Memo to the IRB: Fix the scrums!
By Spiro Zavos, 17 Jun 2010 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- Barbarians, International Rugby Board, IRB, Rugby Union, scrum, wallabies

(L to R) Australian rugby union players Salesi Ma'afu, Huia Edmonds and Ben Alexander practice a scrum formation during a training session in Sydney. AAP Image/Paul Miller.
Just when rugby was getting back to being an expansive, skillful game with adjusted laws at the ruck and maul that reward attacking play, a blight is descending on the game that threatens to destroy the green shoots.
That blight is the modern scrum with its endless collapses, its time wasting by beefy front rows and its often strange policing by referees who often don’t seem to know that they are doing.
At Gosford on Tuesday night, a game that won applause from an enthusiastic crowd at half-time when the players trotted off the field, was brought to a standstill when the referee Steve Walsh forced the Australian Barbarians to scrum again when they virtually had the ball in the hands of the halfback.
The scrum was reset. Why? Then Walsh penalised the Barbarians. After that the scrums began to resemble peace conferences with the players standing around getting ready to get on with the war. The game degenerated after all this. It was a relief when the final whistle was blown.
Whenever someone from this part of the world suggests reforms or improvements to the way scrums are managed the usual suspects in the British media start to get all agitated and make the nonsensical claims that the southern hemisphere countries want to de-power the scrum because they can’t scrum themselves.
This is nonsense. New Zealand, South Africa and the Argentina have sides with terrific scrums and have no interest in de-powering the scrum. Nor does Australia. Right now there are difficulties with the Wallabies because so many leading front rowers are out injured. But at the Super rugby level the Australian scrums more than held their own.
The reason why the scrums need to be fixed by the IRB – and urgently – is to build on the way the game has evolved into a real rugby contest with the changes to the tackled ball law. Get the scrums right, and this means contested scrums but no time-wasting and phony tricks in the manner of the England pack at Perth last week, and the game has a splendid springboard into its worldwide exposure next year with the World Cup tournament.
Here are a few modest proposals, with supporting comments, that should be considered for 2011 by the IRB:
1. Stop the clock when a scrum is ordered. Start the clock when the scrum has been resolved with the ball out or a penalty awarded.
It is clear that in the northern hemisphere, particularly, scrum time is being as smoko time by packs that can’t keep up with the pace of the modern game.
2. Penalise packs that waste time.
There is a provision to penalise sides that delay throwing the ball into the lineout. Put a similar provision in for scrums. We want to stop this nonsense of sides squatting ready to scrum and then pulling back, standing up before preparing to get ready to scrum a bit.
3. Reduce the scrum calls to two: ‘Touch’ ‘Pack!”
The sides should be told to crouch without this being formalised. If sides play for time, penalise them then and there.
The ‘Touch’ “Pack!’ calls should flow quickly. No notable pause.
The instruction ‘Pack’ is the right word to use, rather than ‘Scrum!’ (my earlier suggestion) and ‘Engage!’ because as a reader of The Roar pointed out it is one syllable.
Sides can lock shoulders as soon as they hear the word ‘Pack!’ and make contact after the word is finished. But with the two-syllable ‘Engage!’ and presumably if ‘Scrum! (a one-a-half-syllable word) contact is made often before the word is finished.
Then referees sometimes penalised sides – unfairly for an early engagement.
4. When the referee calls ‘Pack’ he should have his hands on both props and join them together.
This would ensure that both sides get a fair hit.
5. Once the hit is made the halfback should immediately put the ball into the scrum. The packs should be allowed to scrum as soon as the hit is made.
A great deal of the problems with scrums is centered on the halfback refusing to put the ball in (the Gregan manoeuvre) until his pack has a sort of ascendancy.
Wayne Barnes, who had an excellent match in the New Zealand – Ireland match (only 6 penalties in the first half) penalised the All Blacks scrum for pushing off the mark. Later on he warned the Irish halfback about delaying his feed.
The halfback should have been penalised, not the All Blacks.
6. Once the ball is in a position to be released from the scrum, the scrum should be allowed to continue.
This brings us to the incident at Gosford. If Walsh had allowed play to go on, we might not have had the ensuing delays and so on that followed the reset.
None of these suggestions make any fundamental change to the nature of the scrum as a contest between two packs. What they do, in fact, is to allow the contest to be on a level playing play.
