather than going up or down.

Just stop the clock at the start of the scrum and switch it back on when there is a clear conclusion to it. Refs can do this easy -

A ref either side of the scrum - sorted.

RubyGuby wrote: Just stop the clock at the start of the scrum and switch it back on when there is a clear conclusion to it. Refs can do this easy -

Yes that sorts out the clock but it will make games much much longer and this method doesnt stop the viewers having to wait ages to see rugby being played again!

munkian wrote:A ref either side of the scrum - sorted.

I think your onto something here, perhaps the 4th official can come on, or one of the closest linesmen.

I don't think you need an extra official. You just need touch judges not to be so passive all the time and actually assist the referee.

I think England will do well

My view - 2 things
1) progressive binding - front rows bind, then locks join then back row then ball in then push
2) make most scrum offenses free kicks - then its less likely teams will play for penalties. Still use yellow cards for dangerous or repeated infringements.

TJ wrote:make most scrum offenses free kicks

I agree with that.

The number of collapsed scrums has reduced since they changed the laws.

Still needs to be a contest, and one for which a penalty can be awarded. Otherwise we may as well switch to league

tigertattie wrote:

RubyGuby wrote: Just stop the clock at the start of the scrum and switch it back on when there is a clear conclusion to it. Refs can do this easy -

Yes that sorts out the clock but it will make games much much longer and this method doesnt stop the viewers having to wait ages to see rugby being played again!

First extended scrum: "There goes my date with Linda."
Second extended scrum: "Damn, that's Sophie down too"
Seventh extended scrum: "Dear Christ! Not Julie! She said she'd have the cage washed from last time"
Twenty third extended scrum: "F**k that little black f**king book and the f**king clock! Now I have to go home to the f**king wife!"

There'd be no f**king with the wife if she found out about linda, sophie and the rest.

The scrum has changed over the years from a way of re-starting a game to a battle within a battle. It does get very boring and having less resets would be awesome. Of course professionalism changed everything including this area and sides will seek all opportunities to get an advantage in a way that never happened in the amateur era. As a former back I have no clue at all as who is at fault, but think there might be some mileage in having a former front rower come on as an assistant ref just for the scrums.

hugehandoff wrote:The scrum has changed over the years from a way of re-starting a game to a battle within a battle. It does get very boring and having less resets would be awesome. Of course professionalism changed everything including this area and sides will seek all opportunities to get an advantage in a way that never happened in the amateur era. As a former back I have no clue at all as who is at fault, but think there might be some mileage in having a former front rower come on as an assistant ref just for the scrums.

Spoken like a true back.

The scrum has never been a way of just 're-starting a game'. It is a chance in the game to physically impose yourself on your opposite number. Beat them physically and mentally and generally knacker them up so bad they struggle to be of any use round the pitch.

The scrum is.................. too technical.

If it is as Gavin says it is - a time when the heavies get to shine and get to intimidate the opposition with their power - (and I'd agree with him and it can be a great bit of theatre (gladiatorial theatre)) - but if it is, then make the rules work to simply offer that.

Yes, it's a dangerous event and must need stringent reffing to keep it safe. Yes, the technical aspects are sometime how the intimidation is done.

But I still think it could do with less pernickety rules (keep the safety ones by all means!) - it could be freed up to become a spectacle of what it is meant to be - and the ref would be encouraged to let two teams try to push each other off the ball and not be constantly looking for the nitty gritty.  I think now maybe the boys want to use it as a penalty magnet because there seems to be ample room in the rule book for gaining them.
Just try to find ways of bit by bit loosening the rules (jersey holding and arm holding and all that stuff)  let the boys fight it out in the mist more freely.

You saw less penalties given in the rugby championship in summer. The better refs seem to let it flow

GavinDragon wrote:

hugehandoff wrote:The scrum has changed over the years from a way of re-starting a game to a battle within a battle. It does get very boring and having less resets would be awesome. Of course professionalism changed everything including this area and sides will seek all opportunities to get an advantage in a way that never happened in the amateur era. As a former back I have no clue at all as who is at fault, but think there might be some mileage in having a former front rower come on as an assistant ref just for the scrums.

Spoken like a true back.

The scrum has never been a way of just 're-starting a game'. It is a chance in the game to physically impose yourself on your opposite number. Beat them physically and mentally and generally knacker them up so bad they struggle to be of any use round the pitch.

Gavin....I, of course, do not mean to devalue this part of the game, but I do think that scrums are all about winning penalties rather than just winning the ball and maybe getting a shove on or turning the scrum to give your no.9 an advantage. The re-starting bit I pinched from Brian Moore's article.


What's gone wrong with the scrum?
By Brian Moore Former England and British Lions hooker


BBC rugby union pundit Brian Moore is a former hooker for England and the British and Irish Lions. He is also a qualified referee and has been growing increasingly exasperated with handling of the scrum at the highest level. He explains why these problems are spoiling the game and offers some solutions:

"Something has gone very wrong with the scrum.

