The ‘Hit’ in Rugby Union scrums has come under widespread criticism for a number of years now.
I have been arguing that it is players willfully collapsing which is the major issue, rather than the hit but new evidence is coming to light which suggests I am wrong.
The IRB sends regular emails to accredited coaches and the January installment arrived this week.
Included was a presentation by IRB Chief Medical Officer, Dr Martin Raftery titled “Scrum History, Scrum Force Project and Scrum Injuries”. The presentation cited a number of studies that have been predominantly conducted at Bath University.
In the history section the studies showed that between 1982 and 2004 the number of scrums per game went from an average of 31 to 19, a drop of 60%. This reduction has been maintained with the RWC of 2011 averaging 17 scrums per match.
During the 1982-2004 period the number of scrums won by the feeding team has stayed aligned going from 88% to 89%.
The biggest change reported was in relation to penalties. Back in 1982 scrum penalties were evenly distributed between the feeding and defending scrums. As of 2004 the side feeding the ball enjoyed a 6:1 advantage in having a penalty awarded to them.
Something has drastically changed if the defensive side has become six times more likely to give away a penalty at scrum time.
The presentation also compared the 2003 Rugby World Cup to the 2011 version. The latest RWC had twice as many scrum collapses and twice as many penalties compared to 2003.
The 1995 RWC was also compared to 2011 with an even bigger difference; there are now three times as many collapses and four times the penalties.
An analysis of the scrums in the 2011 World Cup showed that there are an average of 17 scrums per game; half of these are won cleanly, a third collapse and the remaining 20% result in a penalty or free kick.
This seems to be a first world problem though. A review of the pool matches showed that when two Tier 1 teams played each other the stats are much worse than if two Tier 2 teams play each other.
The 2011 RWC Pool Matches break down as follows; these are average results per 100 scrums.
Tier 1 v Tier 1 – Collapse = 50, Re-Set = 31, Penalty/FK = 41
Tier 1 v Tier 2 – Collapse = 34, Re-Set = 17, Penalty/FK = 29
Tier 2 v Tier 2 – Collapse = 19, Re-Set = 9, Penalty/FK = 17
6 Nations – Collapse = 54, Re-Set = 30, Penalty/FK = 44
Tri Nations – Collapse = 43, Re-Set = 25, Penalty/FK = 25
The Tri Nations numbers are surprisingly good but it could be argued that South Africa and Australia have been scrummaging at a Tier 2 level so skew the results.
Finally the studies showed that scrums are taking up more than their fair share of the game. Scrums make up 8% of all contested events in the game but consume 17.5% of total playing time.
All the above points to scrums materially being an issue today compared to prior eras, and an issue at the highest level compared to lower tiers. It doesn’t pinpoint the ‘Hit’ or show that my defence of it was wrong. The next section of the presentation addressed that.
Bath University has conducted extensive studies measuring forces on scrum machines. With the assistance of the RFU they were able to gain participation from International, Elite Professional, Community, Adolescent, Women and U/18 teams.
The study focused on:
Peak Engagement Force (PEF) being the maximum force generated on impact.
Sustained Compression Force (SCF) being the force maintained after impact.
Lateral and Vertical forces.
They looked at a number of engagement methods from the Crouch, Touch, Engage (CTE) to Passive, including the variations of hitting and holding versus double shoves, amongst others.
The key finding is that the PEF which measures the force on the ‘Hit’ is twice what it was 20 years ago. PEF are also twice as large as the SCF.
The International and Elite packs generated significantly higher PEF, even after normalising for their greater mass. It was deemed that the speed of engagement these professional packs were able to generate led to the difference.
The PEF on a normal engagement are twice as large as that on a ‘passive’ engagement. All engagements, including passive produced similar levels of SCF.
Passive engages involved reducing the engagement speed by between 55-75% compared to a normal one and as well as a 50% reduction in the Peak Engagement Force, the downward Vertical force was reduced by 20%.
