Scrum yellow cards

One of the areas of the game that annoy me is the deliberate tactic of teams to try to get a player sent off through repeated penalties in the scrum. Most of these are due to pressure on the props and are forced and not deliberate. What annoys me, is once a team has got a penalty they go again for a scrum and keep going until they get a yellow card. It is not like they can stop doing it if it is due to pressure
I do not think that is in the spirit of the game.

I think that a penalty is a great return from a pressure scrum and should be enough of a punishment for the other team. You get a penalty and gain 3 points or a 40 yard advnacement after the kick for touch.
There are times that close to the line, you would go for a scrum again, as you could push them over for a try. If they keep getting penalties then a penalty try is enough punishment.

I really do not like the yellow card for this offence as it too often now means a team is playing with 14 men, just for not being good enough and not for a deliberate offence – where would it end – miss 3 tackles and you are off. Miss 3 kicks – yellow card
Am I alone in this, should I just suck it up and rant instead on squint put ins?

I play tight head prop myself, all be it at a low amateure level but I have no problem with this type of offence, it is not an attacking teams fault if their opposition can't front up in the scrum. Rugby is a competitive sport and if a team realistically wants to win then they will push any advantage they can. I myself have never been given a yellow for this but I have been pushed back and collapsed in my time, that's part of the game, repeated infringement deserves appropriate sanctions.

I understand but still do not agree

It is not a 'delibrate' offence and I think getting a penalty against you is punishment enough

Trying to get yellow cards is against my spirit of the game - but maybe that is just me

I think it's difficult because it's so subjective. When do you sin bin the man for a scrummaging discression? After giving away two penalties at the scrum in a row?

Most sin bins aren't clear cut.

I am of the belief that a props job is primarily to scrummage, lift or linger at the tail of a lineout, the hookers job is to scrummage and throw straight into the lineout. All else in the loose is a bonus. If a front row player can't handle the set piece, but are exceptional in the loose and are selected on this basis then the team as a whole are being cheated. This was a critique I had of Healy in his early career but has now improved his set piece considerably. The same could be said of Tony Buckly, but he never improved his set piece and is now somewhere in the rugby wilderness!

If a prop or hooker can't scrummage then they shouldn't be picked.

The penalties often are the opposition front rows fault. they are losing, and try and hold their ground whilst losing body position, rather than stepping back and over the try line, till they are no longer able to hold themselves upright and the scrum collapses dangerously.
Its illegal, unfair and dangerous. The equivelant offences in rucks would often get straight yellows, yet we see 4 or more required in consecutive scrums to get a yellow or PT. Could you imagine a team getting away with 4 penalties from consecutive defensive rucks on the 5, line?

If teams dont want to get yellows they should either accept they are losing the scrum and get pushed back ( how often do you seen a scrum marched 20 yards downfield these days?) or accept the penalties for being incapable.

Id argue that if they were penalised more harshly (ie to the same standard that repeated or deliberate offences are in other areas) we'd see less resets and more successful scrums that actually give a decent attacking platform with the forwards rumbling down field and the defensive line having to back pedal when the move comes.

Teams that are poor in the scrum keep finding new ways to cheat it. yet you argue that the teams that are strong are gaining an unfair advantage by being able to use it?

Most yellow cards dont come from scrums either. cards across the game are getting more and more prevalent, is that down to players or harsher refereeing lowering the metric of what deserves one? I havent noticed thats changed in the scrum, but it certainly seems to with general foul play and other types of cynical offending.

There was 6 yellows and a red in last weekends HC matches, none for a scrum offence. If teams are using this as a tactic they need to get better at it.

Risky, I tend to agree with you on this. The scrum is meant to be one method for re-starting a game, something which seems to get lost in the modern game. Too often for me do we see teams being able to build scores on threes from dominating a restart point - just seems wrong to me. I'd prefer to see a free kick given to the non-offending team. The only problem with that is do you then remove the possibility of a push-over try?

