Referees killing game with scrum penalties

as a referee i can tell you that we are told to do that, we dont have a choice so dont get s---ty with us

Isn't a scrum a formalised ruck so why reset if the ball is hooked. The scrum should morph , set up I presume that means, without pushing and the ref says scrum which means simultanoeusly the half back feeds the ball and everyone pushes. If the scrum collapses three times in a match then golden oldies scrums but without taking off the fatties and replacing them with runners. There needs to be much more attention also to the halfback putting the ball in straight.

As a player who finished up in the 80's, when rugby was a real contact sport, I totally concur. Rucks are about rucking. No penalty for not rolling away. 4 long lasting red marks down your back get people moving much quicker. Scrums are a major component of rugby, and allow the opportunity to set attacking plays in many forms and even tries. For god sake let the boys contest them without refs blowing their bloody whistle because someone puts their hand on the ground. As a front rower it is far better to stabilize the scrum than to land on your face. But please god, no rugby league style excuses for a scrum, which seems to be where we are headed!

RK - I don't think we'll agree on the 'hit' but I do want to say thanks for putting this post up. You've certainly hit a topical nerve and you have universal agreement that there are problems with the scrums. Just to elaborate a little more on me thinking the players and referees rather than the rules are the issue - I agree with you that the engagment/hit is the point at which the scrum is most vulnerable to collapse (assuming both sides are trying to keep it up) there will always be some scrums go down immediately upon the hit and usually it will be because one or other of the front rower's shoulders are below the hip - this is illegal. Referees should manage the players to ensure that the shoulders are above and penalise if required. The thing that bugs me is the huge number of collapses after the scrum has stabilised. We frequently see collapses after the scrum is stable and the ball fed - occaisionally this will be because players slip - that is a fact of life but most of the time I think it is wilful collapsing by players either under pressure or trying to milk penalties and this is why I want referees to have better understanding so they can correctly penalise these cheats. Random idea - if it is too much to expect referees to become scrum experts along with everything else they need to know about the game then how about specialist scrum referees who come on just at scrum time? They could move up and down the sideline and get on the pitch in the time it takes to form a scrum - a bit left field and not something I'm seriously endorsing just throwing it out there.

TOS - I think that is an over-simplification. Ahh...no I don't. On reflection I agree the Tahs scrum are scamming cheats. They are rubbish. I think that Mad Al Baxter should retire. The guy has a reputation that can't be modified..he is doomed to be always remembered as the man most capped in a position that he couldnt play. Why does he keep playing. Just retire Mad Al!

That is GOLD, Mick! Made my afternoon.

Welcome back Jock - its been a while since you blessed us with your doom andd gloom. Mate, we get it...you dont like Rugby in its current form, it makes you distressed. Just pop on down to the bowls club and have a tipple. Meanwhile the rest of us can enjoy some rugby.

I definitely recall that as a tighthead I called the engagement on our feed - unless the Ref thought I was up to silly buggers and then he would take it off me and call it himself. That was one of the big advantages on your own feed that you could anticipate your own call and get the jump on the hit. If the morphing was happening only sometimes was it actually a case of injury and scrums going uncontested? that is the only reason I can think of if it was only happening some of the time. Can't remember exactly when it came in but I think during the late eighties to make scrums safer the rules had introduced the 1.5 metre push rule for under 20's, the law requiring shoulders to be above hips when scrummaging and I think from hazy memory the pause was introduced (as an actual pause not a word) and the ref took over calling all scrums engagements.

Whay must they use it??....because we are sitting in the stands bored to death waiting for the egos to sort themselves.

Don't tar all Aussie teams with the same brush. There were very few (if any) scrum resets in the Reds v Lions match even though the Reds monstered the Lions scrum (even with 7 men!). I think the problem has been mainly with Australian teams containing Al Baxter. He was an embarrassment when he played for the Wallabies, he obviously has technical issues being unable to hold the scrum up (As an old prop, I have my theories that it is his feet placement prior to the hit). This problem is then multiplied when the refs start seeing him as the weak link. This is because his opponent props can then drop him to milk the penalty which they'll win about 80% of the time.

Id agree with that if everytime the ball is slow coming out of the ruck you can blame the kiwi's and get a penalty just on suspicion.

Having a scrum collapse and re-set is not what I consider a problem - having the scrums collapse time and time again before a free kick or penalty is given is the problem. Didn't see every game of the Six Nations, but my impression was that they had scrums, the scrums sometimes did not complete, but the repeated re-setting of scrums was not nearly as bad as the Waratah games.

But that's exactly why the big hit on engagement approach is particularly vulnerable to a law change - if the packs were brought together and only permitted to push when the ball comes in (basically what McKenzie is saying, and, as regards the only pushing after the ball is in, what the law now requires anyway) you might well reduce collapses and resets, and you'd potentially be making the scrum safer. And none of that would take away the contest for the ball.

Spiro, With professionalism we have lost a proper contest at the breakdown so don't be surprised if the scrum ever disapears-I won't be but I hardly care anymore.

In 1984, the Wallabies, under the scrum coaching of Alec Evans, monstered the Welsh pack at Cardiff Arms Park. This brought to prominence, with Topo Rodiquez as one of the props. the Argentinian method of scrumming. Their national side developed the bagada, the scrum moving forward after the hit with little steps, which became the Pumas main source of rugby strength, along with Hugo Porta's wonderful kicking game...

Yes, there is no doubt in my mind, that the dominant side will still collapse the scrum if they fail to get a good hit. Unless of course the dominant scrum is from a country other than Australia.

Why must they use it? they can have the ball at the back of the scrum and march it 100 m for a try if they want to. If the scrum collapses and the halfback plays it fine but they shouldn't be told to "use it"

scarlet, take a look at the Wallaby Grand Slam footage from '84 (plenty of highlights available). The Wallabies had the dominant scrum for the most part (including a push over try against Wales). They certainly 'morphed' at times, but not always. The players mostly had control of the engagement (although on some occasions the refs 'took charge'). I believe this is a major part of the problem - although refs claim they don't particularly like policing the scrum, they also can't bear to relinquish control.