Uncontested scrums are a blight on the game

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/rugby_union/article6051514.ece

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.

hookers should be able to prop but not the other way around. hooking is more specialised.

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.

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.

or alternatively we could make it a requirement that either the starting or bench hooker can play prop. well or otherwise.

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.

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.

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.

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?

OME - Sin-ick has pretty much stated the Subbies interpretations for uncontested scrums. They've identified it as a blight on the game and are trying to stamp it out. The fact you can't replace players is pretty key. You can't tell me that the replacement Stormers hooker (who looked pretty big) couldn't have handled a few scrums at loosehead? I think someone in Stormers land was telling porkies over the injuries firstly, and then secondly that the replacement hooker couldn't pack down.

I like it rogerw! Doesn't fix the actual uncontested scrum problem, but as you say it would stop the rorting of it pretty much straight away.

As I understand it the French union introduced their own law in regards to uncontested scrums some time ago. If a team could not replace an injured prop with another prop, they played on with 14 men. I believe it fixed the problem.

Won't happen Harry. The first non-prop that becomes a paraplegic will bankrupt one or more unions with a lawsuit.

The rule about uncontested scrums is being abused and they should revert back to the old rules where all scrums were contested irrespective of the" alleged "condition of front rowers. The game was played for many years when teams had injury problems and they made do with what players they had. The tight 5 are supposed to be tough and can take anything so let them prove it and use a 2nd rower as a prop if neccesary.

Lets not have this poncing around and ban uncontested scrums. If you cant supply a working scrum you lose. If all your props are injured the game ends there and you lose - unfortunate but life ain't fair. I cant remember a game from my time where we lost all props in a game. Easy ain't it?

That is not what the IRB Laws state Sin-Ick. It might be that certain bodies have incorporated such laws into their own laws but the point remains that there is something a bit rotten when the IRB laws do not have these perfectly appropriate type of sanctions.

I understood that if your opponent requested non-contested scrums, you can opt for a free kick. Also if a team calls non-contested scrums, they are then unable to make any substitutions for the remainder of the match.

Clarky I was referring to NSW Central West Rugby. What has NSW Subbies done to address the problem? Have they gone with a free kick for every no contest? That seems to be the logical solution.

OME - interested to know which lower grade rugby you refer to, as the penalties in Subbies have been dramatically beefed up in recent years to stop uncontested scrums emerging. I agree, what happened with the Stormers should not occur, and SANZAR should ensure suitable penalties are in place to discourage this type of thing.