Crouch, hold, ENGAGE! Crouch, touch, pause, ENGAGE! Crouch, touch, SET! Over the course of my relatively short career, starting in 2008, I have experienced all three of these variations of the scrum engagement sequence.
All administered for the same reason – to decrease time wastage and collapses at the scrum. All apparently failed, given the frequent turnover of ideas.
Crouch, bind, SET! Is the newest revolutionary idea by the powers that be. Given the poor results of the past ideas, why should we believe the next breakthrough will resolve current scrummaging issues?
The complexities of the scrum would continue much farther than my word limit for this article, so without delving into the technicalities of the scrum, I will attempt to, briefly, give you some idea of what is happening in this area of the game.
It is important that, at this point in the piece, we remove anyone who hasn’t packed a scrum. Your opinion is null and void.
The talk that often surrounds a change in sequence is often about limiting resets – whether that be from an injury prevention point of view, or from those dreary spectators who want to see ‘a more expansive game’ – a much overrated concept if you ask me.
Regardless of your reason for the change, we have to understand why scrums collapse.
Without getting too technical I will attempt to give you an understanding of why this occurs.
My usual answer to the question ‘why do scrums collapse?’ is generally along the lines of – ‘because we want to pack more of them’ – now, this may be true, but there are other factors at play.
Scrum collapses can be categorised in a few ways: technical deficiencies of one or more players, physical weaknesses of one or more players, poor refereeing, or, as a tactical move.
Now I would say that the new sequence – that we have already witnessed in recent internationals and in Northern Hemisphere competitions – has addressed some of these contributing factors.
I must admit, I was a skeptic when these rules were being spoken about in early 2013 – but what I have seen to date has been positive for all involved – although I believe we are still very much in an adaptation phase.
From what I can make out, we are achieving most of the goals we set out to achieve, and are probably closer to a solution than we have been in the past.
The significantly smaller gap will save some, but not all, collapses caused by technical deficiency.
However it will also require players to increase their technical abilities, as a technically poor player can no longer hide behind a large gap and heavy engagement.
Rather, they are forced into a technical contest, which I think is a brilliant move.
We will not only witness subtle changes in tactics, but just as interesting will be seeing who in Super Rugby sinks and who swims with the new commands.
Physically weak players will always be a problem point in a scrum.
In order to avoid repeatedly grazed foreheads, it is up to the players to be smart about how they attack weak individuals in the opposition.
I believe the calling can do little to solve this problem, but smart scrums will no doubt solve it for themselves.
Scrums can undoubtedly be collapsed as a tactical move to draw penalties, and we have seen examples of this from time to time over the whole range of changing calling sequences.
If I were to advise referees on how to handle any of these situations – my advice would probably not be popular – but it would be to side with the dominant team.
If a scrum has proven themselves to be dominant throughout a game, nothing pisses me off more than seeing the weaker of the two ‘protected’ by the referee. Where then is the advantage in having a strong scrum?
This is where I think the French competition has got it right. Very rarely do we see penalties in this part of the world for minor infringements, nor do we see pedantic interpretations of inconsequential laws.
Here, it is very cut and dry – be dominant, and you will reap the rewards.
I think this eases proceedings for referees as they are not expected to have intricate knowledge of the scrum, but can simply make a decision as to who gained the upper hand.
This is rarely witnessed in the southern hemisphere, with games in previous years being riddled with scrum penalties that the players couldn’t even explain, let alone the referees.
So, in thinking about this, I wanted to propose a system that would be equally effective the world over.
Let us remember that a fat bloke is a fat bloke, regardless of where he lives, or what he does for a living.
Therefore, I think our vision of a solution in this area is too narrow. Bribery is a tried and proven tactic in many arenas. I believe that such tactics could be called into play on this occasion.
The everyday hamburger ticks every box on the nutritional spectrum – protein, carbohydrates, fruit and vegetables, dairy and of course, the all-important sugar and fat.
