The Scrum. RIP.

toomevara

Here lies the body of 'the scrum'. It died today at Twickenham, after a long slow deterioration, in an international game of RU where not one scrum was completed in 80 minutes of play.

For the whipper snappers among you; In ancient times, the scrum used to be a vital part of the game, a combative, attritional, grinding arena where teams asserted physical and psychological dominance over their opponents and very often the place where games were won or lost. Indeed back in the day it was held by many to be the defining characteristic of the game of RU and it's greatest glory and ornament. Now,alas, it has become merely a way to restart the game. The questions now are; who killed the scrum? Why, and, Can anything be done to resurrect it?

Stev_o

Despite this it was the best game of the day.

McGuirk with "IRB to change scrums to League conspiracy" I had to laugh.

toomevara

Stev_o wrote: »

Despite this it was the best game of the day.

Hang on, don't be hasty, we've not seen Scotland/NZ yet...;) Indeed (putting me controversial cap on) was it 'despite' this or 'because' of this.....

Profiler

Might suit Ireland as we have had difficulty finding props.

Still if this continues we will all be playing Rugby League soon

toomevara

Profiler wrote: »

Still if this continues we will all be playing Rugby League soon

One can but dream.....:D

Podge_irl

What happened to the scrum in the Eng-Aus game? I didn't see it. Just loads of resets?

toomevara

Podge_irl wrote: »

What happened to the scrum in the Eng-Aus game? I didn't see it. Just loads of resets?

Didn't even get to resets! Early engage, free kick...time and time again. Not one completed scrum in 80 mins, as I asked on the match thread has this ever happened in a top-level game of rugby union before?

thomond2006

May it rest in peace. Amen.

d'Oracle

The scrum is still vital to the game of rugby.

I have not seen the match you speak of.
But just because it did not happen much today doesn't mean its done.

Literally everytime this comes up, (and it comes up often) a high profile rugby match happens soon after where one team gets crushed in the scrums and end up losing and I think, "well that puts paid to that".

Stev_o

Podge_irl wrote: »

What happened to the scrum in the Eng-Aus game? I didn't see it. Just loads of resets?

Both sides were competent enough not to knock on every 20 seconds.

amacachi

toomevara wrote: »

One can but dream.....:D

At least we'd beat Samoa more comfortably, eh? :pac:

irishbucsfan

toomevara wrote: »

Here lies the body of 'the scrum'. It died today at Twickenham, after a long slow deterioration, in an international game of RU where not one scrum was completed in 80 minutes of play.

For the whipper snappers among you; In ancient times, the scrum used to be a vital part of the game, a combative, attritional, grinding arena where teams asserted physical and psychological dominance over their opponents and very often the place where games were won or lost. Indeed back in the day it was held by many to be the defining characteristic of the game of RU and it's greatest glory and ornament. Now,alas, it has become merely a way to restart the game. The questions now are; who killed the scrum? Why, and, Can anything be done to resurrect it?

To be honest, the scrum used to be a joke. Watching old videos you see that there was no hit, very little technique, and far more rewarding to the heavier pack.

It then existed briefly for 10 years as something to be proud of. Now it's gone to far in the other direction.

Is there any reason why, instead of saying Crouch, Touch - Pause - Engage, they Refs can't just count down, evenly, 3, 2, 1, Engage. It allows both teams to know exactly when the engage is coming, and plenty of time to back out if they're uncomfortable.

anonymous_joe

Yay.

We won't get reamed every game repeatedly.

Teferi

The "Pause" for 2 or 3 seconds is a disaster.

Corcioch

toomevara wrote: »

Here lies the body of 'the scrum'. It died today at Twickenham, after a long slow deterioration, in an international game of RU where not one scrum was completed in 80 minutes of play.

For the whipper snappers among you; In ancient times, the scrum used to be a vital part of the game, a combative, attritional, grinding arena where teams asserted physical and psychological dominance over their opponents and very often the place where games were won or lost. Indeed back in the day it was held by many to be the defining characteristic of the game of RU and it's greatest glory and ornament. Now,alas, it has become merely a way to restart the game. The questions now are; who killed the scrum? Why, and, Can anything be done to resurrect it?

