Tweaking the new scrum laws

This should be the law A Scrummage, which can only take place in the field of play, is formed by one or more players from each side closing round the ball when it is on the ground, or by their closing up in readiness to allow the ball to be put on the ground between them”. Kiwi's say Ahoy

You are correct that the laws do not give the referee control over the feed, but the IRB directive is that referees use the instruction "yes, 9" to instruct the feed to take place once the ref is satisfied that the scrum is square and steady. Refs at all levels are doing that, and are having that chat with the 9s before the match.

It should and does make a huge difference to be able to time the feed. The hooker must time his strike with the halfback's feed. I played frontrow for 25 years and never played in a team that 'called' the scrum feed. It was always tap by the hooker's hand which was visible to the halfback or some other visual signal. A call alerts the opposite scrum when the feed will occur. Sorry, 'skinnykid' I just can't believe your claim that you always knew when the ball was going in. Yes, you has an idea when, but like a lineout you didn't know the exact timing. Other tactics are equally important and seem to have been lost, such as the tighthead turning his head towards the opposition hookers head so that the hooker can't see his own feed. Sight and timing are the key to a successful strike. Sorry, but I just don't think half of the posters on here have any idea what they are talking about. A bit like the refs when it comes to scrums.

Uhh....I think you've made a mistake there. Jon Drake died in 2008. Nisbett? Johnson?

I could have sworn a couple of weeks ago the new scrum was yet another cunning ploy to advantage the Wallabies...? ;) We need to give it some time before tinkering, they'll still be ironing out the little details and developing tactics. There is no reason the hooker has to strike immediately or at all - they could push back for the advantage and then secure the ball. They'll come up with various things no doubt, the ref just needs to watch for feet up, remember the laws about the ball coming out of the tunnel and keep both sets of flankers bound. We'll have a much better feel for what needs looking at in a few months.

Yes. The "loose-head" refers to the position of the prop of the attacking/feeding team. I also presume "skinny kid" is an ironic username due to your previous work up front....

Thank you Gavin. Fantastic comment. I think anyone who has played in the front row knows the slight advantage the new rules give to the defending team with the current refereeing practice. The scrum is a contest that should advantage the attacking team.

Interesting article, and very much in accord with anybody who played in the forwards in the amateur days. As for Tane Mahuta, you are entitled to your opinion but many of us in South Africa and my good rugby pals in New Zealand and Australia disagree strongly with you. Nowhere in the wording of the instruction to referees applicable to the revised scrum commands is it indicated that the referee be the arbiter of the timing for the ball to be put in to the scrum. His task is to call the forwards to stand ready, to bind and when the packs are sufficientlly steady, to call 'set', and to ensure that the scrumhalf puts the ball in straight. Obviously, any blatant scrummaging misdemeanour such as collapsing or boring in etc is his domain as well. His primary function once the scrum is set is th ensure that the scrumhalf puts the ball in straight. He is not empowered to be the conductor who when he(and none of the current referees has any understanding of the dynamics of 16 men locked together in a contest of strength and technique)decides that the scrum is poised to his satisfaction, barks a command to the scrumhalf that he is now allowed to feed the scrum. As numerous observers have pointed out, the interminable delay some refs practise is causing chaos in some games, Some sensible refs, like Glenn Jackson, is do it fairly quickly. Craig Joubert is making the whole procedure a farcical' watch me, I am in charge' fiasco, and the temerity to lecture the forwards on how to obey his command. What absolute drivel! It worked well in the old dayswhen every team had their own way of warning the hooker(and of course both sets of forwards) that the ball was about to be put into the scrum. There is no way that the present implementation of the crouch, bind, set is working satisfactorily. It could be an improvement if the referees did what they can understand, not conduct a robotic instruction class. As one person said, are they going to be in charge of the lineouts next? The administrators of the laws of rugby seem incapable of understanding that the scrum within, reasonable rules of engagement, is the domain of the players, not the referees. Rugby is not meant to be a platform where referees run the show. Good refs understand that and referee unobtrusively. With notable exceptions, the current bunch of top rated referees need to have explained to them that their role is not one of a prima donna, but that of a servant of the game. Spectators watch rugby to see the players perform, not the refs!

got to agree with this analysis. another problem at least seen during the first test was that , due to this push the scrum halves struggled to get the ball in straight as required now. what is necessary may be a stationary scrum , the feed to come when the scrum is still. as is the case in league. however before all these Law tweaks , many moons ago, the scrum was contested and the hookers actually hooked the ball.

