Scrum Thoughts

The SH bosses today campaigned the IRB for more tweaks to the scrum.

1) allowing the ball to be fed under the hooker's feet
2) allowing the scrum half to time the put in rather than the referee

The line of reasoning is that it is inherently unsafe in a modern scrum to have the hooker leave a stable position to hook the ball - handing an unfair advantage to the defending team, at a time a beyond their choosing and too predictable to the opposition.

This is surely just common sense and should be rushed through before major injury strikes a leading player, further tarnishing the game's reputation.

Let's hope sanity prevails and this one doesn't get lost in political gamesmanship.

It may also be true that referees are being encouraged to all fewer knock ons to reduce the number of scrums. An acknowledgement that the new laws aren't working and possibly explaining an apparent reticence to "see them" on the weekend.

Yawn you might as well put a link describing the story properly rather than disguising the truth as usual:
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11152611

So Hansen wants the scrummies to be allowed to feed the ball "not quite straight" as his hookers are too big to well...hook.

That's what I said.

I guess they could always convert to RL. Mind you they'd lose their #1 ranking.

Well the scrums do need more tweaking as they are still a lottery.

I get the feeling that after much tinkering we will end up back with front rows controlling engagement and scrum halves controlling the feed...the way it always worked best

The scrum is often thought as the domain of the front row. The locks may be seen with their reach around as secondary but important cogs and generally we think of the back row as hanging off the back waiting to disengage to get to their man. If you have a stable platform on your feed, the backrow has the luxury of hanging or breaking off the scrum.

This has been the case before the current scrum laws. There was a story with Brad Thorn at Leinster who was annoyed with the blindside behind him in training and he blasted him with his guttural voice too much talking and not enough shoving.

The problem is not so much on the opposition feed but on your own feed. The hooker has to hook the ball and that leaves the front row less stable so if your backrow is not compensating for that lack of stability, it's extremely difficult to get that second shove in to walk over the ball. This is exacerbated by the ref's call yes 9, which is interpreted by the opposition as hello guys time to put your shove in. I really don't see why the halfback needs to be spoonfed these instructions. Previously if the halfback didn't feed the scrum in time he would be penalized. At times I have seen the ref call yes 9 and then the scrum gets screwed or the front row is destabilized and the scrum half feels obliged to feed a scrum where previously he would've pointed out the front row coming up or screwed round and call for the scrum to be reset.

I would much prefer to give the discretion back to the half back and penalize him if the scrum is not fed in time. The ref stands on one side and sometimes I have seen him call yes 9 and then some shenanigans on the other side after that call which disrupts the feed and gives the advantage to the other 8.

I wish to make the comment that generally the new scrum laws are positive and we are going back to where a dominant scrum (those accustomed to using the entire 8 to push and not just the front row or tight five) is rewarded. There was a meeting earlier this week with coaches to talk about or voice any concerns. We've seen adjustments that have to have been made and some have adapted better than others. I am not talking about matches I've seen from a NZ point of view. It's true that the NZ scrum has struggled this year but I think that is more down to issues from the entire 8 pushing particularly at the start of the game before the rigours of the game have taken affect. But I've seen in other RC games or last week's Twickenham test where in the past a scrum would've been reset in the past and wasn't under the new laws. I wonder if the refs are aware that these laws have been changed to avoid resets and there is pressure not to have resets and the preference is to penalise rather than reset.

What do you make of the changes and do you think scrums have been improved and do you concede a few things need to be tweaked?

I agree the scrum half should decide when to feed, in other words the referee only calls stable scrum, and then the scrum half has 5 seconds to feed, that should provide him ample time to decide when to feed.

I read somewhere that the SH wants the ball to be fed under the feet of the Hooker, that is nonsense.

As we have seen with dominant scrums, they don't have their hooker lift his leg to hook, they merely just drive over the ball, if they have the advantage of knowing when to feed, then they have the advantage to time their drive which will benefit them.

The fact is the scrum law changes should benefit rugby in more ways than just the scrums.

It can also open up space, in the past the back row as you say could get ready to loose their bind and go onto the defence which meant the backline defence can drift and therefor reduce the space out wide, now with first phase ball, you will have to keep scrumming as the defensive team and it has to be an 8 man shove.

More space in attack because of it.

That's right BB. If you have a line out you have the advantage of throwing the ball in when you want. When you have a scrum why should the opposition be alerted to when the feed comes? If it's your scrum you should be given the advantage of the timing of the feed so long is it's not delayed too long.

