The ‘Hit’ in Rugby Union scrums has come under widespread criticism for a number of years now.
I have been arguing that it is players willfully collapsing which is the major issue, rather than the hit but new evidence is coming to light which suggests I am wrong.
The IRB sends regular emails to accredited coaches and the January installment arrived this week.
Included was a presentation by IRB Chief Medical Officer, Dr Martin Raftery titled “Scrum History, Scrum Force Project and Scrum Injuries”. The presentation cited a number of studies that have been predominantly conducted at Bath University.
In the history section the studies showed that between 1982 and 2004 the number of scrums per game went from an average of 31 to 19, a drop of 60%. This reduction has been maintained with the RWC of 2011 averaging 17 scrums per match.
During the 1982-2004 period the number of scrums won by the feeding team has stayed aligned going from 88% to 89%.
The biggest change reported was in relation to penalties. Back in 1982 scrum penalties were evenly distributed between the feeding and defending scrums. As of 2004 the side feeding the ball enjoyed a 6:1 advantage in having a penalty awarded to them.
Something has drastically changed if the defensive side has become six times more likely to give away a penalty at scrum time.
The presentation also compared the 2003 Rugby World Cup to the 2011 version. The latest RWC had twice as many scrum collapses and twice as many penalties compared to 2003.
The 1995 RWC was also compared to 2011 with an even bigger difference; there are now three times as many collapses and four times the penalties.
An analysis of the scrums in the 2011 World Cup showed that there are an average of 17 scrums per game; half of these are won cleanly, a third collapse and the remaining 20% result in a penalty or free kick.
This seems to be a first world problem though. A review of the pool matches showed that when two Tier 1 teams played each other the stats are much worse than if two Tier 2 teams play each other.
The 2011 RWC Pool Matches break down as follows; these are average results per 100 scrums.
Tier 1 v Tier 1 – Collapse = 50, Re-Set = 31, Penalty/FK = 41
Tier 1 v Tier 2 – Collapse = 34, Re-Set = 17, Penalty/FK = 29
Tier 2 v Tier 2 – Collapse = 19, Re-Set = 9, Penalty/FK = 17
6 Nations – Collapse = 54, Re-Set = 30, Penalty/FK = 44
Tri Nations – Collapse = 43, Re-Set = 25, Penalty/FK = 25
The Tri Nations numbers are surprisingly good but it could be argued that South Africa and Australia have been scrummaging at a Tier 2 level so skew the results.
Finally the studies showed that scrums are taking up more than their fair share of the game. Scrums make up 8% of all contested events in the game but consume 17.5% of total playing time.
All the above points to scrums materially being an issue today compared to prior eras, and an issue at the highest level compared to lower tiers. It doesn’t pinpoint the ‘Hit’ or show that my defence of it was wrong. The next section of the presentation addressed that.
Bath University has conducted extensive studies measuring forces on scrum machines. With the assistance of the RFU they were able to gain participation from International, Elite Professional, Community, Adolescent, Women and U/18 teams.
The study focused on:
Peak Engagement Force (PEF) being the maximum force generated on impact.
Sustained Compression Force (SCF) being the force maintained after impact.
Lateral and Vertical forces.
They looked at a number of engagement methods from the Crouch, Touch, Engage (CTE) to Passive, including the variations of hitting and holding versus double shoves, amongst others.
The key finding is that the PEF which measures the force on the ‘Hit’ is twice what it was 20 years ago. PEF are also twice as large as the SCF.
The International and Elite packs generated significantly higher PEF, even after normalising for their greater mass. It was deemed that the speed of engagement these professional packs were able to generate led to the difference.
The PEF on a normal engagement are twice as large as that on a ‘passive’ engagement. All engagements, including passive produced similar levels of SCF.
Passive engages involved reducing the engagement speed by between 55-75% compared to a normal one and as well as a 50% reduction in the Peak Engagement Force, the downward Vertical force was reduced by 20%.
Given the twin pieces of evidence that the peak engagement force in scrums is twice what it used to be and that this is a particular issue at the elite levels. We need to revisit the engagement method to get rid of the blight of collapses and penalties on the game.
The new Crouch, Touch, Set engagement call that has been introduced is an improvement with the removal of the Pause and change to a single syllable pack call. However it does nothing to address the distance between packs, and does not limit the speed at which engagement occurs.
These are the two key areas that need addressing. The IRB’s Scrum Unit is due to release more information and recommendations shortly so we can expect to hear more on this during the year.
chris
Guest
Just to explain. During 2011 the Cape High Court gave judgment in case where a schoolboy player successfully sued for damages relating to spinal injuries suffered as a result of foul play on the hit (if I understand correctly the hooker went for gap where the between the opposing loose head and hooker, where the tight head should be, breaking the neck the of opposite number) These changes are a direct result of that decision.
jeznez
Roar Guru
Ha ha nice, I have to admit I always knew it was about to kick off when my hooker would bind under me at prop because you could guarantee he would drop that bind and start throwing punches mid scrum
Dadiggle
Guest
I really enjoyed punching the opposition from the lock position. Best position in the scrum!
jeznez
Roar Guru
followed by a few beers and comraderie afterwards - pretty hard to look your opponent in the eye and enjoy a beer, a yarn and sing a few songs with him if you were intentionally collapsing and putting the whole front row at risk of a spinal injury.
