The current scrum law requires the attacking hooker to ‘hook’ the ball but places no such requirement on his or her opposite number.
As per law 19.22, this allows the defending hooker to set up to push immediately when the ball enters the scrum. Thus the scrum law for a critical second or so permits the initial contest to be an eight-man versus seven-man contest, with the advantage going to the defending team.
The offset ball put-in may also subtly misalign the attacking scrum’s loosehead and add instability to the attacking side’s already compromised initial thrust. The offset put-in – routinely crooked – does not make up for the momentary disparity in pushing numbers. For evenly matched scrums where is the ‘advantage’ to which the referee refers when awarding the ball at a scrum?
My proposal is in two parts:
- To require both hookers to hook, or be positioned to hook; and
- to require that after the ‘hook’, the feet of both hookers must remain immediately below or in front of their hips to position them to stabilise or hold up their props and forestall collapses.
Also, for good measure:
- go back to the traditional down the middle put-in.
It is my hypothesis that these tweaks will greatly reduce the number of collapsed scrums.
(Cameron Spencer/Getty Images)
The first has both hookers hooking at put-in and makes the initial thrust a fair seven-forward versus seven-forward contest.
The second turns the two hookers into a stabilising central pillar for the scrum with the added benefit of promoting the physical safety of the hooker, the most injured player in the modern game.
Are these proposals viable? Requiring both hookers to at least nominally contest the put-in isn’t much to ask. Stabilise the scrum? A cursory internet search found top-level hookers routinely squat around 200 kilos. If they can, this also doesn’t seem much to ask, even if props are purposely diving, pulling down or boring in.
There is nothing sacred about the mechanics of a rugby union scrum. Yes, it would be different, but spectators wouldn’t notice. It would also be much easier for the referee to identify a less arbitrary and plausible cause for collapsed scrums – and award a penalty sanction – with no re-scrum option.
This proposal is based only on anecdotal evidence. A trial season and relevant scrum analysis would provide empirical evidence that I’m convinced would support the protocol. My anecdotal evidence is as follows.
First, at the outset of my playing/hooking days (40 years ago) scrums were a different mess from today. Hooking was always a contest. A scrum might go down on a wet and slippery pitch. A tighthead win was a front-row victory. You won it fair and square by hooking or blocking your opposite’s hooking foot or on the other team’s put in, your opposite occasionally miss-striking and kicking it into your second row. The ball didn’t always come out, but scrum dominance wasn’t part of the vernacular.
Secondly, with the current laws I’ve noticed that in scrums involving less well-coached teams the defensive hookers will (naively?) bind in as if ready to hook and not participate in the initial shove. This was the case in the last match I refereed about two months ago. There were no collapsed scrums and none ever looked like going down. The match went on. Most of the rugby I watch isn’t that amateurish or evenly matched, so scrums collapse.
Perhaps there are statistics on scrum collapses – which team put the ball in when it collapsed, ball lost to dominant push-back by defensive team, which team was penalised et cetera. If such statistics exist, I would appreciate a reference. However, even if such statistics might provide indirect support for my hypothesis, nothing can replace trying these suggestions.
I like watching a good scrum contest. However, multiple resets culminating in an all too frequent arcane penalty are a pox on the game. The prospect of fewer scrum collapses, fewer faces in the dirt, fewer front-row injuries and a more fluid game make these modest proposals worth a try.
Jeffrey Young
Guest
If the hooks put their foot forward with all that weight you will regularly tear hamstrings due to the hammy being over stretched and then torn due to all the wight coming in
Geno from Brisbane
Guest
Scrums are an issue and it's great to see it in the debate on how to improve the game. The tunnels between scrummaging front rows have never been bigger. For the ball to be put in the middle would make it difficult for either or both rakes to not have their striking foot put their body into a vulnerable position. Safety has to be the main priority. I'd like to see issues like hingeing, binds and the height level of the front row addressed......and refs better educated on the fine craft. You don't see many ex front row refs.
MarkMac42
Roar Rookie
Your final 2 words "interesting try". No pun intended of course.
