Potential changes to the scrum?

Risteard

Link

They point out that the current laws are "unjust, illogical and inoperable". Sunday's World Cup final between New Zealand and France could be decided because the referee is required by law to "guess" or "flip a coin" between two competing offences.

The paper has been put together by Fran Cotton, Mike Burton and Ray McLoughlin, Lions prop forwards to a man and all very successful businessmen. They have been aided by Mike Molloy, former international lock forward, and a medical adviser to the IRB and Ireland.

Isaac Newton has also been brought in as an adviser because, as the paper points, several of the current scrummage laws run contrary to the laws of physics. The paper concludes that 13 laws "need to be amended or eliminated."

The quartet argues that "the action of pushing is initiated by pushing the foot backwards and downwards." The subsequent forces generated by the loosehead prop is therefore both horizontal and upwards.

The only way that the opposing tighthead prop can keep the scrum stable is by exerting downward pressure. But such an act is outlawed and punishable by a penalty kick. There are many such anomalies under the current laws.

When a prop forward's shoulders are lower than his hips, referees are currently instructed to award a penalty. The paper argues: "If one player's shoulders are lower than his hips, is it not very likely that the other player's shoulders will also then be lower than their hips. Does the referee toss a coin? Does he penalise both?

"If one prop were 6ft 4in and the opposing prop were 5ft 10in then, if everything were equal, it would be likely that the hips of the taller player would be above the level of his shoulders. Surely therefore this law constitutes bias against taller men."

Too often referees are required to "assume" a crime that is unjust and contrary to logic "at least 80 per cent of the time." Sometimes the tighthead will be penalised because he has got himself into a bad position or because he wasn't strong enough or technically good enough to hold the scrum up. It can cost his side three points. The men argue that this is akin to penalising a centre for being "too slow."

They call for the introduction of the UPK - the unconvertible penalty kick - for scrum offences. They also say that a scrum should only be reset once before a range of options become available to a referee.

Their analysis of the World Cup pool game between Ireland and Australia, refereed by Bryce Lawrence, indicated 22 scrums, 11 collapses and seven penalties, while 43 per cent of the game's points came from scrummage offences and it would have been over half if the kickers had been successful with all their attempts.

Cotton, Burton, McLoughlin and Molloy are agreed six of the seven penalties were lotteries. They were also classified as 'a guess', 'unjust' or 'seriously unjust'. It is not the fault of the referee, they argue, but laws that run contrary to physics and have no understanding of front row forward play.

Twisting is a penalty but inevitable because of the torque created by props who are not directly opposite each other. Slipping the bind is a penalty, but many of the initial collapses in the Ireland v Australia match were caused because Cian Healy could not get a grip in ben Alexander's skintight jersey.

The quartet says that the current command of "Crouch, touch, engage, pause" should be replaced by "Stand, touch, engage, push." They argue that the requirement to crouch "increases the disposition towards charging" and that the pause "creates a sense of tension of the kind that would apply to a 100 yard sprinter on the starting blocks."

These instructions have created 'hits' that were never part of the scrummage concept. Serious scrummage injuries have come down due to some of the refinement to the laws, but the four wise men argue that spine or neck injuries, coupled with arthritis, will be the long term consequence of the current law.

The paper is now in the hands of Graham Mourie, former New Zealand captain and flanker, and the current chairman of the IRB's advisory committee on rugby's laws. Cotton, Burton and McLoughlin each drew up separate reports, critiqued each other's works, and then prepared the final document in consultation with Molloy.

It is a brilliant piece of work and already causing a stir among the members of the IRB.

Interesting. Could we be seeing the end of the hit and maybe better refereed scrums? It'ss a difficult one but it looks as if the IRB are looking into it.

irishbucsfan

I'm sure they're spot on, but I don't know how I'd feel about losing the hit.

I'd like to know what current professional props like Cian Healy would think about losing the hit.

tolosenc

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I'd like to know what current professional props like Cian Healy would think about losing the hit.

I'd like to know how the Tongan front row feels about losing the hit!

Fishooks12

I'd hate to see the hit go. There's been some serious scrum battles lately and the constant resetting seems to have subsided a bit lately because referees seem to be getting the speed of their calls more consistent

The thing I looked forward to most in the Ireland Italy game was the battle at scrum time and it was epic before Castro went off

Losing the hit wouldn't be a good thing in my opinion granted there is a level of subjectivity in how some refs are forced into decisions but 8/10 you can be fairly certain of who the offending party is

profitius

If they manage to tidy it up and make it easier for referees as well as rewarding good scrummaging then it would be a big step forward.

Madworld

The only people who should be making decisions about the front row are players who have played there themselves. Wingers aren't qualified to make decisions on lineouts and 2nd Rows aren't qualified to be making decisions about place kicking.

Most people who have played in the front row don't want it to go. :mad:

Fishooks12

Madworld wrote: »

The only people who should be making decisions about the front row are players who have played there themselves. Wingers aren't qualified to make decisions on lineouts and 2nd Rows aren't qualified to be making decisions about place kicking.