Given the twin pieces of evidence that the peak engagement force in scrums is twice what it used to be and that this is a particular issue at the elite levels. We need to revisit the engagement method to get rid of the blight of collapses and penalties on the game.
The new Crouch, Touch, Set engagement call that has been introduced is an improvement with the removal of the Pause and change to a single syllable pack call. However it does nothing to address the distance between packs, and does not limit the speed at which engagement occurs.
These are the two key areas that need addressing. The IRB’s Scrum Unit is due to release more information and recommendations shortly so we can expect to hear more on this during the year.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- SPIRO: ‘Captain Magic’ Quade Cooper goes down with all flags flying (333)
- Deans confirms no spot for Quade Cooper (281)
- Want to beat the Lions? Pick Quade Cooper (229)
- SPIRO: All Blacks learning to live without Carter (218)
- Wallabies’ six worst-kept secrets confirmed (204)
- A lesson in Deans-speak (154)
- Inside the mind of Robbie Deans (150)
- Sean O’Brien misses Lions Test selection (20)
- Fresh legs for France against All Blacks
- All Blacks’ Ranger confirms French move
- Lions team to play Wallabies announced – Warburton starts as captain (97)
- All Blacks Hansen backs Wallabies to win Lions series
- Wallabies team to play Lions confirmed, with bench revealed (92)
- If all the Wallabies leak this week is a team, then happy days (207)
- A rugby series twelve years in the making (4)
- Brian Smith says referees will be crucial (6)
- British and Irish Lions teams post WW2 (part 3) (15)
- Fifteen reasons why the Lions will beat the Wallabies (28)
- Lions vs Wallabies: the teams I’d pick (17)
- My Waratahs vs Lions experience (2)
- Brumbies vs British and Irish Lions: Tour match live scores, blog (220)
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- Rugby Union, scrums

January 21st 2013 @ 12:38pm
Johnno said | January 21st 2013 @ 12:38pm | Report comment
Jeznez a good article, . Covered a huge amount of info there. Scrums i didn’t realise take up so much of a game but they do.
I think there should be a rule, like in athletics or swimming races. 2-scrum rule.
-On 2nd scrum, a design has to be made. Penalty, or free kick, no mucking about. A team can elect to have another scrum eg as they maybe in the opponents 5 metre zone, next to tryline and may want t push for penalty try.
-Refs are doing that more and more now. just getting on with it at the 2nd bind if it fails.
-But i never want to see rugby returned to the farcical scenes for the 1999 world cup match France VS Fiji . It re-set around 5 times.
-Australia VS England match at Perth in 2010, the scrum seemed to set at least 4 times, before England got a penalty try. Should of called it earlier.
Amazing that this university at Bath, could keep a study going for 20 years. Talk about ahead of it’s time, and amazing someone even had the vision to think about such an issue , back then and this is when rugby was amateur too.
For all those who say rugby was great back then, wow i i beg to differ. SO many scrums per match, lineouts were a total shambles too, and the breakdown was so sloppy too. Basically rugby was a mess of a game back then in the 1970′s and 80′s.
Should scrums be kicked out of rugby union. No , it will be a shame if that happens, as they are a major part of the game and a great way to contest possession, and rugby is a sport that rewards multiple body shapes. And scrums are the FABRIC of that continuing , rewarding multiple body shapes.
But something has to be done about the scrums. I read on twitter the IRB ceo, when someone tweeted to him last month about the scrum stuff. He said the IRB a very aware of issues about the scrum and follow it’s movement closely, which is encouraging.
And this study, and the fact the IRB will monitor this more with more recommendations shows, the IRB are not simply ignoring this issue, and are not aware of it.
The new Set engagement rules are better not perfect but better.
What i’d like to see is a return to cotton jerseys, but only for the front row, as this will help with there binding.
I have mixed views on the 4th prop rule now coming into rugby union. It will make each scrum hit harder, as props will be fresher. Mind you it might also reduce cynical play if a teams scrum is strong, one team may injure one of the props, hoping for uncontested scrums.
