IRB's new scrum engagement rules to be trialled in the Rugby Championship

First topic message reminder :

The IRB's new "Crouch, Bind, Set" rules were due to be introduced worldwide at the start of the NH club season. However SANZAR have opted to bring them in early, in the Rugby Championship, with a view to having players used to them prior to the AIs

http://www.espn.co.uk/scrum/rugby/story/189547.html

The trial is aimed at enhancing player welfare by reducing the impact of engagement by up to 25 per cent, as well as consolidating first-time completion rate of scrums and therefore enhancing the spectacle for fans. Referees will also be instructed to ensure that the scrum is static before the ball is put into the scrum and that the ball goes in straight.

 

maestegmafia wrote:

Biltong wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:Bill nice piece but I think the hit has little to do with a good scrum. The new laws will turn it back into a wrestling match of technique.

Reading the elements you enjoyed most, the technique, the skill will surely only be more apparent now...?

I do agree the bind is more important than the hit, but you basically have to change your whole setup and preparation as a loosehead now.

Remember "the hit" is very much a modern invention! The scrum is returning to what it was.

Understand that, but I played under the HIT era.

Biltong wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Biltong wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:Bill nice piece but I think the hit has little to do with a good scrum. The new laws will turn it back into a wrestling match of technique.

Reading the elements you enjoyed most, the technique, the skill will surely only be more apparent now...?

I do agree the bind is more important than the hit, but you basically have to change your whole setup and preparation as a loosehead now.

Remember "the hit" is very much a modern invention! The scrum is returning to what it was.

Understand that, but I played under the HIT era.

We will all reminisce, for what we once had that is now gone, only to hope that what passes may be for the greater good.

Just seen my first game under the new laws. Montpelier v Toulon
1. The referee was I thought poor. He didn't allow the scrum to settle as the packs were shoving before the put in.
2. He didn't ref the squint feed. In fact he ran back and away from the sh so would never have been able to judge it anyway.

The ref did improve somewhat in the 2nd half though, but the replacement front rows were better scrummagers it seems under the new law conditions.

Conclusion: disappointing, but a needs stricter referees to administer the laws properly otherwise the cheats will take over all over again.

And Simon Shaw is a crap summariser.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:Just seen my first game under the new laws. Montpelier v Toulon
1. The referee was I thought poor. He didn't allow the scrum to settle as the packs were shoving before the put in.
2. He didn't ref the squint feed. In fact he ran back and away from the sh so would never have been able to judge it anyway.

The ref did improve somewhat in the 2nd half though, but the replacement front rows were better scrummagers it seems under the new law conditions.

Conclusion: disappointing, but a needs stricter referees to administer the laws properly otherwise the cheats will take over all over again.

And Simon Shaw is a crap summariser.

Josh Kronfield had an interesting take. Rules are changed by people seeking to give their own side an advantage. The rules get changed too often. Players will always "cheat" as they seek to get an advantage. Here's hoping otherwise.

So far in the NZ Aus game crooked put ins was the main problem. Also teams pushing before the ball was put in. All in all its postiive and they're going fine but there hasn't been many scrums. Teams still getting used to them.

I would think it would work better if both packs were slightly further back from each other. They look like they are too close.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:I would think it would work better if both packs were slightly further back from each other. They look like they are too close.

That would make them push more and we would see more collapses.

Joubert reffed the scrum 99% better than the bloke who faffed around in Montpelier last night.

Pens for not straight feeds showed his intention. Ans as for the early shove, you should have seen last night's game.

L4L wrote: I would think it would work better if both packs were slightly further back from each other. They look like they are too close.

Would recreate the hit whereas the intention is for the initial engagement to fold together and create a steady platform.

It's become a contest of skills and technique again rather than a wrecking ball contest.

Think it's high time the IRB left the scrum alone. No wonder scrutiny on it increases and interpretation just gets more complex when no set of rules are allowed to stand even for 5 solid years. How is anyone meant to adapt at that rate?

