Get rid of the scrum!

Roger_007

The scrum in rugby is now an anachronism . It is supposed to be a means of restarting play after various infringements. Instead it has become a messy shambles. It is impossible to referee. Nearly every scrum collapses, sometimes a number of times. Is there any point to it anymore? What would be wrong with just giving a free kick to the other side when a knock-on or whatever occurs.

P_1

They do that, its called Rugby League

kensutz

Roger_007 wrote: »

It is impossible to referee. Nearly every scrum collapses, sometimes a number of times. Is there any point to it anymore? What would be wrong with just giving a free kick to the other side when a knock-on or whatever occurs.

1) Are you a ref?

2) Have you stats for the amount of scrums collapsing etc against completed scrums?

3) Yes there still is a point. If you don't like it, then watch RL.

opinionatedfan

watch rugby league so

Roger_007

P_1 wrote: »

They do that, its called Rugby League

When they introduced the sin-bin, did you go 'that's called Ice Hockey'. In my view Rugby League is all the better off without the full scrum. There is nothing wrong with making changes to improve the flow of the game.

firework man

do you play rugby

P_1

Roger_007 wrote: »

When they introduced the sin-bin, did you go 'that's called Ice Hockey'. In my view Rugby League is all the better off without the full scrum. There is nothing wrong with making changes to improve the flow of the game.

Interesting logic, however I think the game would be poorer without the setpiece.

There's nothing like seeing a pushover try

errlloyd

Anyone seen how the scrum has been on Saracens pitch? I imagine with perfect grip on that astro it would be quite nice?

Teferi

Won't somebody think of the children props!

Roger_007

firework man wrote: »

do you play rugby

I did in my younger days when a try was worth 3 points, there was no lifting allowed in the line-out, you could go into a ruck from the side, you could kick directly to touch from anywhere and gain ground etc etc. There have been many rule changes over the years.

Podge_irl

I like scrums, but not so much the interminable resets. As is often mooted, perhaps getting rid of the hit would help.

Pudsy33

I love the scrum, its a true test of strength and skill. It is one off the most important and iconic aspects of rugby. While I think the IRB should continue working to try and improve it, i'd be gutted if it were cut out of the game.

.ak

The 2011 HEC final is a great example of how the scrum can be such a cornerstone battle to a game, and provide great entertainment to the spectator, whilst not taking away from the rest of the game.

chippers

I enjoy a good scrum. The anticipation for first scrum last weekend was immense.

Ciaran-Irl

Having 8 players stuck in one place at one time means that there is more space on the pitch for the backs to make breaks. Without a system to have have the team locked into a place at one time, you are forced to reduce the number of players from 15 to ... Rugby League.

irishbucsfan

The scrum is fantastic. It's fine at lower levels so as a player I'd have to ask you to please **** rightly off

hardCopy

In my own experience playing schools and junior rugby I still think it's competitive.

It needs tweaking at senior level, or maybe we just need more retired props converting to referees, or two referees, or just penalise crooked feeds against scrum halves, maybe the touch judge could even feed the ball in.

It's a key part of the game for all of the pack in both attack and defence.

It also sets up a platform for back play and for the back row to attack.

IMO, keep it.

awec

I like it.

If you got rid of it you'd find a good few front row players out of the job.

The build of forwards in general would change too IMO.

rje66

Roger_007 wrote: »

The scrum in rugby is now an anachronism . It is supposed to be a means of restarting play after various infringements. Instead it has become a messy shambles. It is impossible to referee. Nearly every scrum collapses, sometimes a number of times. Is there any point to it anymore? What would be wrong with just giving a free kick to the other side when a knock-on or whatever occurs.

In all the rugby thats played every weekend, about 1%(hein cup/6nat/rabo/etc) is what people see on tv and they think that its the same in every game down to grassroots level. it isnt . scrums in most club games are fine and are an even contest for the ball. So why should The IRB change the laws to suit 1% of the playing pop?,

If you watch clips of scrums from the 70s/80s a scrum half woundnt put in the ball till both teams stopped pushing/jockeying, this often took minuets, add in 15 scrums per match and a lot of time was wasted. current laws are fine, front row players and coaches are part of the problem.

Roger_007

rje66 wrote: »

In all the rugby thats played every weekend, about 1%(hein cup/6nat/rabo/etc) is what people see on tv and they think that its the same in every game down to grassroots level. it isnt . scrums in most club games are fine and are an even contest for the ball. So why should The IRB change the laws to suit 1% of the playing pop?,

If you watch clips of scrums from the 70s/80s a scrum half woundnt put in the ball till both teams stopped pushing/jockeying, this often took minuets, add in 15 scrums per match and a lot of time was wasted. current laws are fine, front row players and coaches are part of the problem.

