Will IRB changes at the Scrum work?

While the intent is to be commended I think there are some problems.

The first is while the word Pause has been removed, in pratice the actual time elapsed between the crouch and set commands is still down to the ref, so it may make little difference.

However the biggest problem is that the change does not address the real problem and that is the "HIT". What needs to happen is that the distance between the two front rows needs to be reduced so that the two packs do not end up charging at each other. The engagement of the two front rows needs to be less forceful. This would reduce the number of srums that go straight to ground and actually allow the props to get a proper bind. The props get a lot of stick but it cannot be easy to achieve any sort of bind let alone a legal one, given the speed and force of engagement. Advantage is sought by winning the hit, rather than as in the past by strength and technique. It would also mean that hooker could hook and we may actually see some stikes against the head.

What do you think?

I am between minds to whether it will work or not.

[quote="IRB"]Law 20 : Scrum

20.1 Forming a scrum.

Changed scrum engagement sequence.

20.1 (g):

The referee will call "crouch" then "touch". The front rows crouch and using their outside arm; each prop touches the point of the opposing prop's outside shoulder. The props then withdraw their arms. The referee will then call "set" when the front rows are ready. The front rows may then engage. The "set" call is not a command but an indication that the front rows may come together when ready.
[\quote]

So if 'Set' is come together when your ready, will this not lead to one pack smashing the other pack when they ain't ready etc etc. Not sure there is really much change in this.

Pushing before the ball is in is still illegal - and the "hit" is doing exactly that.

Stop teams doing it and enforce straight put ins and hey presto we will have a much better game.

LondonTiger wrote:Pushing before the ball is in is still illegal - and the "hit" is doing exactly that.

Stop teams doing it and enforce straight put ins and hey presto we will have a much better game.

+1

Looking at the new ruck rule leading to scrums, I think there will be a fair few times over the course of the coming season where I will lose my voice from showing at refs for not inforcing (or over inforcing) the two sets of rules.

No.

it will improve the call, but until they enforce the straight feed and bring in the nearest linesman to check and call poor binding or illegal technique the other side, we will continue to see timewasting at this reset.

the 'Set' will be the same as engage, both teams will try to get the shove on the first syllable uttered by the ref.

this can ONLY be sorted via the straight feed, cos then you get only two props pushing while the hooker has to hook. the impact will be lessened and the props will concentrate more on their binding more to ensure stability as it will bring the back row into play more on the shove.

First thing that needs to be addressed is to find some referees and touchjudges who know what a scrum is. Tiring as you may find Brian Moore, I think he probably does know something about scrums and his general view on the refereeing of scrums is that it is "pretty dull" and not just scrumhalfs feeding the ball. For some reason it mainly seems to be backs who go onto to become referees rather than forwards and even as an experienced backrow player, I don't really understand a lot of what goes on in the frontrow.

I agree with dragonbreath that to me the main issue is the engage/hit. It seems that about 50% of scrums go down/wrong at this point. If you can get the frontrows to engage without undue force then I think you are least in a position to get the scrum on. The not straight feed is a bit of a sideshow - the refs are happy for scrumhalfs to feed the ball so hookers don't have to actually hook the ball with the collapsing/safety issues that that potentially entails.

I have refereed at the junior level and the safety of young players at scrums is paramount. I have more than once moved to uncontested scrums because of their inability to deal with the engage/hit. This is not going to produce able props for the future. So I would like to see the hit completely depowered, with the pushing beginning when the balls goes in, with the ball going in reasonably straight, with 2 scrum referees policing/talking to the frontrows.

I am not holding my breath though as the powers that be tinker with the words referees will use.

They should get the two front rows to bind and then introduce the back five. As soon as the ball is put into the scrum then the packs can push/scrummage. This will eliminate the "hit" and encourgae good scrummaging props back into the game. It really is that simple!!!

Pyleboy65 wrote:They should get the two front rows to bind and then introduce the back five. As soon as the ball is put into the scrum then the packs can push/scrummage. This will eliminate the "hit" and encourgae good scrummaging props back into the game. It really is that simple!!!

It would seem that way to most of us. This is the system we played with at schoolboy level, a while ago, and obviously we wernt as powerful, but how often would a scrum collapse? Maybe once every 3rd game. Im baffled how they havnt removed the hit,at least as an experiment.

older player will remember the scrums of the 80's and 90's hell... even the 70's

still had the hit, and yes, the shirts helped, but the hooker had to ... erm... something or other, think it was his job along with the lineout throws, erm...

