Dysfunctional scrums - the agony continues

[RedruthRFC]

That's true in part, E T R, but as forwards have been required to do more around the pitch, the effect has been magnified by the fact that they've also needed to be bigger so less able to cope with this role. This also doesn't account for the increased amount of time taken up by resets and friendly chats with the referee.

 

[Every Time Ref]

It's not the whole story of course - and neither is it a reasonable excuse for the dire situation we have today. It is a factor in the gradual, incremental change over 30 years or so though.

Good point in the increased muscle mass as well.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

To counter though, forwards now are much much fitter than forwards back then and the extra fitness should do a lot to compensate. You look at the modern breed of front row, they could run old school front rows off the park all day.

 

[Dunhookin]

Absolutely Every, there are no excuses for the agonising debacle we're having to endure these days. And agreed it has been a gradual process, largely since professionalism, but it really went rapidly down hill when the idiotic CTPE was introduced.

As I've said previously in this thread, pre-bind should almost eradicate collapses completely. That we're still getting far too many collapses and re-sets indicates that the whole ethos of what the scrummage should be about has been completely lost - especially at elite level. The collapse problem is part of the diseased view that scrums are a source of penalties - and nothing else. So teams are coached to screw dodgy penalties from an often perplexed referee, collapsing is part of the screwing - drop the scrum deliberately and maybe the other pack will get pinged...?

When that happens we see the unedifying sight of players high fiving each other because they've screwed yet another cheap, dodgy penalty out of the referee. That it's ultimately bad for the game and makes most of us roll our eyes in dismay is lamentably overlooked. Elite level coaches don't care one jot whether these deeply negative, game damaging tactics are bad for rugby - they only care about results. That WR are glibly allowing this wholly unacceptable situation to continue indicates they also don't care a jot about our game being discredited and cynically manipulated for the benefit of the minority.

Does anyone know who is responsible in WR for this? I imagine that a group of people would collectively decide on such an important aspect of our game. It would be good to know who they are -so they can be exposed and called upon to explain why their ineptitude is having such a bad effect on our game

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Absolutely Every, there are no excuses for the agonising debacle we're having to endure these days. And agreed it has been a gradual process, largely since professionalism, but it really went rapidly down hill when the idiotic CTPE was introduced.

As I've said previously in this thread, pre-bind should almost eradicate collapses completely. That we're still getting far too many collapses and re-sets indicates that the whole ethos of what the scrummage should be about has been completely lost - especially at elite level. The collapse problem is part of the diseased view that scrums are a source of penalties - and nothing else. So teams are coached to screw dodgy penalties from an often perplexed referee, collapsing is part of the screwing - drop the scrum deliberately and maybe the other pack will get pinged...?

When that happens we see the unedifying sight of players high fiving each other because they've screwed yet another cheap, dodgy penalty out of the referee. That it's ultimately bad for the game and makes most of us roll our eyes in dismay is lamentably overlooked. Elite level coaches don't care one jot whether these deeply negative, game damaging tactics are bad for rugby - they only care about results. That WR are glibly allowing this wholly unacceptable situation to continue indicates they also don't care a jot about our game being discredited and cynically manipulated for the benefit of the minority.

Does anyone know who is responsible in WR for this? I imagine that a group of people would collectively decide on such an important aspect of our game. It would be good to know who they are -so they can be exposed and called upon to explain why their ineptitude is having such a bad effect on our game

While I agree, on the same page we have to find a way of rewarding the better stronger scrum. Otherwise we are basically removing it from the game.

I don't have answers, or even any ideas. But if we want to keep the scrum then we must accept we will have better teams at it than others and what to do in then instance.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

How about no scrum resets after the ball has been put in, penalties only awarded if a team is being pushed back and collapse it (as with a maul) but if it collapses without any side having moved then it is treated as a ruck and game carries on. There is a second chance to reset the scrum if the ball hasn't been put in and if it collapses again, non-goal kicking penalty to the team in possession. Possibly open to abuse by weaker teams but so be it, I for one am sick of scrums as they are. No matter how much is done to prevent scrum collapses, players will continue to find ways to do it now. Unfortunately we may have to accept the fact that cynical play by the front rows primarily has killed the scrum and it's role may have to be drastically reduced for the sanity of those watching. We can't rely on any front rows now to just scrum properly and consistently.

