Welcome back to the forum! Share your thoughts, fears and (happy) tears about the scrum.
Everybody is welcome: backs, forwards, fans, non-fans – even referees.
Please feel free to review the introduction article of the scrumma-mogram for all the details.
First up: Jonathan Kaplan – the Crusaders are ‘Cheatahs’
We start with a controversial analysis of a controversial sequence, quoting a controversial journalist and ex-referee. This sequence was spotted live, based on the comments of New Zealand commentators. They disagreed with the Australian referee, who was favouring a New Zealand team.
What was found was a consistent left-to-right scrum push by the Crusaders. It’s a bit like playing checkers in a game of chess.
DaffyD says:
I saw this game live and once again found myself becoming frustrated with the game of rugby. In agreement with the commentators and questioning, I asked myself why I was not doing something more entertaining, like scrubbing out the grout in the shower?
As pointed out, referee Andrew Lees has come through via sevens, so maybe he just doesn’t yet have the experience to referee scrums at the high level.
In my opinion, the ref should have swapped sides of the scrum to get a better all-round view – especially before awarding a yellow card or penalty try. However, the important question I’d like to raise is what is the assistant referee doing around scrum time?
Is he ‘assisting’ the referee? After all, he was exactly 15 metres away when the yellow card occurred. If we have two refs that can’t pick up this sort of thing, then there is something wrong.
As I’ve said before, I believe there is far too much importance placed on the scrum, resets and the number of penalties that are coming from it – to the detriment of the game. I have more thoughts on this, see below.
Diggercane says:
DaffyD has pretty much summed up my thoughts over the whole process. My question for Roarers, is it simply angling or is he lifting? I think the flanker provides a clue… Either way, it’s a hiding to nothing if the ball is fed before it is stable.
Scrum resets: Time to fix it
Like a bad movie sequel, the scrum reset has returned to waste our time. Super Rugby 2015 fans are forced to endure a significant amount of failed scrums. Fortunately, the issue is clear and the solution is at hand. It is time to clean up the shop! The next sequence is self-explanatory.
Diggercane says:
The mechanics all seem quite simple really:
1. Stand closer
2. Line your head up with your gap
3. No heads below hips
4. Closer you are, the longer the bind
5. Reduce the hit
6. Nice and balanced when you come together
7. No ‘accidental collapses’
8. Scrums can be fed a lot quicker too.
Can the answer be that simple? I think so, particularly combined with DaffyD’s suggested rule amendments below.
DaffyD says:
While watching that video with the Benny Hill music, honestly I’m not sure whether I should laugh or cry. The question was raised, and the answer given. I believe the answer about the scrum mechanics is just the starting point. But it is not going to address the situation while the rules remain as is.
I’ll add my own answer to the question: How to reduce the resets?
1. Simple! No reset for a ‘contested’ scrum.
There are two exceptions I can think of, that occurs only if the scrum hasn’t yet been a contest. Allow a reset if the ball is not been fed and the scrum collapses, or if the ball is fed and comes out the same tunnel.
So what would happen if a scrum collapses after the ball is fed? The team that has the ball underneath it when the scrum goes down would gain possession from a free kick. Therefore:
2. The team that ‘wins the strike’ or ‘wins the shove’ and gets the ball gets the free kick
If the strike is not obvious if the ball is not played – the team that didn’t knock on gets the ball.
And while some might consider teams will ‘wrought this system’, and deliberately collapse a scrum to get the free kick. Isn’t that already happening now?
But we need to go further. I believe there needs to be some drastic changes around the laws regarding the scrum. As well as no resets, reduce the overall number of scrums that occur for non-knock-on offences. Therefore, also:
3. No scrum alternative in lieu of a free kick or penalty
4. Remove the scrum alternative if ball not straight in a lineout*
5. Remove the scrum alternative if the ball is not kicked 10 metres from the kick off
6. If the ball goes touch in goal, (not over the dead ball line) it should be a lineout where the ball is kicked from, not a scrum.
