Dysfunctional scrums - the agony continues

[Ragey Erasmus]

Couldn't we require both hookers to attempt to hook, therefore removing the 8v7 problem?

 

[stus768]

Both hookers must start with their foot up?

 

[Every Time Ref]

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.

The only bit I don't like is the bit in bold. Firstly because if referees are at all fallible (which they are) you risk giving out a yellow card for two honest mistakes. Imagine a muddy day and poor referee and you end up with 2 yellows and a red to various props, none of whom have done anything wrong, and we're back in "scrums are a joke" territory again.

Following on from that, this gives props reasons to con the ref - the very thing we're trying to avoid. If I'm a prop and my opposite number has collapsed once then I know the worst I can get is a penalty against, but the most I can gain is getting my team 10 minutes with a man extra - which becomes a reasonable level of risk to take it down myself and hope I win the 50-50 call. I think the most positive approach is minimising the gains from a collapsed scrum, so no one is ever incentivised to drop it

 

[Zootalaws]

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.

The reward is inherent - they gain possession and get to dictate strategy. If the scrum collapses, they get a free kick, again getting to dictate the strategy.

I think that in the quest for a 'power team' the reason for the scrum has been lost - it's a way of restarting play that gives both teams an opportunity to compete.

Obviously those in the pack will want to show their dominance, but if shenanigans result in a free kick, the emphasis will go back on technical scrums with the intent to win the ball, not to sucker the ref into awarding a penalty.

We we saw a couple of international scrums this autumn where the scrums were deadlocked - the offensive team couldn't hook the damned ball. It was hilarious, really, that the pill sat on the ground because neither hooker wanted to take the chance of lifting their foot and possibly losing the push.

Penalties are for foul play. Where is the foul play in a collapsed scrum or wheeled scrum? It's either a tactic or it's the result of a better pack opposing you, but neither of those are grounds for a penalty, imo.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

How about if the scrum collapses, give the 'winner' a free kick? If there are no resets other than if the ref isn't happy with the positioning, then the packs will do their damnedest to make it work effectively first time.

How many bad line outs are reset?

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Absolutely. I'm sure that exactly the evolution to where we are now.

Witness the deadlocked scrums this AA where nobody hooked the ball and the scrums just hung there, grunting at each other.

But, if the laws are clear and the refs ensure adherence, the answer is to be a better team and the emphasis will go from sucking penalties to winning the ball, which is where it should be.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Hilarious. It's thinking like that that has gotten us to where we are now. Maybe they should make sure that there are no traces of nuts in any ointment or liniment applied to,players to protect those with nut allergies, too?

What is it with you lot that want a penalty for everything? A free kick get play back with possession in the hands of the guiltless. Penalties are for foul play.

 

[Ospervat]

OK - free kick then.
It's not the nature of the punishment for an infringement that is being debated - its "dysfunctional scrums" What is your solution to the issues under debate?

 

[Dunhookin]

There's a significant stumbling block to any improvement in scrum functionality - WR. They seem to regard the opinions of genuine rugby enthusiasts with disdain - and clearly there's a body, a faction or similar within WR that does not want scrum dysfunction to change...?!

Passionate dyed in the wool Rugby men can make suggestions on forums like this in good faith - WR are oblivious.

Unfortunately WR are not held to account for mis-managing the game as they are with scrums. The recent (2015) partial improvement - spun by WR as the big solution - where straighter (meaning a little less bent than previously) put ins made a brief appearance - turned out to be another false dawn.

Those responsible should have their ineptitude exposed - and publicly required to explain why they continually fail to consistently apply the key law of the game required for scrums to function properly - straight feeding. This is a problem that requires firm unequivocal leadership, a grab by the scruff approach that I don't believe WR have the backbone for.

And so - they should be replaced. Sooner the better - for the good of the game and the sanity of all us

 

[Blindside]

The scrum was never meant to be a equal contest, it was meant for there to be an advantage for the side putting in. The reason being there had previously been a transgression by the other team. That advantage was significant but not overwhelming. The trouble is now as pointed out, with a slightly weaker scrum if your hooker hooks you are at great disadvantage.

