Do spectators even care about the scrum?

Of course the scrum is an integral part of the game but not the MAIN part (which is to pick up the ball and run with it). Collapses will continue while a ton of humanity crashes into another ton at the engagement. Why not try the schoolboy rule for the engagement then, once the ball goes in, the two front rows can wrestle for dominance. This would also reduce the risk of serious injury. I agree that the clock should stop once the ref has called for a scrum and not started again until the ball is put in. AND the old law of putting in the ball down the centre line and `without delay' should be enforced (together with the same applying to lineout throw ins). Time should also be stopped once a player has indicated that he will attempt a kick at goal (the time some players take to make the kick is ridiculous). Although this is not part of this survey, here is a need to debate the rolling maul. A player carrying the ball at the rear of a maul is placing the players in front of him offside, and not permitting a maul to be pulled down makes defence against this ridiculous play impossible. I am showing my age when I consider that the whole breakdown mess would be cleared up by reverting to rucks only. As an ex ref I would hate to try and officiate the present breakdown laws. In summary, rugby is a great game being buggered up by too many stoppages and confusing laws.

If two sides want to scrum, it will not collapse - if you get the chance to watch the recent England / Argentina series there were very few collapses as both sides WANTED to scrum. If you want uncontested restarts there is a place for you and it is called league

Scrum, lineout, ruck and maul are what make Rugby great, if you want to get rid of them go watch League. That being said the pre-bind and straight feed into the scrum are a good move.

Is that the results will be distributed world wide or they will be collating data world wide? Will they be asking their questions in rugby forums or talking to the general populace. I'm genuinely interested in the scope - this could be an absolute farce if done with a narrow focus and in my mind will at best be of mild interest if a global rugby fanbase is effectively canvassed.

Thanks Gavin you for your response and your suggested readings. I have followed Brian Moore's comments with interest and I can find little to disagree with what he has to say. I have also looked at the RRIPG material. Their work is most useful in documenting the physics and physiology issues relating to the scrum. The trick will be for the recommendations from their analysis to to translated into how the scrums are actually administered. While I believe the scrum is an essential part of the game I am concerned that the way the laws are interpreted and implemented give it an unintended role in the structure of the game. The laws of the game state that the scrum is used to restart the game quickly, safely and fairly following a minor infringement. The current interpretation fails on all three counts in the elite game.(Scrums at the ordinary club level generally do not exhibit the same problems as at the highest level). Contrary to the laws the scrums are seldom stationary when the ball is fed in and it would not be an exaggeration to say the ball never goes into the middle line of the scrum. I am aware of the new protocol coming next year. I have seen it in operation and it is an improvement. It will result in fewer collapses. If the current laws were implemented by the referees there would be little to complain about. Sadly they are not. In the past week I have had the opportunity to individually speak with more than 200 Lions fans on currently tour with the B&I Lions. Almost all of these rugby watchers have issues with the current scrum. Their concerns are varied but the common theme is that some attention to the scrum's administration is required. Until rugby spectators make their views known the aspects of the game that need attention the game will continue to be the plaything of vested interests.

What a load of bull. The scrum IS rugby and essential to everything that rugby is about. Go and play or watch that small little offshoot sport called rugby league, (which I'd never heard of until my late teenage years and only ever saw my first game at the age of 23 on TV in the UK) and for some reason is only big in Australia. For the rest of the world.... there is RUGBY!! Enough said

Do away with scrums? How else are they going to get the 16 fat blokes out of the way to let the chaps run the ball? Why not make the ball round? Non-contact? I'm incredulous that "Brett Gosper, CEO of the International Rugby Board" said that. Was he p!ssed up? Scrum Revision is all the rage for chat in the NH. Most say - "Why can't we get the refs to enforce the laws for starters?" Notably, there is no "hit" See Laws 20.1 (i) Charging. A front row must not form at a distance from its opponents and rush against them. This is dangerous play. Sanction: Penalty kick (j) Stationary and parallel. Until the ball leaves the scrum half’s hands, the scrum must be stationary and the middle line must be parallel to the goal lines. A team must not shove the scrum away from the scrum away from the mark before the ball is thrown in. Sanction: Free Kick Also, putting the ball in straight might encourage hooking rather than having 3 props each in the front row. 20.6 (d) The scrum half must throw in the ball straight along the middle line, so that it first touches the ground immediately beyond the width of the nearer prop’s shoulders. Sanction: Free Kick Yeah, right. Also, the French early-bind experiment is supposedly working quite well. English mouthpiece and erstwhile front-rower Brian Moore put in a petition to the refs: http://www.rugbyrefs.com/archive/index.php/t-7738.html Moore talks a lot of sense on the scrum. There was an excellent BBC Radio5 chat-in about it quite recently. Podcast may be hanging about the web someplace, still This lot de-mystify some of the calls you overhear on the commentary, including the magical "not chasing your feet", http://www.sareferees.com/laws There's RRIPG - Rugby Research & Injury Prevention Group which looks at who gets hurt & why. http://rugbyinjury.org/index.html which is probably better than Gifford's Voluntary form-filling.