I agree with some of what your saying in that the current situation is a farce . . . .

but the scrums of old were not exactly amazing either . . .

The current crouch, touch, pause, engage is presenting huge difficulty . . . .and the way the referees are implementing it is another added hassle.

The law makers in rugby are killing the scrum and ruining games too with the huge lenghts of time spent setting and resetting scrums.

Today in the Irl V Samoa game the ref at one scrum had a 7 second gap between crouch and touch then a 4 second gap to pause and then 1 or 2 secs to engage . . .

. ..absolutely no rythm to it at all . . . . .it needs to by rythmic and consistent. Ready set go in athletics has equal gaps between the words and the athletes can get a grip on it . . .

. . .the way refs are calling the crouch, touch, pause and engage is causing players huge problems imo.

Something has to be done with it . . .I dont profess to have the absolute answer . . .but rugby union is not rugby union without the scrum.

Who wants to play ****ing rugby league!!!!!!!!

thebaz

Teferi wrote: »

The "Pause" for 2 or 3 seconds is a disaster.

agree -

this whole " Crouch Pause engage" in slow motion is a disaster , the Irish game yesterday was a perfect example of the rubbish it has become - lets have a quick put in like a few years ago , and maybe the scrum can return to what it was, instead of the yawning disaster of today

JustinDee

Corcioch wrote: »

Who wants to play ****ing rugby league!!!!!!!!

A rugby league scrum is nothing like what is being witnessed now in rugby union. Even with a protracted call by the ref, there is still a hit and still a contest. In rugby league, it is basically a set-piece reset that opens the field up.

I'm no fan of what is being instructed at the moment (its not achieving any goal in making a contestable scrum safer, in my opinion) but it still remains wholly different to rugby league.

Hugh_C

toomevara wrote: »

Here lies the body of 'the scrum'.

Couldn't agree more, Ireland v Samoa was spoilt as a spectacle by endless scrums and fussy refereeing. It should just be written out of the game. You could start from infringement using a shortened in-field lineout or something similarly quick and efficient

stephen_n

I have never been able to understand what the delayed engage hopes to achieve but it's obvious to a blind man on a galloping horse that it's a total disaster and a free kick fest (maybe the IRB want to eliminate scrums from the game). It seems obvious after watching yesterdays games that it is completely unworkable even at the highest levels and yet the IRB will persist with it through the season and probably into the next world cup, totally ridiculous tinkering with the laws for no reason!

Peter B

I wonder if they removed the hit all together would that help reduce the amount of resets, free kicks etc?

d'Oracle

Teferi wrote: »

The "Pause" for 2 or 3 seconds is a disaster.

I only noticed that in one game though.
That said, I didn't get to see anything like the amount of rugby I wanted this weekend.

Did it happen in the other matches?

d'Oracle

Peter B wrote: »

I wonder if they removed the hit all together would that help reduce the amount of resets, free kicks etc?

Old School.:)

Ash.J.Williams

Scrum of the day against Samoa was when Donnacha O C gave lip to the ref and ended the f**ing thing....

WH BONNEY

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the scrum that took place at around the 70th minute. The whole process lasted approx 4 minutes. During which I lost the will to live.

At the end of the 4 mins I think it ended in a penalty to Samoa.

Is this what rugby is all about ?

Its bad enough paying €50 to go and watch this. But to then have this slow boring cumbersome rubbish served up, its not acceptable.

FWIW i believe the Ref got there a day early. He was in fact supposed to be doing the soccer match and by the time he realised he decided to go with the flow and say nothing.

CatFromHue

in the independent today it mentioned that the ref informed the teams that he would be enforcing the new directive from the irb to have a longer pause in the touch pause engage sequence

it had been getting shorter and shorter for the last while where the refs were just daying touch pause engage in nearly the one breath. obviously the irb didnt like this.

like many im not sure what the pause actually does.

we've embraced the tv ref in the in goal area, maybe its time to start thinking about how technology came help at scrum time. get the tv ref to watch one side of the scrum, the ref watch the other while the touch judges watch the backs.

wh bonney is right that scrum sequence was awful you could see o gara running on the spot in the background to keep warm!!