Instead of being a means of restarting the game it has become a way of winning penalties. The hooker - my old position - has generally become bigger, because he is required to have power rather than hooking skills.

The important elements of scrummaging - engagement, binding of the front rows and feeding of the ball - have been truncated into a split second.

This means referees cannot watch all parts of the scrum and players know that if they get one element wrong, they are in a disadvantageous position and are likely to get pushed backwards. As a result, they collapse the scrum knowing the referee is unlikely to know who is responsible and is as likely to blame one pack as the other.
Continue reading the main story

“The scrum should be a means of restarting the game safely, quickly and fairly”

To be frank, the whole edifice has become a grotesque farce and is blighting the game.

Not only has the scrum become tedious, but it is dangerous - and the International Rugby Board knows it. Paying customers are rightly registering their disapproval and asking where the value for money is in watching the game.

Will the IRB listen? We will have to wait and see, but if they don't, they had better get ready for a major lawsuit because the first injured player in an international match will take them to the cleaners.

The scrum, according to rugby's laws, is a means of restarting the game safely, quickly and fairly. In order to do that, there are specific laws about what you can do and when, which are relatively long-standing.

The job of the hooker is to hook the ball back when it enters the scrum, consisting of 16 large men spending too much time wrapped in each other's arms. When the rules are applied properly, they work. And although they don't stop things going wrong, like a scrum collapsing or wheeling, they stop as many as can reasonably be expected in a competitive and technically-difficult environment.
Six Nations scrums 2013

Total: 280
Won outright: 101
Lost outright: 3
Result in free kicks: 37
Result in penalties: 73
Reversed: 3
So only 37% of scrums resulted in play being restarted


The two packs are meant to form either side of a mark and engage, which means the front rows binding on their opposite numbers. When the scrum is square and stationary, the ball is fed in straight by the scrum-half along the line between the two front rows. The hooker hooks the ball back into his side of the scrum where it emerges and can be used in open play.

A pack that is not putting the ball in can still compete for it by their hooker striking for it when it is fed in, or they can shove the opposition off the ball. But, crucially, this can happen only when the ball has been fed and not before.

The working of these laws means the roles in the scrum of hooker, prop and so on are distinct, and require different physical attributes. This allows rugby's unique claims to flourish. It is a game for all shapes and sizes. The fat boys can be props, the tall ones second rows and the diminutive malevolent ones hookers.

Simple? Well it should be. So let me go back and explain why things first started to go wrong with the scrum.

Around 1996, the birth of professionalism, the All Blacks, who have always led the rugby world in new techniques, adopted a scrummaging technique that involved their pack timing a push to coincide with the strike of their hooker.

This way they not only got the hooked ball, they also had an advancing scrum that put them at a distinct advantage as their opponents had to retreat to stay onside.

As is the nature of sport, this did not go unnoticed, and fairly soon all packs at elite international level were adopting the same technique. Gradually referees stopped enforcing the law requiring the ball to be fed in straight, and scrum halves started to feed the ball further and further into their side of the scrum.

The opposition hooker stopped striking for the ball because there was no realistic chance of succeeding, and his efforts would be transferred into adding to the power of his pack's drive. Over time, the scrum became not a hooking and pushing contest but one of power pushing, with each pack trying to push as early as the referee would allow. According to the laws of the game, this was not supposed to happen until the ball had been fed.

The increasing focus on power led to more and more scrums collapsing and the IRB decided it had to do something to control scrum engagement. Thus, instead of leaving the front rows to engage in their own time and under their own auspices, they introduced a sequence which controlled the engagement.

In its various incarnations it was "touch, crouch, hold, engage". This did not work, which came as no surprise to people like me who have played in the front row. In fact, it made matters worse by effectively becoming a signal for the front rows to engage with as much force as possible.

Then, for reasons known only to themselves, elite referees abandoned altogether the law against early shoving.

Unfortunately, the IRB and elite referees have failed to understand that it is what happens after, and not before, engagement that matters. That is where the source of the current problems lie.

Ironically, the solution is the simple application of the existing laws. And the proof is where the laws are properly applied - at junior level - where they do not have these serious problems with the scrum."

I find it amusing that man who played in a fearsome English pack that dominated is opposition in scrum and mauls would say that the scrum is a way of restarting the game.

However, at the time the article was written (post 6n) it was absolutely correct in its asertions. The scrum was ruining the games in 2013 (although no one in the NH com

Complained when it led to the lions stuffing the aussies in the third test)

However since the rule change it has improved. Especially when reffed well

Gavin - I think we all enjoy a proper scrum battle and respect the really good front rowers. But there is a balance to be found in this element of the game not taking up too much time and becoming tedious. On one hand it is about re-starting the game and on the other hand it is about a proper battle between 2 sets of forwards. It has improved since BM wrote that article and hopefully the balance will be right in this RWC.