:) Well you must have read about our "manlove" for one another, but in truth I see us more as the "collective objectvie view" sorely needed at times. In seriousness though, I think we just see rugby needing to remain the sport we played as youngsters, with the physical battle being the be all and end all, and not the "conjob" players are trying to pull over referees eyes these days. Must be my simple upbringing. ;)
jeznez
Roar Guru
biltong, I've been kicking around the idea of a loosehead vs tighthead discussion but apart from the idea still only being half-baked, I'm concerned it may wind up being you and mania ganging up on me!
Blasphemous, us looseheads are stand up guys. ;)
jeznez
Roar Guru
good read, I like that they are focussing on those evil looseheads trying to walk around us virtuous tightheads!
Dadiggle
Guest
But at professional level you can't keep them up as they will just pull down on the binding and down they go. In fact any prop will go down when he feels uncomfortable. This is a bit messy but have a look at what the ref have to check at a scrum http://www.sareferees.com/News/balie-swart-on-scrumming/2797044/
jeznez
Roar Guru
Matt - Oz has had the 1.5 limit rule for U-19's since the late '80's, the rule changed while I was at school, so we had unlimited pushing in under 11s but by 15s we were on the 1.5 with the touch added to the engage sequence. By the time I was through Colts and into Open rugby I got to go back to old engagement rules but by the mid to late 90's the touch had caught up with senior rugby again. I always thought those 1.5 and no wheeling rules were widely adopted - they are certainly in the IRB Law Books. Funnily enough playing 3rd division in Singapore the 1.5m rule feels like it has been specifically entered to stop Old Boys teams like my own from pushing smaller local packs off the park. Less about safety that it is about taking a try scoring weapon off us. Dadiggle, if a scrum is so dominant they can push the other pack around at will, they are probably good enough to prevent a collapse - it is certainly in their favour to keep it up in that instance.
Dadiggle
Guest
That is a very good site. You can check there regularly for stats and decisions of games and explanation of the laws. You can email them as well with queries where a referee will answer and discuss decisions you want to know about. I emailed them twice and got twice a reply. They do from all over the world. They ain't bias at all that is the plus side.
Dadiggle
Guest
Jez the wining is the reason why they found his cellphone in the SA dressing room. It had 15 miss calls on it!
jeznez
Roar Guru
Thanks for posting these links, Diggle. Really good reads and interesting to see from this last one that this has very much been SA Rugby driven with their own working group. It mentions in the article that they met with the IRB's Scrum unit at Bath University where the studies I discussed were done and that they did intensive review with the French who have had a similar no hit system at their junior levels. Will be very interested to see how this plays out in coming seasons.
Dadiggle
Guest
Our friend mr Lawrence 1st game: 6 Scrums for which there were 7 resets & 8 collapses. 2nd game: 22 Scrums, 8 resets, 13 collapses. Total: 26 scrums, 15 resets & 21 collapses. Basically every scrum Bryce has had has gone down, with quite a few going down more than once or been reset, but as stated too, both his games have been very forward orientated games.
Dadiggle
Guest
Yeah I remember the last time I experienced or seen a scrum totally destroying the opposition was at schooll level when you pushed them back like 10 meters and just go through their binding like a hot knife through butter. But funny enough the scrum never seem to collapse then. Probably because the prinsiple worked like it was intended to and that is to destroy the other teams binding going through them. But at proffesional level that will never happen IMO. Way different league and bigger stronger guys
jeznez
Roar Guru
Just read your link from the SA Referees - the changes for Club 1st Division through to Currie Cup are interesting as well. They are using the same engagement sequence as other nations are using but have a new rule on height of elbow on the bind, have the packs closer together so that '12 ears are in alingment' and have stated that a scrum through 90 degrees is a reset with no turnover. The IRB must be involved in this and these must be trials before they consider expanding the changed rules. PS. Poor old Lawrence doesn't look good on those scrum stats - makes me feel better about my whinging after the Ireland game!!!!
Matt
Guest
Interesting to see SARU really leading the way with the scrum safety changes there Dadiggle. It looks like they're simply taking the initiative and looking to increase the safety in the game for kids, with probably one eye on trialling the changes for the upper levels of the game. Jeznez, it is interesting that below U19 level there will be a 1.5m pushing limit. I still believe there is strong merit for including this all levels, with experimentation needing first of course. In the same way that taking out a lifter or jumper at lineout time (and taking out the legs of players in a maul) is dangerous, I believe allowing a dominant pack to push their opponents backwards over larger distances is also dangerous. It raises the risk of a walkover where players could get trapped or fall in awkward positions. It also goes against the principle of the scrum being a fast and safe way to restart play in a contested manner. A team should be able to hook and clear the ball within a 1.5m limit. Anything more is them trying to gain territory or be awarded a penalty. As such, being able to push ad infinitum impacts both safety and the attitude to teams at scrum time in a negative manner. I believe that if you want to move the ball down field from a scrum then you have to either clear to the backs or form a maul to do so, just as you have to do from a lineout. This will remove the traditional pushover try, but we don't see many of these nowadays and the same outcome could be achieved from a No.8 pickup and his two loosies forming a quick maul to drive the ball over from only 3.5m out. I just think we should try more to bring rugby's law inline with each other, so we have less irregularity and therefore less confusion.
Dadiggle
Guest
http://www.sareferees.com/News/saru-answers-scrum-queries/2829798/ There is more on the scrums for juniors and who is behind it.
Dadiggle
Guest
Here you go Jez if you can put it somewhere up here http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/9376/rwc2011.jpg
jeznez
Roar Guru
So SA Schools have moved to a passive hit already? It was clear from the IRB comments regarding these studies that they are intending further changes. I assume that this is a preliminary trial at school level before they look at trialling in senior competitions?