 

[ncurd]

when the idiotic CTPE was introduced.

I thought it was CTPEC?

 

[Dunhookin]

No NC - the initial over involvement of referees in setting the scrum was Crouch, Touch, Pause, Engage.

CTPE was an attempt to make scrums more safe - and orderly - it failed on both counts. Let's be clear on something - it's IMPOSSIBLE to get to a position where scrums are 100% efficient. There will always be infringements no matter what - it's inevitable and must be accepted. But what should happen is a re-boot - a re-evaluation of what the scrum should be about and re-establish its identity within our game. If you stop non-rugby people in the street and ask them to define rugby - they'll say 'big blokes, singing, drinking, passing backwards and SCRUMS'!

The scrum is the core of our game's very identity - it must be respected as a proper contest for possession - and not disrespected as it currently is as a cheap penalty fest. Making the scrum about the ball again will show huge improvements - and it will be better for rugby's soul.

Living's point about finding a way for the stronger/better scrum to be rewarded - were the laws of the game to be correctly applied, then this would happen naturally. The root cause of the debacle of our scrum is bent feeding. Our scrum should be a meaningful contest for possession of the ball - and not a mind numbingly negative way to con penalties out of referees. The reason why bent feeding is the root cause is that straight feeding provides the opportunity to compete for the ball, bent feeding denies that opportunity. So packs find other means of competing with each other - which is why the dodgy penalty fest at scrum time has evolved.

So the reward for a pack being better scrummagers than their opponents is, in a word, kudos. But the kudos takes a number of forms; 1) Winning the ball against the head - great turnover possession to attack with (notably the Wallabies won a ball against the head in the match with England and scored a try with it), 2) demonstrating physical or technical superiority over the opposition, 3) achieving mental superiority over the opponent - the power of that cannot be overstated.

In my playing days, I was subjected to some monumental hammerings, sometimes physical, sometimes technical - and on the odd occasion both. The physical would often be a dominant TH who, whilst stuffing the LH, was also stuffing me. Being on the receiving end of a boring TH who knew exactly what he was doing was very very unpleasant. And the technical was coming up against a hooker who was both stronger than me and more technical - meaning I was losing the ball against the head. Solutions could be found to the physical challenges to either improve the situation or fix it - but the psychological affects of losing the ball and have no way of solving it (if you're outclassed by somebody better than you - you're stuffed basically) had massive impact - and basically took me out of the game. So repressed was I at being so royally stuffed, that my contribution to the game was nigh on nil.

So Living, if WR had the gumption to take control of the current diabolical situation and change the current negative culture by enforcing the straight feed law - then after an initial shock period, teams would adapt - they'd have to. We'd have teams focussing on competing for the ball - not penalties - technical hookers would return to the game and faster ball would result. No science, no steering groups, think tanks, endless committees or limp wristed hand wringing saying how devilishly difficult it all is. We're just talking about consistent and unequivocal application of an existing law of the game. Agonisingly simple - yet we still have this ridiculous bloody farce. Brings me back full circle to the question to WR - why are you people letting the game - and all of us down with this nonsense?

 

[ncurd]

Sorry it was a bad joke Crouch-Touch-Pause-Engage-Collapse

 

[Dunhookin]

Gotcha NC...not a bad joke at all actually - made me chuckle - and it's accurately reflective of what we've had to put up with for far, far too long

 

[ALJ]

The root cause of the debacle of our scrum is bent feeding. Our scrum should be a meaningful contest for possession of the ball

Firstly, I want to say that what you have posted is really well written, logical and from a standpoint of experience that I agree with pretty much entirely.

My question though relates to the bent feed and whether this is cause or effect?

Tradition was that the ball went in the tunnel and both hookers tried to strike for the ball - fine works well.
But then the defensive side worked out that if the attacking scrum was hooking at the ball, an 8 man shove could overwhelm them (again, nothing new really).
Take the 8 man shove to its maximum and suddenly the attacking side have a problem - they need all 8 to shove so can't hook the ball.
Ball left in tunnel until one side collapses or gains superiority and pushes the other off the ball - usually penalties are given and it's something of a lottery as to who gets them.

