New Scrum Law to be trialed

Stev_o

The sequence will see the front rows crouch then touch 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 "set" when the front rows are ready. The front rows may then set the scrum.

*From PlanetRugby

So the pause is gone in favour of set. I don't know but it doesn't sound like it's addressed the main issues at all, long pauses, teams trying to get the jump on the call, pushing before the ball is put in.

Do you think it will change anything at scrum time?

Otacon

I'm confused. So the front rows actually come together, before 'engaging'? The hit is gone?

niallon

As pointed out here before, it removes the two syllable Engage, one of the easier rectified issues. At least that'll be ruled out of the equation.

cp

I could be wrong, but isn't the pause gone altogether, as opposed to just being replaced?

As in its going to be "Crouch, Touch, Set" or something to that effect?

I had heard they were replacing the "engage" as its a two syllable word and thus leaves some ambiguity as to when the props should go, therefore they wanted to replace it with something shorter like, "set" or "go"..

Edit: niallon got there first!

Stev_o

niallon wrote: »

As pointed out here before, it removes the two syllable Engage, one of the easier rectified issues. At least that'll be ruled out of the equation.

While that was one problem we still have the massive issue of pausing before the hit. Where teams are literally at the edge of their boots trying to hold back from launching themselves forward. It all depends i guess on how ref's deem both rows ready.

Taco Corp

I hoped they looked at the distance between the 2 front rows as well. Even now it seems to me that the closer they are before engage the less likely it is to go down.

niallon

Stev_o wrote: »

niallon wrote: »

As pointed out here before, it removes the two syllable Engage, one of the easier rectified issues. At least that'll be ruled out of the equation.

While that was one problem we still have the massive issue of pausing before the hit. Where teams are literally at the edge of their boots trying to hold back from launching themselves forward. It all depends i guess on how ref's deem both rows ready.

Completely agreed, to be honest I was being a little sarcastic that all they can bring themselves to fix is a syllable. Although as Surley points out, if the packs are closer the hit may be better as a result. Pity the timing of the call couldn't just be sorted. Ya know, the easy solution!

decisions

What about using a handheld system that gives out 3 very loud beeps to standardise the timing of the hit?

chris85

decisions wrote: »

What about using a handheld system that gives out 3 very loud beeps to standardise the timing of the hit?

Like they are about to drag race?

Stev_o

decisions wrote: »

What about using a handheld system that gives out 3 very loud beeps to standardise the timing of the hit?

It's not the point though. The current rules of scrum are a disaster and are basically non enforceable by refs and teams continuously abuse them. The main point is that they'v become so ultra competitive where teams are trying to get an advantage at the hit and follow through.

Correct me if im wrong but scrums have always gone by the system of.

Both front rows engage-> everyone will remain steady while the props tend to gain an positioning advantage -> ball gets placed in-> both sides are allowed to compete.

The current system is.

Front rows engage->Scrum walks off about 3 meters in every direction-> Scrum collapses as the ball is put in.

Basically teams are trying to get more from the hit. Ideally they see the hit as a method of winning possession by carrying through the explosive momentum to push them past the ball so they Hooker doesn't have to hook(Simple theory why create all this explosive power only to wait for a minute while a SH puts in the ball).

It's a complete disaster and it will only get worse as strong packs pack down in the scrum.

Thud

they could just enforce the rule about not pushing before the ball is in

Monty Burnz

Just take out the hit. It's great drama etc. but it's the point where 80% of scrums collapse.

Stev_o

Thud wrote: »

they could just enforce the rule about not pushing before the ball is in

IRB has trouble getting refs to enforce half their rule book it seems, telling them to on a scrum "initiative" isn't going to work. Rules need to be rewritten.

LeinsterDub

An idea I heard suggested before and would be interested in seeing trialled is having "handles" on the should of the props upon which they bind, with the tight jerseys they all ware now (Cian Healy is basically painted into his) getting a bind is extremely difficult

pickarooney

Three of the four steps have two syllables as it is in French rugby. I don't know that it's really an issue.

prospect

"Crouch"
Players crouch, at their own leisure of course.

"Touch"
Players, if they have not already done so, touch the opposing players shoulder, or at least they make a wishy washy gesture to suggest they did.

The referee then waits a ridiculous amount of time before announcing that the players have to;

"Pause"
By now the players are like big dogs drooling at the mouth waiting to be told they can eat their dinner.

"Engage"
Bang, all that pent up frustration gets prematurely released like a first timer after his missus dropped the ha. ... (you get the picture).

Scrum collapses and the scrum half dances around waving his arms in the air like a little girl having a tantrum and we start all over again.