There needs to be a fundamental shift, too, in the way the northern hemisphere rugby establishment views scrums. They see the scrum as an ned in itself. They are happy therefore to see endless scrumming chewing up the clock and the flow of penalties that emerge when scrums become a mess.
The southern hemisphere view is that the scrum is a distinctive part of rugby where there is a shoulder-to-shoulder contest between the two packs. Teams with strong scrums should be rewarded for their strength. And under my suggestions this is what would happen with a good scrum giving a great platform for back attacks, and a poor scrum putting teams under pressure.
But in the end, the scrum, like the lineout and the kick-offs, is really a way to re-start the game. This is the justification for stopping the clock for scrums until they are completed.
There are two further points that need to be made.
First, it was the northern hemisphere unions that killed off the ELVs proposal for only short-arm penalties from scrums, unless foul play was involved. This suggestion should be revived.
Second, in first class matches there is always a spare referee to cover for the referee and the assistant referees in cause of an injury. This spare referee should be brought on to the field for scrums and stood on the side not covered by the referee.
At Perth we had the Welsh referee Nigel Owens convinced that all the scrum sins were being committed by the Wallabies. So whenever the scrum went down, he penalised Australia. Some, but not all, but definitely some of these infringements were committed by the England props. They waited until the referee was on the other side and then pulled the scrum down, and won the penalty.
What we want in rugby is scrums like lineouts that are contested but do not take up an inordinate amount of time to take place. Lifting was brought into lineouts to get around its illegal use, which was hard to detact (like props collapsing the scrums).
Stephen Jones of the UK Sunday Times predicted rather fearlessly (and stupidly?) that there would never be another lineout in Test rugby won against the throw. Tell that to opponents of Victor Matfield!
The point here is that the systems was modernised and cleaned up in the scrums, as they have been in the lineouts, we will get the contested scrum and strong packs getting their just reward for their dominance.
Right now the scrum is a mess, as lineouts were in the days when they were described as ‘dockyard brawls.’
So we have this memo to the IRB. Fix the mess, and we reckon the ideas put forward here will go a long way to achieving this.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (198)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (172)
- Brumbies 2012: New coach, new players, new attitude (128)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (61)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (27)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (18)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Explore:
- Barbarians, International Rugby Board, IRB, Rugby Union, scrum, wallabies

scarlet said | June 17th 2010 @ 2:02am | Report comment
I posted this comment in another thread so repeat it and add more.
I agree totally on the straight feed, it is an absolute basic, highly visible and easily rectified. As there is a ‘new’ interpretation in the breakdown to favour a running game then lets do the same in the scrums to ensure a fair contest and promote tough, fair scrummaging where we can see strikes against the head. If there is a straight feed it will change tactics reducing the shove as both hookers should be striking for the ball, less shove equals less reset scrums and a faster game.
A straight feed brings a new dimension to the game again.
With regard to Spiro’s comments and ignoring the demeaning NH/SH gibberish:
I agree on points 1 & 2 but disagree with the smoko comment as inflammatory and irrelevant.
On 3 why bother with the calls just revert to the old style quick whistle to engage which would also serve as the time on again signal?
4, maybe, but why bother?
5 & 6 agree
I would also ask why Spiro hasn’t brought up the straight feed as this is one of the biggest blights on the modern scrum? If you want to make simple, effective changes that are easily enforced there is the simplest and easiest.
These changes would speed up the game and reinforce the scrum contest without changing the fabric of the game like the ELV’s.
The Other Reds Fan. said | June 17th 2010 @ 8:28am | Report comment
Memo to Australia: Fix your scrums.
sheek said | June 17th 2010 @ 9:10am | Report comment
ORF,
Yeah, pretty disgraceful that a so called top 5 rugby nation like Australia is so woeful at scrum time.
But then you another top 5 rugby nation – England – that is woeful at everything else.
There’s really only two rugby nations that play the game with any regular standard of consistency – South Africa & New Zealand.
Doesn’t ay much about the overall depth of rugby as a world game. Plenty of quantity, but lacking in quality.
Lion Red said | June 17th 2010 @ 10:15am | Report comment
Agree ORF and nice comment…lol
Aaron said | June 17th 2010 @ 11:31am | Report comment
Memo to Sheek,
I am sick of spending 30mins out of 80 watching a scrum pack down. This article is relevant and scrums is one of the reasons Rugby is running in 4th place in Australia in popularity. League, AFL and Football are all quick and action packed and don’t have the same stoppage times. Watching a scrum pack down over and over again is like watching paint dry.
