New scrummaging laws as of the start of next season.

http://www.espnscrum.com/scrum/rugby/story/182394.html

Effectively the new rules will mean that props bind before the hit. The new instructions from the referee will be "crouch, bind, set" instead of "crouch, touch, set". On top of this the IRB are promising a clamp down on other rules at the scrum including 9's feeding directly to the second row and staying square.

What effect will these new rules have on cleaning up the scrum and will it bring an end to constant reset or penalties and free kicks? Also will it help weaker scrummaging teams with regard to getting the ball into the scrum and away quickly? Which in turn would mean teams who use the scrum more aggressively might not have as much of an advantage anymore.....?

Also, will props struggle to get used to this or have to adapt their approach to scrummaging? For example might props with better scrummaging technique take to this better than props who go all out power in the scrum?

I think that if they truly implement what they are saying we could see the return to scrummaging as a technical exercise rather than all about power and the "hit".

Teams with a good front row could thrive, hookers will have to hook and with the ball going in straight a powerful scrum can still drive their opponents back.

I've been told that the hit adds some randomness to the scrum that allows weaker scrims t get on top occasionally. That could mean the technically better scrims would come out on top (which is right...right?).

Always thought pre binding was the way to solve the scrum going down all the time, as players have now been coached to drop if they don't win the initial hit to have another go. Will see a return to more technical scrummaging rather than the power pushers. But was pre binding not stopped originally as it was seen as more dangerous? I can't remember.

Down in our part of the World its only in trial stages and the NZRFU has not decided whether it will trial these reset rules in this years ITM cup.

People who know more about front rows than me are pondering " The loosehead props bind on to the arm OR back of their opposite"

In a revision of the "crouch, touch, set" engagement sequence currently being trialled, props will be expected to bind using their outside arm after the referee has called "bind" in the sequence. The front rows will maintain the bind until the referee calls "set". At that point, the two packs will engage.

International Rugby Board chairman Bernard Lapasset promised referees would be stricter in enforcing existing scrum rules, such as the need to put the ball in straight, with the scrum square and stationary.

Well, I'll hold my breath a little until I see the fruits of this little endeavour.

This last winter was wet - very wet - which made conditions for scrummaging very poor. Indeed I suspect that scrums would have collapsed even in the supposedly halcyon days of amateurism.

My fear is that the hit (the so-called 'engage') will continue to provide such dynamic forces to be sufficient to immediately destabilise the scrum formation. Not least front rows will seek to maximise their own advantage by twisting and turning.
i.e. The hit remains king. Therefore I fear that the feed will remain squint. Therefore the art of hooking will remain largely a lost one.

In the recent extended R5 programme on the scrum, Brian Moore in between bouts of wanting to punch John Jeffrries and the other IRB Laws committee spokesmen through the ether, made some pertinent points:

• The scrum should be formed in two phases. 1 Engage and settle, 2 Feed on the Ref's command.

• Clothing. An amendment to Law 4 to accommodate binding by ending tight shirts which came in precisely to avoid the opposition getting a grip of players.

• The scrum feed must be straight in order: 1 - to return fair competition for the ball and 2 - to help prevent Brian and a me a premature terminal cardiac arrest.

Thats the Saints buggered next season...

munkian wrote:Thats the Saints buggered next season...

not really, as they have said goodbye to their power props and will be playing more technical props.

Grey, I like to listen to Brians commentary, but without his rants at scrum time, I dont think it would be quite the same.

its brilliant, they will be enforcing the existing rules with a better binding procedure, hookers will have to learn how to strike properly and props will be too busy propping the hooker instead of trying to win penalties off their opposite number by illegal means

Well here's hoping Brian a peaceful and contented, low blood-pressured amble through future commentaries, MMMM

damage_13 wrote:its brilliant, they will be enforcing the existing rules with a better binding procedure, hookers will have to learn how to strike properly and props will be too busy propping the hooker instead of trying to win penalties off their opposite number by illegal means

Or in actual fact, The front rows will continue to jostle, twist and cheat for dominance on the hit, scrum halves will continue delay the feed when their scrum has lost the engage and/or continue to feed the ball to their no8.