Most people who have played in the front row don't want it to go. :mad:

The day the scrum goes is the day union dies IMO

mk1600

I'll stop playing rugby if they remove the hit from the scrum.

davegrohl48

Maybe a more controlled scrum but more clean pushing contests and make scrumhalf put in straight Scrum in amateur era was more join up then push Wasn't a hit really and there were some decent size packs in France England Push contest now is very messy and I prefer that to the hit

GerM

The taking of the focus off the hit is an interesting concept and it's certainly not the first time it has been suggested. The hit is a spectacle but the fact is, it's also the single biggest factor in scrums having to be reset and the main reason why we see a series of scrums take up to 3 or 4 minutes. Aside from that, it's also carries a significant risk factor. It's not simply to do with whether front row players enjoy it or not, it's for the overall benefit of the game. Props might enjoy the hit but nobody else enjoys sitting there watching them unable to get a bind or collapsing on the hit for 5 minutes straight.

This is nothing to do with removing the scrum from the game, it's taking the focus from the power hit and putting it back onto technical scrummagers. With the hit diminished it's going to be the better scrummager that wins the battle. There's still an engagement but the lads are absolutely right in what they say about the pause building up a tension and explosive moment often leads to a reset. Rugby existed without the big hit for over 100 years and I'm sure will survive if it's amended thus again with the focus put back onto technical scrummaging.

pickarooney

"Crouch, touch, engage, pause"

Pretty sure that's not the right sequence!

I think as regards attracting new players and especially viewers, the slow, often incomprehensible scrum is the biggest turn-off. The hit, while great to watch when it goes right, is often one second of excitement for three minutes of tedium. I can't remember the last time I saw a pushover try; that used to be phenomenal to watch.

Jawgap

Very interesting piece.

I think there were hits before the current rules were adopted and there was certainly more charging, or rearing up before the hit.

If the changes suggested are brought it I think it'll make the scrum more about technical ability, and a little bit less about strength and weight which might lead to front rows looking more like back rows in terms of physique. I'd imagine players like Healy would adapt, as the best ones do.

Nice if they could do something about the scrum - nothing spoils a game more than constant scrum re-sets, but the scrum is the heart of the game so a cautious approach to messing with it needs to be taken - if it's neutralised then Union and League might as well just go ahead and merge and have done with it.

I like the idea of the UPK, I wonder how the introduction of such a sanction might influence the game - I'd go one step further and suggest that it apply to a range of offences beyond the scrum to prevent situations arising where refs decide games in the last couple of minutes by the award of a PK.

totallegend

Madworld wrote: »

The only people who should be making decisions about the front row are players who have played there themselves. Wingers aren't qualified to make decisions on lineouts and 2nd Rows aren't qualified to be making decisions about place kicking.

In fairness, Fran Cotton, Ray McLoughlin and Mike Burton fit that bill, even if it was 30-odd years ago.

I'm always skeptical of these rule-change initiatives, mainly because they always seem to emanate from the southern hemisphere and always seem to negate the areas of the game in which the northern teams have an edge. In this case, there does seem to be some merit in what's being discussed, in particular the notion that a prop pushing downwards concedes a penalty but likewise allowing yourself to be 'popped up' is also a penalty offence. However, I'm not sure how removing the 'hit' will resolve this; it's easy for the referee to check that both sides engage squarely, the problem is in the subsequent pushing when each prop tries to get under his opposite number and that will still happen whether there's a hit or not.

Slipping the bind is a penalty, but many of the initial collapses in the Ireland v Australia match were caused because Cian Healy could not get a grip in ben Alexander's skintight jersey.

Maybe I'm over-simplifying things, but isn't this the same for both sides? It's not as if Cian Healy was wearing a baggy, 1980s style jersey himself.

Sometimes the tighthead will be penalised because he has got himself into a bad position or because he wasn't strong enough or technically good enough to hold the scrum up. It can cost his side three points. The men argue that this is akin to penalising a centre for being "too slow."

Except centres do get penalised for being too slow, they get burned by their opposite numbers and they concede tries. If a prop is weaker or less technically adept than his opponent, there has to be a consequence for his team and the notion of the 'unconvertable penalty kick' (which sounds exactly like a free kick) isn't enough, IMO. Otherwise, teams will just start playing faster, lighter guys in the front-row and sacrifice the scrum. That sounds a bit too much like rugby league for my liking.

totallegend

Jawgap wrote: »

I like the idea of the UPK, I wonder how the introduction of such a sanction might influence the game - I'd go one step further and suggest that it apply to a range of offences beyond the scrum to prevent situations arising where refs decide games in the last couple of minutes by the award of a PK.

This happened with the 'ELVs' a few years ago, basically almost everything was downgraded to a free-kick and it was trialled in the Super 14 (and possibly the tri-nations, maybe someone with a better memory can clarify). It wasn't a success and was binned when the other ELVs came into force.

Jawgap

totallegend wrote: »

This happened with the 'ELVs' a few years ago, basically almost everything was downgraded to a free-kick and it was trialled in the Super 14 (and possibly the tri-nations, maybe someone with a better memory can clarify). It wasn't a success and was binned when the other ELVs came into force.

I remember Paddy O'Brien at the time discussing this - but a free kick isn't the same as a UPK - I presume with the UPK they would still leave it the same when you kick for touch.

Effectively, you'd be keeping possession, and you'd need a bit more imagination to score instead of just going for your kicker:)

With the free kick it's either kick away possession or tap and go - an attacking lineout in the corner is a bit more dramatic:)