The thing I struggle to understand is that when the prop gets carded generally it is a backrow forward that makes way for the replacement prop. So a scrum that is not strong enough already is weakened futher. However it is very rare that the team with a full pack continues to win pen after pen at the scrum over the next ten mins.

Risky sports, the superior scrum is far less concerned with getting a man binned and far more concerned with winning a penalty try. \the set piece is a fundamental of the game, changing that or allowing through over intervention, to neuter a stronger scrum is riduclous. Go watch league if that is what you're after. (btw, not a pop at league, i enjoy watching it, but if scrum penalties are that big a problem for you, there is a game where they don't happen)

While losing a backrow player (as is usually the sophies choice for coaches) offers the superior scrumaging team an advantage, what of it? Do the likes of O'Driscoll in his pomp stop sidestepping people because its unfair they cant tackle him properly? Did Shane Williams wear weighted boots to slow him down or stop him standing people up? Should ROG stop kicking to the corners when the opposition are having difficulties with their own lineout? No. No. No. Rugby is not charity. It is thinly regulated war based on an almost continuous contest for the ball and and for territory. So if you want to ask for quarter & expect it to be given, go elsewhere.

And for the record, I was a mere girly winger so this isn't vested interest at play.

I know where this post is coming from. I agree that dangerous play like pulling the scrum down should be penalised and dealt with if repeated infringements occur.

However the scrum seems to be the only play on the pitch where you can effectively be carded/penalised for not being as good as your opposite number.
If the opposite prop forces you upwards you have lost your 1-on-1 battle, but if a lanker wrestles another off the ball at the ruck or a winger side steps another, surely that is similar?

I think the emphasis on the scrum needs to be looked at, penalties should be more for dangerous play, so that the main aim becomes to push the other team off the ball, rather than just collapsing if the 'hit' isnt won.

Well Bathman, then you'd never penalise a player for killing the ball on the deck or for an intentional knock on, niether are likely to be ever dangerous plays, but they are cynical plays to prevent a team scoring. So pullling scrum done is both dangerous and often cynical too. So deserves a yellow if the referee sees it that way. The scrum is a unique set piece cotest and technique and strength (legal tactics btw) should be rewarded and weakness should be punished. And to be clear, incase there are those labouring under the illusion otherwise, scrums invaribly go down under pressure near the line because the losing side has decided to risk bringing it down rather than staying fair and being driven over their own line.

Watch a scrum from the amateur era if you can. They were longer in duration and you had 16 guys keeping the thing off the deck, These professional days coaches are telling their pack that if found to be inferior after the first 3 or 4 scrums, you go down, kill their momentum, avoid the 7 pointer. So, until such time as the retreating pack just simply take their medicine and stop infringing, then the above 'problem' of yellow cards will continue.

Referee clarification question. in the event of an opposition scrum being driven over the line, when can the back row break? As soon as they cross the trying line (like a ruck) or when the attacking number 8/backrow breaks? I also assume that the line becomes the offside line for the defending SH too? So they could trust their timing of a tackle or kick trhough of the ball over the vaguaries of dropping the scrum. Risky of course, but both a liable to conceed 7 points but the honest way will keep 15 men on the pitch.

debaters1 wrote:Risky sports, the superior scrum is far less concerned with getting a man binned and far more concerned with winning a penalty try. \the set piece is a fundamental of the game, changing that or allowing through over intervention, to neuter a stronger scrum is riduclous. Go watch league if that is what you're after. (btw, not a pop at league, i enjoy watching it, but if scrum penalties are that big a problem for you, there is a game where they don't happen)

While losing a backrow player (as is usually the sophies choice for coaches) offers the superior scrumaging team an advantage, what of it? Do the likes of O'Driscoll in his pomp stop sidestepping people because its unfair they cant tackle him properly? Did Shane Williams wear weighted boots to slow him down or stop him standing people up? Should ROG stop kicking to the corners when the opposition are having difficulties with their own lineout? No. No. No. Rugby is not charity. It is thinly regulated war based on an almost continuous contest for the ball and and for territory. So if you want to ask for quarter & expect it to be given, go elsewhere.