Tim Robbins

Interesting thread. I have been assessed twice this year and got slated for the scrum in both games - even though there were very few scrum collapses. Everyone is taking the engage sequence very seriously but everyone does it slightly differently. How can something be taken seriously when there is no consistency?

Some refs skim over the pause (Barnes) others make a point of it.

I think if a Ref can keep the scrums up and get the game restarted quickly with a reasonable contest - then it's ok.

Ref's are all been really pedantic about the engage because I suspect assessors are killing them. You even see it at international level.

I reckon this season it's been a regressive step on the scrums. It will be interesting to see what the IRB come out with next.

Tim Robbins

My suggestions for improvement is to consider getting rid of the "pause". To only ping for early engage if it is "clear and obvious". To only ping for crocked feed if it is "clear and obvious". To allow refs use materiality. For example, if a prop isn't binding correctly - allow the ref to decide the materiality? If not, surely a word in the ear at downtime is better than another reset or penalty.

And for assessors to be really looking at the big picture. If the scrums stay up - things are going ok. Don't ruin the game with pedantry.

Also, it's the teams choice if they wish to speak to the Ref before the game about anything including the scrum. Usually it's just the FR who speak about the Scrum. I think it should the entire scrum and the scrummy. And it should be encouraged that this happens.

Last year I did well in scrums got 4's and 5's. And this year it's been 2's. They mark is out of 5.

Tim Robbins

stephen_n wrote: »

I have never been able to understand what the delayed engage hopes to achieve but it's obvious to a blind man on a galloping horse that it's a total disaster and a free kick fest (maybe the IRB want to eliminate scrums from the game).

Some analysis was done by the Paddy O'Brian and IRB and there was a clear pattern that games where scrums where beating the Engage tending to be much more likely to collapse.

We got shown a load of video clips with an example at the beginning of the year. Followed by a load of video clips with teams not beating the sequence and the scrums staying up.

The bad scrums, the ref was almost narrating the engage. The teams would beat his calls and then he'd shout "engage" to not look stupid. The IRB got it into their head to go to the other extreme and insist teams never beat a call.

However, I think assessors got over zealous about this. You do a game and you might only have one reset out of 15. Which is very good imo.

But you could still end up with 2 marks, because the assessor felt you weren't strict enough. Then refs would go out thinking right I'm not going to get another 2, I'll make a point of this engagement sequence - give a few FKs. Then it's harder for the assessor to say you didn't enforce the engagement sequence.

I hate to say it (but refs are only human) you'd wonder are some refs deliberately going really slow, after the pause, so that teams beat the engage
and he can ping and hence say "Hey Mr. Assessor I pinged for it - forget about that 2 mark".

This reminds me of the "off the feet" thing a few years ago. When that decree happened, everyone was pinging for it. Now, we're back to materiality and common sense - everything is ok.

thebaz

whoever brought in the new scrummaging laws , is doing a good job of destroying the game

SARZY

Its a mess alright.

Before we witness the burial I wonder would it be possible for Paddy O'Brien to try this,

Front rows engage and then when they are binding and set properly, the other 5 join, ref calls engage, game on and scrum half does his business.

Anything is better than what we have and its urgent that the game needs to address this.

This mighty crash set up by the C T P E is very difficult for a front row to absorb that kind of hit.

LeinsterDub

SARZY wrote: »

Its a mess alright.

Before we witness the burial I wonder would it be possible for Paddy O'Brien to try this,

Front rows engage and then when they are binding and set properly, the other 5 join, ref calls engage, game on and scrum half does his business.

Anything is better than what we have and its urgent that the game needs to address this.

This mighty crash set up by the C T P E is very difficult for a front row to absorb that kind of hit.

How do you expect the seconds to get in and bind properly ?

SARZY

LeinsterDub wrote: »

How do you expect the seconds to get in and bind properly ?

