Get rid of the scrum!

P_1

I wonder if its the pitch surfaces that cause all the reset scrums.

As someone else posted, I'll be very interested to see how the scrums go in Saracens new ground

Deliverance XXV

Mention of retired props becoming refs? Not too sure about that - Maybe a video ref!
Keep the scrums - They're a great, gritty rugby spectacle.

Macy0161

Get rid of the hit. You'd have the front rows in the right position, everyone bound correctly etc before the ball comes in. Apart from it then being about scrummaging rather than the hit, add back in the contest with insisting on a straight feed. If the hooker without the head has a fair chance of winning, they'll be less focussed on disrupting the opposition alone as well.

If the IRB plan on extending the remit of the TMO, I'd also like to see scrums added. For all the talk of the relative strength England scrum v Ireland last season, they were doing so illegally. The overhead shot showed this, but Ireland kept getting pinged - the ref should have the option of going upstairs to ask a second opinion rather than the current focussing on one side of the scrum or the other (and it invariably going down on the side he's not at).

pickarooney

Brian Moore is a qualified ref although I don't know if he practises much. I'd love to see him ref a big match.

http://www.rugbydump.com/2010/03/1316/brian-moores-flawless-refereeing-debut

stephen_n

There are too many rule changes aimed at making the game a spectator event already, tweaking rules to make the game flow better is one thing, changing the game completely because some people can't appreciate to finer points of the game, is just silly.

Roger_007

stephen_n wrote: »

There are too many rule changes aimed at making the game a spectator event already, tweaking rules to make the game flow better is one thing, changing the game completely because some people can't appreciate to finer points of the game, is just silly.

When the game became professional it became necessary to attract more viewers to televised games in order to pay the players. A lot of these viewers would not know very much about the finer points of scrummaging . They just want to see a spectacle, guys running and passing the ball. When there is money involved, the market will dictate and there will be more changes to the laws to encourage a more open, running game. The purists hate all the changes that are being made but the ethos of the game has changed from being a highly technical amateur game to being just another form of TV entertainment.

molloyjh

If you got rid of scrums you'd miss out on moments like these:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIyQTGbSfEc

hardCopy

molloyjh wrote: »

If you got rid of scrums you'd miss out on moments like these:

And this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_ixoDI7Lfk

desertcircus

If you get rid of the scrum, you remove the slowest and bulkiest players on the pitch - the tight five turn into extra backrowers, and the game becomes unbelievably defensive, as overlaps and mismatches get harder and harder to engineer. Combbine that with a blitz defence since you've no slower players anymore and soon enough someone decides we need guaranteed attacking ball and some space, and we've got league.

The scrum needs changing, not abolition.

JustinDee

Roger_007 wrote: »

When the game became professional it became necessary to attract more viewers to televised games in order to pay the players. A lot of these viewers would not know very much about the finer points of scrummaging . They just want to see a spectacle, guys running and passing the ball. When there is money involved, the market will dictate and there will be more changes to the laws to encourage a more open, running game. The purists hate all the changes that are being made but the ethos of the game has changed from being a highly technical amateur game to being just another form of TV entertainment.

The game will still get sold on its unique facets such as continuity after the tackle, lineouts and scrums. Nothing will happen to these areas of the game bar tweaking in how they occur or how they are officiated. They're there to stay.

Sounds like you want rugby league. I played it in Australia (CRL) for almost seven years. Feel free to ask away if you've any queries on it.

Roger_007

JustinDee wrote: »

The game will still get sold on its unique facets such as continuity after the tackle, lineouts and scrums. Nothing will happen to these areas of the game bar tweaking in how they occur or how they are officiated. They're there to stay.

Sounds like you want rugby league. I played it in Australia (CRL) for almost seven years. Feel free to ask away if you've any queries on it.

I also watch Rugby League. I enjoy both games. I also enjoy watching Rugby Sevens and the distant cousin American Football. I like all forms of the oval ball game. I think I detect a bit of rugby snobbery on this thread whereby Rugby Union is the only real rugby is Union and everything else is rubbish. Don't forget that Rugby League emerged in northern England because of the snobbery of Union clubs who did not want working class players.

Podge_irl

Roger_007 wrote: »

I also watch Rugby League. I enjoy both games. I also enjoy watching Rugby Sevens and the distant cousin American Football. I like all forms of the oval ball game. I think I detect a bit of rugby snobbery on this thread whereby Rugby Union is the only real rugby is Union and everything else is rubbish. Don't forget that Rugby League emerged in northern England because of the snobbery of Union clubs who did not want working class players.

There is no snobbery. However if you eliminate the scrum you'll send rugby on a track towards a game more like rugby league, and seeing as that already exists what's the point?

