When attempting to explain the allure of our game to non-believers, rugby tragics commonly cite two things. One, that it’s a game for all shapes and sizes. And two, that it provides constant contests for possession.
Which brings one to the scrum.
Once a humble restart, it became a mystery, a game within a game, the “dark arts”, and more simply, a means to show physical superiority. But now, it is more than that. It is a means to an end.
Conquer the opposition scrum, win a penalty, kick 3 points. Repeat. Repeat again. And again. Win the game. Simple.
Captivating, perhaps, to a select few, but not exactly riveting viewing for the rest of us who like to see those things called tries. You know, those things which were once the object of the game.
So how has this all been allowed to evolve?
Well, a couple of years ago, scrum resets were at an all time high. Precious game time was lost, and spectators voted with their feet. So, referees were instructed to “find fault”, penalise accordingly, and get on with it.
Sure, like any other part of the game, the scrum has it’s laws which need to be used in cases of illegal play, or when a team attempts to gain an unfair advantage.
That’s fine.
But why is the scrum the only part of the game which rewards dominance with a penalty kick? Or put another way, why sanction a technically inferior team with a penalty kick simply because they are not good enough? Think about it.
Dominance in midfield or out wide results in line breaks, field position, and ultimately, tries. Dominance at tackle will allow you to retain possession, or win a turnover. Dominance at lineout will offer similar reward.
So, rewarding scrum dominance or sanctioning inferiority with a penalty kick is quite an anomaly, and demonstrably inconsistent. It is a disproportionate reward. Scrum dominance should only be rewarded with field position and/or possession.
At the moment, a scrum which gets smashed is invariably penalised, even if they do not intentionally infringe the law. If they do deliberately infringe, of course they should be liable to penalty.
So here’s a suggestion.
A team with a dominant scrum, on their own feed, will move it forward, and be able to provide stable possession for their team. And on the opposition feed, they will disrupt the opposition’s ball, and perhaps send them backwards. This alone is reward for dominance, as most Rugby people know, since invariably backs cannot create much from poor quality ball, or if their pack is going backwards.
If they cause the weaker scrum to disintegrate with the ball unplayable, why not be rewarded with a scrum feed turnover, as already exists with scrums which rotate through 90 degrees, and similarly “use it or lose it” at a maul?
Or, God forbid, earn a free kick!
Ok, for those from the North thinking this is just another Aussie attempt to de-power scrums, it’s anything but. Put in the context of the Third Test last Saturday, imagine the same scenario. Let’s assume most of Romain Poite’s penalties against Australia were correct (which they were).
Under this proposal, The Lions, instead of kicking 3 points, would have gone deep into Australian territory. Fans saw what their backs could do in the second half, so it’s not unreasonable to suggest a greater winning margin.
If they go down this path or something similar, there would be fewer scrum penalties, the referee’s role would be greatly diminished, matches would not be decided on penalty kicks from scrums, dominance in scrums would be consistent with dominance in other areas, and the point of difference Rugby has over other codes, would be retained.
Who knows, a greater incentive to score tries might even get the crowds back!
Zero Gain
Guest
Rubbish, this is scrummaging. I was a very clean player. This is just run of the mill stuff. It happens in almost every scrum and at the highest level. You are dreaming if you don't think so. I played prop for 25 years mate. From 1st grade to 5th grade, rep teams, city and country. After one game when I packed against a Saffa loose head my whole side was black and blue for a week from him binding on my skin. I shook his hand after the game and asked him if he learnt the tactic off his sister. He laughed and said 'yes'! We shared a beer and talked for an hour. He was testing my mental strength. The bruises were soon gone and I learnt a great way to distract my opposite number. I only used it every now and then and yes, I did cop a punch or two. So what? I never once threw a punch myself or rucked a guys head or anything of the sort. A sharp thumb in the latisimus dorsi doesn't cause any long term harm, just some short term discomfort. Forwards rugby is often a game of intimidation. That is the reality in the front row. This is probably the reason why we are so weak there now, because these skills are not being handed down because of guys like you. That is why our props get popped. Tactics like changing the angle, getting your head under their breast, being able to lift using the underarm etc, etc. How do you think they do it mate? That is why its called the 'dark arts'. Face reality or keep losing.