Paulo
Roar Rookie
I like the analysis quite a lot, well done, worth testing it for empirical confirmation. I played as a prop, coached (kids), coached scrum (teens) and refereed (when not busy coaching). When I played, scrum wasn't such a mess. Refereeing the scrums in later years was a pain (I stopped some years ago), as hard as I tried, I found it confounding to make sense which team was at fault. The three suggestions, plus making faults in scrums short-arm (if possible to determine) without multiple resets (unless clearly malicious or unsafe) would take scrums back to the original intent - a fair contest for the ball, with a mild advantage to the non-ofending team. At present, scrums and the multiple resets are very boring to watch and waste a lot of the game time (this coming from someone who loved scrummaging and dislikes league).
Just Nuisance
Guest
Larry, as a hooker in the 70s and 80s I can concur. Yes I agree with the author about less collapsed scrum but in the old days with the hooker focusing only on the strike a collapsed scrum although rare was quite traumatic for the hooker and the risk of neck injury high.
Kashmir Pete
Roar Guru
Ozx Many thanks, appreciate clarification. Cheers KP
RedandBlack
Guest
On the other hand you don't want another bunch of laws that players will constantly strive to circumvent resulting in endless penalties and frustrations. Just simplify the whole thing. Put the emphasis on scrum stability and penalise the bloke who is working to destabilise. This is usually simple and obvious but not always policed as the ref is required to justify his ruling with the technicalities of the infringement - and of course scrums being scrums sometimes one technicality precedes another - wash all that - say to the props keep it stable or you are gone ( Nigel Owens did this to great effect the other day) - and you will be surprised how many problems disappear. Trying to police an eight man monster by ruling on individual technicalities won't work but keeping the demands simple and letting the players compete within clearly defined barriers has a good shot.
Englishbob
Guest
I quite like the idea of clock stop, or just the option of a tap and run(or a scrum) with the non possession team having to retreat 10 metres but not the option of a quick tap to draw penalties. I can't remember the last time a scrum took less than a minute out of the game. All this is meant without any sour grapes at the way the English scrum was butchered in the RWCF but the dark arts of scrum resets must be among the worse spectacles for potential fans.
ozxile
Roar Pro
KP: LAW 19. 20. 15 (f.) When both sides are square, stable and stationary, the scrum-half throws in the ball: f. Straight. The scrum-half may align their shoulder on the middle line of the scrum, thereby standing a shoulder-width closer to their side of the scrum. This 'option' has resulted in what is the essentially a rugby league put-in - rarely straight and often as not behind the hookers feet.
Larry
Guest
Nice enough in theory but laughable in practice. This would be far more dangerous for hookers than the current laws.
Kashmir Pete
Roar Guru
Ozx, Very interesting, many thanks. Curious, might you or another poster explain what you mean with: "The offset ball put in" Is this reference to a rule, not sure what exactly, apart from involving the half. Cheers KP
stillmissit
Roar Guru
ozxile: thanks for the reply and well thought out. I ref'd for about 25 years stopping about 8 years ago. In reply to your analysis, I would like to point out that I stated that both teams putting on an 8 man shove on your own put in was only an option. It was used a fair bit BUT only if you had a dominant scrum and was communicated to the tight prior to packing down. When I played in NZ we would often win the shove and the ball, if close to the line we could have a shot at a pushover try. All I am saying is that it opens up more options for the scrum and particularly the front row to increase domination or pull new moves. In my day there was rarely a collapsed scrum and if it did collapse then something had gone very wrong. Playing in Australia, we had one of the strongest scrums but we were done like a dinner by a Japanese company team who's technique was exceptional. All I am saying is that scrummaging has become a bore-in (ing), predictable, collapse-a-thon, it is no longer a fascinating competition that's of interest to the majority of players of the game ie the forwards of which you were one! I respect your view but will not be changing my ideas on how to fix it.