I would expect them to have no problem with that as the scrum would not be ready until the ref gave the order to go. In my opinion it would take the big hit out of the equation but a contest would be preserved and the likelihood of the scrum holding up would be greatly enhanced and it would have the added effect of re-introducing the technique to propping and make room once more for not so big men.

Anyway the chance of that happening are very slim indeed and the only reason I post my view is a genuine concern and affection for the game itself.

irishbucsfan

SARZY wrote: »

I would expect them to have no problem with that as the scrum would not be ready until the ref gave the order to go. In my opinion it would take the big hit out of the equation but a contest would be preserved and the likelihood of the scrum holding up would be greatly enhanced and it would have the added effect of re-introducing the technique to propping and make room once more for not so big men.

Anyway the chance of that happening are very slim indeed and the only reason I post my view is a genuine concern and affection for the game itself.

No hope the 2nds will be able to get their heads in.

CdeC

What might happen

1. Scrum abolished for a free kick

2.Wait it out until teams adapt to new scrum procedures.

3.Touch pause engage scrapped. scrum combines slowly and only drives once the ball enters???

4. scrum scrapped for Dance off between two players nominated by the captain

Teg Veece

CdeC wrote: »

What might happen

1. Scrum abolished for a free kick

2.Wait it out until teams adapt to new scrum procedures.

3.Touch pause engage scrapped. scrum combines slowly and only drives once the ball enters???

4. scrum scrapped for Dance off between two players nominated by the captain

Hmmmm. This would help explain Henson doing Dancing with the Stars...

peterako

CdeC wrote: »

What might happen

4. scrum scrapped for Dance off between two players nominated by the captain

Maybe THEN my girls would watch the odd game or two with me....

daveharnett

For me, the problem is that refs have given up on policing the scrum at the top level. The IRB are clutching onto the notion that rigid enforcement of the sequence will solve all their problems.

I cracked it recently (I ref U17/u19 - I'd love to see how it goes at higher levels). Three things:

• Proper binding
• The ball does not come in until it's stable and stationary (I'll stand in the scrumhalf's way until i'm happy)
• The ball must go in straight enough to give the opposing hooker a chance at it.

The difference is night and day. I went from 5-6 failed scrums/resets per game to 1-2, and scrums are stable and competitive. The sequence suddenly becomes a non-issue, teams don't bother to rush the engage once they realise they won't be allowed to push through the hit.

thomond2006

Brian Moore: Rugby union referees have a lot to answer for as scrums develop into farce

The front row was the stuff of legend. What did those six grown men do all afternoon in the twilight zone, while all their compatriots strove for the light and space?

It used to be that what happened was of general import only when one pack destroyed the other giving a psychological and sometimes numerical advantage from penalties extracted from hapless opponents.

The talk of a game within a game was apposite and sometimes front rows on the losing team really did come off the field inwardly satisfied that they had won the real war.

This is the case no longer; there are no dark arts any more, it is just pushing and poor refereeing.

The irony is that now what happens in scrums is of general concern on many fronts – more than ever the lottery of sanctions for offences influences games materially; scrums are less stable and hence less safe and now that a scrum clock is used (my initiative, by the way) we can all see just how much time is wasted watching incomplete scrums collapse or run hither and thither.

Lest the last point be dismissed as unimportant; it is the absolute bane for the casual viewers who are left asking 'what the hell is going on', the point when they go to the bar or to make the tea. If I recall rightly, aren't these the ones that the marketing men claim are so important to rugby's future?

The laws relating to scrummaging have changed little, apart from the fact that the referee now has the advantage of managing when and how the front rows engage by calling the stages of crouch, touch, pause, engage.

After that props still have to bind holding the shirt in the torso area of their opponent; the scrum has to be steady and square before the ball is fed in; neither side can push before the feed and the ball must be put down the middle line - where the shoulders of the props meet.

I ask anyone not intimately involved in front row play - are those laws not straight forward?

Front rows used to engage on their own, often with the put-in hooker calling the act. Note carefully that nowhere in the entire law book is the word HIT ever used.