Agreed. As I said when reffed correctly and promptly it strikes the Balance

Having a decent pitch makes a big difference. I think Scotland and Wales have got their act together in this regard, but the French one was atrocious during the warm-up games.

hugehandoff wrote:

GavinDragon wrote:



What's gone wrong with the scrum?
By Brian Moore Former England and British Lions hooker

"Something has gone very wrong with the scrum.

Instead of being a means of restarting the game it has become a way of winning penalties. The hooker - my old position - has generally become bigger, because he is required to have power rather than hooking skills.

What about T Youngs - he has neither

Abolish it.

donglewood wrote:Abolish it.

Then there will be 6 flankers running round the pitch making defenses even better and more organised.The only benefit I could see to getting rid of the scrum is that you could then reduce subs to 3 or 4 per match and fatigue would create space towards the back end of a match.

I'd be more in favour of making scrum offences a free kick but the scrum would have to stay set with 8 forwards bound at the shoulder until the free kick is taken.

Yeah - I agree. If you lose the scrum you need to drop a couple of guys from the defensive line.

I think I see where this is going.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:I think I see where this is going.

The problem is that the Scrum 3-4-1 the Bok Scrum has been messed about with
so much it is no longer viable.
To elucidate the key to the Bok Scrum was Locks pushing straight[number 8 the 3rd
Lock],Flankers packing and pushing on the angle.The Shove going on the Props and
binding them in.The Hooker literally hangs between them and ball is heeled between
Lock and Flanker.
Then the Scrum was put down by Rows moved by the Ref to mark then fed,BUT
over the years.The Wheel a major attacking weapon was banned.
Players no longer allowed to disengage before ball exits Scrum so Back row moves
no longer possible[or difficult]
Binding now has to be done in a certain way etc,etc.it is admitted that to hook the
ball as the law stands legally is nigh on impossible,hence acceptance of squint feeds.
THAT assumes everything is done by the book,NOW we come to the Front Row Mafia
tactics.Slipping the Bind,Diving in,Packing on the angle,Dropping the Shoulder,Tripping
opposing Prop,[not to mention Gouging,Twisting the scrotum,swinging arm,etc]
Most Refs haven't a clue IF they think one side is at it they`ll blow them out of the
game.
IF you get a relatively weak Scrum versus a strong one they`ll milk it for Penalties
instead of a quick heel to set up backs.
I see that there is a clamp down on diving,or feigning injuries and cards will be
issued.Hopefully deliberately collapsing Scrums will also be punished.
Solution is simple go back to Laws that worked for 70 odd years,set up by
rows,no hit.

Maybe form the scrum around the ball, and remove the feed?

Scrum, allow the push, don't be stopping for little niggles of correct holds and bullschidt like that.... let the push continue - either one side gets the ball or one side collapses first.  The side that collapses first goes back ten yards and the victorious side simply gets a simple tap and go, and on with the show.

No fuss, no big think-in to decide who really collapsed it, no fretting about who put a finger in the right place and a thumb up the wrong place  Just two meaty backs trying to push each other off the ball or onto the ground.  But no big kicking penalty for victory... tap and go.

hugehandoff wrote:

GavinDragon wrote:

hugehandoff wrote:The scrum has changed over the years from a way of re-starting a game to a battle within a battle. It does get very boring and having less resets would be awesome. Of course professionalism changed everything including this area and sides will seek all opportunities to get an advantage in a way that never happened in the amateur era. As a former back I have no clue at all as who is at fault, but think there might be some mileage in having a former front rower come on as an assistant ref just for the scrums.

Spoken like a true back.

The scrum has never been a way of just 're-starting a game'. It is a chance in the game to physically impose yourself on your opposite number. Beat them physically and mentally and generally knacker them up so bad they struggle to be of any use round the pitch.

Gavin....I, of course, do not mean to devalue this part of the game, but I do think that scrums are all about winning penalties rather than just winning the ball and maybe getting a shove on or turning the scrum to give your no.9 an advantage. The re-starting bit I pinched from Brian Moore's article.


What's gone wrong with the scrum?
By Brian Moore Former England and British Lions hooker


BBC rugby union pundit Brian Moore is a former hooker for England and the British and Irish Lions. He is also a qualified referee and has been growing increasingly exasperated with handling of the scrum at the highest level. He explains why these problems are spoiling the game and offers some solutions:

"Something has gone very wrong with the scrum.

Instead of being a means of restarting the game it has become a way of winning penalties. The hooker - my old position - has generally become bigger, because he is required to have power rather than hooking skills.

The important elements of scrummaging - engagement, binding of the front rows and feeding of the ball - have been truncated into a split second.