ozxile
Roar Pro
Stillmissit: In my experience (as a hooker and referee) neither hooker striking almost always results/resulted in the ball coming out the other side of the tunnel. This did happen when both hookers weren’t settled and ready for the ball to be put in…but in it came straight down the middle and out it went on the other side. If you could get this (no hooking) tried/implemented it seems likely to me that the props would be required to use their outside foot to ‘close’ the open tunnel. This was essentially the norm way back – when winning the ball was a contest between two hookers and their respective collaborating props – at its best a moment of skill and beauty in an otherwise brief and brutal smash-up. Both the loose and tight heads (at least for the team with the ball) would start with the inside leg & foot set slightly back, momentarily bearing most of the weight; then the outside foot would step/lurch forward (and optimally plant in the middle of the tunnel) when the ball left the scrum half’s hands and the weight came on – all to prevent the ball coming coming straight out. With no hooking, the only outcomes I can imagine would be: (1) both props on the opposite side (if not both sides) of the put-in given a de facto license to bore in – a natural result of the offset positioning of their feet; (2) the extinction of ‘hookers’ in favor of another prop-like full time pusher; and, (3) more and increasingly dangerous collapsing
stillmissit
Roar Guru
I think you are both right. The incentive as TWAS said must be taken away whilst Purdo is right dominant scrums want quick, quality ball. We need to stop collapsed scrums happening so often, teams will take advantage if it is not stopped by the ref. This was discussed extensively the other day. We need a contest so I agree with the OP that forcing one hooker to strike and then putting the ball in 'not straight' means the rules have bent the scrum away from a contest and into a mad area where collapsing is almost the norm for the first 2 scrums sets. The front row will never be understood by most refs as few seem to have played front row, so the understanding is not there. The focus comes on safety yet we allow scrum collapses. I would prefer a contest with penalties for collapsed scrums.
stillmissit
Roar Guru
Ozile and Purdo, it is an interesting idea but I suggest that there be no requirement for either hooker to strike for the ball BUT that the ball must go in straight. That way either pack can apply an 8 man shove. The side putting the ball in has the option but it is completely a contest for the ball. This opens the front row battle up and if combined with some of the ideas from the other scrum thread regarding collapsed scrums then the game could get quicker and more interesting at the same time. To ban the 8 man shove will only make the scrum similar to uncontested scrums! A thing I hate. In our time Oxile there were not a lot of front row injuries due to the scrum collapsing as it was less often than today. I would require the refs to be rigorous in applying penalties (short or long arm) for collapsed scrums.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
If it’s a “lottery” as you say there is an incentive to collapse and take the lottery rather than be pummelled and get penalised.
Harry Jones
Expert
Interesting proposal; worth a think. Rugby doctrine holds each engagement must be a real contest for possession, so I like the straight feed/hooker v hooker part. I suppose I just don’t see that much of a problem with the current version of the scrum, EXCEPT for the absurdly crooked feeds by weaker scrum teams, often down Route 1, rendering a true contest void. I would be interested, though, to trial your idea in Varsity Cup or ITM.
AJ
Guest
Thanks for the article. As a fellow hooker of the 80’s I lament the lack of skill now. Me and some fellow school hookers used to practice the hook with speed and accuracy of strike the skill. We used tennis balls dropped from waste height and lower while in a scrum machine with channel variations. Even against a bigger scrum a quick channel 1 strike and a good halfback would get your team some good ball.
In brief
Guest
I don't think being under pressure will be the issue. One scrum may try to disrupt the other to stop them getting clean ball, but the incentive to collapse in order to avoid or force a penalty, or avoid being pulverised, won't occur. If one team is dominant they will be seeking to win good ball not destroy the weaker scrum.
In brief
Guest
I don’t remember the 2007 ELV to which you refer. The following men were the brains behind the ELVs: Rod Macqueen; former Springbok coach Ian McIntosh; former Scottish coach Richie Dixon; former French player, coach and former IRB Regional Development Manager Pierre Villepreux; former All Black captain and Wellington coach Graham Mourie and the IRB Referee Manager Paddy O'Brien. If it did fix something why didn’t they implement it? Politics killed the ELVs. They were trialled at all levels in the southern hemisphere, and were trialled in the UK/ Scotland at the lower levels. Unfortunately the Home Unions refused to trial the ELVs any further and therefore they couldn't be ratified and so had to be abandoned at the 11th hour. Having said that a number of the experimental laws were ratified and remain with us today.