A good article jeznez.
January 21st 2013 @ 2:06pm
jeznez said | January 21st 2013 @ 2:06pm | Report comment
Cheers, Johnno. I’m not in favour of a two scrum rule, or following an athletics false start model. Scrums worked effectively in the past and the experts need to examine how to make them work again in the future. I’m looking forward to hear what the IRB Scrum Unit comes out with next.
January 21st 2013 @ 5:04pm
jeznez said | January 21st 2013 @ 5:04pm | Report comment
ps Johnno – as far as the fourth prop goes, I am massively in favour of it.
It will allow better specialisation meaning we don’t have to pick a two sided player if he isn’t one of the two best LHP’s or two best THP’s available.
January 21st 2013 @ 5:10pm
Johnno said | January 21st 2013 @ 5:10pm | Report comment
jeznez I agree and disagree. I agree totally with the specialisation aspect, and standard of scrums will improve, less scrum collapses.
But I am concerned and worried mate, it may phase out the Ben Alexander or the Beast, or James Slipper, type props. Guys who are not the best scrummagers but do a lot of good work around the park. Or the mobile good all rounder type prop like Phil Vickery who is not the biggest prop either guys like him may be phased out.
And it will all be guys like Carl Hayman, Andrew Sheridan, big guys.
January 21st 2013 @ 8:17pm
jeznez said | January 21st 2013 @ 8:17pm | Report comment
Johnno, it won’t rule out the likes of Slipper and Alexander – they will just have to ensure that they are within the best two options at one side of the scrum or the other. In the past both have had their selection chances boosted by playing both sides – that should no longer give them as much help.
Unfortunately for them their Super Sides need them to play on the opposite side from where their best appearances for the Wallabies have been. This may become the catalyst for them putting their foot down with their franchises and insisting they are allowed to develop in the positions that give them best chance of higher honours.
I don’t think the reserving option is going to rule smaller guys (not sure how you add guys like Beast to a discussion about smaller guys). If they are good enough scrummagers then their other attributes are still going to help them get selected.
January 21st 2013 @ 12:44pm
kingplaymaker said | January 21st 2013 @ 12:44pm | Report comment
Good stuff jeznez.
January 21st 2013 @ 12:49pm
PeterK said | January 21st 2013 @ 12:49pm | Report comment
great info jeznez. A good article.
I have to say from a lyamans point of view the ‘hit’ being an issue is obvious to me and have held that belief for a while.
Being an active ref I see it all the time (even if at a lower level), the collapse being caused by a hit even if unintentionally since so many things can go wrong, let alone if a team does it intentionally to drop a scrum they have lost or to milk a penalty.
I do value the contest and like scrums and they should not be depowered. But the hit should be eliminated.
This still allows a fair contest. The scrums should be bound together with no pushing until the ball is fed. They should be bound statically with no hit or force. There would be far fewer penalties and far fewer collapses.
January 21st 2013 @ 1:07pm
jeznez said | January 21st 2013 @ 1:07pm | Report comment
I didn’t think I would come around to the suggestions that many have made but getting the scrum set without a hit may be what is needed.
The fact that a guy like Kearns has been quoted saying he sometimes used to black out because the hits were so big, and then these studies showing that forces on the hit are twice as large as they used to be shows that something needs to change.
January 21st 2013 @ 6:53pm
nickoldschool said | January 21st 2013 @ 6:53pm | Report comment
I know where you’re coming from PK but the hit IS part of scrummaging and getting rid of hit altogether seems a bit drastic imo. Plus, i still think that some front rowers would push before the others even if they were bound together and still.
Sadly, the only solution am thinking of is to give tougher penalties to early hitters (not good news for the wallabies) : straight penalty at the first offence then yellow card (and pen) at the second one. The two main ways to cheat and get an unfair advantage at scrumtime are to have an early hit on and/or collapse. I think the ref calling the scrum is close enough to see who makes the first move and if its made before his last word.