An hooker can not be required to raise his foot in the opposing team as if he is unable too due to the pressure and position in he is then it would be unsafe. No one has ever been forced to hook, and often both hookers have been unable to hook.

One of the problem with the scrums and a possible tactic in collapse and reset is time... an obvious an easy remedy would after the first collapse stop the clock and not reset the time until the ball is available in a legal scrum at the number eights feet. However many scrums this takes. Also spectators would not be robed of rugby time.

Another way is for offending sides to be deducted points if technical experts view footage which show overwhelming use of what is a dangerous form of cheating. Certain sides/props may be put on a watch list if their stats are concerning.

Off the wall suggestion, the loose head of either side does not have a flanker bind on him, that flanker must bind on the loose heads second row. While the tight head does have a flanker in both sides. This would take away the natural disadvantage of the TH and take some of the pressure off the problem area, that is a LH across into the sternum of the TH.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

The scrum was never meant to be a equal contest, it was meant for there to be an advantage for the side putting in. The reason being there had previously been a transgression by the other team. That advantage was significant but not overwhelming. The trouble is now as pointed out, with a slightly weaker scrum if your hooker hooks you are at great disadvantage.

An hooker can not be required to raise his foot in the opposing team as if he is unable too due to the pressure and position in he is then it would be unsafe. No one has ever been forced to hook, and often both hookers have been unable to hook.

One of the problem with the scrums and a possible tactic in collapse and reset is time... an obvious an easy remedy would after the first collapse stop the clock and not reset the time until the ball is available in a legal scrum at the number eights feet. However many scrums this takes. Also spectators would not be robed of rugby time.

Another way is for offending sides to be deducted points if technical experts view footage which show overwhelming use of what is a dangerous form of cheating. Certain sides/props may be put on a watch list if their stats are concerning.

Off the wall suggestion, the loose head of either side does not have a flanker bind on him, that flanker must bind on the loose heads second row. While the tight head does have a flanker in both sides. This would take away the natural disadvantage of the TH and take some of the pressure off the problem area, that is a LH across into the sternum of the TH.

Spectators may not be robbed of rugby time but will be bored senseless.

 

[Blindside]

Spectators may not be robbed of rugby time but will be bored senseless.

Well it would not lead to more collapsed scrum,s only less... as there would be no advantage in that respect, so your point appears pointless.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Where as your ideas, no scrum would ever move back as they would collapse before or as soon as they felt the pressure coming on and decided they were at a disadvantage. Anyone would. So we would have engage strike collapse, that should be great

 

[Dunhookin]

Blind - there's no suggestion of making the scrum an 'equal' contest - as there is a clear advantage for the team with the put in - their hooker is closer to the ball, making it significantly easier for him to win the ball. So not an equal contest per se - but it should be a meaningful contest for possession of the ball...not penalties. Bent feeding denies any chance of meaningfully contesting the ball - which is fundamentally why our scrum is the deeply agonising mess it has been allowed to become.

Cannot agree with your point about a striking hooker creating a "great disadvantage" Blind. Nor is it true that a hooker moving his feet to strike is 'unsafe'. This is the nonsensical invention of a few elite level coaches because 'safety' conquers all - the ultimate trump card that destroys all argument. For decades we had striking hookers - a real contest of technique, skill, speed and psychology - a contest that created a game within the game - and moreover, produced fast ball down channel 1. Fast ball - the lifeblood of our game.

Now the striking is a great disadvantage thing? Witness the SA v Japan game in RWC15, the Japanese hooker was a real hooker and the best in the tournament. He was so fast the ball was out down channel 1 in half a second - then look at how the Japanese used their quick ball - that's the way the game should be played. Throughout the match the Japanese scrummage was so efficient - and so effective that the 8v7 apparent 'advantage' the SA pack over them was in fact, no advantage at all.

Now let's deal with the 'safety' thing. The safety 'concern' that hookers moving their feet is unsafe is utter bunkum. It is a convenient argument wrapped in the blanket of 'safety' to hide reality by a few elite level coaches who have only one agenda when it comes to scrums. They want the scrum as a penalty source - a dodgy source of cheap points hidden under the Mystique of the dark arts - and the whole 'safety' thing is a convenient smoke screen. I suspect these few have significant influence within WR because the agony of dysfunctional, penalty fest scrums continues unabated.