You don't need to be Nostradamus to make that prediction.

p.s. Another of Pitbull's suggestions is to stop the clock for the duration of the scrum and restart it only after the ball is removed.
A couple of 45-50 minute halves may have the desired effect.

I think making the props bind is only half the battle. There will still be an oppertunity for a "hit" even if it is a small one.

I would have the frontrows come together, bind up properly ala an uncontested Scrum, they can exchange pleasentries with one another. You know all the usual stuff; biting, rubbing stubble on each others faces, kissing, licking commenting on their opposite numbers doubtful parentage and their mother's excellent cooking.

Then bring the locks in, and the flankers and everyone is on best behaviour untill the ball comes in. Then it's game on and you can wrestle, grip, pinch drive and anything else you want to try and distupt the scrum.

Basicly come together, best behaviour untill the ball comes in.... then boom scrummage away.

i.e. How the scrum used to be before the IRB and fiddled around in attempt to 'improve' things.

As per usual they legislate against symptoms not by identifying and fixing the cause.

Most usually the laws are in place already ready and waiting to be enforced properly.

[ed] Wicked uncle Ernie ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4pQniAoeX4

greytiger wrote:

My fear is that the hit (the so-called 'engage') will continue to provide such dynamic forces to be sufficient to immediately destabilise the scrum formation. Not least front rows will seek to maximise their own advantage by twisting and turning.
i.e. The hit remains king. Therefore I fear that the feed will remain squint. Therefore the art of hooking will remain largely a lost one.

I agree with this sentiment. If they are really serious about making the scrum a contest of technique over power, then removing the 'hit/engage' is the only way to do it. The law makers can dance around the issue all they want, but the force going into the hit will still be enough to take more scrums downs than we would like even with the new binding procedure. It may reduce the number of collapses we currently see but with 130 odd stone of forward on each side 'hitting' at rapid speed, props will still be heading down. Binds will still be 'accidentally' lost if a team feels the hit has gone against them in the hope of getting the nod from the ref.

It may well end up with the correct team being penalised if the ref spots whose bind has gone, but to my mind, the amount of correct decisions is of secondary importance until they actually sort out the mess of re-set scrums. It is a blight on the game at the moment, and these new procedures haven't gone far enough to rectify the problem. There is a duty to grow the sport and make it a spectacle for fans, old and new, and watching 16 grown men have a quick cuddle on the floor over and over again is desperately dull. We need stable, set scrums that become a test of technique rather than another watered down version of the collision we currently see. Bind and engage in the same sequence, wait for the refs call to feed the ball (straight!) and then the contest can begin.

As an ex-hooker myself, the art of hooking has been diluted to much these days. They are basically a third prop in most cases. I am filled with equal measures of admiration and sadness that Tom Youngs can convert himself from a girly back to an international number 2 in such a short space of time. It's not right!

Except of course mtwT, that Tom Youngs is built more like a conventional hooker than than the current 3rd prop stereotype.

greytiger wrote:Except of course mtwT, that Tom Youngs is built more like a conventional hooker than than the current 3rd prop stereotype.

Very true. He is built like I used to be when playing hooker.

Except he is slightly less ripped than I was........

Why is it that with every tweak they give to the scrum, the IRB go out of their way to preserve the hit, which is the root of the problem?

Possibly because pro coaches have the ear of the IRB law-makers?

The coaches like to have cheating space.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I think making the props bind is only half the battle. There will still be an oppertunity for a "hit" even if it is a small one.

I would have the frontrows come together, bind up properly ala an uncontested Scrum, they can exchange pleasentries with one another. You know all the usual stuff; biting, rubbing stubble on each others faces, kissing, licking commenting on their opposite numbers doubtful parentage and their mother's excellent cooking.

Then bring the locks in, and the flankers and everyone is on best behaviour untill the ball comes in. Then it's game on and you can wrestle, grip, pinch drive and anything else you want to try and distupt the scrum.