And for the record, I was a mere girly winger so this isn't vested interest at play.

The problem I have isn't with the scrum penalties by themselves but the fact that you rarely see the no.8 pick and run with good ball off the back of a dominant scrum anymore.They hold the ball in and wait for the penalty when the ball is readily available,the point of a scrum is to restart play but teams choose not to in the hope of an easy 3 points or more.

debaters1 wrote:Risky sports, the superior scrum is far less concerned with getting a man binned and far more concerned with winning a penalty try. \the set piece is a fundamental of the game, changing that or allowing through over intervention, to neuter a stronger scrum is riduclous. Go watch league if that is what you're after. (btw, not a pop at league, i enjoy watching it, but if scrum penalties are that big a problem for you, there is a game where they don't happen)

While losing a backrow player (as is usually the sophies choice for coaches) offers the superior scrumaging team an advantage, what of it? Do the likes of O'Driscoll in his pomp stop sidestepping people because its unfair they cant tackle him properly? Did Shane Williams wear weighted boots to slow him down or stop him standing people up? Should ROG stop kicking to the corners when the opposition are having difficulties with their own lineout? No. No. No. Rugby is not charity. It is thinly regulated war based on an almost continuous contest for the ball and and for territory. So if you want to ask for quarter & expect it to be given, go elsewhere.

And for the record, I was a mere girly winger so this isn't vested interest at play.

That is not what I am saying at all

I am happy with the best scrum winning a penalty or even a penalty try if near the line - as that is reward for having bested the other scrum

However, what I was do not like is a team, on the 22 getting a penalty, re-scrumming continually to get a card.

Lets take it to the logical conclusion

Scrum smashed other team - after 3 penalties, ref gives yellow. replace back row with prop off the bench - then go straight for another scrum - weakened scrum gets smashed - off goes replacement prop - repeat until no props left on the bench and opposition done to 12 men - simples

How many penalty tries have been awarded for it over the last few weekends?

If they are just in search of an easy 3 points why not take the easy 3 points first time rather than risking the lottery of the scrum again?

If they are having to reset time and again its because the opposition are cheating and getting away with it, and that the referees are failing to deal with that adequately.
The argument to referee scrums more leniently just gives even more free reign to the weaker side to not play the game. We might as well scrap them and award free kicks in the first place.

Id also add we often see teams chosing to pick and drive endlessly in the red zone rather than trying out the flashy backs move, which is no different in spirit. They are keeping the ball tight and waiting for the space to be left for an easy run in or to draw the penalty/card/PT

Are we to apply the same logic that this is unfair and that all ruck offences should result in a free kick?

No, open play versus restart

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:How many penalty tries have been awarded for it over the last few weekends?

If they are just in search of an easy 3 points why not take the easy 3 points first time rather than risking the lottery of the scrum again?

If they are having to reset time and again its because the opposition are cheating and getting away with it, and that the referees are failing to deal with that adequately.
The argument to referee scrums more leniently just gives even more free reign to the weaker side to not play the game. We might as well scrap them and award free kicks in the first place.

Not always,it can be because they are not good enough to deal with the pressure.If not being good enough is against the laws then then there's a fundamental problem with the game.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:How many penalty tries have been awarded for it over the last few weekends?

If they are just in search of an easy 3 points why not take the easy 3 points first time rather than risking the lottery of the scrum again?

If they are having to reset time and again its because the opposition are cheating and getting away with it, and that the referees are failing to deal with that adequately.
The argument to referee scrums more leniently just gives even more free reign to the weaker side to not play the game. We might as well scrap them and award free kicks in the first place.