This means referees cannot watch all parts of the scrum and players know that if they get one element wrong, they are in a disadvantageous position and are likely to get pushed backwards. As a result, they collapse the scrum knowing the referee is unlikely to know who is responsible and is as likely to blame one pack as the other.
Continue reading the main story

   “The scrum should be a means of restarting the game safely, quickly and fairly”

To be frank, the whole edifice has become a grotesque farce and is blighting the game.

Not only has the scrum become tedious, but it is dangerous - and the International Rugby Board knows it. Paying customers are rightly registering their disapproval and asking where the value for money is in watching the game.

Will the IRB listen? We will have to wait and see, but if they don't, they had better get ready for a major lawsuit because the first injured player in an international match will take them to the cleaners.

The scrum, according to rugby's laws, is a means of restarting the game safely, quickly and fairly. In order to do that, there are specific laws about what you can do and when, which are relatively long-standing.

The job of the hooker is to hook the ball back when it enters the scrum, consisting of 16 large men spending too much time wrapped in each other's arms. When the rules are applied properly, they work. And although they don't stop things going wrong, like a scrum collapsing or wheeling, they stop as many as can reasonably be expected in a competitive and technically-difficult environment.
Six Nations scrums 2013

   Total: 280
   Won outright: 101
   Lost outright: 3
   Result in free kicks: 37
   Result in penalties: 73
   Reversed: 3
   So only 37% of scrums resulted in play being restarted


The two packs are meant to form either side of a mark and engage, which means the front rows binding on their opposite numbers. When the scrum is square and stationary, the ball is fed in straight by the scrum-half along the line between the two front rows. The hooker hooks the ball back into his side of the scrum where it emerges and can be used in open play.

A pack that is not putting the ball in can still compete for it by their hooker striking for it when it is fed in, or they can shove the opposition off the ball. But, crucially, this can happen only when the ball has been fed and not before.

The working of these laws means the roles in the scrum of hooker, prop and so on are distinct, and require different physical attributes. This allows rugby's unique claims to flourish. It is a game for all shapes and sizes. The fat boys can be props, the tall ones second rows and the diminutive malevolent ones hookers.

Simple? Well it should be. So let me go back and explain why things first started to go wrong with the scrum.

Around 1996, the birth of professionalism, the All Blacks, who have always led the rugby world in new techniques, adopted a scrummaging technique that involved their pack timing a push to coincide with the strike of their hooker.

This way they not only got the hooked ball, they also had an advancing scrum that put them at a distinct advantage as their opponents had to retreat to stay onside.

As is the nature of sport, this did not go unnoticed, and fairly soon all packs at elite international level were adopting the same technique. Gradually referees stopped enforcing the law requiring the ball to be fed in straight, and scrum halves started to feed the ball further and further into their side of the scrum.

The opposition hooker stopped striking for the ball because there was no realistic chance of succeeding, and his efforts would be transferred into adding to the power of his pack's drive. Over time, the scrum became not a hooking and pushing contest but one of power pushing, with each pack trying to push as early as the referee would allow. According to the laws of the game, this was not supposed to happen until the ball had been fed.

The increasing focus on power led to more and more scrums collapsing and the IRB decided it had to do something to control scrum engagement. Thus, instead of leaving the front rows to engage in their own time and under their own auspices, they introduced a sequence which controlled the engagement.

In its various incarnations it was "touch, crouch, hold, engage". This did not work, which came as no surprise to people like me who have played in the front row. In fact, it made matters worse by effectively becoming a signal for the front rows to engage with as much force as possible.

Then, for reasons known only to themselves, elite referees abandoned altogether the law against early shoving.

Unfortunately, the IRB and elite referees have failed to understand that it is what happens after, and not before, engagement that matters. That is where the source of the current problems lie.

Ironically, the solution is the simple application of the existing laws. And the proof is where the laws are properly applied - at junior level - where they do not have these serious problems with the scrum."

Its a bit out of date though. Theyve got rid of the hit since he wrote that, and started penalising the early push much more harshly.
Its made very little difference to the scrum except if anything reducing the number we see where one team is driven clean off the ball.

Remeber it's not always the team that is being mullered that gives away the penatly!

A dominant scrum will often collapse to try and con a penatly out the ref by making him think that the team going back took it down.  But then you also get the team getting mashed taking it down as they are trying to make themselves look silly!

tigertattie wrote:Remeber it's not always the team that is being mullered that gives away the penatly!

A dominant scrum will often collapse to try and con a penatly out the ref by making him think that the team going back took it down.  But then you also get the team getting mashed taking it down as they are trying to make themselves look silly!

If a scrum is going forward, they will not collapse it on purpose

Gavin - sorry its been seen many times that the dominant scrum try to con the ref.

yes, but not by going down, wheeling yes. Driving up yes. But when you are moving forward the last thing you do is hit the deck on purpose