"Hookers are unable to hook because of the pressure" - another piece of bunkum circulated by the 'cheap points agenda club'. See the above point about the Japanese hooker, then there's Rory Best - and Dane Coles all striking hookers who both move their feet and strike the ball under pressure - just as hookers have for decades prior to the disaster of bent feeding. A skilful hooker will be technical enough to heel the ball so that it goes down all 3 channels - depending on the call, field position etc. Mention 3 channels to the line out throwers who wear No2 these days and they'll think you're talking about perfume!

All suggestions made in good faith by enthusiasts who have rugby's best interests at heart to improve our scrum are worthy of consideration. Many times the suggestions are measures to deal with the symptoms of scrum dysfunction - rather than the cause/source of the problem - which brings us back full circle. The source of the problem is bent feeding - that's what must be addressed - and is long, long overdue.

Lastly, some voices have opined that the scrum should just be an uncontested event - which frankly makes me cringe - and would be a titanic disaster for our game. RL went down this route - with the disastrous result that their scrum is a meaningless embarrassment and a waste of everyone's time. Abandoning or devaluing our scrum would be akin to having the Queen drive taxis in Watford on Friday nights...unthinkable.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Well it would not lead to more collapsed scrum,s only less... as there would be no advantage in that respect, so your point appears pointless.

- - - Updated - - -



Where as your ideas, no scrum would ever move back as they would collapse before or as soon as they felt the pressure coming on and decided they were at a disadvantage. Anyone would. So we would have engage strike collapse, that should be great

Apart from very specific circumstances, scrums are not collapsed as a time wasting mechanism. The problem isn't so much the game time taken up with scrums but actual watching time taken up and the fact it is extremely boring to watch numerous scrum resets. Yeah my ideas may result in immediate collapses but that would default to letting the attacking side get the ball, not exactly a huge gain. The main issue is to reduce the incentive to collapse and cheat to basically nothing. Penalties give a team a better position than a scrum does so both sides use a scrum to get the better penalty, this should be removed from the game. People don't use lineouts as a way to get penalties so they shouldn't use scrums to do the same.

 

[Blindside]

The only specific circumstance is then wasting time its obviously used as it has on occasions taken up over 5 minutes for a single scrum. The point is would taking away this circumstance lead to benefit, if it is a circumstance where it is used it obviously would in my view. That it would not solve the problem i dont dispute. But if my side is behind by 1 point with 5 minutes to go it spoils my enjoyment if 3 minutes of it is taken up[ by one scrum ?

People do use lineouts as a means to get penalties, or at least the resulting maul. If you let the attacking side get the ball then it becomes rugby league in its importance.

 

[Blindside]

Blind - there's no suggestion of making the scrum an 'equal' contest - as there is a clear advantage for the team with the put in - their hooker is closer to the ball, making it significantly easier for him to win the ball. So not an equal contest per se - but it should be a meaningful contest for possession of the ball...not penalties. Bent feeding denies any chance of meaningfully contesting the ball - which is fundamentally why our scrum is the deeply agonising mess it has been allowed to become.

Cannot agree with your point about a striking hooker creating a "great disadvantage" Blind. Nor is it true that a hooker moving his feet to strike is 'unsafe'. This is the nonsensical invention of a few elite level coaches because 'safety' conquers all - the ultimate trump card that destroys all argument. For decades we had striking hookers - a real contest of technique, skill, speed and psychology - a contest that created a game within the game - and moreover, produced fast ball down channel 1. Fast ball - the lifeblood of our game.

Now the striking is a great disadvantage thing? Witness the SA v Japan game in RWC15, the Japanese hooker was a real hooker and the best in the tournament. He was so fast the ball was out down channel 1 in half a second - then look at how the Japanese used their quick ball - that's the way the game should be played. Throughout the match the Japanese scrummage was so efficient - and so effective that the 8v7 apparent 'advantage' the SA pack over them was in fact, no advantage at all.