Not always,it can be because they are not good enough to deal with the pressure.If not being good enough is against the laws then then there's a fundamental problem with the game.

I see your point, but if your not good enough at passing the opposition intercepts, if your not good enough at tackling the opposition run through you.

However if you not good enough at scrummaging (or even timing with the breakdown releasing the ball etc), then there is no real advantage to the opposition, and as such it needs to be penalised. Otherwise you would end up with sides feilding very poor scrumaging props who are poopie hot at rucks and in the loose and there would be no downside to it.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:How many penalty tries have been awarded for it over the last few weekends?

If they are just in search of an easy 3 points why not take the easy 3 points first time rather than risking the lottery of the scrum again?

If they are having to reset time and again its because the opposition are cheating and getting away with it, and that the referees are failing to deal with that adequately.
The argument to referee scrums more leniently just gives even more free reign to the weaker side to not play the game. We might as well scrap them and award free kicks in the first place.

Not always,it can be because they are not good enough to deal with the pressure.If not being good enough is against the laws then then there's a fundamental problem with the game.

I see your point, but if your not good enough at passing the opposition intercepts, if your not good enough at tackling the opposition run through you.

However if you not good enough at scrummaging (or even timing with the breakdown releasing the ball etc), then there is no real advantage to the opposition, and as such it needs to be penalised. Otherwise you would end up with sides feilding very poor scrumaging props who are poopie hot at rucks and in the loose and there would be no downside to it.

Yes but what if you gave away penalties and yellow cards for these mistakes?

There is an advantage if you're better at scrummaging,you can disrupt their attacking ball and give good attacking ball to your own team.If you choose not to use it then why should you get penalties and scrums.

SoreShoulder - you don't need to give pens away, there is a natural punishment. Next you will be saying that to give a scrum for a knock on (inability to catch) or a forward pass (in ability to workout where backwards is), is unfair.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:How many penalty tries have been awarded for it over the last few weekends?

If they are just in search of an easy 3 points why not take the easy 3 points first time rather than risking the lottery of the scrum again?

If they are having to reset time and again its because the opposition are cheating and getting away with it, and that the referees are failing to deal with that adequately.
The argument to referee scrums more leniently just gives even more free reign to the weaker side to not play the game. We might as well scrap them and award free kicks in the first place.

Not always,it can be because they are not good enough to deal with the pressure.If not being good enough is against the laws then then there's a fundamental problem with the game.

If they are going down purely because of legal pressure then thats because they havent retreated, not because of a failure in the rules. if its due to s lip then the penalty shouldnt have been given. if its deliberate then thats a penalty too.

Seriously what is the alternative here? only rugby league style scrums. To say that their is no penalty for illegaly collapsing a scrum, or using illegal techniques or whatever else is a cheats charter. It does relegate the scrum to merely a charge method of restarting the game, neither side will be abel to drive forward if the other can simply take a knee as they see fit, only conceding a free kick (which in theory is easier to defend anyway)
if a team is going down illeagaly its not just because they are losing but also because their reactioj to that is causing a dangerous situation in an attempt to avoid being driven backwards. if they arent physically up to it then they shouldnt be on the field in the same competition.
Teams choosing the option of repeated scrums from penalties do so because they didnt get the outcome they had wanted due to an illegal action from the opposition. They are taking the risk of conceding a PK or free kick themselves each time the do so.
Why is it fair that teams are allowed to constantly infringe with impunity at the scrum when they arent elsewhere? yellow cards are rarely given, even for repeat infringements, unless the offences are clearly cynical ( eg flanker batting the ball out of the SH hands ) ... they generally arent given for collapses under pressure.

Its also worth noting that most resets arent the result of penalties, but the result of natural legal collapses (slips etc), at which point the rules mandate from a safety perspective that the scrum is restarted ( although most refs ignore this if the ball is available)

ScarletSpiderman wrote:SoreShoulder - you don't need to give pens away, there is a natural punishment. Next you will be saying that to give a scrum for a knock on (inability to catch) or a forward pass (in ability to workout where backwards is), is unfair.

