New scrummaging laws as of the start of next season.

First topic message reminder :

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?

So, in answer to my question, the issue was allowed to develop as a sop to the SH who would ultimately have us merged with league without constraint.

Refs will always use Scrum 'complexity' issues for a few well earned breathers...............................

Where better to take a break in increasingly faster games than in messing around with a scrum for five minutes. So, solutions might be found to scrum issues...but individual refs will still have 'issues' with the solutions

mankiaow wrote:So, in answer to my question, the issue was allowed to develop as a sop to the SH who would ultimately have us merged with league without constraint.

Funnily enough, the SH blame the current mess on the insistence of the NH on using the scrum as a platform for winning penalties


One suspects the truth is somewhere rather to the centre of those extremes, and blame more rightly resides with bureacratic inertia at the IRB.

I think the reason why those in the NH believe their is an agenda against their strengths is that the parts of the game which have been supressed such as the rolling maul and the scrum are the very things particularly powerful SH nations were never famed for.

Added to that things like the breakdown which the SH were always stronger in seemed to tilt more in their favour.

and all this began to happen after England won the RWC.

Not saying there was an agenda but it does seem rather convenient about what parts of the game was promoted, what was supressed and the whole timing of the changes.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

mankiaow wrote:So, in answer to my question, the issue was allowed to develop as a sop to the SH who would ultimately have us merged with league without constraint.

Funnily enough, the SH blame the current mess on the insistence of the NH on using the scrum as a platform for winning penalties


One suspects the truth is somewhere rather to the centre of those extremes, and blame more rightly resides with bureacratic inertia at the IRB.

The NH use the scrum to win penalties because the IRB have structured the Laws in such a way as to make it inevitable.

By complicating the laws, they keep on avoiding the real issues.

Therefore 'smarter' teams up North use the phrasing of the Laws cynically - like the increasing use of the choke tackle which is perfectly legal but barely represents its initial intention. Just as momentarily delaying the hit buys a peep from the ref.

fa0019 wrote:I think the reason why those in the NH believe their is an agenda against their strengths is that the parts of the game which have been supressed such as the rolling maul and the scrum are the very things particularly powerful SH nations were never famed for.

Added to that things like the breakdown which the SH were always stronger in seemed to tilt more in their favour.

and all this began to happen after England won the RWC.

Not saying there was an agenda but it does seem rather convenient about what parts of the game was promoted, what was supressed and the whole timing of the changes.

Actually when the rolling maul was first suppressed in the 90s NZ were really good at it . NZ adapted their game in favour of rucking, then the maul was brought back later in the 90s. There's a widespread belief in NZ that the NH unions like trying to change the laws to negate the All Blacks too (and in the good old days when only the Home Unions got votes on the laws they were quite blatant about it - banning NZ's 2-3-2 scrum etc).

When "proper" rucking was banned later in the 90s NZ and Scotland were the leading exponents of shoe pie and voted "nay".

greytiger wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

mankiaow wrote:So, in answer to my question, the issue was allowed to develop as a sop to the SH who would ultimately have us merged with league without constraint.

Funnily enough, the SH blame the current mess on the insistence of the NH on using the scrum as a platform for winning penalties


One suspects the truth is somewhere rather to the centre of those extremes, and blame more rightly resides with bureacratic inertia at the IRB.

The NH use the scrum to win penalties because the IRB have structured the Laws in such a way as to make it inevitable.

By complicating the laws, they keep on avoiding the real issues.

Therefore 'smarter' teams up North use the phrasing of the Laws cynically - like the increasing use of the choke tackle which is perfectly legal but barely represents its initial intention. Just as momentarily delaying the hit buys a peep from the ref.

I agree with you on the complications - my example was contrasting widely believed conspiracy theories from each hemisphere about the causes.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

fa0019 wrote:I think the reason why those in the NH believe their is an agenda against their strengths is that the parts of the game which have been supressed such as the rolling maul and the scrum are the very things particularly powerful SH nations were never famed for.

Added to that things like the breakdown which the SH were always stronger in seemed to tilt more in their favour.

and all this began to happen after England won the RWC.