Now let's deal with the 'safety' thing. The safety 'concern' that hookers moving their feet is unsafe is utter bunkum. It is a convenient argument wrapped in the blanket of 'safety' to hide reality by a few elite level coaches who have only one agenda when it comes to scrums. They want the scrum as a penalty source - a dodgy source of cheap points hidden under the Mystique of the dark arts - and the whole 'safety' thing is a convenient smoke screen. I suspect these few have significant influence within WR because the agony of dysfunctional, penalty fest scrums continues unabated.

"Hookers are unable to hook because of the pressure" - another piece of bunkum circulated by the 'cheap points agenda club'. See the above point about the Japanese hooker, then there's Rory Best - and Dane Coles all striking hookers who both move their feet and strike the ball under pressure - just as hookers have for decades prior to the disaster of bent feeding. A skilful hooker will be technical enough to heel the ball so that it goes down all 3 channels - depending on the call, field position etc. Mention 3 channels to the line out throwers who wear No2 these days and they'll think you're talking about perfume!

All suggestions made in good faith by enthusiasts who have rugby's best interests at heart to improve our scrum are worthy of consideration. Many times the suggestions are measures to deal with the symptoms of scrum dysfunction - rather than the cause/source of the problem - which brings us back full circle. The source of the problem is bent feeding - that's what must be addressed - and is long, long overdue.

Lastly, some voices have opined that the scrum should just be an uncontested event - which frankly makes me cringe - and would be a titanic disaster for our game. RL went down this route - with the disastrous result that their scrum is a meaningless embarrassment and a waste of everyone's time. Abandoning or devaluing our scrum would be akin to having the Queen drive taxis in Watford on Friday nights...unthinkable.

It appears to me you are mixing up a number of points. Firstly the crooked feed has not resulted in meaningless contest regards the scrum, just a meaningless contest regards the striking of the ball. The scrum is as important or even possibly more important than ever and meaningful put ins are very rare at professional level. The quality of the ball and the winning of the ball itself is still fiercly contested as shown by the fact that so many penalties result from it. That it is wrong and the effect it has had on the game is negative, is a totally different argument. However i fail to see the link between striking the ball and the "agonising mess that the scrum has become".

I do not believe you have played hooker, or understand the difference in position between hooking the ball and not hooking. To hook, unless your props are dominantu you most adopt a totally different position, which negates the amount of pressure you can put on. If you are square on you will not be able to rise your foot, you cannot get your feet back into a pushing position, and the point must come where you raise/swing your leg. That this is a lost art and certain hookers could hook when the scrum was incredible low is true. But most of the heads were taken because the opposing hooker could not strike. Or sometimes by your tight head. At lower levels the contest continues pretty much as before, but the pressures and quality of the scrummaging at professional level means that without the hooker helping the tight head, the scrum is often dismantled and once it goes back its end of story. Thus to maintain a slight advantage the fed ball has become the norm. If you have ever had weight on you that prevents you raising your feet in the hooking position you would realise that circumstances can make it unsafe or indeed impossible to strike for the ball, to say otherwise is complete nonsense. Like everything the better the hooker the less likely he could not hook.

I could talk about why the ball should be put in straight, but an answer must be found to the disadvantage it puts the side in possession in, particularly at the top level. Some of the proposals i put up in my original post attempted to address this. Your dislike for the crooked feed and your dislike for the mess the scrum can become or not closely linked, just striking the ball is not going to put it right, in the same way as just feeding the ball hasn't.

Another problem with the scrum is that the laws of the scrum are impossible to be complied with if you are being pushed back.... why if your being routed and you keep bound are get into position that are forced on you, why ? Lets except it. If there is not deliberate attempt to negate the advantage through illegal means then lets not be so quick to give penalties.

 

[Dunhookin]

Well Blind - I have no interest in what you believe or don't believe - and as it's the season of goodwill, I will cast no aspersions on your experience or ability. But I will just make a statement of truth - clearly from your version of what it's like playing upfront, I've stuck my head into many more scrums than you have ole son.