Please don't do that,taking my position to the extreme in order to make it look ridiculous instead of addressing the point and making a counter argument is lazy debating and childish.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

If they are going down purely because of legal pressure then thats because they havent retreated, not because of a failure in the rules. if its due to s lip then the penalty shouldnt have been given. if its deliberate then thats a penalty too.

Seriously what is the alternative here? only rugby league style scrums. To say that their is no penalty for illegaly collapsing a scrum, or using illegal techniques or whatever else is a cheats charter. It does relegate the scrum to merely a charge method of restarting the game, neither side will be abel to drive forward if the other can simply take a knee as they see fit, only conceding a free kick (which in theory is easier to defend anyway)
if a team is going down illeagaly its not just because they are losing but also because their reactioj to that is causing a dangerous situation in an attempt to avoid being driven backwards. if they arent physically up to it then they shouldnt be on the field in the same competition.
Teams choosing the option of repeated scrums from penalties do so because they didnt get the outcome they had wanted due to an illegal action from the opposition. They are taking the risk of conceding a PK or free kick themselves each time the do so.
Why is it fair that teams are allowed to constantly infringe with impunity at the scrum when they arent elsewhere? yellow cards are rarely given, even for repeat infringements, unless the offences are clearly cynical ( eg flanker batting the ball out of the SH hands ) ... they generally arent given for collapses under pressure.

Its also worth noting that most resets arent the result of penalties, but the result of natural legal collapses (slips etc), at which point the rules mandate from a safety perspective that the scrum is restarted ( although most refs ignore this if the ball is available)

Free kicks are the only alternative imo,yes that does hurt the scrum but we don't give penalties for crooked throws in the lineout and that's a form of cheating,early lifting is another.

My orginal point seems to be forgotten

I think that winning a penalty (or penalty try if appropriate) is correct

What I don't think is getting the yellow card

A penalty every time there is a scrum is punishment enough

Let me also add that I wouldn't like to see teams being allowed to 'take a knee',that would be wrong.My problem is with the myriad of penalties that can be given away which are not really a props fault.

Not binding or binding on the arm being the most obvious.Props are expected to get a firm grip of a skintight jersey on a particular part of the opponents body (his back) while simultaneously crashing into said opponent and trying to stay upright and steady.It's simply asking too much of people and if the engagement process was changed to help props then I would reconsider my views on scrum penalties but the way the game is currently set up I think a lot of infringements are punished too harshly.

The alternative is to do what Brian Moore advocates and remove the hit. If the scrum forms properly, there's no pushing until the ball goes in and it has to be put in straight and hooked properly, then the scrum would be much more stable and it would be possible to have a proper contest for the ball. If it goes backwards, that's an advantage for the dominant side, if it goes down, then it will be much more obvious who's at fault, and the penalty (or penalty try) can be fairly awarded.

It would also solve my other big bugbear about the scrum - how much the refs miss. The most common error is focusing too much on the tighthead and missing an illegal bind by the loosehead that makes it look like the TH is at fault (or vice versa). Again, remove the hit and it's much easier for the ref to see.

Poorfour wrote:The alternative is to do what Brian Moore advocates and remove the hit. If the scrum forms properly, there's no pushing until the ball goes in and it has to be put in straight and hooked properly, then the scrum would be much more stable and it would be possible to have a proper contest for the ball. If it goes backwards, that's an advantage for the dominant side, if it goes down, then it will be much more obvious who's at fault, and the penalty (or penalty try) can be fairly awarded.

It would also solve my other big bugbear about the scrum - how much the refs miss. The most common error is focusing too much on the tighthead and missing an illegal bind by the loosehead that makes it look like the TH is at fault (or vice versa). Again, remove the hit and it's much easier for the ref to see.