They should just toss a coin or get the props to arm wrestle for possession.

mathepac

Thud wrote: »

they could just enforce the rule ...

Law

Stev_o wrote: »

... half their rule book it seems, ... Rules need to be rewritten.

Laws and Laws

LeinsterDub wrote: »

An idea I heard suggested before and would be interested in seeing trialled is having "handles" on the should of the ...

Yeah I suggested something similar in another forum, that a distinctly coloured patch on the props' jerseys be designated as the target area for the bind in scrums. The commonest unpenalised transgression at scrumtime IMHO is the failure of the opposing props to bind legally or to bind at all.

Even the simplest transgression to detect at either side of the scrum, the hand on the ground one, escapes penalisation time and time again.

It would also be simple to discard any words spoken by the ref leading up to the physical engagement of the front rows at scrumtime by using the simple "1-2-3-go" hand signals used to start rally-stages. The cadence of the count could be a feature built into the ref's stopwatch - always consistent, always audible, to the ref at any rate. On "go" the scrum-half must release the ball into the scrum, subject to penalty.

Scrums are a shambles and getting worse IMHO. Maybe the leaguers have it right in using scrums just to restart games.

Gracelessly Tom

LeinsterDub wrote: »

An idea I heard suggested before and would be interested in seeing trialled is having "handles" on the should of the props upon which they bind, with the tight jerseys they all ware now (Cian Healy is basically painted into his) getting a bind is extremely difficult

That would never work. The danger element is far too great. Players getting fingers caught in them at ruck time and takcle time leading to dislocated and broken fingers.

Also, it would be unfair on the props in open play if someone could grab their handle as they ran, makes them easier to tackle.

Lastly, no way a handle sown into a jersey is gonna last a scrum, let alone a game, if a 120kg guy is putting all his weight on it at scrumtime!

Monty Burnz

Gracelessly Tom wrote: »

That would never work. The danger element is far too great. Players getting fingers caught in them at ruck time and takcle time leading to dislocated and broken fingers.

Also, it would be unfair on the props in open play if someone could grab their handle as they ran, makes them easier to tackle.

Lastly, no way a handle sown into a jersey is gonna last a scrum, let alone a game, if a 120kg guy is putting all his weight on it at scrumtime!

Re trapped fingers etc. - you don't need a handle per se, a strong tag would do the trick. How long the tag would last under match conditions is anyone's guess though.

irishbucsfan

From a personal perspective I think its a great rule. I've had some very good refs who outline exactly what point of the word engage they want movement, effectively breaking it into two words, and that lead to far better and easier to manage scrums.

It will help front rows for sure. Well at my level anyway.

Teferi

Instead of a handle they should just have sticky patches across the back and shoulders of the front row, could make it easier to bind.

Teferi

mathepac wrote: »

Law
Laws and Laws

Laws = rules. They are interchangeable. Even the pros call them rules.

LeinsterDub

Gracelessly Tom wrote: »

That would never work. The danger element is far too great. Players getting fingers caught in them at ruck time and takcle time leading to dislocated and broken fingers.

Also, it would be unfair on the props in open play if someone could grab their handle as they ran, makes them easier to tackle.

Lastly, no way a handle sown into a jersey is gonna last a scrum, let alone a game, if a 120kg guy is putting all his weight on it at scrumtime!

The "handle" could be designed in such a way that it's not an aid to tackling or just make it illegal to tackle the player by the "handle"

I've pockets in my shorts and they don't break fingers and have lasted me being lifted by them and a lot more

Monty Burnz

Teferi wrote: »

Instead of a handle they should just have sticky patches across the back and shoulders of the front row, could make it easier to bind.

Velcro the front rows together?

odyboody

Simple solution is to take the "hit" out all together, Sequence becomes.
Crouch:, as before.
Bind:, front rows come together in a controlled fashion.
Scrum:, both teams push, scrum half feeds in straight (when is the last time you saw that happen) penalty if feed is not immediate or straight in the middle.

mathepac

Teferi wrote: »

Laws = rules. They are interchangeable. Even the pros call them rules.

There not interchangeable. The laws govern the game but rules may be introduced by agreement to govern a particular tournament or competition. It's not my fault the "pros" don't know this basic fact.

Sindri

Gracelessly Tom wrote: »

That would never work. The danger element is far too great. Players getting fingers caught in them at ruck time and takcle time leading to dislocated and broken fingers.

Also, it would be unfair on the props in open play if someone could grab their handle as they ran, makes them easier to tackle.

Lastly, no way a handle sown into a jersey is gonna last a scrum, let alone a game, if a 120kg guy is putting all his weight on it at scrumtime!