I think that the important point you make is that the scrum should be an 'even contest'. It is not an even contest because most put-ins are crooked. Also why should it be that when one team commits an infringement, the best the other team gets is a 50/50 chance of getting possession of the ball.

locum-motion

Roger_007 wrote: »

I think that the important point you make is that the scrum should be an 'even contest'. It is not an even contest because most put-ins are crooked. Also why should it be that when one team commits an infringement, the best the other team gets is a 50/50 chance of getting possession of the ball.

Even in the olden days when you played, Roger, the scrum was never 50:50!

chippers

They do need to look at the issue of giving yellow cards to front row players who are on the back foot in the scrum. In the case where props are not intentionally doing anything wrong and are being beasted by the power of the opposition scrum awarding a yellow card is unwarranted. Refs often warn and give out to a prop who is being destroyed but what can the player do about it. Awarding a yellow card in these instances only compounds the problem.

Roger_007

locum-motion wrote: »

Even in the olden days when you played, Roger, the scrum was never 50:50!

Strangely enough at the level I played at the ball was as likely to come out on one side as the other no matter who had the put-in. That's assuming it came out at all, which it didn't most of the time. It usually ended up as a penalty or free kick. I don't think the referees have a clue what is happening in a scrum, it seems that penalties from scrums are awarded on a 50/50 basis to each side.

Coleridge

Are there, or have there been in recent times any refs who were once front rowers?

matthew8

To me a big problem with the scrum is that instead of it being used as a platform for enterprising back play (which it should be, a scrum in the middle of the field and you should have a 4 on 3 on one side) it's purely being used as a means of getting a penalty. How to stop this I have no idea, but there really are too many penalties at scrums.

Risteard

Why is it that when someone talks of good rugby, it is nearly always confined to backs running good lines and making line breaks. To me, that is only one aspect of rugby. Good, suffocating physical forward play is just as valid as back play as is a defence which limits the opposition's attacking options.

If one team has an almighty pack and suits them to beat up the opposing team, why should they be punished. The great thing about rugby is the number of strategies and tactics a team can use.

Each team has their own strengths and play to them. The scrum is an integral part of rugby union and shouldn't be sacrificed so that the the top minority of the sport can be more 'entertaining' or 'TV friendly.'

That said, I do think the hit should be removed and ball put in straight to make it an even contest. But the scrum should not be removed.

Podge_irl

Risteard wrote: »

Why is it that when someone talks of good rugby, it is nearly always confined to backs running good lines and making line breaks. To me, that is only one aspect of rugby. Good, suffocating physical forward play is just as valid as back play as is a defence which limits the opposition's attacking options.

If one team has an almighty pack and suits them to beat up the opposing team, why should they be punished. The great thing about rugby is the number of strategies and tactics a team can use.

The England-Aus quarter-final in RWC 07 was a particular example of a team winning almost solely through scrum dominance that I quite enjoyed.

Swiwi

Podge_irl wrote: »

The England-Aus quarter-final in RWC 07 was a particular example of a team winning almost solely through scrum dominance that I quite enjoyed.

I did too! but the smile was firmly off my face several hours later

Swiwi

Roger_007 wrote: »

I did in my younger days when a try was worth 3 points, there was no lifting allowed in the line-out, you could go into a ruck from the side, you could kick directly to touch from anywhere and gain ground etc etc. There have been many rule changes over the years.

And you ruck the sh*t out of anyone lying on the ball. Those were the days alright.

kensutz

Roger_007 wrote: »

I did in my younger days when a try was worth 3 points, there was no lifting allowed in the line-out, you could go into a ruck from the side, you could kick directly to touch from anywhere and gain ground etc etc. There have been many rule changes over the years.

Ahem - laws

Eoin

Roger_007 wrote: »

I think that the important point you make is that the scrum should be an 'even contest'. It is not an even contest because most put-ins are crooked. Also why should it be that when one team commits an infringement, the best the other team gets is a 50/50 chance of getting possession of the ball.

Even if the feed is straight (and I'm not sure most really are crooked), the team with the put-in has a better chance of winning the ball, as their hooker is closer to the put-in than the opposing hooker. They also control exactly when the ball goes in, so the timing works in their favour. You could say the lineout only gives you a 50/50 chance as well, but that's not the case either - unless your lineout is complete pants.

Get rid of the scrum, and you'd end up with 8 back-row players in the pack, meaning even less space again. So you'd have to drop a couple of players to make some space. Sound familiar?

No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It needs a bit of tweaking; not getting rid of.

I thought the ref on Sunday did a pretty good job at scrum time incidentally. A few scrums collapsed because of lost footing or whatever, but rather than reset or give penalties, he made the scrum-half play it as it was available and he didn't seem to think there was foul play involved.