I think it is the contradiction that ensues issue.

For one you can't push before the ball is in but all packs do. And two that the scrumhalfing has to get the ball in as quickly as possible though not if the scrum is not set.

The main issues is that it is hard to see or understand the referees interpretation, too often a refs decisions are incorrect. Particularly antagonising when one pack has so obviously got the upper hand and are penalised for a pedantic interpretation when their opposition were breaking other laws.

It is an area of the game that I am glad the IRB are addressing, though this seems like a small measure that is unlikely to really make any differences.

The straight put in seems key; gone are the days when the scrum was a real contest, tighheads are so rare.

Scrums were supposed to be an even contest with the advantage to the side in possession because they knew when the ball was coming in. Now they are effectively a restart for the side in posession.

The method described i.e Problemsetting by rows makes more sense instead of fiddling with something that is already flawed.It may take longer to set,BUT collapsed or reset Scrums would be a thing of the past.The current system does`nt work stats on collapses /resets is up by something like 40%.But then legalised lifting
in the lineout is a cop out,and the Classic Ruck was far better than the dog`s breakfast now.Never happen.IRB are`nt going to say hay we goofed are they?
The Front row mafia will always find ways around things BUT IF the refs when studying for international[including club up].Are schooled by front row forwards who can school them in the Front row Mafia s ways it would certainly help.
Problem is then you need props who can scrummage not just run around on the wings.

The problem with the scrums is that there are almost always 2 or 3 things that can be penalised. The refs picks one (maybe on gut feeling) and there are usually more for us to complain about them missing. Somethings the things they're missing are the cause of the penalised action.

One thing I really don't understand is that the scrum has to be stable and stationary before the ball goes in. BUT the hit seems to be there to make the scrum unstable. They should at least bloody trial removing the hit to see if it improves matters. The Aviva Premiership would be a good start.

It would be interesting to see what the amount of correct vs incorrect penalty awarded stats were for referees in top flight rugby.

I know the IRB keep the stats but never publish them.

Interesting comment Maestegmafia,but to take an example,Player pinged for not rolling away.With 4 blokes pin ing him down maybe being held too at least when rucking was legal.You could ruck himout of it not so happy to die with the ball then.

The IRB has spent a decade fiddling with scrum engagement laws - yet have failed (and I strongly suspect will continue) to have ant effect.

Meanwhile referees ignore squint feeds. The IRB senior ref advisor (someone will advise me who he currently is) that he took counsel from team coaches who had no problem with squint feeds.

Now I don't know about you, but to me that sounds like the gamekeeper taking the advice of a cabal of poachers.

Current scrum Law interpretations to my mind:

Encourage the 'hit' (illegal as it implies a shove before the feed)
Makes the hooker a third prop
Reduces even successful scrums to little better than a shambolic ritual little short of its RL equivalent




Putting the ball in straight as a sacrosanct law (like refs pick and chose from in lineouts) would:

Penalise shoves (the hit)
Reinstate the hooker's profession (it is humankind's oldest one)
Recreate the scrum as one of RU's most engaging pieces of play

In summary: It's not the engagement; It's the straightness of the marriage.

Why not just have the props find their bind on the touch and then keep hold till the hit? Then have the ball fed between the touch and hit

emack2 wrote:Interesting comment Maestegmafia,but to take an example,Player pinged for not rolling away.With 4 blokes pin ing him down maybe being held too at least when rucking was legal.You could ruck himout of it not so happy to die with the ball then.

They're not being penalised for not rolling away. They're being penalise for being offside/off their feet. Referees let players get away with it sometimes if they make an active effort to roll away. If you can't and it's your fault you're there, it's a penalty. The only time it shouldn't be is if you were dragged there and pinned down by the opposition. Just penalise everyone who's on the wrong side and slows the ball down, impedes the opposition at all/for a second.

Feeding the scrum crookedly, is the least of the scrums problems, Sean Fitzpatrick was a third prop 25 years ago.

Portnoy what you seem to not be taking into consideration is the outcome of scrums in 2012.

But auk, whilst 2012 may have seen some improvement in scrum collapses, the scrum in itself, is a farce as a contest.

If hookers had to hook (just as Fitz used to) by requiring the scrum half to feed straight.