Less scrums more Rugby please. Great article spiro.
Aaron.
johno said | June 18th 2010 @ 1:04am | Report comment
Aaron,
You are more likely to spend that amount of time watching reset scrums if you’re watchin an Aussie team or two Aussiue teams.
Teams from other countries aren’t as proficient in collapsing scrums, or so the S14 stats say.
counterruck said | June 17th 2010 @ 2:12am | Report comment
Northern hemisphere taunts aside, I agree with the gist of this piece, though it does seem to me that the common denominator with scrum issues always seems to be australia.
as for the suggestions i agree with #3, that is just going back to what we used to have, a two step engagement. I agree with #5, i think this is crucial the way the scrum has evolved the ball must be fed pretty much at the hit as the hit is now most of the contest , and i agree with #6 is just common sense!!
ideally i would like to see the scrum fixed up, and, instead of arbirtary penalties at ruck time, more scrums to the team going forward when the ball becomes unplayable. we cant go down that track at the moment as the scrum is too much of a problem area.
Viscount Crouchback said | June 17th 2010 @ 2:53am | Report comment
Stopping the clock after a reset is a splendid idea. The other suggestions, I’m afraid, are of dubious merit and are rather undermined by silly, one-eyed claims about English cheating. Idea #6 is especially stupid given that it would enable the pack in possession to collapse the scrum at will as soon as the hooker has shovelled it backwards. In fact, this idea could almost be designed to de-power the scrum and make a mockery of the contest for possession.
A less generous soul than myself might find it distinctly rum that Australians have resumed their high-pitched mid-Noughties scrum whining just as their boys are being beasted up front by the English every few days…
Mr Saunders said | June 17th 2010 @ 3:10am | Report comment
Totally muddled article. Clearly Mr Zavos never spent much time in an 8 man shove. What rugby really needs is educated referees and clear communication, not attention-seeking malcontents who will whistle constantly and arbitrarily without explaining themselves.
scarlet said | June 17th 2010 @ 4:31am | Report comment
Mr S, If you, like me, had seen Spiro at the Centennial Park Deli when we lived a street apart, you would know that he was not a forward, never mind one of the truly blessed breed known as front row forwards, never mind the true elite of tight head prop!
VC, you make some very good points. Disagree on #6 as if the ball is sitting at the feet of the number 8 then there is no reason to reset, just allow play to continue. That in itself will reduce the number of collapses I would think.
Feeding the ball straight will cure a number of ills
Mr Saunders said | June 17th 2010 @ 4:35am | Report comment
The problem with feeding straight is that is still requires an intelligent referee to intelligently decide why may be to blame for any potential mishaps, Scarlet. It goes without saying that I agree with you, however. What is the point in pushing if there is no contest anymore?
warrenexpatinnz said | June 17th 2010 @ 5:43am | Report comment
I agree with is stopping the clock but only if a reset is called, I also believe that if a front row forward claims an injury break more than twice he should be interchanged as it is a common way to slow the game down and take a break.
All this crap about “Aussie going back to their old tricks” is a load of nonesense, Aussie front three presently are just so inexperienced. The Aussie scrum over the last two years, with first choice players x 5 was more than a match for any other international side; see 2009 NH tour
Were Spiro’s comments have merit is that the game has been taken up a notch by the new rules, now all we need is where the game breaksdown in delaying tactics is the scrums and lineouts and even sometimes the farsical 22 drop out. Take half of this wasted time out and out it into play which will allow for more ball in motion.
Yes it will ask the 115 Kg front rowers to work harder but remember there are replacements on the bench.
Having a dominant scrum is important for set piece but as we saw last Saturday its once mantle of who wins the scrums, wins the match is no longer apt. The game will continue to change and require more athelitic front rowers as the loosies have now become.
The Wallabies scrum is under pressure however, the lineouts, break down, rolling mauls (defense) and general play by the forwards was very good and you could well say that those areas last Saturday were won by the Wallabies which highlights the fracturing of the scrum myth.
I applaud the English forwards in the scrum, hopefully will be tested a bit more this weekend but unless they control the other set peice and forward required areas then sorry, the Wallabies will win and win comfortably.
Aaron said | June 17th 2010 @ 11:34am | Report comment
Agree.
