Get rid of the 'hit' call in rugby scrums

you NEED the touch. if you're a prop (and a good one) you'll understand why.

you are wrong. they need to get rid of the pause in the call. the rest can stay cos it's in Flow. that's it. nothing else. just the pause.

I agree with Crouch - Scrum, no other words are neccessary. There is now this season far too much delay in between the words C T P E and I see teams getting the hit wrong all the time. Scrumming is a lot about timing and technique as it is about power. So why do we want to complicate the put in by 4 word calls from the ref. Set the scrum and get on with it. If the ball has been fed into the scrum and is at the number eight's feet and the front row go down why blow the whistle and reset, this baffles me, the ball is nearly out and niether side has any advantage or disadvantage so why blow it up and reset, just continue play. A lot of the binding issues are caused by the jerseys being skin tight and there is nothing for the front rows to grab on to, that is the problem. There must be a way around this but I can't think of one at the moment wiser people than me reading this will probably know a way. In my day there was no such long convoluted instructions given to scrums you just faced up and scrummed.

Can people come to terms with the difference between League & Rugby - Rugby is governed by Laws, League has Rules. So lets get it right in Rugby its Laws not rules. Rugby is far superior than League and it has a "Law Book" that referees manage a game by. The call should be Crouch - Scrum, with the ball immediately put in to effect the start of the push - it is that simple, it's not rocket science.

Neither team is supposed to push before the ball is fed to the scrum ie the player feeding the ball into the scrum is supposed to wait until scrum is steady. I think the less influence the referee has the better. Agree that the 4 calls prior to engagement is too many. It creates too much anxiety/anticipation about getting timing right rather than focusing on stable scrums/proper engagement. 'Crouch - Scrum' is good and when scrum is stable feed the ball...

I reffed seniors for about 5 years and U19 for about another 5. In U19s the call was supposed to be 4 distinct C - T - P - E, but there were many variations from refs not keeping up with the training, being old and set in their ways etc. I always found that U19 scrums adapted week in week out to variations in scrum calls with little problem. Agree with Jarius - actually preferred C - T&P - E. Don't see why it couldn't be introduced universally.

FWIW I certainly like it. I think people will argue the momentum of engagement will be lost if you pause after the hit, however the rules do state that you can't push off the mark until the ball's in anyway. I've never been in a scrum myself but I reckon it could work.

As a hooker i have always preferred the easy cadence of: "CROUCH, TOUCH&PAUSE.... ENGAGE". Used to be the standard call in my comp in years gone by.

In my opinion, part of the problem is that we have 4 calls (crouch, touch, pause, engage) BEFORE the teams engage and most of the problems described above are issues that occur AFTER the teams have engaged. There simply needs to be more clarity around what happens after the "hit" to reduce/eliminate the ambiguity around teams pushing early, halfbacks not feeding the ball, scrums not being stable etc... I would suggest "crouch, hit, pause, SCRUM"... the teams engage on the HIT (get rid of the touch & pause calls for the reasons described above) then AFTER engagement, there is a "pause" call to ensure the scrum is stable before "scrum" is called where both teams are allowed to start pushing and the halfback must put the ball in, even if his team is being out-pushed... this should elimiate the ambiguity around teams pushing early etc - quite simply if either team pushes before the "SCRUM" call, the opposition gets a 10m tap, if the halfback does not feed the ball on the "SCRUM" call, the opposition gets a 10m tap, if the scrum is collapsed during the "pause" or "SCRUM" calls, the opposition gets a 10m tap etc... no ambiguity and constant scrum re-sets. I would like to hear any feedback from anyone who thinks this may or may not work?

At least get rid of the word 'pause.' There is no need for it. Crouch (pause), Touch (pause), Pause (pause), Engage is too long. Teams are getting penalised for not anticipating the referee's call, not for early engagement! It's almost impossible at the moment for both teams to hit simulataneously. Crouch, scrum I like too.