The term hit was used as vernacular shorthand by players and coaches but it only ever meant the engagement. Referees began copying the use of the term without understanding its limitation.

That ignorance together with their unilateral, unexplained and unapologetic decision to allow the ball to be put in squint and their failure to accept the importance of ensuring props do not bind on an opponent's arm have created an unholy trinity of evils from which the present dangerous, boring farce ensues.

When a ball is fed straight and neither pack moves it impossible for the hooker to hook the ball back without taking all his weight on his non-striking foot and diving forward, sweeping his striking leg round the ball.

To do this when the scrum is moving is either impossible or dangerous;
hence when referees make the put-in straight at least one pack – the put-in one – wants the scrum stationary, as per the law.

Straight put-ins also gave the other hooker the chance to strike the ball as well, known as taking one against the head.

At least nine techniques for winning the ball against the head are described in that excellent book Beware of the Dog, penned by a malevolent dwarf whose name I have forgotten; all now redundant and not arts, dark or otherwise.

You would think that it is easy to see which pack has shoved before the ball is fed and it is.

If a referee draws a line in the turf equidistant between the packs, the one that ends up over that line has pushed early or if both have done this has done so with more power and should be penalised.

Elite referees, without explanation, now allow this to be done constantly and often from the moment of engagement.

As neither side has to worry about striking the ball all 16 players are often trying to drive at once which is inherently unstable and this is why scrums cavort around with referees panicking.

As packs try and are allowed to drive as early as they can, the issue of binding is also more important. If an advantageous bind, i.e. an illegal one, can be gained early it will enhance that packs drive. This is why there is frantic wrestling between props.

Try this with a colleague, though it is best done privately to avoid charges of homoeroticism. Both engage holding the other's shirt between hip and underarm, then one tries to twist the other who resists.

Repeat this but with the twister binding just under the armpit of the other and finally repeat with the twister binding on the elbow. When you do this will you feel how much leverage is gained by shortening the bind and why props do this.

Such illegal binding is also easy to spot and with three officials all 'miked' up and at most 40 metres away from any offender it should be spotted and penalised every time it occurs. Why is this not done – ask Paddy O'Brien the IRB refereeing supremo, not me.

The IRB will no doubt point to its extensive research into scrums but it is all otiose if the laws are not refereed as meant and as is perfectly possible.

Moreover, consulting today's players is worse than useless because hardly any have ever played when the laws were properly enforced so what would they know anyway.

An apology for those finding the above too technical but actually it isn't all that complicated and certainly nowhere near what elite referees would have you believe.

Furthermore, it is important because it is deciding the fate of coaches and players and for the rest of us it is maddeningly dull and we want it sorted.
The purpose of the scrum is to restart play quickly, safely and fairly, after a minor infringement or stoppage.

Scrummaging made simple: IRB Law 20

Law 20.1

Forming a scrum
(g) The referee will call “crouch” then “touch”. The front rows crouch and using their outside arm each prop touches the point of the opposing prop’s outside shoulder. The props then withdraw their arms. The referee will then call “pause”. Following a pause the referee will then call “engage”. The front rows may then engage. The “engage” call is not a command but an indication that the front rows may come together when ready.

LAW 20.3
Binding in the scrum

(c) Binding by loosehead props
A loosehead prop must bind on the opposing tighthead prop by placing the left arm inside the right arm of the tighthead and gripping the tighthead prop’s jersey on the back or side. The loosehead prop must not grip the chest, arm, sleeve or collar of the opposition tighthead prop. The loosehead prop must not exert any downward pressure. Sanction: Penalty kick.

(d) Binding by tighthead props
A tighthead prop must bind on the opposing loosehead prop by placing the right arm outside the left upper arm of the opposing loosehead prop. The tighthead prop must not grip the chest, arm, sleeve or collar of the opposition loosehead prop. The tighthead prop must not exert any downward pressure. Sanction: Penalty kick.