January 22nd 2013 @ 12:34pm
RedsNut said | January 22nd 2013 @ 12:34pm | Report comment
The Hit is a (comparatively) new part of setting the scrum.
Your solution puts more pressure on the refs to make a split second decision when he’s trying to monitor multiple things at the same time.
How does the ref decide which of the props on the opposite side of the scrum caused the collapse. The one going down deliberately, or was he forced down by his opposite number not pushing horizontally?
January 23rd 2013 @ 10:47am
jeznez said | January 23rd 2013 @ 10:47am | Report comment
RN, the hit isn’t new. It is just twice as powerful as it used to be. We’ll go a long way to reducing the number of accidental collapses if we can reduce the power on the hit. That has to be where the focus is, the touch is trying to do this by reducing the distance between the serums but based on these stats it clearly hasn’t worked.
I’m curious to see what the next recommendation of the scrum working group is going to be.
January 21st 2013 @ 12:49pm
Who Needs Melon said | January 21st 2013 @ 12:49pm | Report comment
Although I’m no scrum guru, I have been one saying the hit is the problem. Seeing as kinetic energy = 0.5 x m x v^2 then changes to how fast the scrums hit have a massive effect on how much energy is being dissipated over a very short space of time. You can still have a cracking contest WITHOUT such a big hit. Maybe just have them set much closer together. The collapses almost ALWAYS come on that initial hit BEFORE the ball has even been fed.
But, hey, that’s just me. I’ve given up ranting about the rules.
January 21st 2013 @ 1:13pm
jeznez said | January 21st 2013 @ 1:13pm | Report comment
Melon, moving them closer together is a step backwards. Yes it would reduce the power of the hit but it also prevents props getting in good position to scrummage.
I rather suspect part of the reason the engagement speed is up is that techniques have changed so that props can crouch with their feet further back and the rest of the scrum effectively holding them up. Their weight is fully forward and the fight to get to good position will be contributing to the pace of the engagement.
I think it would be impossible to police the speed of the engagement so doing away with it all together may be what is needed.
The IRB’s Scrum Steering Group has the most important name I needed to see in it present with Mike Cron being involved so I look forward to what they come up with next.
January 21st 2013 @ 2:17pm
Who Needs Melon said | January 21st 2013 @ 2:17pm | Report comment
jeznez, I guess if doing away with the engagement is the only way then let’s have it. I just thought there might be some halfway point where the the ‘touch’ before the engage isn’t just a slap but from there they actually grapple each other and stay connected at arms length and then engage from there. Thinking about it though, you’d probably end up with a few dislocated shoulders.
January 21st 2013 @ 2:39pm
jeznez said | January 21st 2013 @ 2:39pm | Report comment
I’ve got fingers crossed that the engagement can be preserved in some form, penalties against teams ‘hitting’ too hard seem awfully tough to judge though. The study was able to show scrums hitting with same forces as prior years with the teams engaging at 50-75% of current pace.
PeteK has the key up above in his comment that we need to see stable outcomes, with no movement prior to the ball entering.
Given the ongoing study in place it seems quite clear that the IRB are planning further change in this space.
January 21st 2013 @ 12:57pm
Jay said | January 21st 2013 @ 12:57pm | Report comment
An idea I’d like to see implemented would be allowing the props to stabilise themselves by being allowed to put their hand on the ground. Currently they are penalised if they do this and become unbound, but I think removing this penalty would reduce scrum collapse.
January 21st 2013 @ 1:15pm
jeznez said | January 21st 2013 @ 1:15pm | Report comment
Jay, it would give the LHP’s so much advantage if they were able to do this. Scrum’s largely wheel in a clockwise direction. Given this advantage to LH’s the effect would become even more pronounced.
January 21st 2013 @ 7:36pm
pogo said | January 21st 2013 @ 7:36pm | Report comment
They have a strange recollection that this was tolerated at some point.
In anycase I don’t think it would help that much, because everyone would use it as technique to get lower still, and when stability really goes out the window your hairy little arm won’t hold up the whole scrum anyway.