Basicly come together, best behaviour untill the ball comes in.... then boom scrummage away.

Totally agree. Whilst this is a welcome move by the IRB they should have gone the whole hog and have the props packing down first, then the locks then the back row. We'd then have a properly contested scrum and I'd strongly argue this is a safer engagement process than either the current or the new proposed laws.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a number of players convert to hookers in the coming seasons as a whole generation of players are going to have to learn to hook again.

greytiger wrote:

The coaches like to have cheating space.

Whereas numbers 1 to 3 are all honest chappies who abhor cheating in every aspect!

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
Whereas numbers 1 to 3 are all honest chappies who abhor cheating in every aspect!

I hope this sorts out the scrums. Its dreadful to see the succession of collapses and the waste of time. It was noticeable when the two props were sent off in the Glasgow / Ospreys game other week that scrums no longer collapsed so much :-)

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
Whereas numbers 1 to 3 are all honest chappies who abhor cheating in every aspect!

Nos 1-23 are without doubt pillars of society, honest, upright, honourable, unstained and saintly.

That is a universal truth and unerring constant of physics.

Until they they pick up a ball and the coach whispers in his ear

greytiger wrote:Except of course mtwT, that Tom Youngs is built more like a conventional hooker than than the current 3rd prop stereotype.

Thinking about it, when I look back on my playing career, I was the real pioneer, not Tom Youngs.

We had two splendidly rotund props who excelled in the dark arts of scrummaging which meant I only had to hang between them and strike the ball.

Not wanted to be left out of the action, I perfected the art of hanging around in the midfield as a strike runner to punch holes in the defense a pretty slow and poorly skilled knock-on merchant who never actually got introduced to either winger or full-back.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

greytiger wrote:Except of course mtwT, that Tom Youngs is built more like a conventional hooker than than the current 3rd prop stereotype.

Thinking about it, when I look back on my playing career, I was the real pioneer, not Tom Youngs.

We had two splendidly rotund props who excelled in the dark arts of scrummaging which meant I only had to hang between them and strike the ball.

Not wanted to be left out of the action, I perfected the art of hanging around in the midfield as a strike runner to punch holes in the defense a pretty slow and poorly skilled knock-on merchant who never actually got introduced to either winger or full-back.

That was because the were blue and numb with cold Tino. With no chance of getting to the showers first.
Ah the delicate memories of the classes in the Academy of Arts of Coarse Rugby...

In one of his rants during the 6Ns, Brian Moore suggested that the problem with the scrums started some years ago when one squad realised that they could easily get penalties from a scrum and set about doing so (actually he did more than suggest, but that isn't the point I want to make). All the other interntional teams quickly worked out what was going on and followed suit - hence the current debacle which the IRB are trying yet AGAIN to sort out. With the quality of kickers nowadays, this is an understandably attractive option. One way of sorting it would be to rule that for a scrummaging offence a free kick will be awarded to the opposition, not a penalty. No penalty, no 3 points, no point in the very silly childish rubbish that goes on in many scrums. It would also mean that we wouldn't have the situation when teams go for 5m scrum after 5m scrum, not with the intention of out-scrummaging the defending team, but simply to force the ref to give a penalty try.

Artful_Dodger wrote:

On top of this the IRB are promising a clamp down on other rules at the scrum including 9's feeding directly to the second row ...

There haven't been many comments on this here, although there have been on some other fora. If you have a recording of it, in the famous 1973 ABs v Baa Baas match, the SHs were quite happy to put the ball in squiff until the ref blew up for it - my point being that this is not a new offence which never happened in those halcyon days of yore when rugby was played by gentlemen ....

greytiger wrote:

In a revision of the "crouch, touch, set" engagement sequence currently being trialled, props will be expected to bind using their outside arm after the referee has called "bind" in the sequence. The front rows will maintain the bind until the referee calls "set". At that point, the two packs will engage.