I also agree the attacking opportunities from the current score are very appealing. That said, a good shove can score a tight head on a defensive scrum and that also can be a good attacking weapon as the opposing backs have to reset quickly from attack to defence.

So true.

Also if the scrum half runs wide and the 8 passes to him, the opposing scrum half must stay with the scrum and if the pass is wide enough the backrow doesn't have the time to get to him and an overlap is created.

I've seen Aaron Smith work with Read in this regard and space through the middle created by it. That's just reward for being awarded a scrum just like winning a line out can trigger a set piece move. Like I said I'm generally in favour of the laws but my main concern is the timing of the feed.

Absolutely, good comment. The IRB should always focus on law changes that keep each facet of rugby true to itself, yet benefit game play.

Scrums are not just a way to restart a game.

Just to add, looking at what you said above.

This means teams within their red zone will have to be tactically more astute, they will also have to ensure proper exit strategies and proper execution of either the kick or the barnyard storm from their own red zone

According to Wayne Barnes the shove shouldn't occur until the ball is IN the scrum.
NOT when the SH tries to feed a scrum going backwards,agree the Sh should feed
when ready.Better still revert to the old laws pre experimental set by rows Hooker
had no problems then.
The dynamics of the 3-4-1 Scrum as originally taught relies on a twin thrust by the
back 5 on the Props allowing the Hooker freedom to rake the ball.

For me, I actually like what we have done with the scrums, at least compared to the two previous incarnations.  Agree, it still needs more work, however.

Firstly, from a purely medical perspective, taking away that initial powerful hit is a very good thing.  
Secondly, having hookers actually have to hook is also a good thing.
Thirdly, having the scrum halves feeding straight is also good.
BUt we still need more stability in the scrum, both from a safety point of view and from a stability/play on point of view.

There's more danger to a hooker now than during the hot. You should know that!

When the new tweaks were announced, there was no indication that the referee would end up calling for the put-in. However, the changes were made, in part, to speed up the game.

It looks like the officials unilaterally decided to get the scrum underway at the soonest possible moment and started prompting the half-back when they thought everything was stable.

I'd rather the referee butted out. If he thinks the half-back is delaying the put-in, then he can simply penalize him and award a free-kick. That's what happened before. I can recall Steve Walsh penalizing Ben Youngs for it during the last Six Nations (although the scrum was breaking the speed limit at the time)

There's also no real need for the half-back to have to deliver the ball at the first opportunity. If scrum stability is making only fleeting appearances, then this suggests someone, or everyone, is shoving early, and that can be blown-up instead.

The game can afford a momentary delay while the half-back chooses his moment - or gets his signal from the hooker - because it ought to mean more completed scrums. That's really what we want to see. As others have noted above, a completed scrum gives the side with the ball more attacking options.

Neil Back noted after Saturday's game that the string of uncompleted scrums in the first half didn't really help England build any momentum. That was mainly our own fault, because we either missed our kicks at goal, or found touch and then lost the line-out.

What I took from Back's comment is that referees are in danger of confusing the speed of the game with the fluidity of the game. They might feel like they are moving the game forward by prompting the half-back, or blowing the whistle for an offence, but if it just results in resets, kicks for goal, or another set piece, then the game has no shape.

We want to see are all the potential attacking moves from a scrum. A side driving forward forces the opposition back line to retreat and nullifies their rush defence. A fast pass to the backs can take the ball away from all the players tied up in the scrum. We heard that teams had stopped practicing these moves because so few scrums were completed. The new tweaks were supposed to give us more completions, so we could enjoy this part of rugby again.

A restart I agree BB is often seen just as that by many: a restart. Not a means of attack. Look at kick offs. Australia inexplicably kicked long after one short kick saw possession turn over. On NZ restarts they lost all but two I think and failed to react to the splitting of the NZ forwards.

With defensive lines much more solid, it's very difficult to create something in open play. The set piece, therefore, can be used as an attacking weapon. Too often teams have this obsession with dominating possession but doing very little with their dominant share of it. You have to use your opportunities with the ball wisely and the scrum is a way of exploiting 9 players being tied down to a very specific part of the field. It's not an avenue to regain possession but an avenue to work yourself into a favourable position wherever you may be on the field.