JustinDee

Roger_007 wrote: »

I also watch Rugby League. I enjoy both games. I also enjoy watching Rugby Sevens and the distant cousin American Football. I like all forms of the oval ball game. I think I detect a bit of rugby snobbery on this thread whereby Rugby Union is the only real rugby is Union and everything else is rubbish. Don't forget that Rugby League emerged in northern England because of the snobbery of Union clubs who did not want working class players.

If you want to find it, I'm sure you'll find snobbery, chippiness or begrudgery. Depends how subjective a viewpoint you pursue or persistant a circular argument you wish to get going.
Personally speaking, I've posted nothing of a sort.

As for the divide between the two codes, I would say that you'd be surprised at how much cross-participation and sharing of resources actually takes place in this day and age.

The setpieces are here to stay. There's nothing snobby in that.

Trojan

If you eliminate the scrum, there is no outlet for short, stocky guys like me who tend to suck at other sports because of genetics

Roger_007

Trojan wrote: »

If you eliminate the scrum, there is no outlet for short, stocky guys like me who tend to suck at other sports because of genetics

I don't think any field sport should be designed to suit particular body types. John Giles is a short stocky guy and he did OK.

.ak

Roger_007 wrote: »

I don't think any field sport should be designed to suit particular body types. John Giles is a short stocky guy and he did OK.

But if you elimate the scrum then you are designing the sport for a particular body type. As it is, there's a place for players of every size and shape, but not if you get rid of the scrum.

awec

Roger_007 wrote: »

I don't think any field sport should be designed to suit particular body types. John Giles is a short stocky guy and he did OK.

Pretty much all fields sports have requirements on body types. It's pretty impossible not to, you aren't going to see 9 stone men playing rugby.

irishbucsfan

awec wrote: »

Pretty much all fields sports have requirements on body types. It's pretty impossible not to, you aren't going to see 9 stone men playing rugby.

awec

irishbucsfan wrote: »

He weighs 11 1/2 stone according to Wikipedia! :P

I'm 6'4" and I weigh a tad over 10 stone, there is not a chance in hell I could play rugby - my body type just doesn't suit the game.

.ak

awec wrote: »

He weighs 11 1/2 stone according to Wikipedia! :P

I'm 6'4" and I weigh a tad over 10 stone, there is not a chance in hell I could play rugby - my body type just doesn't suit the game.

I didn't think that was possible. Any use at basketball??

Roger_007

awec wrote: »

Pretty much all fields sports have requirements on body types. It's pretty impossible not to, you aren't going to see 9 stone men playing rugby.

Peter Stringer???

awec

.ak wrote: »

I didn't think that was possible. Any use at basketball??

Probably would be, played it during PE in school but it bored the tits off me.

I cycle for fun, I'm pretty much the exact same build as Bradley Wiggins:




If I played rugby I'd break.

JustinDee

Roger_007 wrote: »

Peter Stringer???

Weighs a chunk more than 60kg.

hardCopy

awec wrote: »

Probably would be, played it during PE in school but it bored the tits off me.

I cycle for fun, I'm pretty much the exact same build as Bradley Wiggins:




If I played rugby I'd break.

Wiggo is a major league fan.

Does anybody else keep reading the thread title and mistaking it for an After Hours thread about vigilantism?

.ak

hardCopy wrote: »

Does anybody else keep reading the thread title and mistaking it for an After Hours thread about vigilantism?

I have to admit, that's what I thought when I first saw it.

awec

hardCopy wrote: »

Wiggo is a major league fan.

Does anybody else keep reading the thread title and mistaking it for an After Hours thread about vigilantism?

awec is not a major league fan.

pickarooney

awec wrote: »

awec is not a major league fan.

I was never much into baseball myself either.

P_1

League can be enjoyable enough to watch sometimes.

Having said that, stick any kind of sport on the box in front of me and I'd probably enjoy watching it

locum-motion

awec wrote: »

...I'm 6'4" and I weigh a tad over 10 stone, there is not a chance in hell I could play rugby - my body type just doesn't suit the game.

awec wrote: »

...I cycle for fun, I'm pretty much the exact same build as Bradley Wiggins...

According to Wikipedia, he's an inch shorter than you, and has 10lb on you.
That gives him a BMI of 19, and you one of 17.

(BO'D's is 29.3!)

For Paws

The scrum has to stay
However, the IRB should make whatever changes are necessary to
(a) maintain player safety
(b) effect prompt restarts of play

Can't remember who it was, but can recall a retired front rower (might have been Brian Moore the solicitor & hooker) saying that in his opinion there are 3 main causes for constant collapses / resets / penalties.

(1) Players of hugely differing physique directly opposing each other
ie; Prop of 6'6" with long legs can't match the same body angle as a prop 5'10".

(2) Scrum halves putting ball in 'not straight'. Hooker doesn't have to 'hook', and props don't have to support him as he does so.

(3) Referees not seeing props 'boring in' & shifting binds.

Can't understand the multitude of changes made by the IRB to the Laws which have only contributed to slower & more offense ridden play.