So if you're a scrumhalf, what are you going to do? The Ref lets you get away with feeding then you'll do it because there's no chance of a strike by the hooker and leaving it down the middle is a low-percentage option.

Yes refs can enforce the ball going in straight but will that actually solve the problems we have? Longer lasting scrums will likely either go down, end in a penalty for one FR popping up or the ball will be stuck in the tunnel while the crowd gets cold (not that I advocate changes for the sake of the crowd necessarily).
As for consistent application of the rules - completely agree but it isn't like the referees aren't trying to do this already so it's probably not quite so simple.

I still advocate shirts for the front row that are easier to grip - at the top level it seems to me that so many issues arise from the props not being able to keep hold of the oppositions shirt.

 

[Every Time Ref]

Another point worth making in defence of bent feeding is that maybe the team putting in should be guaranteed the ball?

Playing devil's advocate, what if a team can steal the ball every time? Every time they knock on, fail to get the ball out of a mail etc. they simply get the ball back. What if their backs have hands like spades and can barely catch the ball? They keep getting it back regardless, they lose absolutely nothing from their own incompetence

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Another point worth making in defence of bent feeding is that maybe the team putting in should be guaranteed the ball?

Playing devil's advocate, what if a team can steal the ball every time? Every time they knock on, fail to get the ball out of a mail etc. they simply get the ball back. What if their backs have hands like spades and can barely catch the ball? They keep getting it back regardless, they lose absolutely nothing from their own incompetence

With a team that can hook correctly, that would be practically impossible. See Japan in the WC, in half a second the ball is with the 8. Even if you lose the scrum, the 8 can pick it up and get out. With proper hooking you would need to be annihilated in the scrum or pratting about. That's what annoys me more than anything about scrums, the number of times England have struggled in the scrum yet keep ****ing about trying to get a penalty even when there is a very slim chance of it happening, more often than not getting a penalty against us. As Dunhookin says, it's an attitude thing. If teams hooked the ball then scrum collapses wouldn't matter so much as the ball would already be with the 8.

 

[Dunhookin]

]

Very strongly disagree with ETR's point - there is no justification whatsoever in bent feeding - it is completely indefensible - neither is there any justification in the notion that a team should be guaranteed the ball from a scrum.

Playing devil's advocate, what if a team can steal the ball every time?{Quote}

The team doing the stealing would either have a very skilful and fast striking hooker, or a superior pack - or both. They are rewarded for their hooker's superior skill - and skill should absolutely be rewarded, or the superior technical ability of their pack, Again it is right and just that technical superiority should be rewarded.

What if their backs have hands like spades and can barely catch the ball? They keep getting it back regardless, they lose absolutely nothing from their own incompetence[/QUOTE]

Irrespective, the fact that they may have incompetent backs is readily offset by the skills demonstrated by their ball winning ability in the scrums

 

[Dunhookin]

Firstly, I want to say that what you have posted is really well written, logical and from a standpoint of experience that I agree with pretty much entirely.

Thank you for your kind comments AJ - appreciate it.

My question though relates to the bent feed and whether this is cause or effect?

Tradition was that the ball went in the tunnel and both hookers tried to strike for the ball - fine works well.
But then the defensive side worked out that if the attacking scrum was hooking at the ball, an 8 man shove could overwhelm them (again, nothing new really).
Take the 8 man shove to its maximum and suddenly the attacking side have a problem - they need all 8 to shove so can't hook the ball.

Yes this was pioneered in Argentina and became the 'bajadita' - the co-ordinated shove. Many coaches in Argentina were against it initially preferring that hookers strike the ball, but enough support was gained for it to become widely adopted - and 'their thing'. It's all about cohesion and timing, the preserve of a well drilled pack as the momentum generated means the front row step over the ball - assuming that it's fed straight. On the opposition ball the timing of the 'snap' is just as the hooker moves his feet giving the 8v7 advantage.

But as Rancher correctly points out - look at the Japanese in RWC15, their hooker was the best in the tournament. Watch them scrummage on their own ball - it's what half a second looks like - ball is out down channel 1 and in play. Exactly how it should be. Most of the 'hookers' playing now are lineout throwers only - they probably have no idea what channel 1 is! So - the 8v7 advantage when a technical/skilful/fast striking hooker is playing is minimal. Strike quickly, get back into a pushing position - by then the ball has gone - scrum over.