I agree Rugby Fan. If a scrum half is instructed to feed and the scrum is not stable and is penalized then you have a stop to the game most times anyway as the oppositions kicks to touch and a line out ensues. What the new laws wanted to do was to improve scrums not speed up the scrums. The ref's call may speed up the scrum but I don't think it improves it. By improving the scrum we don't need a reset and this is what speeds up the game. If an early shove comes when the ref makes the call and not when the scrum half feeds the scrum then we haven't improved the scrum and too often the attacking scrum is not given the advantage and is, on fact, heavily disadvantaged.

I quite like the idea of "not quite straight", maybe we could apply it to not quite straight line outs, kicks are not quite inside the posts, slightly forward passes, knocks not quite too far on,  players taking catches with their feet not quite inside the touchline....

Like the way the entire team is not quite behind the kicker during the restart currently (my bug bear).

Some very good points on this tread (nice to see a discussion about rugby for a change). I think the new scrum rules are a step in the right direction and are going some way to getting the scrum back to being an attacking platform. As a scrum half, I see no need for the ref to call the feed, it's completely unnecessary and I've seen plenty of examples of this leading to an early shove by 8 on 7 that's not picked up bt the ref.

Even though I never played in the forwards I love watching set pieces, which for me are so much more than restarts.

Agree offload, no need for the referee to call the feed, the reason why I am saying the 5 seconds, it will basically help the scrumhalf when he is told the referee deems the scrum stable, then have 5 seconds (similar to the 5 second rule) to feed.

If then the scrumhalf does not feed within the 5 seconds the referee awards a free kick to the other team.

Biltong - I see no reason why a 5 second practice wouldn't work. The similar "use it" call at the breakdown seems to have made a positive difference.

Sounds sensible to me.

The five second rule or the rolling maul called stopped by the ref like in the Dunedin test seems open to interpretation. Use it for some refs means clear the ball now whereas for others it means when you're good and ready.

Let's call it not quite rugby. To be played by those who either don't like being told what to do or like to cheat

One of the gray areas in the rule books especially Scrums is that currently no two Refs seem
to interprate the rules in the same way

very true alan, but at least at the pre-match talk the referee should communicate his calls thoroughly.

i think the new laws are a great improvement. IMHO the goal of a scrum should not simply be a restart, it should present the team winning possession with a number of options: keep the scrum moving forwards forcing defending back row to stay bound and defensive back line to readjust, quick early ball then has real meaning if the defending back row are worrying about the secondary drive.

ball needs to be put in straight , at the tap of the hooker (i played hooker so quite keen on that), not at referees urging as that does risk 8 v 7 shove.

also, when a team is moving backwards in the scrum and deliberately sheers away or collapses, penalty first offence, penalty and 10 yards for second and every subsequent offence (often hard to identify individual needing a yellow).

I wonder whether it would be better to go back to the old system of the scrum engaging before feed and doing away with any type of hit at all - players these days are much fitter so there would be less chance of the scrum collapsing (except on purpose) and the "shove" could start at the referees call - that call also being the signal to the scrum half that he now has to feed the ball.
At the lower level I'm not sure that there's been a lot of difference regardless of the method used.

Irish Londoner

The revised Laws are not far from that - there is a slight hit on engagement, but as the props are already bound they are only moving a few inches rather than the couple of feet from before, and then the refs are supposed to require the scrum to be stable prior to the ball being put in - I think the ref should just say OK, and it then be up to the SH and hooker to decide on timing, with an early shove being penalised.

Overall, as written and as some of the refs are applying, I think the revised Laws are a great improvement on the previous two changes - the better scrimmaging side is able to get the advantage more consistently because there isn't the opportunity to 'win the hit' and disrupt the opposition.

The Scrum Wheel to 45% is still legal at the moment so if either side decides to screw it.
THAT is not a penalty,theres two much trying to milk penalties from scrums IF you want
positive moves.Allow players to leave the scrum at any time then back row moves as of old could be used.If a player puts his hand to ground to stabalize himself fine make that legal to.
Ban lifting go back to the old law of supporting the player once he is IN the air.
THEN you have lineout jumpers timing there jumps,penalize lifting that meansyou have at least 7 possible options including old style peels..
Boks won`t agree of course they wrote the book on illegally lifting in the lineouts.

Lifting is allowed because it cleans up the lineout as more players are gainfully employed when the ball is thrown in.

Why the hell do so many refs yell the word 'set' at scrum time? They are supposed to be passive until the ball is put in. The over excited shouting only serves to encourage the front rows to make some sort of hit when there shouldn't be.