International Rugby Board chairman Bernard Lapasset promised referees would be stricter in enforcing existing scrum rules, such as the need to put the ball in straight, with the scrum square and stationary.

Well, I'll hold my breath a little until I see the fruits of this little endeavour.

This last winter was wet - very wet - which made conditions for scrummaging very poor. Indeed I suspect that scrums would have collapsed even in the supposedly halcyon days of amateurism.

My fear is that the hit (the so-called 'engage') will continue to provide such dynamic forces to be sufficient to immediately destabilise the scrum formation. Not least front rows will seek to maximise their own advantage by twisting and turning.
i.e. The hit remains king. Therefore I fear that the feed will remain squint. Therefore the art of hooking will remain largely a lost one.

In the recent extended R5 programme on the scrum, Brian Moore in between bouts of wanting to punch John Jeffrries and the other IRB Laws committee spokesmen through the ether, made some pertinent points:

• The scrum should be formed in two phases. 1 Engage and settle, 2 Feed on the Ref's command.

• Clothing. An amendment to Law 4 to accommodate binding by ending tight shirts which came in precisely to avoid the opposition getting a grip of players.

• The scrum feed must be straight in order: 1 - to return fair competition for the ball and 2 - to help prevent Brian and a me a premature terminal cardiac arrest.

And about time too. Proper scrums AH yes I remember them well. Not without problems but far fewer than we see today.

What is this Law 4, surely it doesn't enforce the wearing of skin tight shirts?

dragonbreath wrote:

greytiger wrote:

In a revision of the "crouch, touch, set" engagement sequence currently being trialled, props will be expected to bind using their outside arm after the referee has called "bind" in the sequence. The front rows will maintain the bind until the referee calls "set". At that point, the two packs will engage.

International Rugby Board chairman Bernard Lapasset promised referees would be stricter in enforcing existing scrum rules, such as the need to put the ball in straight, with the scrum square and stationary.

Well, I'll hold my breath a little until I see the fruits of this little endeavour.

This last winter was wet - very wet - which made conditions for scrummaging very poor. Indeed I suspect that scrums would have collapsed even in the supposedly halcyon days of amateurism.

My fear is that the hit (the so-called 'engage') will continue to provide such dynamic forces to be sufficient to immediately destabilise the scrum formation. Not least front rows will seek to maximise their own advantage by twisting and turning.
i.e. The hit remains king. Therefore I fear that the feed will remain squint. Therefore the art of hooking will remain largely a lost one.

In the recent extended R5 programme on the scrum, Brian Moore in between bouts of wanting to punch John Jeffrries and the other IRB Laws committee spokesmen through the ether, made some pertinent points:

• The scrum should be formed in two phases. 1 Engage and settle, 2 Feed on the Ref's command.

• Clothing. An amendment to Law 4 to accommodate binding by ending tight shirts which came in precisely to avoid the opposition getting a grip of players.

• The scrum feed must be straight in order: 1 - to return fair competition for the ball and 2 - to help prevent Brian and a me a premature terminal cardiac arrest.

And about time too. Proper scrums AH yes I remember them well. Not without problems but far fewer than we see today.

What is this Law 4, surely it doesn't enforce the wearing of skin tight shirts?

No. But it is one that is the enabler by which (say) 'Players must wear shirts and shorts which allow 100cm of free cloth to allow opposition players to bind or tackle'.

In practical terms that's 2" of grabbable cloth.

And personally I'd enforce it across all players not least because it would allow the sale of replica kits more flattering to fans.

100cm is not 2 inches ye old bu@@er!

It is when folded in two mate.

no it isn't. mate. 100cm is 1 metre, you mean 100mm. Please learn simple metric.

Effervescing Elephant wrote:no it isn't. mate. 100cm is 1 metre, you mean 100mm. Please learn simple metric.

True
Pillock me.

Although for some of the props these days a metre is probably about right!

I think this will make no difference what so ever.

