- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Well, it’s too late for this Rugby World Cup, but I still think that it is timely to talk about where scrums are going. From our experiences on the Spring Tour, it is obvious that the Wallabies can win no matter what happens in the scrums.
Obviously you want to be in a position where the scrum is solid enough that you are not leaking nine or 12 points a game – as that is where we will be hurt in the World Cup when teams work out that all they need to do is get into their red zone and milk penalties – but it seems to me that that should be our guiding philosophy and not some philosophy that says we need to achieve world scrum dominance. I can’t ever see that happening and it is unrealistic.
Even Austin Healy wrote an article this week, in Britain, questioning the NH attitude to scrummaging and that was before the France game.
Last year, the IRB managed to tweak the breakdown laws simply by giving the referees a version of how they wanted the existing laws interpreted and look at the results… more attractive rugby and fewer penalties.
Why can’t the same apply to the scrum?
Now, from the outset I am not one of those who wants to see the scrum as just a way of re-starting play. That would be rugby heresy, and look at the way that rugby league has made a joke of its scrums. Frankly, it’s an insult and I think they should get them out of their game altogether.
However, looking at the rugby scrum, yes you want them as a contest and it is a valuable contest and a fantastic part of our game. If you de-contest it, then you end up, as rugby league has, where all your forwards are the same shape and size – big, fast and athletic. Rugby is still the game that is designed for “all shapes and sizes” and that has to be sacrosanct.
The Positives.
1. A rugby scrum is a very manly contest.
2. It is the area in which the front forwards, in particular showcase their particular talents and skills, and every member of the team needs the ability to do that, otherwise the props would have a pretty dull time of it.
3. For the purists, you could write whole encyclopedia about it, and that, to a great extent is the essence of our game – the science of it, the way that it involves all of us in the debates, the wonderful fabric of our game, that we all take ownership of, and if you have ever coached a womens’ rugby team there are whole new paradigms that don’t even come into the male game, such as alternative binding methods.
4. The props need to be doing what props do and a lot of that does not involve running with the ball, setting up tries etc. Which reminds me of that old park rugby story where the winger kicks the ball out, across the road and someone has to go and look for it, since it was the only footy that they had for the game. The ref says, “Gents, there’ll be a slight delay while we find the ball…” and one of the gnarly old props is heard to say, Bugger the ball, ref, let’s just get on with the game!”
The Negatives
1. The number of re-sets.
2. The fact that, often a penalty is given when the ball is won (such as the ball might be sitting under the No. 8’s feet, when the scrum goes down, and it’s clear that the backs were just about to run it) – or maybe you only allow the penalty in circumstances where you would have awarded a penalty try anyway (such as not in the middle of the park or in the attacking team’s 22).
3. The fact that 99 times out of 100, you are going to win the ball on your feet.
4. The fact that referees don’t seem to enforce the ball being fed straight (at least as far as I can tell from the TV coverage).
5. The fact that defence is now so important that the back three want to get up and out of the scrum as quickly as they can, without upsetting the balance.
What are the answers?
I’m no expert, but it seems to me that we need to simply and de-mystify the refereeing of the scrum.
Here are some thoughts. Some might seem silly, but I am not a scrum doctor and these ideas might get some discussion going:
1. The engagement – surely the ref can control the engagement by having the teams standing close together – the “Crouch – Touch – Pause – Engage” interval seems just too long. I know it’s a safety issue, but surely we can do better.
2. The bind – is there something we can do there?
3. The feed – why not let the referee feed it into the centre? Just keep it going until there is a clear winner – no penalties or short arms. I reckon the lads would get pretty sick of it after a while, if they aren’t getting an advantage.
4. Is there some way that we could allow scrums to be wheeled and change the law to give a tactical advantage to one side or the other?
5. If the scrum goes down, could we treat is a a maul and apply the “use it or lose it” law (assuming that it is safe to do so).
6. Do we need to have the ability of a team to elect a scrum instead of a penalty? Why not just say that any infringement arising out of a scrum becomes a short arm penalty. It strikes me as a bit silly that a team wins a penalty from a scrum, and elects another scrum. However, I’m sure most will disagree with me.
7. Do referees play too much advantage? Or are the laws skewed? Maybe you could define advantage, as say, a territorial thing of, for example five metres, after which advantage stops and you get on with the game. It is disconcerting to watch a ref with his arm out for what looks like a passage of 15 to 20 metres, and two or three phases, and then watch everyone trudge back for a scrum up the paddock.
Surely advantage could be more tightly defined, and in situations where the ball is lost forward maybe the offending team could be forced to retreat behind some line (say two or three metres), to allow the non-offending side to have its advantage, or suffer the consequences.
That one might be hard to enforce, but worth looking at.
Any thoughts?
Join The Roar rugby editor Christy Doran, former Wallaby Matt Toomua and a cast of regular and special guests as they look at the biggest issues in the game on The Roar Rugby Podcast. If you’re looking for great odds on the next game check out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp. Chances are you’re about to lose. Set a deposit limit.