January 21st 2013 @ 1:04pm
kingplaymaker said | January 21st 2013 @ 1:04pm | Report comment
One little thing I will add is I wonder how much the hit is a test of strength. In most displays of strength i.e. power lifting there is no punch or moment of contact. So with a hit it may lose something as the test of strength it to some degree is.
January 21st 2013 @ 1:23pm
jeznez said | January 21st 2013 @ 1:23pm | Report comment
Massive test of strength and the mental edge you gain over your opponents from winning the hit is huge.
It isn’t just strength though, it is timing, technique and teamwork. Requires 8 guys absolutely working as one – if you listen to Mike Cron talk he talks about it in reference to a gold swing, instead of one guy trying to get his body and club moving as one smooth unit, you instead have 8 men working together.
January 21st 2013 @ 1:31pm
MikeN said | January 21st 2013 @ 1:31pm | Report comment
Why not have the backrow join the scrum afer the hit?
January 21st 2013 @ 2:10pm
jeznez said | January 21st 2013 @ 2:10pm | Report comment
The breakaways are providing support to the props, removing them from the hit could lead to greater instability.
For the number 8 they trialled what they called a 7+1 engagement method which I assume is the 8 engaging separately, they did not find a material difference on the peak engagement force under that style.
January 21st 2013 @ 1:33pm
Hightackle said | January 21st 2013 @ 1:33pm | Report comment
I still think most of it is due to colapsing.
If you get a bad hit and are going to lose the scrum or be disadvantaged, it pays to risk the colapse and reset becuz the chances are just as high for a penalty if you stay up these days.
January 21st 2013 @ 2:00pm
jeznez said | January 21st 2013 @ 2:00pm | Report comment
HT that was one thing I would have liked to see in the stats which wasn’t present. How many scrums collapse on the hit vs how many collapse after the ball is fed.
In the section on injuries it produced a stat that of 170 scrum spinal injuries studied that 47% occurred during engagement and 46% due to collapse. It means that the modern hit is producing similar numbers of injuries as collapses do which is a major concern.
January 21st 2013 @ 2:13pm
Hightackle said | January 21st 2013 @ 2:13pm | Report comment
They colapse on the hit right?
Well if you lose the hit you drop. Maybe you get penalised, maybe its a reset.
However if you lose the hit, stay up, your chances of being penalised as your scrum gets shoved into oblivion increase.
I wont say that this is the case all the time but its def the case sometimes.
January 21st 2013 @ 2:21pm
jeznez said | January 21st 2013 @ 2:21pm | Report comment
Collapses are definitely happening both on the hit and after the feed. Both situations occur and those stats would have been very interesting to see.
January 21st 2013 @ 7:38pm
pogo said | January 21st 2013 @ 7:38pm | Report comment
It’s not that hard to drop a scrum after the hit if you realise you are going backwards, particularly from tighthead. Although it is pretty ethically unsound it definitely happens.
January 21st 2013 @ 1:47pm
mark said | January 21st 2013 @ 1:47pm | Report comment
It is the increase of professionalism that has caused the scrum to be dysfunctional.
Tier 1 v tier 1; you are pitting amazing physical specimens that have had years of professional power and strength training to the point that the force put into a hit is too powerful for the other 8 to hold up if it goes slightly wrong.
tier 2 v tier 2 are still amazing physical specimens but they are still respectively amateurish in terms of strength and conditioning so the hits they put into each other are recoverable if it goes wrong.
before anyone says the game went professional in 1996, ask any player today and they will tell you that even in the pst 4-5 years there has been a huge increase in players power. if you transported a player back as they are today, to the early days of professionalism they’d wreak havoc
January 21st 2013 @ 2:23pm
jeznez said | January 21st 2013 @ 2:23pm | Report comment
Mark, that is the clear implication of the stats. What is open to speculation is, has a professional mindset entered the top tier such that willful collapse (as distinct from accidental) has become much more prevalent?
It appears to me, that there are intentional collapses as well those where the forces are just too strong.