"The quality of the ball and the winning of the ball is still fiercely contested" - with bent feeding?? No, clearly, it is not. Firstly, the quality of the ball produced from most bent scrums is so poor and slow it's not worth having. Secondly with bent feeding its not possible to contest the ball - fiercely or otherwise. At elite levels scrum ball is almost a complete irrelevance, the only thing that's contested is trying to con the referee into giving penalties. It's an embarrassing farce - care to disagree?

Your failure to see the link between bent feeding and dysfunctional scrums...bent scrums mean winning the ball is a foregone conclusion, so the focus at scrums is on screwing penalties out of the referee. Dire, negative, tedious dysfunction. Enforcing straight feed means teams will have to focus on winning the ball - and not penalties. But don't take my word for it - Ireland v Canada RWC15 - straight(er) feeding with 2 striking hookers, usable, quick ball produced and barely a scrum penalty in a vibrant enjoyable match. Compare it with Italy/France group match - a painful ordeal dominated by 36 penalties - most of the scrums pinged, those that weren't were ruined by bent feeding and hookers who couldn't hook. The low point was one scrum that took about 30 seconds from put in to back in play. Sure those that paid £150 for a ticket to watch that dross were very ****** off.

To cover the myriad of circumstances that make up playing upfront - problem solving when faced with a boring TH or a faster, better hooker to name just two would mean a number of extra paragraphs. Go read the entries earlier in this thread that talk about these and the consequences of having your head shoved up your ass...

 

[Blindside]

Point remains that if the ball is struck it creates no difference to the ball being fed regards how a coach may view a scrum. They would still look for penalties and the opportunity would remain, the difference is that the front row is weakened by the position the hooker must take, which does not help the tight head in particular, who is forced to support him. For the brief period they actually enforced the straight feed, it made no difference NONE.

The only reason you appear to have for your blinkered view, is that the ball is delivered more quickly by a dragged leg or a deflected heel ? Which in itself is disputable as the reason it was a proper contest meant that issues arose. As an experienced front row forward you must also have seen the ball hooked with the head in "old days". It's nonsense ! It appears that your one and only remedy is a straight put in..... frankly that's laughable, you have addressed non of the issues that resulted in the present situation and they are many. The hooker not striking is not one of them. The hooker not striking has led to larger hookers and the loss of a skill that was important to the games unseen intricacies, yes. However a straight put in will not be the answer to the problem of collapsed and continually reset scrums. Why would it. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE is the ball is struck instead of fed and the side in possession is at a greater disadvantage.

 

[smartcooky]

Point remains that if the ball is struck it creates no difference to the ball being fed regards how a coach may view a scrum. They would still look for penalties and the opportunity would remain, the difference is that the front row is weakened by the position the hooker must take, which does not help the tight head in particular, who is forced to support him. For the brief period they actually enforced the straight feed, it made no difference NONE.

The only reason you appear to have for your blinkered view, is that the ball is delivered more quickly by a dragged leg or a deflected heel ? Which in itself is disputable as the reason it was a proper contest meant that issues arose. As an experienced front row forward you must also have seen the ball hooked with the head in "old days". It's nonsense ! It appears that your one and only remedy is a straight put in..... frankly that's laughable, you have addressed non of the issues that resulted in the present situation and they are many. The hooker not striking is not one of them. The hooker not striking has led to larger hookers and the loss of a skill that was important to the games unseen intricacies, yes. However a straight put in will not be the answer to the problem of collapsed and continually reset scrums. Why would it. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE is the ball is struck instead of fed and the side in possession is at a greater disadvantage.

Absolutely this.

Simply feeding the ball straight does NOTHING to guarantee quick ball if neither hooker strikes. If you have two evenly matched packs, all with their feet back, each pack trying to push the other off the ball, and you feed the ball straight, one of two things will happen....

a. the ball will roll right through the tunnel (we have seen this happen several times this season) which requires a reset

b. the ball will stop in the tunnel, and remain there because neither pack can push the other off it, and neither hooker is prepared to stop pushing to hook due to the risk of the other team pushing his and his team back before he can actually strike.