It should be crouch & scrum (the word scrum is the engage). The current 4 word call is a joke & current refs in particular NZ refs & Kaplan take too long between words which causes sides to rush the engage causing ridiculous scrum freekick infringements. Once the scrum is crouched correctly then they should engage upon the word scrum - the word scrum is short & precise and represents what the forwards do. The Laws are quite specific in that you cannot push until the ball is fed into the scrum & that it must be fed correctly which is down the middle. This area just requires Refs to police the Laws correctly. Also Refs inclusive of the Assistant Refs (Touch Judges) should ensue props elbows are up - this would immediately stop scrum collapses. Props that have their elbows down are deliberately trying to collapse the scrum & should be penalised accordingly - unfortunately most Refs have never played in the front row but it is easy to teach & enforce. Refs must police deliberate delays by scrum halves in feeding the ball as such delays also cause scrum collapses & wheels.

i'm sure when i was playing the scrums had to hit but then weren't allowed to push over the mark until the ball was put in. this keeps some control on things and gives the stronger scrum some responsibility for keeping things in order. not sure if its been officially changed but you dont see it penalised any more. allow the halfback to get th ball in before allowing any significant push. from then on its anyones. if the scrum pushes over the mark with the ball still in the halfbacks hands then its a penalty. also i said it in another discussion but they should fine teams if they exceed a specified threshold of % scrum resets/scrums. they fine cricketers for ruining the spectacle (slow over rates). If both scrums knew that if they collapsed 1 more they'd forfeit half the match fee i bet you'd have little problems from then on.

Well, it's actually a 4 step call - crouch, touch, pause, engage - which is at least one too many. I don't know that eradicating the hit will stop scrums collapsing. If there was some way to have packs engage slowly, with a gradual rather than sudden crescendo to full power, you would still have dominant packs buckle weaker ones, with a reset to follow. You'd also still have sides trying to gain advantage by putting on the shove early, or late. Plus, some of us quite enjoy a clearly stronger pack charging into the hit against a less than willing opposition. When you are at a game, you can hear and sometimes even feel the collision and I think it would be a shame if it went altogether. I can't see how resets can be avoided when there is a power ratio discrepancy in the front rows. As you say scrums are a wonderful part of the game and I want dominant scrums to be rewarded by the sight of their opponents crumbling and the possession that flows from it. That is going to cause resets, but there ought to be a limit - say two? With short-arm penalty to the scrum the ref decides is on top - rather than the current dog's breakfast buffet of weird and wonderful penalties employed to obscure the fact that the ref is as flummoxed as everyone else about what's going on in there, but being the ref, has to do something, anything! to end a string of frustrating resets. Incorrect binds for gawd's sake! Matchwinning 3-pointers kicked for such ridiculously subjective (and often plain wrong) calls. Results of important fixtures determined by calls that would fair dinkum be 50/50 propositions if you surveyed 100 non-aligned former front-rowers, or even referees. That uncertainty, that lottery aspect of officiating scrums is a blight on the integrity of the game itself, but also an avenue through which officials can plausibly punish teams they don't like, or, heaven forbid, rescue teams they have been 'instructed' by lets say a prominent racing identity to ensure get the 'rub of the green'. I'm not saying there's any evidence of such skulduggery but the absolute chaos of scrum rulings is fertile ground for it. While there is doubt about these head-scratching penalties we see in virtually every game, there is rarely any doubt about which team's scrum is on top. Refs can see this even more clearly than we can, and to my mind, if a scrum keeps collapsing but the ref can see no 'incorrect bind' or some other bloody thing he can hang a face-saving decision on, he should after 2 resets simply hand possession to the dominant scrum - 'team going forward'. Where teams are evenly matched in the scrum things would harder to determine, but in these cases refs should be haranguing halves to get the damn thing in early and hookers to strike immediately so that there's a chance it will clear before collapse. But even if it doesn't clear and the props have gone down, why blow the whistle straight away? If it has reached the back or even the second row, allow it to continue with a 'use it or lose it' call. I have lost some hair this year in frustration at perfectly good ball being stymied by a ref who has blown a reset because one side of the front row is down. So bloody what? If it's available, let it go. The only thing that should be whistled in such cases is dangerous play.

My memory doesn't stretch back that far but I think I'm right in saying the modern 'hit' is a product of the last 15 years or so. From seeing some older footage from the '80s it seems the packs assembled simultaneously with no discernable 'hit' as you say. If removing this is the key to avoiding scrum resets then I'm in favour of it. Many would object for fear it would take the contest out of the equation but if the scrums were contested in the past I don't see why they couldn't be now, with tight-heads being won by defending hookers striking for the ball rather than the whole pack pushing the attacking side off the ball.

Where does the "hit" come from in "crouch, touch, pause, engage"?