January 21st 2013 @ 3:20pm
mark said | January 21st 2013 @ 3:20pm | Report comment
absolutely not.. to suggest a player deliberately collapses is a little far fetched. a scrum is a pack mentality and players simply do not deliberately collapse a scrum. its dangerous, you’ll let the team down and you’ll get penalised.
it is the immense forces at play that are causing the collapses. end of.
January 21st 2013 @ 4:50pm
Hoy said | January 21st 2013 @ 4:50pm | Report comment
Whoa. I can’t agree. I am positive there are deliberate collapses. You are right though. Each collapse can be dangerous.
Watching the old scrums I always got the impression they didn’t collapse as many then as now. They just came up, the Ref didn’t call anything, they packed, set and scummed without saying a word, and very few seemed to go down. Or was that just the impression?
January 21st 2013 @ 4:54pm
jeznez said | January 21st 2013 @ 4:54pm | Report comment
Mark, I have been part of scrums that were deliberately collapsed at the park level. I’ve never done it myself but have had opponents go down intentionally on me, have also had team mates confess to me after the game that they intentionally collapsed their side. If it happens at park level you can be pretty certain that it happens at higher levels.
That is quite apart from watching a lot of rugby and actually seeing players intentionally collapsing. Sometimes it is obvious that it was unintentional, there are plenty of other examples where it is obvious that it was intentional – quite often it is hard to tell.
Don’t tell me it doesn’t happen because I have direct experience of it.
January 21st 2013 @ 2:06pm
bennalong said | January 21st 2013 @ 2:06pm | Report comment
Interesting piece Jeznez……….. thanks
IMO the problem today, and you touched on this in your piece, is the increased penalty rate.
This has happened because the prevailing wisdom is that scrummaging isn’t good TV so you penalise someone quickly rather than resetting.
I prefer resets as a deterrent because they certainly don’t feel good to participants. And there’s aways a chance the best push will win.
Reduce the penalties imposed arbitrarily by blokes that haven’t a clue!!!!
When it comes to the hit, I can’t see why closeness in itself prevents front rows being in correct position, and its obvious who is packing lower (and if they’re doing it without shoulders being too much lower than hips) as they face off. This is, after all, the reason for the touch, but it still allows the potential for too much distance between opposing front rows.
In the old days, even in tests, the hit became unusual as a tactic unless it was in a critical situation, especially as the game progressed.
Scrums were often set casually without much force, just to get on with the game. (’cause everyone was buggered!)
IMO the shove must be preserved but high velocity hits will inevitably be consigned to the tip because of safety fears. When they start studying it there’s a good chance they’re looking for a result that allows them to do something they want to do but the stats aren’t clear.
It would be a negative result if we ended up with League style joke scrums.
January 21st 2013 @ 2:33pm
jeznez said | January 21st 2013 @ 2:33pm | Report comment
The penalty rate – particularly against defending scrums is completely out of whack. If anything the defending scrum has an advantage as their hooker can drive rather than strike for the ball. Either defensive scrums are acting illegally because they see scrum penalties as a lottery or referees are favouring the team in possession.
With regard to distance between packs, the touch was the first effort to reduce impact by bringing teams closer together. The fact that sides have adapted so that engagement force is larger today under the touch mode shows it has failed to do what it was designed to do.
At the same time the touch has brought the packs too close. If both scrums passively engaged and got into a comfortable and effective scrummaging position and then stood up with their feet in the same places and tried to re-pack, using the crouch, touch set call. They would struggle to be in touching reach of each other.
Look at a pack setting against a scrum machine – they are generally in a good distance for the props to touch the machine. In a live scrum the opposing pack is twice the distance away (since the machine represents where two packs would meet – not where the opponent would be during the crouch).
The touch is well intentioned but is failing to deliver – given the stats the IRB supplied on the state of scrummaging it is obvious it is failing. The IRB’s focus is clearly the hit, if they move to a passive engagement – whatever that means – then the touch potentially can be ruled out of the process.