I’m confused. I have been playing and supporting rugby since my parents took me down to Biggs Field in Sunnybank 35 years ago. There we tried to run, step, tackle, catch, kick and pass.
No one had to tell us the object of the game – it was obviously to score tries.
I know we needed to start the game somehow – that was a kickoff. I also know we had to get the game going again after the ball went out – lineouts. And if you knocked the ball forward you need another way to restart the game – scrums.
These three elements of the game, and a few more besides, are all essential parts of rugby. But they exist to serve the major purpose of the game by restarting play with a contest. And “play” is about attempting to score tries. That was the natural order of things, and that’s what we loved about the game.
Somewhere along the way (I feel it’s been since 2003, but I don’t really know) I’ve noticed a pronounced shift in the emphasis placed on the scrum contest, as determining who is a good team and who is not in the eyes of many – mainly from the northern hemisphere and South Africa, but more and more from New Zealand as well.
There is hysterical talk of the importance of scrum time, the fascinating battle, the injustices of referees decisions, and, most disturbingly, the need (the righteousness!) for the dominant scrum to be rewarded.
I must have missed something, but for what should a dominant scrum be rewarded? For being good at restarting play? Why should that be rewarded with points or field position? Especially if they were the nitwits who knocked it on or infringed in the first place.
A team who can barely throw or catch the ball, but have a great goal kicker and good scrum, shouldn’t be able to win a game off the back of goals kicked via a constant stream of refereeing decisions, concerning that one aspect of the game – especially when it is clear to every player and fan that the referees are guessing which way to blow the penalty, 90 per cent of the time and are highly susceptible to being conned by both teams.
What sort of game has it become when the flawed judgments of an official regarding one part of play constantly decides big games?
We deride soccer for the dives in the penalty area that earn spot kicks and decide the biggest games, yet we allow the referee much more freedom to win a game for a team with our current scrum interpretations. And they do.
We have lost sight of what rugby is supposed to be about by tolerating this crazy notion that the scrum is the object of the game, rather than merely a part of it.
There is so much exciting rugby being played by the top teams at the moment, but this obsession with scrums will see rubbish teams with limited tactics be rewarded yet again in this World Cup by going much further than they deserve, or even winning it.
And that’s not the game I thought I loved.
Muzza
Guest
the scrum is an awesome and necessary part of the game. The only thing I take offence to is the resetting of collapsed scrums that suck up 2-3 minutes at a time. 10 scrums could take 15-20 minutes from a match. For a $100 ticket thats $25 of scrum collapsing. Need to fix that, but that is all.
Bakkies
Guest
Jannie du Plessis is an imitation of a prop
Bakkies
Guest
the aim of the try was to score a kick at goal.
Frustrated lawmaker
Guest
Willy and Mella, you're spot on with my aim - not denigrating scrums, just wanting them to be kept in their correct context. They are PART of the game, they are not ( to me) THE game. I watched an old bledisloe from Wellington in the early 80's this week and no scrums collapsed, the front rows were high, and both sides put the ball in and got it out quickly. It was a restart of play, a contest for possession, but it was over with quickly and the game resumed. Scrum contests in their current format are a modern obsession that's not good for the game.
Canon
Guest
Awesome stuff and you are exactly right. This is why we love rugby.
Lorry
Guest
well Sheek, we got all the ball we needed tonight but couldnt do anything with it!
Lorry
Guest
agreed, great summary of the game sheek! 'crouch touch engage' is needed though... NO PAUSE!!! Since the scrum is still such a contest, does anyone think we need to see the halfbacks feeding it straighter, like we had to at school? I remember a few years ago Chris Whitaker got pinged for not feeding straight. He was furious (rare for him!), but I thought it was great haha! We'd see more tight-heads that way too... Hookers would hate it though
Willy
Guest
Great artcle. I used to watch and play rugby and league in the 90s but in the early 2000s, the increasing interest in scrums that you mentioned, and the fact that weak teams with big scrums and good goalkicker can win against team that actually "play", absolutely got me out of the game of union, i now only follow league, where a team which only scores penalties won't win a game against a team which scores tries. The aim of rugby is to score tries, not to push scrums and score penalties!
