Uncontested scrums are a blight on the game
Roar Guru By Old Man Emu, 6 Apr 2009 The Crowd is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- IRB Laws of Rugby, Rugby Union, rugby union scrums
Law 20 of the IRB Laws of Rugby deals with the scrum and accounts for eleven pages of the Laws of the game. With some glee, I have now learned that it is an offence under the Laws of Rugby to loiter near a scrum.
After witnessing the farce of uncontested scrums during Saturday night’s Waratahs Vs Stormers game, one more clause ought to be added to Law 20: it should be an automatic free kick if one side is unable to contest a scrum.
It is manifestly unfair for one side not to be able to participate in a vital contest for possession. If one accepts that it is fair enough to declare no contest when you run out of fit props, then why not no contest for lineouts if all your jumpers are injured and no kicking for goal if your goal kickers are injured?
It is common place in lower grade rugby for games to start with no contested scrums, having selected two extra breakaways in the front row and potentially gaining an unfair advantage.
The Laws should address this situation to ensure that the scrum remains a meaningful part of the game at amateur level.
And it would not be hard to imagine that the absence of sanction for failing to contest a scrum could be exploited at a professional level by canny coaches who know they have a vastly inferior scrum.
Pick four props in your team but instruct them all to cry injury at certain stages of the game and then finish the game with two extra back rowers on the park.
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- IRB Laws of Rugby, Rugby Union, rugby union scrums
April 6th 2009 @ 1:21pm
Who Needs Melon said | April 6th 2009 @ 1:21pm | Report comment
Unlike lineouts and goalkicking, I thought the uncontested scrum rules were designed as a safety issue – i.e. you don’t want to stick someone like Sam Norton-Knight in as your prop for obvious reasons.
I say, don’t call the game off – keep the uncontested scrum rule – but 100,000% endorse the idea above (rogerw) about playing with 14 men. That sounds like such a fantastic, simple solution it’s bound not to be adopted.
PS. Did we all have the same hatred of uncontested scrums when we were the culprits a few years ago?
April 6th 2009 @ 1:25pm
Roger said | April 6th 2009 @ 1:25pm | Report comment
love the idea of playing without props if you have no more…only hope it wont mean benches full of props. If that occurred, play would definitely opne up in second halves of games as players had to play on without substitutes…how it should be.
April 6th 2009 @ 2:36pm
OldManEmu said | April 6th 2009 @ 2:36pm | Report comment
Who needs – when the Walabies did not contest scrums at Twickenham on 05 I was aghast – the sight of the packs folding in was anathema – and terribly unfair in the very dominat England scrum – there should have been a sanction then, as there should be now.
April 6th 2009 @ 4:11pm
nickypeeves said | April 6th 2009 @ 4:11pm | Report comment
how about making it an 8 man bench with a compulsory full front row. i believe this is a rule in schoolboys. at least in victoria where i am from.
this would make sure than uncontested scrums were even more of a rarity. if for some reason they had to be called i agree with the 14 man rule.
having the extra bench man would make it so props rarely have to run out a full gave, which is terrific. with the elvs props are bound to get smaller over time, but with more subbing options it would mean they would not often have to play out a full 80 minutes and would make sure props stay the way they are. big and tough.
April 6th 2009 @ 4:19pm
nickypeeves said | April 6th 2009 @ 4:19pm | Report comment
or alternatively we could make it a requirement that either the starting or bench hooker can play prop. well or otherwise.
April 6th 2009 @ 5:29pm
Spiro Zavos said | April 6th 2009 @ 5:29pm | Report comment
Rasie Erasmus, the coach of the Stormers, pulled a swifty on the NSW Waratahs by withdrawing all his props so that uncontested scrums had to be taken. The Stormers were taking a hammering in the scrums. The referee, too, had twigged to the illegal forward push of Shalke Burger, effectively giving the Sharks a four-man front row. So the Stormers took the scrum contest out of the game.
The ferocious reaction of Phil Waugh to this ploy revealed his anger at what amounted to a rugby dirty tricks.
I’ve always disregarded Erasmus as a coach from the time he coached a Cheetahs side at the Sydney Football Stadium to go down after virtually every play to disrupt the Waratahs flow of play. Which it did. The game seemed to go on for hours and was entirely ruined as a spectacle.
Now Erasmus seems to have pulled out a new ploy to unsettle the Waratahs.
The IRB has to stop this sort of gamesmanship by allowing sides to have at least three back-up props. Then if they go through these back-ups then perhaps the opposing side should, as one of the posts suggests, have a short arm penalty instead of a scrum.
April 6th 2009 @ 5:37pm
madsul said | April 6th 2009 @ 5:37pm | Report comment
The not being able to replace your last injured prop seems like a great solution! but having a free kick instead only allows more players to get back in the defensive line. Perhaps the team who can’t supply a prop should have to lie on the ground in scrum formation.
And all hookers should be able to prop and Props should hook.
April 6th 2009 @ 6:15pm
nickypeeves said | April 6th 2009 @ 6:15pm | Report comment
hookers should be able to prop but not the other way around. hooking is more specialised.
April 7th 2009 @ 3:44am
Knives Out said | April 7th 2009 @ 3:44am | Report comment
After all the kerfuflle surrounding the ELVs, minor and very manageable issues like this plague the game of rugby. Why this specific problem has still not been rectified I do not know.
April 8th 2009 @ 8:33am
Roger said | April 8th 2009 @ 8:33am | Report comment
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/rugby_union/article6051514.ece