There’s other non-knock-on scrums that need to go. I’m sure you get the idea – feel free to add others in the comments.
*For the first lineout, the players a lined out ready to go, but if the second lineout is not straight, then allow a call for alternative scrum. After all, there may be a wind howling down the field.
OK, that’s all folks!
I hope it was fun! Your observations are appreciated. Questions are even more appreciated. No question is too stupid and anyone can answer.
Also, feel free to request any other engagements you want to be ‘Scrumma-mogramed’.
Also, stay tuned for the next round:
– Waratahs vs Stormers, identified by Harry Jones and DiggerCane
– Crusaders vs Highlanders, identified by DiggerCane
– First instalment Wallaby Scrum: Hope? Or Dopes?, identified by various Australians, especially Mike.
Rob Marshall
Roar Rookie
After watching another game fizzle out (Brumbies vs Rebels 18/4) as the scrum failed to set the solution seems simple. -the teams get x amount of time to set the scrum; those wasting time are penalised -time goes back on when the ball is put into the scrum -one reset per scrum only Sadly, the scrum is slowing the game down so much that it's a bit of a joke.
Daffyd
Roar Rookie
Interesting you raise the red/yellow card factor.. How about this... Yellow cards are handed out with more frequency when on the attack inside the 22, and especially when a team is attacking 5m from the try line and definitely for any cynical/professional fouls. However, rather than 10 minutes in the sin bin, I'd like to see a maximum of only 5 minutes off the field OR (here's the radical part) after any score ALL players return with both teams back to full capacity for the next kick off. IMO it would open the game up, without drastically damaging a side with a player off for 10 minutes. Knowing that a penalty from 5 metres out would invariably see a player off, then another, then another... Attacking captains consider... penalty kick for a quick 3 points knowing that that opposition player will immediately return -- maybe bringing on their player as well... ...or persevere and continue applying the pressure near the line for the try while the other team has a player off the field -- & maybe forcing another opposition player off. ( In this case, two yellows does not equal a red, a player could have several yellow cards without facing further discipline. A red is only for a heinous act.)
Nobrain
Guest
Tnxs, very creative and we must put some thoughts on it. I will find quastionble in the case that team feeding the ball is down to 14 or less men because of yellow or red cards.
Daffyd
Roar Rookie
Hi Nobrain, The scrum is the only facet of the game where the players are forced into a contest. E.g., a team must form a lineout, but the team is not forced to contest it. The team throwing the ball in can also choose the number of players and the defending team can choose to not match the number, so long as it is less not more... In XVs team MUST form a scrum with 8 players, and they're forced to contest with all 8 players. What if the team putting the ball in (as per lineout)- could choose the number of players in the contest -- and the other team has to match numbers -- with a minimum of three "front row" per team? 8 player scrum -- front row, locks, flankers, number 8 (as regulated in XVs) 7 player scrum -- front row, locks, and flankers 6 player scrum -- front row, locks and number 8 5 player scrum -- front row and locks (as regulated in 10s) 4 player scrum -- not allowed* 3 player scrum -- front row only (as regulated in 7s) *For safety reasons I would suggest that the scrum must remain balanced -- hence a 4 man scrum is not allowed. (On a note from the past.... Does anyone remember the "Bunny Scrum" ?)
Akari
Roar Rookie
Thanks you, Daffyd, and I'd prefer a repeat lineout to a scrum mad worse by resets.