Two things need to happen to fix this problem

1. Take away the incentive for teams/coaches to use the scrum as a 3-point score generator by making the sanction for ALL scrum infringements an Indirect Penalty Kick (IPK). An IPK would be more than a Free Kick and less than a Penalty Kick; you get all privileges of a penalty kick (gain in ground and throw-in to the lineout) but you cannot kick at goal or take a dropped goal (under the same restriction as the Free Kick)

2. Add an incentive to strike for the ball by using a materiality based approach to the throw-in. The referee would ping squint feeds only if the non-feeding team's hooker strikes for the ball. If he chooses not to strike, then allow the squint feed to go unpenalised on the grounds that it was immaterial. If the teams understand that the opposing hooker striking at their squint feed would result in an IPK then there would be a real incentive to feed it straight; if the opposition know its going to be fed straight there would be an incentive to go for it.

If the non-feeding hooker chooses not to compete for the ball. then why should the referee enforce a straight feed? If he wants to force the opposition SH to feed straight, all he has to do is a make a genuine attempt to strike.

 

[Blindside]

Absolutely this.

Simply feeding the ball straight does NOTHING to guarantee quick ball if neither hooker strikes. If you have two evenly matched packs, all with their feet back, each pack trying to push the other off the ball, and you feed the ball straight, one of two things will happen....

a. the ball will roll right through the tunnel (we have seen this happen several times this season) which requires a reset

b. the ball will stop in the tunnel, and remain there because neither pack can push the other off it, and neither hooker is prepared to stop pushing to hook due to the risk of the other team pushing his and his team back before he can actually strike.

Two things need to happen to fix this problem

1. Take away the incentive for teams/coaches to use the scrum as a 3-point score generator by making the sanction for ALL scrum infringements an Indirect Penalty Kick (IPK). An IPK would be more than a Free Kick and less than a Penalty Kick; you get all privileges of a penalty kick (gain in ground and throw-in to the lineout) but you cannot kick at goal or take a dropped goal (under the same restriction as the Free Kick)

2. Add an incentive to strike for the ball by using a materiality based approach to the throw-in. The referee would ping squint feeds only if the non-feeding team's hooker strikes for the ball. If he chooses not to strike, then allow the squint feed to go unpenalised on the grounds that it was immaterial. If the teams understand that the opposing hooker striking at their squint feed would result in an IPK then there would be a real incentive to feed it straight; if the opposition know its going to be fed straight there would be an incentive to go for it.

If the non-feeding hooker chooses not to compete for the ball. then why should the referee enforce a straight feed? If he wants to force the opposition SH to feed straight, all he has to do is a make a genuine attempt to strike.

Regarding point one.... It could be have a small positive effect. But the turnover of the ball a probable 40m kick and put in, in line out would still be a huge incentive to compete in the Scrum to get a penalty or disrupt the scrum. For the scrum to be meaningful we need an incentive to compete.

Regarding point 2.... It would be rule where the interpretation of the offence is dictated by the actions a person not responsible for the actual event. Also if the defending side decides not to hook and allow the crooked feed we are in the exact same position as the present. So if the change in the law benefits the side in possession, the side not in possession merely reverts to not hooking and allowing the crooked feed.

The point for me is, it's like peeling back the layers of an onion. The root cause of scrum collapses is either the tight head realising he is under pressure that puts him at a disadvantage or the loose head being unhappy that he does not have the TH at a disadvantage when he should. For the hooker to strike he must lift his right leg and be supported by his TH this really ****s the TH as both the LH and hooker. Take away the flanker from the Loose head and make him (the flanker) scrummage on the second row. The balance of the scrum is returned the THs can support the hookers and they are more likely to strike, the ball can be put in straight. ?????

 

[Dunhookin]

Point remains that if the ball is struck it creates no difference to the ball being fed regards how a coach may view a scrum.

Did you really write that?!! And you have the temerity to call me blinkered...I've already pointed out the difference...with bent feeding the ball takes 5 to 30 seconds to be playable, whereas with a striking hooker in channel 1 - typically 0.5 to 3 seconds to be playable - and that's no difference is it?! What are you watching?