The current "gap" between the front rows is less that half a metre! Any more than this and the ref will bring the 2 sides closer together. Now, I may be one of the taller props out there (my rightful place was No 8) but I can easily obtain a correct and legal bind on my opposite number from half a metre away! In fact, I think this daft concept will only make things worse as you are now adding the ability for both sets of props to pull the scrum together as well as the current "hit"

The IRB need to go the full hog. The whole scrum should form up and "take the strain" so to speak. Then, when the scrum is steady, the ref should instruct the ball to be put in (straight) and then the push can start.

Oh wells!

Just make them bind before the scrum starts. No shoving until the ball is put in. The ball should be put in STRAIGHT as well.

Can someone explain to me why the straight put in was abandoned or did they just get bored trying to re-set all the time. Was it a safety issue?

I can't imagine there was a law change for it at any stage.

Can someone explain to me why the straight put in was abandoned or did they just get bored trying to re-set all the time. Was it a safety issue?

I can't imagine there was a law change for it at any stage.

mankiaow wrote:Can someone explain to me why the straight put in was abandoned or did they just get bored trying to re-set all the time. Was it a safety issue?

I can't imagine there was a law change for it at any stage.

Reason being that the scrum by many wise people is merely seen as a means of recommencing play, by letting the half back feeding the scrum to put it under his number 8s feet means that the team who didnt incur fault, ie knock on, pass forward, throw ball crookedly into lineout etc. isnt disadvantaged.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

mankiaow wrote:Can someone explain to me why the straight put in was abandoned or did they just get bored trying to re-set all the time. Was it a safety issue?

I can't imagine there was a law change for it at any stage.

Reason being that the scrum by many wise people is merely seen as a means of recommencing play, by letting the half back feeding the scrum to put it under his number 8s feet means that the team who didnt incur fault, ie knock on, pass forward, throw ball crookedly into lineout etc. isnt disadvantaged.

Firstly allow me congratulate you on loading your comment.

As I see it the ANZAC nations are at the forefront of the wish to remove the contest from the scrum.

Reading the IRB bulletin http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/mediazone/pressrelease/newsid=2066642.html#new+scrum+process+approved+global+trial it is noticable that emphasising the stability of the scrum and the straight put-in are not given any serious prominence.

Once again the IRB are tinkering with a self-made succession of needless tinkerings.

It is the hit that causes the initial problem and the stability of the set-piece before the feed that causes the problem.

But as the Anzacs seemingly occupy an overly influential status on the Laws Committee, all they want to see is a mutually beneficial wish-fulfilment.
i.e. Uncontested scrums like league.

the ANZACS just want to play rugby, as in construct attacking plays by running with the ball and scoring scintilating tries. whereas....

The rest want to play Rugby Union?

William Webb Ellis invented the game of rugby Union by picking up the ball and running with it, He didnt set a scrum.

But that is what makes the game so refreshing and beautiful.

It gives fat lads, gangly lads, slightly less fat lads a chance to play a team game rather than stand on the school playing field in their pants because they forgot their PE kit.

If this therefor simplifies the rules at the scrum and benefits the referees ability to manage the scrum decreasing inconsistency then this will be a master stroke by the IRB.

a master stroke after 10 years of screwing up and progressively making things worse, longer time-wise and more dangerous.

fa0019 wrote:a master stroke after 10 years of screwing up and progressively making things worse, longer time-wise and more dangerous.

I don't think it is fair to criticise a body trying to rectify an issue until you have seen the result.

It's a positive step at least, even if it is very late and doesn't go quite far enough.

I really hope this works out. Apparently it was trialled in some pacific island games or something. Anyone know about that? How it went?

its not a criticism of what they are doing, just what they have done... hence why I agreed it would be a master stroke... yet after 10 years of similar interventions which have all contributed into making the situation far worse I myself think its fair to question their continual persistence of messing with the scrum despite their "good intentions".

fa0019 wrote:a master stroke after 10 years of screwing up and progressively making things worse, longer time-wise and more dangerous.

And that goes for the breakdown and the forward pass.

Fiddle fiddle fiddle - Worse worse worse.