Daffyd
Roar Rookie
Hi Akari thanks for the comment and apologies for the delay in responding. There are two main reasons for my suggestion. The first is consistency in rulings. In Rugby Union, if the ball has gone out, and a line out is the way Rugby Union puts the ball in, then that's how it should be attempted by both sides. The second is to stop wasting time and give more rugby playing time. Your comment is a good one, and one I carefully considered and you're tight -- it could. But the same could be said of scrums -- a team that drops the ball and retains it (no advantage to the other team) can still be the dominant scrum on a tight-head and in certain circumstances end with a penalty try -- for their own knock on! But consider this: The team with a weaker lineout does have ways to change the way they compete; they can have a quick throw and avoid the lineout completely (not from a reset lineout though), a short line out, quick throw to the front, or throw over the 15m mark to a centre, pull it down and form a maul, tap it down or not contest at all. The scrum is the only part of the game where a part of the team is forced to the contest. And unlike the scrum, lineouts tend to have more completions on the first throw and certainly less dubious free kicks and penalties.
Nobrain
Guest
We usually see many resets in scrums when one team feels that have the disadvantage over the other in the scrum and start to do all type of ticks so it does not go back like on rollerblades. When the two teams feel that can win the scrum is often a fair battle, you may hae to reset the first of second scrums until the front line adjust but after that it becomes a fair competition. Since it is almost imposible to have all teams at the same level of competition for the scrum we should have to start looking for alternative rules for those days when one team just role over the other every time. I think this should be the starting point to analize different options for rule changes in the scrum to reduce the amount of resets, but leave that to you to do so and come up with some suggestions.
RobC
Roar Guru
cheers mate. I'll ask Daffy to revert when he's back on line.
RobC
Roar Guru
The visual history http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOg7aR5sHts
RobC
Roar Guru
Grimmace a short history of the scrums: - during early pro era, teams were looking for diff ways to win the ball - late 90s the hit appeared because some teams (generally I believe it was NZ) would try to push over the ball on the opponents feed - This led to a bigger hit to by the feeding team to ensure they had momentum and can retain possession - This led to a bigger counter hit by the TH (non-feeding) side. This incentivises the SH to feed to his 2nd row - By the time 2007 arrived, the officials tried to control this HIT. crouch: touch. pause, ENGAGE! (ie hit and ram each other randomly) - Six years later, it devolved into a ramming process, 2013 The focus is on stable midline, reducing the hit, and feeding the middle - the Refs now control it - Two years later (2015) the 'hit' is starting to return - But along with the low scrums Both can be fixed as the Refs are managing the process.
RobC
Roar Guru
It gives the LHP an advantage the THP doesnt have. It happens on occasion, very briefly - whilst the midline is being settled. Ref normally lets it through in this scenario. But definitely not before the bind. And generally not after the set.
Go the Wannabe's
Guest
OK, but can't the LHP also put his hand on the ground?
Akari
Roar Rookie
“4. Remove the scrum alternative if ball not straight in a lineout* *For the first lineout, the players a lined out ready to go, but if the second lineout is not straight, then allow a call for alternative scrum. After all, there may be a wind howling down the field.” The problem that I see here is that it gives an offending team with a possible poor throw another go at the lineout while removing an option that should be available to the non-offending team (perhaps, with a weak lineout but strong at scrums) from choosing to call a scrum immediately. Thanks RobC, DC and DaffyD.
pjm
Roar Rookie
The law would be for waist binds to be made mandatory by all teams. So if the waist bind traps you it also traps them.
RobC
Roar Guru
cheers mate.... SCRUMMMS YEEAHHHH!!!! :D
Digby
Roar Guru
Sorry I couldn't offer much input yesterday Rob. Thanks for putting this together mate, great to have this in focus.
JimmyB
Guest
My response has vanished. Probably for the best. Frankly, just can't be bothered anymore.
taylorman
Guest
heres the point JimmyB. rugby is...whether you know it or not...about scoring tries. to say it is irrelevant if people hate or love scrums is showing blatant ignorance. scrums in their current state are wasting valuable minutes. So we don't blame others. We blame you.
bryan
Guest
Oh, and the halfback can't roll the ball outside of the channel
RobC
Roar Guru
Excellent bryan I made a similar suggestion, also to include spraying the midline too, for the feed Varsity cup in SA has the grip patches. Works well