Is Rugby Union without contested scrums viable or desirable??

toomevara

The RFU are seriously considering ways in which to depower the scrum or have them uncontested altogether. This is in response to the catstrophic injury suffered last year by Matt Hampson, the English U-21 prop. In general there seems to be a move in this direstion across all major international unions.

My question is this; Is Union without the scrum, as we curently know it, viable? Would you watch Union without contested scrums? Is it the soul of the game or am I over-reacting and is it, as many in the S. Hem would have us believe, just a way of restarting the game which has become unfairly enshirined at its core?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

toomevara

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I suppose thats what i'm trying to get at, it would fundamentally change the nature of the game and the tactical approach to winning it. Dispense with the slow, lumbering, gut-lugging, front row entirely and stick in three lean, mean groundhogging machines. Union as we know it would cease to exist before long and, ruck and maul laws nothwithstanding, it would shortly become virtually indistinguishable from league.....

Jilm

Though you'd worry for the future of the Tevor Woodmans of this world.

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

It could work in Irelands favour, where quality props are thin on the ground but there is no shortage of flankers

Amz

I think it would ruin the game, speaking from experience, women's rugby has uncontested scrums, particularly in the lower divisions and even at higher/inter pro. the two sides have to agree to contest scrums.

It's a pretty pointless exercise really and I think they'd be better off doing a "tap and go" rather than an uncontested scrum.

RuggieBear

putting another two quick players on the field will clog up even more space.

Scrums are an important way of testing and sapping anerobic fitness.

Imo, there is nothing more tiring in rugby than propping a scrummage.

Trojan

RuggieBear wrote:

there is nothing more tiring in rugby than propping a scrummage.

Speaketh the prop. He's right. Imagine all those energetic props running around not being tired, the opposition backs would soon lose that nice hairstyle!

As a hooker, that's half my job gone. It's fun too.

There are thousands of scrums every weekend worldwide. What's the risk ratio number of scrums:serious injuries I wonder?

toomevara

Trojan wrote:

There are thousands of scrums every weekend worldwide. What's the risk ratio number of scrums:serious injuries I wonder?

Was doing a little reading around the issue and the fact is that the majority of catastrophic injuries in rugby over the past few years have occured in open play, a relatively small percentage occur in the scrum.

As a reformed loose-head, I should like to second the exhuastion theory...nothing comes close, in terms of sheer energy sapping, gut-busting exhaustion, and I say this as someone who's been known to do the odd triathlon of late.

For the record, for me, union IS the scrummage, the entire game flows from it. If uncontested or depowered scrums were to become a fixture, i think I'd have major problems watching, it would seem so souless and one dimensional.

MarVeL

I think the uncontested scrum is an apalling spectacle especially when it appears to be used tactically by a team that is under the cosh.

Didn't someone put forward a proposal recently that if a prop couldn't be replaced then no substitute was to be allowed? Not sure how it would work in real play but it sounded as if it is worth a closer look.

And yes I was a prop as well

leeroybrown

I'm sure it would be viable although I think it would have a big, and in my view negative, impact on the way the game is played. I don't play rugby but do watch/attend a fair bit of it and I think that it would be a major negative if the scrum was uncontested. I've always found that it has had a negative impact on a game when a scrum becomes uncontested due to the lack of a recognised front row.

As was pointed out above the number of acute injuries in the scrum is relatively low. I've certainly been lucky not to have witnessed many. I'm sure there are chronic effects for some players but the same could be said about many elements of an increasingly physical game.

Nukem

As said it would turn into a sort of Sevens rugby with the speed of League with players that are super fast in the front row.It would ruin the game from the point of big bruisers being on the pitch for scrums and probably reduce the amount of rucks and be all fast hands! Could be wrong but would change rugby as we know it:mad:

GreenDoor

toomevara wrote:

This is in response to the catstrophic injury suffered last year by Matt Hampson, the English U-21 prop.

Did anybody see a picture of him when he was playing? I did and the first thing that struck me was how thinly built he was. A thin frame and an average sized neck.

I think the answer to this is simple. Players who want to become props should have measurements taken of their neck size. If they are not bigger than the average than they shouldn't be playing prop.

Rugby would be a very different game if there were no scrums.

toomevara

MarVeL wrote:

Didn't someone put forward a proposal recently that if a prop couldn't be replaced then no substitute was to be allowed? Not sure how it would work in real play but it sounded as if it is worth a closer look.

The premiership in England are considering penalising a team who cannot field a full front row, by forcing a player to sit the rest of the game out. Practically, I dont know how it would work, who gets to decide the player who's canned, the ref or the team captain. Is it fair on the player who's effectively binned for the duration? But there's no doubt that a couple of teams used the uncontested scrum cynically to their benefit last year..Northampton spring to mind immediately.....

Sangre

The game would become unrecognisable in 5 years if this happened. As dramatic a change as removing the ability to kick the ball, a total tactial transformation would ensue.

The beauty of rugby is two, nearly separate forces, combining into a well oiled machine. This distinction would be pretty much nullified. It would be 6 backrows and 2 locks (for line-outs) playing with the backs as one.

thumbs down to this.

Also, regarding the injury issue, that should be address with proper scrummaging training. Its a contact sport, unfortunately people will always get hurt.

smashey

Get rid of the scrum? What next? The lineout? Play with 13 players? Damn, that has already been done. :mad:

In my opinion, dropping the scrum would be catastrophic. From a spectator's point of view, I think a well worked scrum leading to the backs "spinning it out wide", where there is a bit of space due to the forwards being otherwise engaged is one of the best sights on a rugby field.

vorbis

don't see any reason to remove the scrum. They could go back to having the front rows engaged before the ball is put in. The amount of scrums that collapse when the two front rows engages is ridiculous.

edit: Its true though that the scrum is nowhere near as important in the modern game. I watched the 1987 rugby final there recently and what struck me was how many stoppages restarted with a scrum. Nowadays the main advantage to having a good scrum is being able to win penalties off the other team! Even Australia with their supposedly weak scrum coped well enough with the SA and NZ scrums.