Mella
Roar Rookie
I dont think this article sets out to degenerate scrums but the trend towards an increasingly extreme influnece of scrums in many matches. I've seen games in the last couple years where scrums and scrum penalties were indirectly or directly worth 20-30 points to a team, despite that team feeding every scrum crooked. This has never been part of rugby's history. Good article but it was always going to get a flinch reaction from the rugby heads who want to keep the game confined to its existing niche.
sheek
Guest
p.Tah, How very true - you don't know what you have (& how good it is) until you no longer have it. We might have brilliant, magician backs, but unless the forwards provide them with a consistent supply of good quality ball to work with, it won't matter much.
johnb747b
Guest
The idea of a rugby scrum being 'Shakespearean' is ludicrous. If it is not, then the scrum belongs to the Shakesperean comedies. Or perhaps, the tragedies. Or then again, the histories. I've given up paying astronomical ticket prices to 'internationals' or 'Super' games (what a misnomer, in the main). Give me the joys of Coogee Oval on a Saturday, Randwick v say Manly. Some years ago someone put the clock on a rugby test, from memory Oz v Kiwis. The ball was in play for a total of 34 minutes. Maybe a 'ball in play' stat should be worked out for every game. The price of the ticket could then be divided by the stat, a bit like supermarkets advertising 'price per grams'. There are powerful emotions generated by eg scrummaging technique close to the line which brings spectators to their feet, fine, but the basic purpose of forwards is to provide clean, quick ball to the backs. I for one am sick and tired of front rowers coached to collapse the scrum, of the tedium of OH&S considerations slowing the setting of scrums, of referees having to step in to show front rowers what they want... League has gained immensely from treating the scrum as an accessory to the main events on the field. I personally would rather that the league team entitled to the feed should simply be handed the ball, bugger the scrum. I hope that someone puts a time watch on this weekend's big one. I hope it would be an improvement on 34 minutes of ball in play. Rugby players spend far too much time with their hands on their hips, doing nothing. Make a try worth 1 more point, make a penalty goal worth 1 less point. That would be a good start. And put the scrum in its place, which sure as hell does not warrant exalted status. It is a means to an end for 90% of the time.
sheek
Guest
Jus, You're not alone! Even reasonably knowledgeable fans don't understand the ref's decisions a lot of the the time!! But yes, the better you understand the game, & get to know the players, then your overall enjoyment increases.....
jeznez
Roar Guru
nice Sheek, very well put.
jmo
Guest
that's classic. I'm definitely not paying enough attention to the scrums. In tonight's match I'll be looking more carefully at the scrums for signs of intrigue, betrayal, suspense and trance like play.
p.Tah
Guest
Brilliantly put Sheek. That's why I love rugby. It's the little battles inside a much larger battle. I didn't really appreciate the scrum until we had a poor one. In many games our backs will outshine the opposition's, but we obviously have to win upfront. The more I realized this, the more I began to enjoy this particular battle. Scrums are great... When they're not collapsing.
Kuruki
Roar Guru
Scrum clocks will never work, if that was the case who gets the ball? and how can you stop someone from purposely milking the clock to get the turnover? It would make things even worse as the team without the ball will be trying to max the clock out everytime.
RedsNut
Guest
The quality of the art of scrumming (imo) went down the gurgler when "the hit" became the most important part of the engagement. A good hooker was (almost) worth his weight in gold - or points - if he could out strike his opposite number. It seems that these days the hooker is just another member of the front row, so doesn't qualify as a "proper" hooker. It further deteriorated when putting the ball in straight was no longer compulsory, and the contest was no longer an equal challenge - as the line out still is. Spoken as a back who doesn't know the first thing about being a forward lol
Kuruki
Roar Guru
I know its absolutely ridiculous if they are concerned for the safety of the front row and they can see the ball is at the back, they should just call out.
nc
Guest
an ill-informed parochial rant. the game is about many things. one of which is running with the ball. scrums are key. the game is richer for them.
Atawhai Drive
Guest
Since when was the scrum merely a way of restarting the game? Or the lineout, for that matter? Scrums and lineouts have always been important. Obviously so, otherwise why have bulky props and hookers and tall lineout forwards? It's supposed to be "a game for all shapes and sizes", after all. I don't remember anyone in Australia bagging scrums in 1991, when we had a front row of Tony Daly, Phil Kearns and Ewen McKenzie. Just writing those names makes me feel nostalgic. With respect, FL, my interest in the game goes back more than 50 years and there were far more scrums and lineouts in the 1960s than there are now. One real area of concern is selective refereeing: a lineout throw only has to be a millimetre off line to be called "not straight", but every scrum feed goes straight into the second row without penalty.