Ball left in tunnel until one side collapses or gains superiority and pushes the other off the ball - usually penalties are given and it's something of a lottery as to who gets them.

Yes, the France/Italy match at RWC15 - a dreadfully dull, tedious match ruined by 36 penalties. Bent feeding was chronic and the scrums a dysfunctional mess, the few that survived the whistle resulted in pathetically slow ball that's just worthless. That neither side had a hooker who could hook meant the ball having been rolled into the second row got stuck there, the locks couldn't get their feet far forward enough to channel it back - just talk amongst yourselves whilst the ball eventually emerges - 26 seconds in the case of one scrum. Utter, mind numbing agony - an embarrassing shambles - all due to bent feeding. Make 'em feed straight and they will have to play hookers who can win the ball.

So if you're a scrumhalf, what are you going to do? The Ref lets you get away with feeding then you'll do it because there's no chance of a strike by the hooker and leaving it down the middle is a low-percentage option.

Obviously - the SH will feed bent, it's what he's coached to do as part of the 'slug it out penalty objective' approach used by many elite level coaches.

Yes refs can enforce the ball going in straight but will that actually solve the problems we have?

Yes it absolutely will - it needs firm, consistent and unequivocal application of the straight feed law - announce it ahead of time to give teams chance to re-skill their hookers.

Longer lasting scrums will likely either go down, end in a penalty for one FR popping up or the ball will be stuck in the tunnel while the crowd gets cold (not that I advocate changes for the sake of the crowd necessarily).

Scrums will be shorter - much shorter, skilful, fast hooker striking in channel 1 gets the ball out in under a second. In my playing days I was a smaller stature (12st) hooker, but I was technical (had to be) and had fast feet. Many was the time I'd strike in channel 1 and the ball was gone and away - with a TH still trying to disrupt - was always satisfying saying to him 'save your energy mate - ball is gone'

As for consistent application of the rules - completely agree but it isn't like the referees aren't trying to do this already so it's probably not quite so simple.

Actually it is simple - WR should lead and instruct referees to apply the law - every time - no exceptions

I still advocate shirts for the front row that are easier to grip - at the top level it seems to me that so many issues arise from the props not being able to keep hold of the oppositions shirt.[/QUOTE]

Fully agree - makes binding easier - should be part of getting the mess sorted out

 

[Ospervat]

I had this idea a few weeks ago and had an unexpected opportunity to trial it last night in an informal setting at a local team training session. Worked a charm. Coach, players and attending part time ref quite impressed with the results.

1) Still apply crouch, bind, set.

2) Feed the ball in straight - if not straight - penalty.

3) Hookers must hook and for the first 1-1.5 seconds from the feed there is "no contest" from the supporting 7 forwards. (I.E.Uncontested scrum apart from the hookers)

4) After approx 1-1.5 seconds (after hookers have attempted to hook the ball) ref calls "CONTEST" at which time scrums can push and contest for the ball.

5) If a teams pushes before the ref calls "contest" - penalty.

This sequence will bring back into play the straight feeds & the hookers role, while retaining the integrity of the contested scrum under controlled conditions and avoiding constant resets.

Is there any chance somebody else appropriately placed could trial this and report on the results.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

I had this idea a few weeks ago and had an unexpected opportunity to trial it last night in an informal setting at a local team training session. Worked a charm. Coach, players and attending part time ref quite impressed with the results.

1) Still apply crouch, bind, set.

2) Feed the ball in straight - if not straight - penalty.

3) Hookers must hook and for the first 1-1.5 seconds from the feed there is "no contest" from the supporting 7 forwards. (I.E.Uncontested scrum apart from the hookers)

4) After approx 1-1.5 seconds (after hookers have attempted to hook the ball) ref calls "CONTEST" at which time scrums can push and contest for the ball.

5) If a teams pushes before the ref calls "contest" - penalty.

This sequence will bring back into play the straight feeds & the hookers role, while retaining the integrity of the contested scrum under controlled conditions and avoiding constant resets.