Less scrums more Rugby please…. sick and tired of watching 30minutes worth of scrums per game.
formeropenside said | June 17th 2010 @ 7:17am | Report comment
But scrummaging *is* an end in itself. Forwards dont really hate it that much when backs knock on – its only to be expected, really – because we get the chance to scrum again. Its about dominating the opposition physically and psychologically. A good scrum should be able to “waste” time by grinding the opposition into the dirt, and when the opposition collapse, you call a scrum again and again until you get a pushover or penalty try.
Really, if I wanted to watch backs run around all day I’d probably watch AFL – isn’t that a game with lots of running and no real contact?
Parisien said | June 17th 2010 @ 11:35pm | Report comment
yes but they’re all offside!
Bill Baxter said | June 17th 2010 @ 7:27am | Report comment
Stopping the clock is not the answer, some people have to go to work the next day.!!!!!
warrenexpatinnz said | June 17th 2010 @ 8:29am | Report comment
Should a lineout option be more in play for anything but a knock on or maybe should it be the side who gets the calls option if that want a scrum or a lineout, quick tap?
BennO said | June 17th 2010 @ 6:45pm | Report comment
hmmmm….mid field lineouts. Would make things interesting.
warrenexpatinnz said | June 18th 2010 @ 7:21am | Report comment
Yes wasn’t really well thought out in description and probably application, take a line from the infringement across to the touch line but I guess then we are heading down the NFL road.
chris said | June 17th 2010 @ 7:29am | Report comment
The scrum is scum.
sheek said | June 17th 2010 @ 9:06am | Report comment
Chris,
That’s because they’ve taken the ‘rrrrrrrrrr’ out of it….. !
Glenoak said | June 17th 2010 @ 7:38am | Report comment
Talking to the IRB is like talking to a man with a carrot stuck in his ear. They fixed the lineout because it couldn’t be properly policed, and it works pretty well now for the throw-in side as long as the hooker has a good throwing arm. It’s a success while scrums are too often miserable, time-wasting failures even when the refs – like Mr. Owens – are standing right beside the offender and see no offense. He even penalized Faingaa for dropping when he was pulled down by Ma’afu who was being pulled down by Dan Cole. And yet Cole is hoping that, on Saturday, French ref Roman Poite will be a lot stricter than Owens was.
With PN out, the W’s front row will again be way overmatched so it’s up to M. Poite and his touchies to use common sense and figure that the Oz front row isn’t going to try to make it tough for the English pack to win their own ball. The Ws aren’t afraid of the English backs. Let them have the ball. On the W put-in, get it in and rake it back to Brown ASAP.
Grimmace said | June 17th 2010 @ 7:39am | Report comment
I don’t think there’s any push from Australia to take any of the power out of the scrum. Stop the clock, make them feed straight and quickly all top ideas and not hard to enforce/introduce. You can’t say front rowers don’t use injuries as a break- I used to, why not replace them if they go down twice. Props cheating on the non-ref side have been going on as long as scrums. Why can’t the blind side touch judge come in and officiate the scrum on the non ref side?
I like the AFL/backs comment FO
warrenexpatinnz said | June 17th 2010 @ 8:25am | Report comment
Grimmace a few decades into the future won’t AFL, RL and Union by one hybrid game in Australia which will be obviously weighted towards Union as RL and AFL are only really Australian products. The heading towards this is governed by money, Television and sponsorship money as the bigger the multi national companies get the more they will want a global packaged sport to meet their markets and give them better bang for their buck and far better justification to their share holders.
Enough of my crystal ball gazing, I like the scrums in rugby as a contest, brute strength and a little technique? But I also like open play, good solid tackling and quick recycling of the ball but with good physical competition at the ruck.
I used to play AFL, but have drifted from that game due to the drop in physicality, shirt fronts gone, hip and shoulder now has to be an exact science with every planet in alignment for the bump to be legal.
All I want with rugby is less p… farting around inbetween set peices as watching three reset scrums followed by a penalty is 5-6 minutes of wasted play.
scottmit said | June 17th 2010 @ 12:36pm | Report comment
There won’t be any hybridisation of the games because RU (with Soccer) is an international game which OZ cannot modify at will (speaking as an Oz, this is a Good Thing). Each will stand in the Oz market on its own merits and wither away if it doesn’t attract the participation and fans. That said, Oz is a good litmus test for the IRU because the market is so competitive, and I don’t think they would stand by and watch the game die here.