Meh, the scrums seem just fine. We are now having a few more genuine tightead wins instead of just a penalty against the team feeding. The article says that the team feeding is at a disadvantage. Thats completely false and untrue. Not only is the feeding scrum not mostly going backwards after the feed but they are still winning most of the ball on their own feed. Wheres the problem? I know Australia was complaining after getting destroyed but were the ABs? Hmmmm. The new scrum laws work. Its supposed to be a contest for the ball.

If the halfback is required to immediately put the ball in then i think the advantage sits clearly with the opposition. They don't need to hook the ball they can just put the shunt on from the get go. The ref should allow the halfback to place the ball when he wants, and if he fails to put the ball in when there was good opportunity they should lose it. What i want to know is why are they letting pressure be applied to the scrum at all if there intention was to get rid of the hit. Why not have a complete fold in until the ball is in? Any early push = penalty. Seems ridiculous to me for them to allow pushing if the ref will not allow the ball to be fed until the scrum is still.

The article is completely correct. Timing the put-in is a major part of the advantage of having the feed. Remember, there is meant to be an advantage to the team putting the ball into the scrum. Taking this advantage away is akin to having the referee call when the ball should be thrown into the lineout - ridiculous, right? Hookers use to indicate when to feed by taping their hand on their props back. Only someone who has not played front row would ever advocate the referee calling the feed. As the article says, it tells the tight head scrum when to shove, whilst the loose head hooker is busy lifting a leg and thereby weakening his scrums pushing ability. If the half back delays his feed after the ref has called it and as a result the scrum moves off the mark, we can expect the clueless referees to penalise the half back for not feeding when he told him to. The rule/procedure MUST change. Otherwise, the new rules are all good.

BTW Craig, the ref shouldn't make a difference. Dont think I've ever be at a scrum and not known when the ball is coming in. Someone is always calling it...flankers, loose head prop etc etc.

I don't think it needs tweaking. Even if the ref doesn't tell the half back to put the ball in, the tight head pack could find other ways of telling it's forwards the ball is coming in. The flanker could just say ' comiiing NOW " . Even if both teams no exactly when the ball is coming in. It still comes down two teams pushing against each other. Of what I've seen in the ITM cup, most times the loose head wins the ball. The new rules have made the scrum a contest again, with less resets. The only time it becomes an issue is when one team is inferior at scrummaging. Such as the wallabies at the end of the second test.

giggle - I agree but your mob are just as bad. Drake is your version of Martin. Cant listen to either of them blindly defending their teams like over involved mothers blinded by actual truths.

Question. Is some of terms used in this article regionally specific? I've played a lot of rugby all around the world and all in the front row....but I've never heard the term "loose-head hooker" or "the team with the tight head" I'm assuming they mean the team who's scrum it is and is not.

Totally agree, oz commentators are dire and more reflective of a taxi driver or talk back show.. J Marshall is ok, but tends to be too neutral, to show he is,,, Quite like the evenness of the saffa team...

I imagine there's probably a window of up to three seconds. And the scrum has to be square and steady at the put in. The other point about the new laws is that the committee that put them together comprised a who's who of rugby forward play. So the griping in the media from old players seems a bit much in the circumstances. I suspect when everyone has bedded down how to play under the new laws, scrums will be pretty good. Where the interest comes is can a dominant tight head scrum push and win the ball back after it has been hooked by the opposition on its own loose head. On the contrary the team putting the ball in has to work out how to keep sufficient pressure on to win the ball cleanly. I suspect no tweaking is required yet, Craig.