Is there any chance somebody else appropriately placed could trial this and report on the results.

While that might stop initial collapses that sounds way too complicated for our already incompetent referees to get right.

Additionally trying to stop the players pushing for even 1 second will lead to so many issues.

 

[Which Tyler]

I had this idea a few weeks ago and had an unexpected opportunity to trial it last night in an informal setting at a local team training session. Worked a charm. Coach, players and attending part time ref quite impressed with the results.

1) Still apply crouch, bind, set.

2) Feed the ball in straight - if not straight - penalty.

3) Hookers must hook and for the first 1-1.5 seconds from the feed there is "no contest" from the supporting 7 forwards. (I.E.Uncontested scrum apart from the hookers)

4) After approx 1-1.5 seconds (after hookers have attempted to hook the ball) ref calls "CONTEST" at which time scrums can push and contest for the ball.

5) If a teams pushes before the ref calls "contest" - penalty.

This sequence will bring back into play the straight feeds & the hookers role, while retaining the integrity of the contested scrum under controlled conditions and avoiding constant resets.

Is there any chance somebody else appropriately placed could trial this and report on the results.

I like your thinking, and can simplify it a little; we already have n ignored law of n pushing before the ball is I, change that to no pushing before the ball is secured.

Of course, the law of unintended consequences will apply, and there will be lots of props faking being pushed back etc, but hey

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

I had this idea a few weeks ago and had an unexpected opportunity to trial it last night in an informal setting at a local team training session. Worked a charm. Coach, players and attending part time ref quite impressed with the results.

1) Still apply crouch, bind, set.

2) Feed the ball in straight - if not straight - penalty.

3) Hookers must hook and for the first 1-1.5 seconds from the feed there is "no contest" from the supporting 7 forwards. (I.E.Uncontested scrum apart from the hookers)

4) After approx 1-1.5 seconds (after hookers have attempted to hook the ball) ref calls "CONTEST" at which time scrums can push and contest for the ball.

5) If a teams pushes before the ref calls "contest" - penalty.

This sequence will bring back into play the straight feeds & the hookers role, while retaining the integrity of the contested scrum under controlled conditions and avoiding constant resets.

Is there any chance somebody else appropriately placed could trial this and report on the results.

Nice thinking, but channel 1 can see ball the ball can be in the no8's hands and away before your CONTEST call rendering props redundant.

As dunhookin keeps saying the straight feed is key. I would also add a rule requiring the hooker of the side putting the ball in to make a legitimate effort to strike for the ball. If he chooses not to, or the opposition are skilful enough to stop him, then he gets pinged. This is all about technique and skill.

 

[Dunhookin]

Firstly - season's greetings guys - hope Santa is kind and generous! It's the quieter time of day - before the family congregate and the excesses begin!

Must say Osper's ideas are thought provoking - and clearly worked successfully at least once. It could well be worth further trialling, with the current batch of hookers not being hookers, just lineout throwers, it could work well, at least initially. After a while, when the techniques and skills required to strike the ball on straight feed had been re-learned, Old Hook's astute point that the ball is out of channel 1 so fast it would be too late to call 'contest' - would mean scrums were, hookers aside, largely uncontested.

Having said that, tight heads would try to pressurise the hooker with the put in to try and impede him enough to allow his hooker to steal the ball - which would test referees and create reasons to ping. The thing to like about Osper's idea is it makes scrums about the ball - teams would have to focus on winning the ball as their first priority.

OH's suggestion that the team with the put must strike for the ball - and if they don't there's a sanction is also worth consideration. Rather than a penalty, might be better to re-scrum with the put in to the other team.

We're the law making up to me, I would have referees less involved with setting scrums - no anal lecturing of front rows and much quicker voicing of CBS. Clear and obvious technical offences would be dealt with by free kick - but bent feeding is a penalty offence.

Props that look to collapse get the first one, but on the second collapse they get to look at a yellow card. When they return, one more collapse = red card. Might seem harsh, but it would make props think twice about a strategic collapse - and especially as there would be no penalty reward, completely remove the incentive to collapse. With bent feeding as a penalty sanction - teams wouldn't be taking the p*** putting the ball in the second row - instead they'd have to feed straight - and focus on winning the ball.