Refs should not be influenced by the views of coaches.

If we depower the scrum, we take away one type of player forever I.e. the fat lad who can't run, pitches up 5 minutes before kick off, spens all game trying to start a fight and who only really plays because it is a good way to work up a thirst which will allow him to drink a pint of crime de me the in less that a minute.
On a more serious note, the current laws were brought in the reduce neck injuries and it would be interesting to know the stats on this recently

As an ex-prop, I'm always interested to see what they're going to do to screw the scrum up even more.

As so many people here have stated, simply sorting the feed out will solve a number of issues.
For a start, the hookers will need to hook, rather than just be powerful driving players, they will need to be smaller, and have bendy hips.

However, there is something else that will change too.
Generally, on your own put in, the looseheads job is to stabilise the scrum so that the hooker can see the ball come in, and have a clean strike at the ball.
This greatly changes the looseheads job.
If anything, on your own put in, as a loosehead, you'll often be trying to lift the scrum slightly on your side
At the moment, both the LH and TH essentially has the same job to do, regardless of whether it is their put in or not.


The final thing that is a major problem is the tight shirts.
It's obvious that if the shirt is Tight, then its harder to get a grip on.
So often when a prop misses his bind on the hit, it isnt necessarily because he is under pressure, but simply that he can't get a grip on the opposite fat boys shirt.


Let's remember that around 2000 we still had the hit, and we had massively strong, powerful packs, but the scrum really wasn't the dogs dinner that it is at the moment.
Therefore while I see that removing the hit would help, there is evidence that scrummaging can work even with the hit

Wasps - going off piste here but you obviously know what you are talking about. Edinburgh are short of LHs but have Geoff Cross and an SA elephant arriving both playing TH. How easy is it to switch sides in the scrum? Surely the principles are the same and it is just a matter of which arm you slip your bind with before banjo'ing your opposite number

To be honest, I've never felt that any prop can ever cover both sides equally well.

I was a loosehead, and every time I tried playing tighthead I felt crippled before we'd even started.
Obviously, professionals are likely to fair better than I ever did, but I always remember something that Jason Leonard once said.
He was obviously a prop that played both sides almost equally well.
However, he said that while he was happy to play either side, he could only do it properly if he played each side for a few games in a row... I.e. it wasn't as easy to play one side one week, then the other side the next week.


The biggest problem I always found was that you're using totally different muscles for different jobs depending what site you are on, and while you can get used to that when you have to, you'll probably never be as good as if your specialising.


It's a similar thing to playing 2nd row although more pronounced.
Very few locks play both sides equally well, and most have a preference

We all know the scrum is a farce that s why we let the half back put it in , under his locks feet if need be, carry on with the game, forget the scrum.

For two knocks on by All blacks in the third test against ireland, the ref stopped play, awarded Ireland scrums, then proceeded to penalise Ireland for very minor technical points, In short New Zealand was rewarded for knocking on.

If you wont let us put the ball in crooked, then can I meet you half way/ Would you let the halfback feeding the scrum conduct the "crouch, touch, pause, engage" ?

wasps
I cant claim any great knowledge/experience about being a prop, however what you have just said above is exactly what old seasoned prop teammates of mine have said in the past.

I have to agree with Wasps, I played loosehead and not sure if it is because I am left handed and hence jab with my right arm, but my left side is "stronger" than my right side, I played rugby in the time when there was still a hit and once I locked onto the tigh head props shirt and squared my elbow level to the ground I could "lock" my left side up.

In a sense being taut from my leg all the way through my back, lats, shoulder.

It provided a very stable platform for the hooker.

However playing tighthead, maybe it is because I wasn't used to it, but I never felt as "strong" in tight head as loose head.

Lethal, A South African, southpaw, loosehead prop.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Lethal, A South African, southpaw, loosehead prop.

Haha. tired over the hill southpaw loosehead prop.

The other thing that I forgot to add earlier is that I believe the laws state that props aren't allowed to purposely collapse a scrum.
There may even be something about not pulling it down, but I can't remember exactly.

Anyway, thats a law that needs enforcing too.
So often you see props with their elbows below their bind, and you can see that there is definitely some downwards force being applied.



That is a tactic of TH props on the opposition put in, so that the hooker struggles to get a clean strike.
However it also has the obvious effect of collapsing and unstable scrum

Clearly not laurie, Scrum halves have the poaching gene.