Yeah this would almost certainly solve the problem.One other thing that I forgot to mention is refs routinely ignore the no pushing before the ball is in rule.They just want to get the scrum over and done with so allow a team that wins the hit to shove and the scrum half will put it in if his team are in the ascendency or delay otherwise and risk a free kick.An alternative to removing the hit is if after the hit both teams had to stay upright and steady for say 5 seconds before the ball could go in that would remove the incentive for the big smash and props could concentrate on binding correctly and keeping the scrum stable.

They are the props fault though asore, or at least someone on theirbteam or a collective fault, n the same way as a player who runs into a ruck and slides on wet grass then gets yellowed for goingn off is feet is. Actually less so, becausean aaccidental slip in a scrum is not a penalty offence. Going down under pressure because you are refusing to retreat is though, it's both a failure in skill and a choice made by the player.
Some minor scrum offences are a free kick, similar to your examples from the lineout. Onesnlike collapsing which are dangerous are penalties.


Risky if you agree with penalties why not cards? It gives a side an easy cop out otherwise. They are up by 6 with minutes left having a defensive scrum 5 ...just keep taking a knee and burning the clock. The oppositions best weapon is negated because their is no sanction for deliberate and repetitive offending? Thats just unfair.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler -

in that senario it would be a penalty try, which is punishment enough

It just seems wrong to me that teams can go out to try and get a player yellow carded and penalities are enough of a punishment in my book (With penalty try an option if close to the line)

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:They are the props fault though asore, or at least someone on theirbteam or a collective fault, n the same way as a player who runs into a ruck and slides on wet grass then gets yellowed for goingn off is feet is. Actually less so, becausean aaccidental slip in a scrum is not a penalty offence. Going down under pressure because you are refusing to retreat is though, it's both a failure in skill and a choice made by the player.
Some minor scrum offences are a free kick, similar to your examples from the lineout. Onesnlike collapsing which are dangerous are penalties.


Risky if you agree with penalties why not cards? It gives a side an easy cop out otherwise. They are up by 6 with minutes left having a defensive scrum 5 ...just keep taking a knee and burning the clock. The oppositions best weapon is negated because their is no sanction for deliberate and repetitive offending? Thats just unfair.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this I'm afraid.I just believe there's a fundamental problem with the scrum when so few props are capable of doing it legally and without resorting to continuous resets,it's a blight on the game imo.

If inside the 22 and repeated warnings,yes a yellow is necessary and deserved.
Otherwise get on with it.
Also the refs over the weekend in the HC in a couple of games showed the complete lack of knowledge at the scrum,
even awarding penalties before the ball was put in.

To be fair Union will continue to lose fans because of the man with the whistle.

I love watching teams scrum and bludgeon their way to victory but that is a rare thing these days.

Union has become such a stop start affair it's almost making American Football look high tempo, how many times have you seen a team win because the ref keeps pinging a prop for collapsing but ignoring the other prop binding on the arm and pulling him down?
Or the ref with little feel for the game and says in from the side but ignores the man lying on the ball?

Teams have become more interested in conning the ref at the breakdown or set piece in order to win the game.

All i can say is thank god for Super rugby and the tri/new championship.

The scrum infringement that grinds my gears the most though relates to 'square and straight'.

Countless times i have seen a prop or even a hooker pop up in a scrum and be penalised for doing so. But what the ref somehow fails to notice is the opposition loose head underneath his chin. Now, whatever about chicanery on engagement, driving in and up underneath a guys chin/breastbone is not square or straight. Fark, if i could get away with doing that id be the greatest prop ever. It is such a clear infringement as it is the loose head's name how he should be bound yet some how his opposite number gives the penalty away......bizarre.

The two biggest blights in the game of rugby are yellow cards and scrums. So any time I see a yellow card given at scrumtime, I see another nail in the coffin of rugby.

Just put the ball in, (under the locks feet if need be) and get on with the game.