"They would still look for penalties and the opportunity would remain, the difference is that the front row is weakened by the position the hooker must take, which does not help the tight head in particular, who is forced to support him."

You're missing the key point of dealing with bent feeding - shifting the focus and the mindset of players and coaches from penalties to winning fast ball to attack with. When the focus is on winning the ball, the TH's role changes for the team with the put in, the LH has the key role of keeping the scrum up and the tunnel open so the hooker can see the ball. Even if the TH is coming second but the LH is stable, the hooker can still strike the ball. Contrast that with the LH's role with bent feeding, the ball is irrelevant, leaving him free to do whatever to screw a penalty from the opposition or the referee.

"For the brief period they actually enforced the straight feed, it made no difference NONE."

Bullsh*t - go look again at RWC15 games involving Canada, Ireland, Japan or NZ - open your eyes and your mind, the evidence is clear - the difference is SIGNIFICANT!!

"The only reason you appear to have for your blinkered view, is that the ball is delivered more quickly by a dragged leg or a deflected heel ?"

More ignorance...it's irritating that someone who has never played upfront then belittles the skills and techniques involved. The point has already been made more than once my friend - bent feeding de-skills a key role in a key function of our game resulting in a penalty fest and slow ball that's useless. Straight feeding will force teams to focus on winning the ball or risk losing it - so hookers who can hook - which means fast, very usable ball.

"Which in itself is disputable as the reason it was a proper contest meant that issues arose." What issues...exactly?

"As an experienced front row forward you must also have seen the ball hooked with the head in "old days". It's nonsense !"

You live in arguably the most rugby passionate and partisan part of the country, so you won't have to look far for a hooker who played when the ball had to be won, not rolled through the LH's legs who hooked with his head. But I wouldn't do disdainful ole son - not if I were you.

"It appears that your one and only remedy is a straight put in..... frankly that's laughable, you have addressed non of the issues that resulted in the present situation and they are many."

No, the remedy is changing the focus from iffy penalties to winning the ball - which means changing the mindset of players, coaches and referees. The key part of the process is enforcing straight feeding - and re-skilling the hooking role. Pretty much all of the 'issues' are a direct result of bent feeding - and what's 'laughable' is WR's incompetence at dealing with what most find a tedious, negative drain on our game. To make the mindset change, all scrum infringements should be dealt with by free kick - but bent feeding is a penalty offence.

'The hooker not striking has led to larger hookers and the loss of a skill that was important to the games unseen intricacies."

Yes but those 'unseen intricacies' produced quick ball, scrums were over much quicker and scrum penalties were fewer.

"However a straight put in will not be the answer to the problem of collapsed and continually reset scrums. Why would it. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE is the ball is struck instead of fed and the side in possession is at a greater disadvantage"

The straight put in as part of a mindset change - will absolutely make a significantly positive difference to the number of collapses and resets. And clearly it won't be the ONLY DIFFERENCE...

 

[Blindside]

"My friend" i was calling your blinkered because you are only interested in your point of view, your agenda, you have identified a symptom and labelled it a cause. Your bug bear is that the ball should be put in straight, in that respect i agree. But a straight put in is not the cause of what is often a scrum debacle. Which you kind of admit by saying the straight feed will "changing the focus from iffy penalties to winning the ball - which means changing the mindset of players, coaches and referees". It wont, the reason it wont is because they had to adapt to a situation where the forces on the tight head increased to a degree, that he could not support the hooker and hold the scrum. As a result the hooker scrummaged square on, as a result of that when pressure was applied he could not raise his leg, as a result of that the crooked feed became the means of restarting the game.