A tight sturdy pocket would solve that.

Eoin

mathepac wrote: »

Law
Laws and Laws

I have to ask - why do some people insist on correcting people about this? Is there a genuine reason that makes a difference to the context, or is it just pedantry?

Teferi

Eoin wrote: »

pedantry?

...yep.

mathepac

Eoin wrote: »

... Is there a genuine reason that makes a difference to the context, ..

Yes and I've already explained it above and explained that they are not interchangeable terms in rugby football.

Just to make it clearer, the IRB lays down the laws of the game and can change them; rules can be agreed and enforced locally by local branches etc. for specific competitions or tournaments

castie

You cant do anything to disadvantage the props outside of the scrum.

Anything sticky/handles/tags will be open for use in open play and so they are out as options.

The hit isnt the problem its the follow up.
After the hit the pressure destabilises the scrum and it wobbles and anyones guess if its going to go down.

When I ref its one thing that annoys the hell out of me is the pack pushing before the ball is in.
Sometimes youll even hear them shout squeeze to get a push on with no ball.

Free kick upgrading to penalties if they dont cop on!
But hey that would only get the ref abuse for "ruining" the game.

Peter B

castie wrote: »

.......

The hit isnt the problem its the follow up.
After the hit the pressure destabilises the scrum and it wobbles and anyones guess if its going to go down.

......

I would have thought the instability is caused by the hit.

I would like to see them experiment removing the hit altogether.

Kilkenny14

LeinsterDub wrote: »

An idea I heard suggested before and would be interested in seeing trialled is having "handles" on the should of the props upon which they bind, with the tight jerseys they all ware now (Cian Healy is basically painted into his) getting a bind is extremely difficult

I agree 100% with this idea -it's an occam's razor if ever I saw one, which is why the IRB can't think of it!

Shelflife

castie wrote: »

You cant do anything to disadvantage the props outside of the scrum.

Anything sticky/handles/tags will be open for use in open play and so they are out as options.

The hit isnt the problem its the follow up.
After the hit the pressure destabilises the scrum and it wobbles and anyones guess if its going to go down.

When I ref its one thing that annoys the hell out of me is the pack pushing before the ball is in.
Sometimes youll even hear them shout squeeze to get a push on with no ball.

Free kick upgrading to penalties if they dont cop on!
But hey that would only get the ref abuse for "ruining" the game.

I agree with this, sometimes the ref just needs to grow a pair, I refffed a game and both front rows were acting the maggot, pulled them to one side and told them if they didnt stop it would be yellow cards as it was just getting dangerous.

amazingly the messing stopped on both sides, i try to keep it simple, no early engagement or push, and props to push straight, its amazing how quick they can get it right if you are strict with them.

It confuses me that many top refs allow props to clearly bore in without penalty.

ScareGilly

LeinsterDub wrote: »

An idea I heard suggested before and would be interested in seeing trialled is having "handles" on the should of the props upon which they bind, with the tight jerseys they all ware now (Cian Healy is basically painted into his) getting a bind is extremely difficult

As pointed out before, handles would be dangerous and unfair.... Another point I've heard is making props wear loose fitting shirts, that would be bullsh*t, why should props have to be put at a disadvantage like that.

And as for removing the scrum? That would be a joke, the scrum and line-out is what makes rugby unique in that it doesn't matter what size, shape or build you are, there's always a place on the rugby pitch for you.. Taking the scrum away would remove the need for the fat lads on the team and it could just be filled with flankers/8s..

LeinsterDub

ScareGilly wrote: »

As pointed out before, handles would be dangerous and unfair

How so?

ScareGilly

LeinsterDub wrote: »

How so?

Did you bother to read the thread?

Gracelessly Tom wrote: »

That would never work. The danger element is far too great. Players getting fingers caught in them at ruck time and takcle time leading to dislocated and broken fingers.

Also, it would be unfair on the props in open play if someone could grab their handle as they ran, makes them easier to tackle.

Lastly, no way a handle sown into a jersey is gonna last a scrum, let alone a game, if a 120kg guy is putting all his weight on it at scrumtime!

castie wrote: »

You cant do anything to disadvantage the props outside of the scrum.

Anything sticky/handles/tags will be open for use in open play and so they are out as options.

LeinsterDub

ScareGilly wrote: »

Did you bother to read the thread?

Yes I did read it. Did you ?

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The "handle" could be designed in such a way that it's not an aid to tackling or just make it illegal to tackle the player by the "handle"

I've pockets in my shorts and they don't break fingers and have lasted me being lifted by them and a lot more

ScareGilly

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Yes I did read it. Did you ?