A yellow card for repeated scrum infringement is warranted and should be used more often. At the moment their is precious little deterent to props under the cosh dropping the scrum. Dropping the scrum is no different to killing the ball at the breakdown or pulling down a rolling maul. It is illegally depriving a team of front foot ball.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Poorfour wrote:The alternative is to do what Brian Moore advocates and remove the hit. If the scrum forms properly, there's no pushing until the ball goes in and it has to be put in straight and hooked properly, then the scrum would be much more stable and it would be possible to have a proper contest for the ball. If it goes backwards, that's an advantage for the dominant side, if it goes down, then it will be much more obvious who's at fault, and the penalty (or penalty try) can be fairly awarded.

It would also solve my other big bugbear about the scrum - how much the refs miss. The most common error is focusing too much on the tighthead and missing an illegal bind by the loosehead that makes it look like the TH is at fault (or vice versa). Again, remove the hit and it's much easier for the ref to see.

Yeah this would almost certainly solve the problem.One other thing that I forgot to mention is refs routinely ignore the no pushing before the ball is in rule.They just want to get the scrum over and done with so allow a team that wins the hit to shove and the scrum half will put it in if his team are in the ascendency or delay otherwise and risk a free kick.An alternative to removing the hit is if after the hit both teams had to stay upright and steady for say 5 seconds before the ball could go in that would remove the incentive for the big smash and props could concentrate on binding correctly and keeping the scrum stable.

I agree with all of this. It baffles me that the IRB could have looked at the problems we have with the scrum and concluded that the answer was to change 'crouch, touch, pause, engage' to 'crouch, touch, set'.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Poorfour wrote:The alternative is to do what Brian Moore advocates and remove the hit. If the scrum forms properly, there's no pushing until the ball goes in and it has to be put in straight and hooked properly, then the scrum would be much more stable and it would be possible to have a proper contest for the ball. If it goes backwards, that's an advantage for the dominant side, if it goes down, then it will be much more obvious who's at fault, and the penalty (or penalty try) can be fairly awarded.

It would also solve my other big bugbear about the scrum - how much the refs miss. The most common error is focusing too much on the tighthead and missing an illegal bind by the loosehead that makes it look like the TH is at fault (or vice versa). Again, remove the hit and it's much easier for the ref to see.

Yeah this would almost certainly solve the problem.One other thing that I forgot to mention is refs routinely ignore the no pushing before the ball is in rule.They just want to get the scrum over and done with so allow a team that wins the hit to shove and the scrum half will put it in if his team are in the ascendency or delay otherwise and risk a free kick.An alternative to removing the hit is if after the hit both teams had to stay upright and steady for say 5 seconds before the ball could go in that would remove the incentive for the big smash and props could concentrate on binding correctly and keeping the scrum stable.

I agree with all of this. It baffles me that the IRB could have looked at the problems we have with the scrum and concluded that the answer was to change 'crouch, touch, pause, engage' to 'crouch, touch, set'.

It was a insightful and forward thinking decision that has changes the face of rugby

So successful other sports are looking into it - some examples:

Athletics - On your makes, set, go = On your markes, go
Triple jump - going to double jump
Football - Free kick to kick
F1 - Beep beep beep beep beep - green to Beep beep beep beep - green

Riskysports wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

I agree with all of this. It baffles me that the IRB could have looked at the problems we have with the scrum and concluded that the answer was to change 'crouch, touch, pause, engage' to 'crouch, touch, set'.

It was a insightful and forward thinking decision that has changes the face of rugby

So successful other sports are looking into it - some examples:

Athletics - On your makes, set, go = On your markes, go
Triple jump - going to double jump
Football - Free kick to kick
F1 - Beep beep beep beep beep - green to Beep beep beep beep - green

Lol brilliant.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:SoreShoulder - you don't need to give pens away, there is a natural punishment. Next you will be saying that to give a scrum for a knock on (inability to catch) or a forward pass (in ability to workout where backwards is), is unfair.