Celtic Bandaid
Guest
"Of course we don't.The game and indeed the whole country must always be kept in rightful Tory hands.Us captains of industry know that like our management and laws, Rugby rules are there for the very right reasons and the great unwashed must never be fully able to integrate into our society and game. They just be paid employees there for our enjoyment. Some time ago in 1982-83 one even captained Australia, an Aboriginal no les,s but thankfully this imbalance was addressed very quickly". Get out of our cocoon goose ! Rugby is a great game. Unfortunately in Australia its generally controlled and watched by the spineless chattering classes which is why we'll never ever consistently be any good.
richard
Guest
Utter tripe.
tubby
Guest
best games this year have been when the refs set the front rows up almost ear to ear, much reducing the hit and the chance of it going down whilst still leaving it a contest. Imagine if the rules were consistent - prop misses a bind on a tight jersey - penalty, even if he gains it again. player fails to make a clean tackle on the first grab - penalty? It's hardly an advantage to go straight to ground on the hit, especially on your own scrum, yet penalties abound. Who here does not feel nervous about "winning" a scrum in a close game with time up knowing how random the penalty award is?
Jerry
Guest
They already have legislated against it years ago when the likes of Grant Fox and Michael Lynagh figured out that you could kick drop goals much easier with the new synthetic balls. You can't take a drop goal from a free kick until after a tackle, ruck or maul or an opponent has played the ball.
Objective
Guest
100% right Mania. NZ largely use their strong scrum to provide a platform for attack - NOT to simply win a kickable PK. In fact, with kickers like Carter et al, they could be forgiven for doing exactly that. But they prefer to score tries !! And that is what I'm talking about. At least you actually read the article, instead of blindly jumping on some anti-Aussie rant.
Jerry
Guest
"all but" Part of the reason is that teams are probably more likely to collapse or detach and give up a penalty.
Bakkies
Guest
They aren't extinct as refs are just as likely to award a penalty try as there are usually infringements. See France's pen try against the Wallabies in Paris. The French had pushed the Aus scrum over the try line and dotted down but the pen try had already been given.
Bakkies
Guest
Irvine was a back and like most Aussies doesn't understand the scrum. Would you hear Rowntree and Gatland spouting those remarks?
Bakkies
Guest
Irvine was a back and like most Aussies doesn't understand the scrum. Would you hear Rowntree and Gatland spouting those remarks?
Bakkies
Guest
Objective you have no argument mate.
Bakkies
Guest
'' +1 its just too easy to penalise the team going backwards each time.'' Captain obvious of the week right there. The scrum going backwards should be penalised if it infringes. The laws are also there for safety reasons not just to reward a dominant scrum.
Mike
Guest
The author says that tries "were once the object of the game". In fact, the original object of the game was to kick goals. Grounding the ball behind the opposition goal line just gave you the opportunity to "try" for a goal. I really struggle with the concept that penalty goals should be de-emphasised. Rugby is still a code of football.
Nicko
Guest
With all of the conjecture about scrums, it almost sounds like we've "created" rules for a new game.....like Rugby League. We don't want that!
Rich
Guest
Here's and idea, how about you get some kids, coach them properly, teach them the value of the scrum and the psychological, physical and tactical benefits of it, instead of looking for excuses and short cuts. This is a game for all shapes and sizes! you take away the scrums then we have every player at 6.2" who run like the wind. One week the prop will play prop the next lock or centre. (Starting to sound like league) The rest of the world doesn't seem to have too much of a problem - no one is arguing about the scrum and its position in the game, they are challenging the sequences. Go watch some old footage when the only word was "engage" Now watch closely and tell me how many resets there are? Oh and while I'm on it please "BRING BACK RUCKING"
Rassie
Roar Rookie
No Mania. NZ have always played like that. Its just prior rules did not prevent the rest of the world they way each country want to play. Thanks to law tweaks it have forced most countries to play like NZ plays. And you can see NZ with a style of which they have a 60 year old head start you can see why the rest of the world have to catch up
fredstone
Guest
You should be watching league. Them's the guys doing the tapping thingies and the not line out tapping thingies and the not scrum thingies and so on.
mania
Guest
"Conquer the opposition scrum, win a penalty, kick 3 points. Repeat. Repeat again. And again. Win the game. Simple." there's a new innovation to this attack plan thats being trialled in NZ. pretty much the same but u go for tries instead.
mania
Guest
duh, because that's cheating and liable to get u an upper cut at the next scrum. what low underhanded tactics. u have no idea of the consequences. if u started doing that then its a free for all in the scrums and it'll keep collapsing. its shtty loser attitudes like this that has ruined the scrum and why all these laws are coming in to depower it. had front rowers been more concerned about winning a scrum through say scrummaging then this issue with reset scrums happening all the time would be lessen. zero gain - u know a lot about cheating and zero about integrity. its @holes like u that ruin the game.
Justin3
Guest
Well legislate against it, easy.