Now your suggestion is akin to arming the poacher with an AK47. The setting of the scrum really needs the removal of these ready steady go commands.

Clearly not laurie, Scrum halves have the poaching gene.

Now your suggestion is akin to arming the poacher with an AK47.

Spoiler:

The setting of the scrum really needs the removal of these ready steady go commands.

As I think somebody has pointed out earlier I don't think there are any elite level referees who are former front row forwards. I wonder therefore what input they have into what goes on in the front row from somebody with expertise in that area.

It is all well and good tinkering with scrum laws, and changing the calling sequence, but unless they have a real understanding of what is actually going on, then it will not make a blind bit of difference, as players will always be seeking to get one over on the referee to gain an advantage for their team.

Ozzy
the scrums beyond fixing.

I wouldn't go that far laurie, but it does need a more radical overhaul than just changing the calling sequence, and it needs referees to be more clued up on the intricacies of front row play and not just the letters of the law.

But the feeding half back is not a member of the team that faulted and caused the break in play, but I agree the "C,T,P,E" is not achieving a thing. We dont make hookers at the lineout go "raise,aim,windup and throw".

We need to go back to the simplist of terms, let the team that didnt fault have some advantage, recommence play with the forwards all out of the way and then the scrum would not only be serving a useful purpose but also be encouraging running open rugby. the things it doesnt do now.

This post is really ought to be merged within the 'Will IRB changes at the Scrum work?' article.

I posted under RU because that is surely the correct classification as the Laws apply generally (I hadn't noticed the other).

Any mods viewing?

I'll merge it for you Portnoy.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
We need to go back to the simplist of terms, let the team that didnt fault have some advantage, recommence play with the forwards all out of the way and then the scrum would not only be serving a useful purpose but also be encouraging running open rugby. the things it doesnt do now.

I agree.

Having advantage to the team putting the ball in is vital. That is why the hook and the straight feed should not be ignored, but maybe some minor technical, ridiculous infringements should be.

It is wrong when a team is punishing an opposition scrum again and again that a penalty goes against them for touching the ground to steady the scrum and stopping it collapse.

There's a perfect form of rugby for maesteg and laurie - League. Not to my taste, but that's better if you want fast, flowing rugby and/or uncontested scrums complete with squint feeds then that's the game for you.

Portnoy wrote:There's a perfect form of rugby for maesteg and laurie - League. Not to my taste, but that's better if you want fast, flowing rugby and/or uncontested scrums complete with squint feeds then that's the game for you.

I'm sorry I don't think your post makes any sense!

I want real scrummaging. Straight feeds and hooking will encourage that. This will tie up the forwards and encourage good back play, flowing running rugby.

Penalising for stupid technicalities wont.

There are so many ridiculous laws that should be disbanded and simpler ones granted.

Props should be allowed to touch the floor to stabilise.

Props should not be allowed to bind on the arm or Arm Pit of their opposite.

Scrumhalfs feed must be straight

No pushing til the ball is in

I read above that the attacking teams scrum half could say "Touch Pause Engage", should that be deemed necessary...! Which I agree is not a bad idea.

the new IRB CEO of refs is a ex-CH, called Brett Gosper, Brian Moore tweeted a chance to make a point of the scrums still not being fixed.

. @brettgosper: I love scrums..as long as I am not in them! Chance to make your point to new IRB CEO re scrums- politely please. Imp pl RT

I replied..

@TAFKAbrianmoore @brettgosper for the love of god, enforce the existing rules, straight put in + bring closest linesj in 2 spot binding

Mr Moore liked it.

The 'Set' call makes sense, but the Hit can exist so long as the ref makes it clear that the engaging shove does not move the feed point more than two feet.

I wrote this a while ago, so am starting to sound like a broken record, but have yet to see anyone comment on the idea


1.rugby has always been, and should be for all types of, erm, athletes.

2. There is NOTHING wrong with the scrum rules, they are just not enforced ...at all

3. Binding is sometimes a Kit issue, but by and large (large...geddit) binding can be done properly (see Marler vs SA, long bind, no room for twisting/boring even if the other prop binds short).

4. Straight put in, closest linesman to come closer to flag up any binding faults/penalties.

I wrote this on another thread but no-one critiqued the idea.