Reset scrums this autumn
England 11
Ireland 11
Italy 9
Wales 8
Scotland 7
South Africa 6
Australia 3
Fiji 3
France 3
New Zealand 3
Samoa 3
Argentina 1

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/8157529/Brian-Moore-Rugby-union-referees-have-a-lot-to-answer-for-as-scrums-develop-into-farce.html

Insightful as always.

Daragh86

Absolute bolloxology I'd say. Rugby has evolved in every aspect since his playing days and to try pick out one aspect (the scrum) and bring that back to what it was years ago would be impossible as would many other aspects of the game that have evolved.

People who obviously know nothing about scrummaging should probably keep their ridiculous opinions of having the second rows join after the hit is made by the front rowers to themselves until better educated on the scrum.

It is not the big problem everyone is making it out to be, there is a problem but in my opinion it is purely down to refs not being consistant in their engage calls and not being properly educated in scrummaging.

For viewers of rugby who just enjoy to watch the game and have no knowledge of the scrum I suggest you read up a bit on it and it will change from being a way to restart the game to being a game within a game - it is by far the main reason I play rugby and is one of my favourite things to watch during a game and would throw a guess that it is the same for any front row players.

JustinDee

Yep, thats mainly just waffle. There is no way the collision of the bind was safer before than it is now with the modern safety laws.
Where are his stats from, by the way? Argentina had a minimum of three to four resets in the first half of Ireland game alone.

I take it, he's ditched his reffing project?

d'Oracle

CdeC wrote: »

What might happen

1. Scrum abolished for a free kick

2.Wait it out until teams adapt to new scrum procedures.

3.Touch pause engage scrapped. scrum combines slowly and only drives once the ball enters???

4. scrum scrapped for Dance off between two players nominated by the captain

1. They tried that more or less. Didn't work.
2. When Have the IRB ever waited anything out?
3. You mean bring scrums back to the time when they actually worked?
Next you will be looking for refs to enforce the put in. Madman.
4. None of our lads can dance, I'm sure of that.

d'Oracle

JustinDee wrote: »

Yep, thats mainly just waffle. There is no way the collision of the bind was safer before than it is now with the modern safety laws.

There is no way they weren't.
Stats can be juked.
There are more collapses now than there were before and they are happening after massive hits.

Crouch, grope, wiggle, contemplate, engage may have been intended to be a safety thing, but its not safe. It was obviously designed by people who don't get it.

JustinDee

d'Oracle wrote: »

There is no way they weren't.
Stats can be juked.
There are more collapses now than there were before and they are happening after massive hits

Its a safety law.
Are there more or less permanent neck injuries since the law change?

d'Oracle

JustinDee wrote: »

Are there more or less permanent neck injuries since the law change?

Permanent neck injuries can be caused in a variety of activities on the rugby pitch. But generally speaking it can be assumed that they never occur before or at the hit of a scrum. Pretty sure the last 3 spinal injuries I have seen occur were in rucks and tackles. These are unverifiable stats.

You can tow the company line till the cows come home, but its fairy talk to assume that sitting players in the squat for half a minute, wasting energy, before letting them engage is making the scrum safer. Its certainly not making it better.
And drawing it out for an extra god knows how long is just retarded.

Daragh86

d'Oracle wrote: »

its fairy talk to assume that sitting players in the squat for half a minute, wasting energy, before letting them engage is making the scrum safer. Its certainly not making it better.
And drawing it out for an extra god knows how long is just retarded.

Any prop who can't hold his crouch position for an extra 4/5 seconds shouldn't be in the front row - it really isn't a big ask. It's not a squat as such since the seconds are holding back most the weight.

Have you ever played front row? I don't try to comment on full back positioning because I'm a donkey and know **** all about it.

JustinDee

d'Oracle wrote: »

You can tow the company line till the cows come home . . .

What are you on about? I don't work for the IRB or anyone involved in shaping the laws of the game.
I didn't even say I was satisfied with the state of the scrum either.

From what I remember, there was a worrying trend of injuries in first grades of leagues and also the semi-pro and pro level, including the death of a player following a scrum collapse.

nice_guy80

I wonder is the difficulty in binding due to the tightness of the jerseys?

In comparison to the older jerseys players wore?