If striking the ball was the answer to scrum problems,why has it not evolved as the answer ? you are not prevented from putting the ball in straight and striking for the ball. So why dont they just do it. Can see the team talk now ! "Listen lads our scrum is a little week so today we are going to put the ball in straight and strike for it, the scrum will be over in 0.5 seconds and we will get the ball away".You can put the ball in crooked and the hooker can heel or strike from the pushing position, why should it effect the time of scrums as you say... it doesnt

I have no disdain for the art of hooking or indeed a scrum that stayed up even though the hooker had to hook with his head was a thing of beauty. My point was that in such circumstances it was "nonsense" to say that the ball was delivered cleanly and quickly, often it was not. I think your 5 to 30 seconds travel time for the ball to be available is complete make believe. It may not be used quickly, but is often available quickly, if of course the scrum hasn't collapsed or it is not held at the back to drive, neither of which is effected by the straight put in !

You must also address how the art of hooking impacted on a TH and the effect on the TH of both a opposing Loosehead and hooker working together, while the TH is attempting to hold his hooker up as he assumes a position where is left shoulder is lower that his right and he is looking down the tunnel, which was the reason the loosehead took the scrum higher while the tight head kept it low and to a large extent supported the weight of his hooker for him to strike the ball ? What happened to tip the balance so far that the TH could no longer do this and scrummage effectively. That is the issue that needs to be addressed, it is the cause not the symptom.

There is a extremely valid argument to be made that the changes to the scrum that has led to the crooked feed has had a detrimental effect on the diversity of player types, body types that played the game at a high level. The hooker was a smaller form of backrow forward who developed strategies and techniques in the scrum which IMO are sadly missed. Today Schalk Brits may be an example a throw back, from past i can remember Hika Reid touring with NZ in the early 80's and Keith Wood was a great hooker, Welsh examples would be Kevin Phillips and Barry Williams. Some of these would not be viewed as what the modern scrum requires. Addressing the issues that resulted in the rarity of the highly mobile hooker are linked to the crooked feed, but the crooked feed is not the issue.

 

[Dunhookin]

HNY everyone.

Yes, Kevin Phillips was very skilful and very technical - as was Ian Watkins before him, Billy James and Alan Phillips going back further still. Skilful and technical - sad, regrettable casualties of bent feeding.

Ok let's actually sort the question of what will become of the TH were WR to grow a pair (they won't) and deal with bent feeding. Your statement that the TH will be hung out to dry is due to the current malaise of everybody having become used to bent feeding and dysfunction. The mindset and focus is not on the ball, winning the ball is a foregone conclusion - it will be rolled into the second row. With competing for the ball nigh on impossible, players look for other ways to compete. The 2 v 1 situation where LH and hooker attack the TH causing him to pop up, or the scrum to wheel, has evolved as the hooker has no opportunity to go for the ball - as a hooker, he is redundant. Therefore he's free to join with his LH in attacking the TH to disrupt or screw a penalty.

Were straight feeding to be enforced - players would have to focus on the ball - winning it would be their first priority. Therefore the defensive hooker now has a 'ball first priority focus and mindset' and whilst opportunities to go for the ball against the head will be few, he will be watching for it. So hookers will be far less likely to engage with LH and 'gang up' on the opposing TH - there'll be the odd instance of it - but it won't be their priority.

Bent feeding has made the TH's role very defensive - as the 2 v 1 way to compete has become the norm. When straight feeding was properly enforced, on the opposing put in, the TH's role was more offensive - to try and create disruption and pressure so his hooker could strike against the head - all about the ball.

With bent feeding - yes the 30 seconds quoted was an extreme example, but we absolutely do get scrums where the ball takes an age to emerge. Twelve, 15, and 20 seconds for the ball to show up is common - and look at how the slow ball is used. Look at the players' body language - they're not interested in it - when was the last time you saw a back row move from a scrum?

There's another absolute truth about bent feeding - it's against a fundamental law of our game. Ignoring that law is now spawning the breaking of another law - handling the ball in the scrum is becoming more prevalent. There's a grey area between front and second rows where the bent fed ball often stops as it's run out of momentum. Here the second rows can't get their feet far forward enough to channel it back - and where neither pack can get a nudge on, the ball is stranded. So the SH delves his hands into the second row to retrieve the ball - to which referees turn a blind eye because it's better than spectators being bored sh*tless waiting...how long was it?... for the ball to get to the 8.

Begs the question - what other laws do WR intend to ignore because they don't have the backbone to deal with bent feeding? Answers on a postcard...