.....What about if the scrum needs to be re-set a second time then the bind is done first but its the ref, that puts the ball in.

If the team without the ball tries to disrupt the put in during the first scrum with a dominant hit (more than two feet of movement) and bad binding (collapse) then they are penalised.

If the team with the ball doesn't bind properly or collapses in the first scrum they lose the put in to the ref. (i.e. they can still contest but with no advantage of the put in timing).

In other words Both teams stand to lose something if they don't bind correctly and contest correctly the first time.

If its down to a moving pitch the the fault isn't the teams and the scrum is re-set as normal.

in addition the closest lines judge should be called in to ref the other side of the scrum to ensure correct binding/straight put in and illegal boring.

baring in mid the existing rules are inforced with the above. so no shoving more than 2 feet, timing to the ref;s engage etc etc See Chairman Moore for details

I firmly believe the hit must be determined by the team feeding the scrum.

Biltongbek

That means that the opponents are limited to counter scrumming i.e. soaking up the initial hit whenever that occurs, THEN that is further complicated by the fact that the feeding scrum also dictates the timing of the put in.

At what point is the opposing team allowed to push back! when their scrum half calls that the ball is fed in by his opposite number and that they can now push/engage over the ball. That makes it a double whammy and a counter push.

Sorry, I think that is too much of an advantage and the a recipe for more collapsed scrums as the opposing side will have to have too much of a weight/technique advantage to counter scrum on their opponents put-in.

There CAN be a hit, but movement (under the existing rules) should be limited, with only the timing of the put in to be the advantage of the side with the ball

The big issue with the hit is that it forces the referee to consider a multitude of highly technical points more or less simultaneously and based on a single moment of action - did someone go early? Is the binding right? On both sides? Is the LH offering enough of a target for the TH to bind? Is someone boring in? Is one side pushing early? Is it stable and safe? It's too much to consider, especially if you're not familiar with how the forces work and exactly what to look for.

Wayne Barnes has said at a Meet the Ref evening that he focuses above everything else on the TH's bind, and only then looks for other things to penalise. As a result, he doesn't usually consider, for instance, whether the LH is folding in (and more or less admitted that, with hindsight, the LH in the clip he used as an example might well have been). Other refs are similarly incapable of considering all the factors - for instance, whoever was reffing the SA-Eng matches repeatedly ignored du Plessis binding on the arm - and not just a marginal bind on the armpit but the hem of Marler's sleeve.

In truth, it's hard to blame the ref. There's too much to consider in too short a time. I think that "Crouch-Touch-Set" will help a little if done right. Done right means that the ref doesn't do it to a set rhythm, but makes sure that the "Set" really means "Set" - i.e. both sides are stable and ready to engage. That at least removes the risk of an early hit (and also the ref's need to pay attention to the timing of the hit) - IF it's done right. You can bet that some of them will get it wrong and go for "cadence" rather than thinking about what it's meant to mean.

But I think the hit will still lead to a multitude of sins in the bind and shove, and most refs will end up guessing and guessing badly as to what's going on.

I think there are two possible solutions:
1) Remove or reduce the hit, and enforce straight put ins. Maybe not to the extent of forming up before the push, but what if the touch was a touch of heads rather than arms? (With strict red cards for excessive use of the noggin)

2) If we really don't want to tinker with the rules too much, how about coaching the refs not to focus on technical minutiae, but to adopt a more outcome-based refereeing of the scrum. Brian Moore wrote an article a few years ago (sorry, no time to search for it now) that set out very clearly what the scrum will look like under various situation (i.e. who pops up first, who goes down first etc). If refs learn to recognise these, they'll have a much better idea of who's actually on top. And again, enforce the straight put in and the hook.

damage, as a loosehead prop I can tell you now that it is much easier to react as the non feeding prop to the action of the opposition front row, than timing your actions with that of a referee that you need to listen to.

When you are packed in the front row, your focus is on the player in front of you, if he as much as twitches, you are tensed and ready to make the hit.

Why do you think there are so many scrums called for early engagement?

If I have to wait for a referees call to engage, but the prop in front of me twitches, my natural instinct is to leap forward.

When you crouch, your whole body, muscles everything is in the ready to be released at the slightest movement.

Not just that, there will be much less early engagement calls, what I find ridiculous is the number of scrums that is called against the feeding team before the actual scrum has taken place.