Not saying there was an agenda but it does seem rather convenient about what parts of the game was promoted, what was supressed and the whole timing of the changes.

Actually when the rolling maul was first suppressed in the 90s NZ were really good at it . NZ adapted their game in favour of rucking, then the maul was brought back later in the 90s. There's a widespread belief in NZ that the NH unions like trying to change the laws to negate the All Blacks too (and in the good old days when only the Home Unions got votes on the laws they were quite blatant about it - banning NZ's 2-3-2 scrum etc).

When "proper" rucking was banned later in the 90s NZ and Scotland were the leading exponents of shoe pie and voted "nay".

I'll give you that on the rucking Pete, watching Gary Armstrong clear a ruck in 0.5sec flat was always a joy to see..... in fact I was never insinuating NZ were part of the conspiracy... AUS on the other hand seem to have their fingerprints all over the various law changes.... and why??? Their TV ratings war which they have with other sports and seem to constantly be losing ground on.

fa0019 wrote:I think the reason why those in the NH believe their is an agenda against their strengths is that the parts of the game which have been supressed such as the rolling maul and the scrum are the very things particularly powerful SH nations were never famed for.

Added to that things like the breakdown which the SH were always stronger in seemed to tilt more in their favour.

and all this began to happen after England won the RWC.

Not saying there was an agenda but it does seem rather convenient about what parts of the game was promoted, what was supressed and the whole timing of the changes.

Completly agree on most points except the agenda you allude to has not suited SA either at all. Heres how I see it:

There was a huge push by the powers that be in the SH after the 07' world cup particularly Graham Henry, probably in response to NZ getting dumped out of the WC by the French again to make changes to the game.

The spin at the time was that aim of these changes that were eventually introduced by way of ELVs was to make the game more "exciting". In reality the changes added no excitement value whatsoever yet they did suceed in swinging the balance of dominance back in favour of the Kiwis and to a certain extent the Aussies.

In the NH rugby is a winter sport and so to generalise when playing in bad conditions most teams tend to revert to a tighter game. As you have alluded to most of the rules favored teams willing to play a looser expansive game so NH teams (except maybe France(milder climate and flair philosophy)) and SA suffered as they are more accustomed to tighter conditions.

SA have severly been blighted I agree... and they also make much more in revenue for SR and the 4N then any others yet they don't get a revenue split equal to their own work.
As I mentioned with Pete.... Its not really NZ or SA, I would imagine a certain John O'Neill is a very powerful person in rugby, far more than we would at first think. He often gets what he wants.

fa0019 wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

fa0019 wrote:I think the reason why those in the NH believe their is an agenda against their strengths is that the parts of the game which have been supressed such as the rolling maul and the scrum are the very things particularly powerful SH nations were never famed for.

Added to that things like the breakdown which the SH were always stronger in seemed to tilt more in their favour.

and all this began to happen after England won the RWC.

Not saying there was an agenda but it does seem rather convenient about what parts of the game was promoted, what was supressed and the whole timing of the changes.

Actually when the rolling maul was first suppressed in the 90s NZ were really good at it . NZ adapted their game in favour of rucking, then the maul was brought back later in the 90s. There's a widespread belief in NZ that the NH unions like trying to change the laws to negate the All Blacks too (and in the good old days when only the Home Unions got votes on the laws they were quite blatant about it - banning NZ's 2-3-2 scrum etc).

When "proper" rucking was banned later in the 90s NZ and Scotland were the leading exponents of shoe pie and voted "nay".

I'll give you that on the rucking Pete, watching Gary Armstrong clear a ruck in 0.5sec flat was always a joy to see..... in fact I was never insinuating NZ were part of the conspiracy... AUS on the other hand seem to have their fingerprints all over the various law changes.... and why??? Their TV ratings war which they have with other sports and seem to constantly be losing ground on.