This wonder food has so far been, I believe, wrongly overlooked in the search for a scrummaging solution.
The answer is self-evident. For every successfully completed scrum, in any given game, each front row player is handed a food and drink ticket, on the spot, for the bar after the game. Now you are talking in terms we understand.
Reward us with a much-anticipated mix of cholesterol and alcohol – trust me, you would not only see 100% success rates in scrums, you would also witness a much happier, jolly and infinitely more motivated group of fat men on any given pitch around the world.
Like in most complex problems in life, the answer is burgers – and lots of them.
hopalong
Guest
Copyright.Quickly.
Daw paw
Guest
Dan, few things mate, FIrst I don't understand why people over complicate things, especially you fat people. Just push harder, problem solved. Secondly, is it true that Grenoble ruled you out with injury to give the short manufacturers time to make a 4 Xl ?? Thirdly, did you really eat 4 foot long subs in 1 go, my personal view on fat people is that I like to spread them around, the huskier folk tend to find the good restaurants. Anyway mate, good to chat. Daw paw
Tino
Guest
Vunipola is often mentioned as example of "boring in". After having played prop over 29 years, I feel Vunipola is OK. Scrums are never perfectly stable, and some sideways motion will always happen. Say I generate 2 kN of force, move my opponent, then shift force 20 degrees inwards. I will generate 0.67 kN sideways and 1.87 kN forward. All this - because forces are vectors , not scalars. Opposing prop you push sideways will affect balance of his hooker and locks. You are driving his legs over their legs. Moment you start gaining on your oponent, you can shift 20 degrees inward, and help your proping partner. If he is going forward and does not need help, just keep pushing forward.
MMC2
Guest
Dan you obviously are a front rower, from your insights and sense of humour. If I may be serious for a moment I believe that I have a formula to restore scrums to being a feature of the game, not a source of boring and time wasting resets and penalties. For me there was nothing better than properly contested 5 metre scrums, both in attack and defence. The cost of my proposal is the loss of the clash as the two scrums engage. The clash has only been a part of scrummaging and to my mind is no real loss. My method is for the referee to call 'front' and for the front rows to engage. The ref waits until any hijinks has settled down and calls 'seconds' and the second rows join in. The ref waits until any hijinks settle down, ie the scrum so far packed is stable and calls 'back", and the back row joins in. Once again the ref waits until the scrum is stable and calls feed at which time the half immediately feeds the ball into the centre of the scrum. I firmly believe that scrums would form very quickly, and be stable which would allow for scrummaging techniques to come into play. This method would allow for the ref to direct the scrum to lift in the event of it being too low, before proceeding to the next stage. Scrum feeds which were not straight would be given to the other team, and after three incorrect feeds the referee would feed for that team for the rest of the match. To make matters perfect, the opposing half would not be able to come forward past the halfway point of the scrum. If a team is good enough to win a scrum and hold the ball in at the back then they should have clean ball without those pesky halfbacks getting in the way and spoiling things. This would make a feature of scrums and really elevate the importance of scrum dominance.
In Brief
Guest
Can't believe this article lauds the Top 14 scrums = dire.
Crazy Horse
Guest
Does playing prop in rhe under 13s count?
Dan Palmer
Guest
Definitely, a scrum that is superior technically and collectively will produce much more force without having to use illegal tactics. Remember that illegal tactics are usually used by weaker teams as a means to survive - scrums that are strong and technically good enough wouldn't bother using illegal tactics as there is a risk of giving away unnecessary penalties.
Who?