Please don't do that,taking my position to the extreme in order to make it look ridiculous instead of addressing the point and making a counter argument is lazy debating and childish.

But these are inabilities, and not deliberate acts, the same as a team being unable to scrummage. It is not taking it to the extreme, that would be suggesting you card people for missing tackles etc (Which I believe some people have used for their arguements).

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:SoreShoulder - you don't need to give pens away, there is a natural punishment. Next you will be saying that to give a scrum for a knock on (inability to catch) or a forward pass (in ability to workout where backwards is), is unfair.

Please don't do that,taking my position to the extreme in order to make it look ridiculous instead of addressing the point and making a counter argument is lazy debating and childish.

But these are inabilities, and not deliberate acts, the same as a team being unable to scrummage. It is not taking it to the extreme, that would be suggesting you card people for missing tackles etc (Which I believe some people have used for their arguements).

Yes and theses inabilities aren't punished by penalties or yellow cards,the inability to scrummage is.

No It's not the inability to scrummage that is punished It's the choice to stand up or drop the scrum instead of being driven backwards. If you are losing in the scrum and get pushed back that isn't an offence. Denying the team going forwards the front ball is. You don't let a team kill the ball at the breakdown because they haven't got a decent 7 or pull down the jumper at the lineout because they haven't got a tactician to compete.

We need to encourage failing scrums to go back and try to regain a position so tha teams with powerful scrums start using the front foot ball. At the minute a defeated scrum will just drop the set piece and take the penalty against to get it over with. That should not be tolerated.

Yellow cards at the scrum is no different from yellow cards at mauls. If a maul was running up the field and some one collapsed it several times they would be yellowed and no-one would care.

However I do think that removing the hit might be a good trial. This should remove failed bindings due to tight shirts. Should reducing slipping. It would allow the ref to focus on the scrum half. It might not work but given so of the recent trials I definitely think it's worth a crack

As well as causing most of the problems with the scrum, trying to win the 'hit' is essentially cheating because you're not supposed to push until the ball is in. I don't know why the simplest solution - getting rid of it - hasn't occured to the IRB.

The 'hit' debate crops up regularly. The only ones who seem to be in favour of it are some props, as it gives them centre stage for a few seconds.

To everyone else it seems pointless. Banning it would solve everything.

Should be 'bind up, take the weight, ball in.' Then have a proper contest via pushing/technique.

The way it is now we might as well get rid of scrums and award free kicks.

formerly known as Sam wrote:No It's not the inability to scrummage that is punished It's the choice to stand up or drop the scrum instead of being driven backwards. If you are losing in the scrum and get pushed back that isn't an offence. Denying the team going forwards the front ball is. You don't let a team kill the ball at the breakdown because they haven't got a decent 7 or pull down the jumper at the lineout because they haven't got a tactician to compete.

We need to encourage failing scrums to go back and try to regain a position so tha teams with powerful scrums start using the front foot ball. At the minute a defeated scrum will just drop the set piece and take the penalty against to get it over with. That should not be tolerated.

If you are being pushed back and have a 2nd row and flanker up your arse who are trying to push you forward then it's very bloody hard to just decide to walk backwards.You need all 8 players in the scrum to realise what is happening and then react correctly.That's unrealistic imo.

Casartelli wrote:The 'hit' debate crops up regularly. The only ones who seem to be in favour of it are some props, as it gives them centre stage for a few seconds.

To everyone else it seems pointless. Banning it would solve everything.

Should be 'bind up, take the weight, ball in.' Then have a proper contest via pushing/technique.

The way it is now we might as well get rid of scrums and award free kicks.

I've seen two suggests for keeping the hit. One is that it can stop props biting each other (or something like that). The other is that it adds some random event to it so that the strongest prop does just win every time. The point in this instance is to destabilise the scrum...which is against what a scrum is supposed to be before putting the ball in.