I think different countries do go into votes with differing agendas. The ARU are in a bun fight to gain support and player numbers, and vote accordingly. I'm surprised the WRU haven't gone the same way given the rise of soccer in Wales. NZ is less interested in playing laws - we tend to back ourselves to adapt regardless. On the flipside the NZRU fights harder on the financial distribution side because of the small NZ economy - earning enough cash to keep players playing at home and therefore keep the development chain working is the priority.

Voting over national representation is another hot potato - NZ and England were in favour of allowing discarded tier 1 players to do a 5 year stand down before turning out for tier 2 nations they had birth/parental qualifications which would probably strngthen the PI teams along with (potentially) some eastern European sides. Wales, Ireland & Scotland who've had the odd loss to PI teams OTOH were mortified by the idea.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:NZ is less interested in playing laws - we tend to back ourselves to adapt regardless.

But somehow the actual laws of the game of rugby were changed to suit New Zealands style of play in the lead up to New Zealands world cup.

fa0019 wrote:SA have severly been blighted I agree... and they also make much more in revenue for SR and the 4N then any others yet they don't get a revenue split equal to their own work.
As I mentioned with Pete.... Its not really NZ or SA, I would imagine a certain John O'Neill is a very powerful person in rugby, far more than we would at first think. He often gets what he wants.

I think you have a point there FA.

Every country pretty much votes what they see as their own self-interest, and under O'Neill the Aussies were better at horse-trading than most.Of course it's 6 months since he retired from the ARU, only time will tell how his successors manage in IRB politics.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:
Voting over national representation is another hot potato - NZ and England were in favour of allowing discarded tier 1 players to do a 5 year stand down before turning out for tier 2 nations they had birth/parental qualifications which would probably strngthen the PI teams along with (potentially) some eastern European sides. Wales, Ireland & Scotland who've had the odd loss to PI teams OTOH were mortified by the idea.

I'd be surprised if Ireland were mortified given that Ireland have never lost to Fiji or Tonga and have only ever lost to Samoa once almost 20 years ago.

Also Ireland has never to my knowledge had a PI player so this rule wouldnt impact Ireland all that much. If anything it might mean that countries like NZ and OZ who have the most PI players might eventually suffer in depth a little, or not.

Feckless Rogue wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:NZ is less interested in playing laws - we tend to back ourselves to adapt regardless.

But somehow the actual laws of the game of rugby were changed to suit New Zealands style of play in the lead up to New Zealands world cup.

The laws weren't changed, the interpretations were . Which didn't take a vote, it took having the right people on the right committees

And did we really want to carry on with 2009-style aerial ping-pong?

The laws/interpretations over the past few years have tended to fluctuate between favouring attack and defence, if it's too easy to pilfer ball teams kick more, if it's too hard we wind up moving towards League. The Aussies favour the latter, NZ prefers somewhere in the middle (we're good at turning over possession, so we want it to be possible but not easy to do).

O'Neill was in a powerful position as AUS is such a big market and rugby was/is still what the 4th largest sport there? I guess the idea was promote the interests of the ARU and AUS and the revenue for SANZAR will significantly increase... its not like you can sell more AB shirts in NZ or bok shirts in SA. Games are prime time viewing and sponsors fight like dogs to get a piece of the action.

In some ways it makes sense but the results haven't exactly been well received from what I hear... read that rugby is still losing ground.. perhaps the lions tour will get the country a shot in the arm they need???

GunsGerms wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:
Voting over national representation is another hot potato - NZ and England were in favour of allowing discarded tier 1 players to do a 5 year stand down before turning out for tier 2 nations they had birth/parental qualifications which would probably strngthen the PI teams along with (potentially) some eastern European sides. Wales, Ireland & Scotland who've had the odd loss to PI teams OTOH were mortified by the idea.

I'd be surprised if Ireland were mortified given that Ireland have never lost to Fiji or Tonga and have only ever lost to Samoa once almost 20 years ago.

Also Ireland has never to my knowledge had a PI player so this rule wouldnt impact Ireland all that much. If anything it might mean that countries like NZ and OZ who have the most PI players might eventually suffer in depth a little, or not.