Guest
In January our local body sent out an email warning that they expected props to get lighter and fitter under the new sequence. Clearly they didn't watch ANY rugby last year! I'm with you Dan - this is a return to the days when clever, technical props were dominant, rather than blokes being able to win penalties purely by making the other bloke fall over on the engagement first. I'm a little annoyed we're seeing a good number of resets for early engagement under the new laws. Fair enough when the hit was such a big deal, now, with the pre-bind, there's not near the same level of advantage to be gained. Yeah, I get there's still advantage, but the advantage isn't near as big, and it's not near as dangerous. I've also seen a few really slow calls between crouch, bind and set. I don't see the need for that anymore? Call crouch, quick check of the binds in the packs, call bind and check front row binds, then get on with it. I've seen calls recently where the front rows are crouched and halfway to bound for a good 5 seconds before the ref calls crouch! If the boys are keen to scrum, let them scrum! That said, I'm happy to see a very hard ruling on square and steady, and delaying the feed, and pushing early. I don't care if a scrum moves a metre up and down the pitch and three sideways to get square and steady. Let's wait for it to be square and steady. If it's genuinely square and steady, it's not hard to monitor crooked feeds and early pushes. Some extra time scrummaging's not a bad thing, when it's actually working to reduce resets and remove excuses for penalties.
soapit
Guest
ok, thanks. another similar question. so if a scrum is stronger they can be completely legal and cause the other team to collapse over long stretches (in reality, not theory)? just trying to get an idea how legal a professional strong scrum effort usually is. from what others have previously said it seems like a bit of a free for all with multiple things going on at every scrum
soapit
Guest
i'd stop trying to eliminate them dan, trying to get a perfect system will make the task impossible. reduction is what we should be aiming for. we might have to agree to disagree. you can't tell me if a team realises or thinks they have an advantage they wont keep putting maximum pressure on at scrum time to try and win another penalty and that there is no possible way to control that pressure. there is likely no way under what you have learned because thats what works best under the current system. it would require quite a rethink, similar to what had to happen for the recent changes, if not moreso. i can accept that i might not have the solution but it would be a fairly big change and im afraid its not something you can easily just state wouldnt work based on evidence from the current system. would need to be looked at for a while.
Dan Palmer
Guest
I believe that the new laws have actually made scrummaging a much more technical contest, where we are more likely to see the old school, 'crafty' and technical props thrive. So, to answer the question - we are certainly not going the way of Rugby League and we will see an increase of technical ability as players adapt to the new laws. From what I have seen so far, the taller props are struggling most given they have much less space to work with - they will be required to increase their flexibility and core strength to keep up with the smaller more awkward scrummagers.
Johnno
Guest
Dan Simple question,, are the new scrum rules in the game, helping props whose central focus is the technical side of the game, eg scrums,lifting at lineouts? Or has the new scrum laws watered down scrums, meaning props are now becoming glorified rugby league props, where the dark arts of scrums, will be obselete, and props will be like league props or glorified No 8's picked more for there running game and work at the breakdown, than for there scrummaging work at the line-out? I wouldn't know I was a back, never dared jump in the scrum my neck is not thick lol.
RobC
Guest
Too funny. Next prop model (as opposed to top model) featuring G Holmes, and Matt Dunning 2.0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uuwsj9x6a2E
Dan Palmer
Guest
Regardless of scrum stats - IM IN!
Dan Palmer
Guest
Agree
Bakkies
Guest
Might knock some sense in to them. I wouldn't recommend scrummaging with a hangover!
Bakkies
Guest
''Australians need to embrace the scrum rather than fear it.'' Exactly.
Bakkies
Guest
''The enforcement of the straight feed was a focus for officials at times last year – there were quite a few penalties for it. Its one of those things that half backs are always going to push the boundaries of. At present the refs have a lot to look for in the scrum, so they cant be blamed if they miss the occasional crooked feed.'' There is a difference between pushing the boundaries of the feed and a scrum half like Genia who wouldn't know a straight feed if it hit him in the face.
jeznez
Roar Guru
Ha ha ha ha ha. Nice
HARRY HOPWORTHY
Guest
I thought the referees were instructed to crack down on crooked feeds in the game of Rugby Union. Well. they don't appear to be doing a very good job of it. Every single feed into the scrum tunnel has been visibly and clearly crooked. Of course I'm naturally going by the games of Rugby Union that I've watched.