From a spectator point of view I often record games now and fast forward through the resetting time between scrums. Something that has occurred to me while watching rugby is that other sports have extended stoppages between play too; but spectators don't mind. Examples are cricket, where the ball is in play a fraction of the time, baseball,same, and American Football. So ball in play and continuity is not the issue. What is the issue then? In my opinion the poor quality of television coverage is the real problem. Cricket introduced all kinds of interesting graphics and analysis to deflect attention in between plays, same with American Football. Watch an NFL game sometime and see how they cleverly manage a very stop start sport. Yet rugby's TV coverage has not improved since it went professional. Quite often rugby TV broadcasts live and uniterrupted coverage of drinks breaks and scrum resets. In fact, despite the subtle differences between the rugby codes the TV coverage of rugby union is almost identical to rugby league. And there in lies the problem; league is ok with it's current TV format because the game is continuous; rugby union is a different temporal dynamic and the TV coverage should evolve to reflect that. Rugby is a complex sport. The problem is not that the game has stoppages; it's that the TV coverage hasn't adapted to utilise stoppage time to explain the context of the play with sophisticated graphics, expert commentary and analysis. I know that the TV producers haven't given these things much thought. I know this because over the last few years our TV screens have got much bigger yet it has not occurred to the broadcasters that team names no longer need to be abbreviated to 3 letters : AUS v LIO. I mean you can fit AUSTRALIA V LIONS on to my 42" TV now guys. There is plenty of space. I'm interested if anyone else has noticed these things?

I am interested in the number of comments posted. However isolated comments about single issues on a website does not lead to the consolidation of opinion. It is more useful if particular opinions can be shown to have widespread support. I hope those who take the trouble to comment also take the trouble to look at the survey to see if they agree with the range of issues raised. I see no comment from people who have completed the survey. I would also be interested in published research that explores spectator and / player opinion about the scrum or other rugby issues.

Agreed, provided we actually see it. They've talked that talk many times, but hardly ever walked it.

The survey does not prosecute a particular view of the scrum. It is an attempt to document the opinion of spectators and players. It is intended for distribution world wide because it is important what different watchers think about the issues.

Over here, not so much. in Australia all the time. If we lost the hit, bring it down and go again. That was 5 years ago though, I think there is a bit more pride in Aussie scrummaging now. Note the last scrum in the game on Saturday. We didn't win the penalty by collapsing it, we won it by smashing it.

Actually, to everyone talking about the scrum going the way of League's version. Take this into consideration. Part of this proposal is to officiate the put in to a greater extent to ensure the ball enters the scrum straight. Not like today where its shot through the Props legs. There has been the proliferation of what is effectively a second row feed over the past 5 years. Where's the contest in that?

They are not ending the contest at the scrum. People are building mountains out of molehills over this issue. Instead of standing half and metre to a metre apart they will bind first. There still will be a hit but in a much more controlled manner than a present. With the emphasis the ball being feed straight it brings the skills of each respective hooker into play alongside the collective skill of the partnering Props and the push as a unit by the other 5. It will still be very much a contest. At present you have gym junkies looking to bulk up to the extreme in order to develop the power at the hit instead of developing actual scrummaging skills. This ensures that a skill that was almost lost will become paramount once again. Yes, it will hurt some player's prospects at the scrum (the big bloke from the Chiefs is a prime example. There for his weight and impact in the hit but a poor scrummager. If he was any good Benn Robinson who gave away 30 odd kg to him wouldn't have been able to dominate him in the scrum proper) but they'll adapt if they're any good. Why are my comments being moderated?

"As a sporty but small man who would be road-kill in 5 minutes on a rugby pitch" Not true. In fact of of the bravest kids on my 13B's is probably the smallest kid on the field nearly every game. Launches himself into every contact he can and often wins it. In his first game ever he cut down the much larger opposing fullback who was in full flight. I've nicknamed him "Fearless". Seems fitting.

It's already like that. 35 minutes of actually running with the ball out of 80 minutes of game-time is the result.

No scrums and we might as well have rugby league. A good scrum is such a great contest. Rugby is all about the contest for the ball. Sure some scrums are problematic but stopping scrums is not the answer. If you want no scrums watch rugby league with the always surprising and innovative tactic of a kicked high ball to the winger or behind the try line on the fifth tackle. The variation in league is so thrillingly numbing. And they got rid of scrums because they were a pain too.

Here Here!

Scrums will always be random acts. Sixteen blokes, no one of identical height, weight, shoulder width, torso to leg ratio, some stronger in the knees, another in the hips and on it goes. Bind up and engage, we get what we get. It's a thing of majesty at it's best, slightly time consuming at worst. Challenging to referee but that adds to the drama, like the finish to the Crusaders-Waratahs match. Anyone that thinks they've got a solution for scrum collapses in rugby, tell 'em they're dreaming. Those wanting things in rugby to be black and white, tell 'em to piss off, it's about the vibe.

I've said this on another thread but I've played under similar engagement rules as a junior and it works fine. It's still a contest and there's still a hit. It's just closer and a lot more controlled. Instead of launching yourself as it currently stands. I've been in situations where the gap has been around 1m and trust me when you have 100s of kg behind you if you don't get it bang on every time it can be very dangerous.