You can get pinged for early engagement, going down, scrumming up, not taking the hit, etc. etc. etc.

The whole reason you get the scrum in the first place is because the opposition made a mistake. Where is the benefit of scrumming when your advantage is in the hands of the referee?

biltongbek wrote:damage, as a loosehead prop I can tell you now that it is much easier to react as the non feeding prop to the action of the opposition front row, than timing your actions with that of a referee that you need to listen to.

When you are packed in the front row, your focus is on the player in front of you, if he as much as twitches, you are tensed and ready to make the hit.

Why do you think there are so many scrums called for early engagement?

If I have to wait for a referees call to engage, but the prop in front of me twitches, my natural instinct is to leap forward.

When you crouch, your whole body, muscles everything is in the ready to be released at the slightest movement.

Not just that, there will be much less early engagement calls, what I find ridiculous is the number of scrums that is called against the feeding team before the actual scrum has taken place.

You can get pinged for early engagement, going down, scrumming up, not taking the hit, etc. etc. etc.

The whole reason you get the scrum in the first place is because the opposition made a mistake. Where is the benefit of scrumming when your advantage is in the hands of the referee?

Precisely and thats why Im of the opinion that no one loses if the feeding half back puts the ball in under his locks feet. for all those that say its not fair th the other side, then they shouldnt have knocked on or passed forward in the first place.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

biltongbek wrote:damage, as a loosehead prop I can tell you now that it is much easier to react as the non feeding prop to the action of the opposition front row, than timing your actions with that of a referee that you need to listen to.

When you are packed in the front row, your focus is on the player in front of you, if he as much as twitches, you are tensed and ready to make the hit.

Why do you think there are so many scrums called for early engagement?

If I have to wait for a referees call to engage, but the prop in front of me twitches, my natural instinct is to leap forward.

When you crouch, your whole body, muscles everything is in the ready to be released at the slightest movement.

Not just that, there will be much less early engagement calls, what I find ridiculous is the number of scrums that is called against the feeding team before the actual scrum has taken place.

You can get pinged for early engagement, going down, scrumming up, not taking the hit, etc. etc. etc.

The whole reason you get the scrum in the first place is because the opposition made a mistake. Where is the benefit of scrumming when your advantage is in the hands of the referee?

Precisely and thats why Im of the opinion that no one loses if the feeding half back puts the ball in under his locks feet. for all those that say its not fair th the other side, then they shouldnt have knocked on or passed forward in the first place.

Laurie in a sense I agree with you, but the same goes then for the lineout?

No the lineout has been through the process, being South African you probably didnt notice, but there was a time when you werent allowed lift in the lineouts and for years there was a conservative school of thought that said that if lifting was allowed it would ruin the game and take the contest out of the lineout, meanwhile the Boks didnt take any notice of the laws, and just lifted anyway (Well they did when they played New Zealand) thankfully after a while the powers that be realised that not only was not going to hurt the game at all but actually improved the game, they relaxed the law and South Africa had a headstart on everyone else. But good on you guys for just doing it.

maestegmafia wrote:

Portnoy wrote:There's a perfect form of rugby for maesteg and laurie - League. Not to my taste, but that's better if you want fast, flowing rugby and/or uncontested scrums complete with squint feeds then that's the game for you.

I'm sorry I don't think your post makes any sense!

I want real scrummaging. Straight feeds and hooking will encourage that. This will tie up the forwards and encourage good back play, flowing running rugby.

Penalising for stupid technicalities wont.

There are so many ridiculous laws that should be disbanded and simpler ones granted.

Props should be allowed to touch the floor to stabilise.

Props should not be allowed to bind on the arm or Arm Pit of their opposite.

Scrumhalfs feed must be straight

No pushing til the ball is in

I read above that the attacking teams scrum half could say "Touch Pause Engage", should that be deemed necessary...! Which I agree is not a bad idea.

Apologies maesteg, I misinterpreted your comment.

Laurie has stated that the squint feed is irrelevant counter to my argument that is the root cause of the problem.

The hit consequent from the Ready, Steady Go engagement command is the inevitable result of so many illegalities. Law 4(clothing) would be a better way of resolving prop binding issues, a ref command to allow the feed into the scrum (straight) once he is satisfied that it is settled and stationary.

The problem with scrum halves calling the engagement would once again result in coaches to develop front row codes to gain an advantage.

But overall, after your quoted post, +1