And how exactly could it be designed like that? And making it illegal to tackle a player by the handle would be unfair to the other players. There would be a portion on a props jersey they can't tackle around?

I've had my finger dislocated by falling into someone's pocket in a tackle/ruck.. And I've heard plenty of broken finger stories about them too.

LeinsterDub

ScareGilly wrote: »

And how exactly could it be designed like that? And making it illegal to tackle a player by the handle would be unfair to the other players. There would be a portion on a props jersey they can't tackle around?

I've had my finger dislocated by falling into someone's pocket in a tackle/ruck.. And I've heard plenty of broken finger stories about them too.

Well I'm no designer but you could have essentially a 1 cm deep, 1 cm wide pocket or cavity on the shoulder on every bodies jersey (to make it fair) . That is all that would be needed and people couldn't pull out of it in a tackle. It would be much less deeper and much more narrow than the pockets in shorts and as such safer

castie

Peter B wrote: »

I would have thought the instability is caused by the hit.

I would like to see them experiment removing the hit altogether.

Its the time after the hit in my opinion. (I prop TH)

If the other prop starts driving or the guys behind me drive it makes it very hard for me to get a stable bind.
Remember its technically

Crouch
Touch
Pause
Engage
Hit
Bind

So if the time between the Hit and Bind involves pushing and shoving then the scrum isnt set to take it and leads to the bind that is established not being as good as it can be.

Something I just though of is like.

Crouch
Touch
(as before)

Then:

Hit (similar to engage)

But add in "Play". Idea being that between Hit and Play SH cant put ball in and no pushing.
Ref will have less things to watch on formation so can perhaps ref the engage better and I think it could lead to more stable scrums.

castie

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Well I'm no designer but you could have essentially a 1 cm deep, 1 cm wide pocket or cavity on the shoulder on every bodies jersey (to make it fair) . That is all that would be needed and people couldn't pull out of it in a tackle. It would be much less deeper and much more narrow than the pockets in shorts and as such safer

Any alteration that aids gripping in scrums will aid tackling theres no design around that its just a fact. You cant design something that can be gripped and then not gripped in similar circumstances.

irishbucsfan

castie wrote: »

Any alteration that aids gripping in scrums will aid tackling theres no design around that its just a fact. You cant design something that can be gripped and then not gripped in similar circumstances.

What if we just stick them on everyones jerseys?

Or a matted shoulder area that is just easier to get ahold of?

Although as far as I'm aware (you can correct me) the binding problem isn't down to the grips of props. It's generally in my experience a mixture of either 1. over-eager pushing, 2. mismatch in ability, or 3. just negative play/intentional disruption.

profitius

The new laws have cleaned up the scrums a good bit. So far so good. Theres more to do but its a step in the right direction.

Hersheys

profitius wrote: »

The new laws have cleaned up the scrums a good bit. So far so good. Theres more to do but its a step in the right direction.

Well I played with the new rules the other day & we only had 1 go down and 1 reset - much better than last year. Did have to remind the ref of the new call tho

ormond lad

I much prefer this new law. Have played a few times under the new laws and the main problem is quite a few early engagements as people try get used to 3 word process compared to last seasons 4 word process. Stops teams trying to hit on the "e of engage"

Downtime

Hersheys wrote: »

Well I played with the new rules the other day & we only had 1 go down and 1 reset - much better than last year. Did have to remind the ref of the new call tho

Its difficult for everyone, even the refs. I heard Crouch Touch Pause Set and Crouch Touch Pause F##k Set at the weekend. Crouch Touch Engage is also popular.

I can see it moving to an uncontested engage and contested push in a year or two.

LeinsterDub

Awe lads its too early to pass judgement on the new laws. Props haven't had a change to see how far they can push it yet.

jacothelad

ScareGilly wrote: »

And how exactly could it be designed like that? And making it illegal to tackle a player by the handle would be unfair to the other players. There would be a portion on a props jersey they can't tackle around?

I've had my finger dislocated by falling into someone's pocket in a tackle/ruck.. And I've heard plenty of broken finger stories about them too.

Lots and lots of Velcro on the back and sleeves of the props.....:D

Swiwi

Sanzar rules out extra prop in Super Rugby

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/7734315/Sanzar-rules-out-extra-prop-in-Super-Rugby

I disagree with this. Everyone agrees LH & TH are not directly interchangeable, and in the interest of a fierce scrum battle etc I would hope this trial law becomes universal.

Monty Burnz

Downtime wrote: »

I can see it moving to an uncontested engage and contested push in a year or two.

I still don't understand why this obvious solution wasn't trialled years ago.