Mortified wasn't quite the right term, perhaps "voting in their own best interest" is better. NZ isn't really threatened by stronger PI teams, and might gain the odd extra player out of it due to them knowing that if they don't quite crack the ABs they have a fallback option for playing international rugby. Whereas stronger PI teams starts making RWC draws more "interesting" for those teams who're normally in the 4-8 positions in the world rankings.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

And did we really want to carry on with 2009-style aerial ping-pong?

Do you honestly think there is less kicking now than pre '07 and do you think the game is more exciting now than pre '07 WC? I dont.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:
Mortified wasn't quite the right term, perhaps "voting in their own best interest" is better. NZ isn't really threatened by stronger PI teams, and might gain the odd extra player out of it due to them knowing that if they don't quite crack the ABs they have a fallback option for playing international rugby. Whereas stronger PI teams starts making RWC draws more "interesting" for those teams who're normally in the 4-8 positions in the world rankings.

I think it would be a good thing. Given that the IRB have already confirmed that lower ranked nations will no longer be shafted by scheduling arrangements and shorter turnaround times between matches at the next WC I've no doubt further steps will be taken to ensure the strengthening of PI and East Euro teams.

Lets face it they are already catching up:

Georgia ran Ireland very close in 07
Samoa recently ambushed Australia
France were embarrased by Tonga in 2011
Wales have fallen foul of Fiji on a number of occasions
and Samoa pushed SA close in 2011

And does anyone believe hand on heart that this latest scrum fudge will make a hapennyth of difference?

This new proposal will be confirmed/rejected in mid-2014 thereby sealing it until after 2015.

greytiger wrote:And does anyone believe hand on heart that this latest scrum fudge will make a hapennyth of difference?

This new proposal will be confirmed/rejected in mid-2014 thereby sealing it until after 2015.

Hand on heart I hope they do because change is needed in the scrums.

GunsGerms wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

And did we really want to carry on with 2009-style aerial ping-pong?

Do you honestly think there is less kicking now than pre '07 and do you think the game is more exciting now than pre '07 WC? I dont.

I wasn't making a comparison with pre-2007 though. I was talking about the game in 2010/11 vs 2009 - sorry, I misunderstood where you were coming from in the post before that.

As far as the ELVs go, the committee that came up with them in 2006 comprised (assuming no-one's lying on Wikipedia):
Chairman and IRB Council member Bill Nolan;
IRB Development Manager Bruce Cook;
former World Cup winning Wallaby coach Rod Macqueen;
former Springbok coach Ian McIntosh;
former Scottish coach Richie Dixon;
former French player, coach and former IRB Regional Development Manager Pierre Villepreux;
former All Black captain and Wellington coach Graham Mourie;
IRB Referee Manager Paddy O'Brien

and they were championed by Syd Millar, and trialled in full at Stellenbosch uni in South Africa. Ultimately the only ELVs that were adopted were:
-At the scrum, all backs except for the two scrum-halves must be at least 5 metres behind the hindmost foot of the scrum.

-On a quick throw in the ball can be thrown straight or back towards the defenders' goal line, but not forwards towards the opposition goal line.

-Where touch judges are trained referees, they are now referred to as assistant referees, with responsibility for policing the offside lines.

-If the ball is passed or run back into the 22 and then kicked out on the full before a tackle, ruck or maul is effected, the resulting lineout is taken from where the kick was made. However, if the kick bounces into touch, the lineout is taken from where the ball went into touch.

-The corner flag, currently situated where the try line meets the touchline, is now part of the field of play. Under the previous laws, a try was disallowed if a player touched the corner flag before touching the ball down.


It's hardly surprising if perceived excitment levels haven't changed from pre-2007 given those hardly earth-shattering changes. And (note, I have no idea if anyone's compiled stats on this) I doubt the amount of kicking massively changed from pre-2007 to now (2009 excepted).

GunsGerms wrote:

greytiger wrote:And does anyone believe hand on heart that this latest scrum fudge will make a hapennyth of difference?

This new proposal will be confirmed/rejected in mid-2014 thereby sealing it until after 2015.

Hand on heart I hope they do because change is needed in the scrums.

+1