Knowsit17 wrote:Think it's high time the IRB left the scrum alone. No wonder scrutiny on it increases and interpretation just gets more complex when no set of rules are allowed to stand even for 5 solid years. How is anyone meant to adapt at that rate?

I would say that previous changes to encourage the hit were a mistake, now this seems to be a sensible move towards a better scrum. Good work IRB.

[quote="Portnoy's Complaint"]Joubert reffed the scrum 99% better than the bloke who faffed around in Montpelier last night.

Pens for not straight feeds showed his intention. Ans as for the early shove, you should have seen last night's game.
/quote]

I think he was a little inconsistent though - on one occasion he free-kicked Australia and then when NZ took the scrum their feed was almost 90 degrees off being straight but he played on ...

maestegmafia wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:Think it's high time the IRB left the scrum alone. No wonder scrutiny on it increases and interpretation just gets more complex when no set of rules are allowed to stand even for 5 solid years. How is anyone meant to adapt at that rate?

I would say that previous changes to encourage the hit were a mistake, now this seems to be a sensible move towards a better scrum. Good work IRB.

Not often maes and I are in agreement, but this is one of those occasions. Provided referees adhere strictly to the laws and penalise squint feeds, it appears that we will have proper scrums back in the game.

I could not disagree more Knowsit. The scrum was a total mess and the game was the worse for it. Joubert showed today the first glimmer of what can be.

Hopefully other refs can take up the baton.

Heaf wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:Joubert reffed the scrum 99% better than the bloke who faffed around in Montpelier last night.

Pens for not straight feeds showed his intention. Ans as for the early shove, you should have seen last night's game.
/quote]

I think he was a little inconsistent though - on one occasion he free-kicked Australia and then when NZ took the scrum their feed was almost 90 degrees off being straight but he played on ...

Fed at 90° or hooked back at 90° heaf?

I may have missed it I guess but it didn't look like it got anywhere near being hooked - even the commentators mentioned it - although to be fair they were Ozzies ...  

There was another one where the SH was stood one side of the 22 and the ball ended up on the other side of the 22 without being touched so clearly wasn't straight ... he looked to me like he was only calling it some of the time.  Maybe being afraid of being called picky but I think he should have stuck with it ...

It'll take more than one decent refereeing display to convince me. I'm generally tired of the call getting changed constantly when it seems apparent the previous rules aren't given that much time at all to settle and be assessed. It needs consistency after suffering nearly a decade of being chopped and changed and having to be guessed more often than understood.

On a different scrum law - can I check my understanding?

If the ball goes straight through the tunnel and comes out the other end shouldn't it be a reset?

Yes. Joubert got that wrong.

Thanks PC - I thought maybe I'd missed another change

According to rucking good stats only 6 put of scrums worked.

I can't understand why people are complaining with the new changes. Have they been asleep for the past number of year?


The IRB had to do something with the scrums because they were a joke. They slowed the game, wasted loads of time and turned people off. Cheating was easy and it was a matter of who could get away with what. The whole thing was a mess. I watched some games last season where 20+ minutes of the 80 were spent on scrums.


At least now theres a chance that talent can win out over skill and the game should also be speeded up with the ball in play for longer over the 80 min.

Squint feeds still not being penalised.

Genia made the mistake of putting the ball in straight a couple of times and they lost possession. He won't be doing that again!

Smith was practically putting it straight to the number 8 and it was still allowed

From ESPN

The International Rugby Board (IRB) has asked New Zealand's Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) to help it assess the effectiveness of the new scrum engagement law designed to improve player safety and reduce scrum collapses. ACC officials say they were approached by the IRB because of a previous study it carried out on scrum safety, as part of its rugby-focused injury prevention work.

"ACC is uniquely positioned to assess the safety aspect of interventions such as law changes because of the comprehensive data it collects about injuries through its claims process," sports programs manager Isaac Carlson said on Monday, after the revised calls of "crouch, bind, set" were on display in a high-profile match in Australia for the first time in the Bledisloe Cup Test at ANZ Stadium in