Change needed in scrums - Suggestions

[dasNdanger]

I was gonna say add groin and side grab handles to the shorts, but sige trumped my snark with...something. :glare:


That said, this has been an interesting and informative discussion. It seems obvious that something needs to be done. Whether that be better binding, dropping the hit, or more consistent refereeing - or all of the above and then some - I'm not sure. But it sounds to me as if there are just way too many ideas flying around out there on how it should be done without anyone who matters really communicating their concerns/ideas with each other. Too many personal opinions will just translate to a lack of discipline and consistency in the scrum (afterall, you can't have everyone playing by a different set of 'rules').

That said, the trials on engagement seems good, in this game things do have to be field-tested before they can become law, or not. But like sifplay I find the breakdown to be a bigger problem. I should dig out my old VHS tapes of matches from 12 years ago because I don't remember the scrums being so messy a decade ago, with so many restarts. I remember the ball coming out relatively quickly, or is my memory just fuzzy?


das

 

[ratsapprentice]

That said, the trials on engagement seems good, in this game things do have to be field-tested before they can become law, or not. But like sifplay I find the breakdown to be a bigger problem. I should dig out my old VHS tapes of matches from 12 years ago because I don't remember the scrums being so messy a decade ago, with so many restarts. I remember the ball coming out relatively quickly, or is my memory just fuzzy?

The laws were applied in those days!

The IRB keep tiptoeing around the real issue of early drives by addressing the extraneous issues of the binding and engagement process.
Simply penalise sides for pushing before the ball is in, as the experts in the discussion I posted above have asserted, the scrum will sort itself out almost overnight.
The refs are only in a position to "not see" skewed put-ins, arm-binding etc because they are not enforcing the process as stipulated in the laws!
They would give themselves far less to worry about, and they could systematically check, 1) The Bind, 2) Whether either side has moved over the mark and are parallel to it and finally 3) that they are stable.
Once he is happy with that he can then let the SH put the ball in whilst fully concentrating on whether it is fed straight.
This will also hopefully restore the use of scrums as instruments of attack.
The hookers can compete to try and strike the ball and it is far more difficult to collapse, and far more obvious to the referee due to the significantly reduced forces being generated from the (by this point stable) packs.
This means that each scrum will take slightly longer but the completion rate will improve dramatically.

There is nothing stopping them from enforcing the laws as they should be right now, if only they wanted to.

 

[psychic duck]

That new "set" rule instead of "engage" was a pointless idea by whoever thought it would help the problem. If anything the scrums have actually got even worse this season than better with it, and more early engages than there has ever been.

I don't get what the IRB's problem is. It isn't hard to enforce old style jerseys on props to help grip, or referees to blow for feeding. And if they make a big difference, then why do they not to do what is a relatively easy thing to enforce. That would make a much more positive impact than changing the call to "set".

 

[ratsapprentice]

I don't get what the IRB's problem is.

This is probably the most frustrating aspect of the situation. The IRB is not providing any sort of clear explanation as to what they see as the issues, or even confirming (in any genuine way) that they see it as an issue at all.

 

[dasNdanger]

The laws were applied in those days!

Then ripped off like a sticky plaster!! Ouch!


das

 

[Amiga500]

- The hit is to be removed. Players are to be in position and bound to their opposite before any shoving is done.
- Emphasis on the ball being put in straight as a result rather than simply feeding it straight to their own side.
- Possibly have the TMO watching the scrum as well to let the ref know if something happened he missed.
- With exceptions for a pitch being torn up, there should be a limit to the number of resets (possibly 3)
- Try to make it so refs have pretty standard timing when calling the scrum.

I would agree with all of that (except limited resets).

I would also say that:
- Jerseys should have a distinct patch on the side where the bind must be made - which makes it easier for refs/TMO to identify whether the bind is correct. [i.e. a short bind is no longer a case of "its not too bad, so I'll let him away with it"].
- The ball should never go in until the referee is happy that the scrum is stable and declares it to the scrum-half. The current system is a bit of a farce in that sometimes the scrummie can feed off his own violation, others he waits and others the ref has to gee him into it.


Perhaps a complete change of the sequence might be considered worthy of trial too.

1. Both front rows bind up.
2. Both front rows engage.
3. Both second rows bind up and engage
4. Both back rows bind up and engage.
5. The referee declares the scrum stable.
6. The scrum-half feeds the ball (straight).
7. The push comes on and the hookers strike for the ball.


The aims of this are:
(a) The hit is removed.
(b) The pressure on the front rows in the initial engagement is further reduced through no-one pushing through them.
(c) The 2nd/backrows won't be destabilising the front rows so much as they are joining a stable engagement.
(d) The referee/TMO/TJs have much more time to spot binding/boring/hinging offences.
(e) They should thus have time to watch for the (straight) feed.
(f) The scrum therefore becomes a more consistent contest.


Those that advocate removing the scrum from the game are eejits. There is nothing better than a great scrummaging contest.

 

[London_Italian]

Surely the best thing would be to keep the scrum in its set up as it is, but just stop the clock until the ball is either out of the scrum successfully or a penalty is awarded?

 

[McTallshort]

Surely the best thing would be to keep the scrum in its set up as it is, but just stop the clock until the ball is either out of the scrum successfully or a penalty is awarded?

Could make for some very long games....

 

[London_Italian]

Possibly so, but at least as much time wont be wasted leaving us all with the feeling of being short changed!

 

[sifplay]

I would agree with all of that (except limited resets).

I would also say that:
- Jerseys should have a distinct patch on the side where the bind must be made - which makes it easier for refs/TMO to identify whether the bind is correct. [i.e. a short bind is no longer a case of "its not too bad, so I'll let him away with it"].
- The ball should never go in until the referee is happy that the scrum is stable and declares it to the scrum-half. The current system is a bit of a farce in that sometimes the scrummie can feed off his own violation, others he waits and others the ref has to gee him into it.


Perhaps a complete change of the sequence might be considered worthy of trial too.

1. Both front rows bind up.
2. Both front rows engage.
3. Both second rows bind up and engage
4. Both back rows bind up and engage.
5. The referee declares the scrum stable.
6. The scrum-half feeds the ball (straight).
7. The push comes on and the hookers strike for the ball.


The aims of this are:
(a) The hit is removed.
(b) The pressure on the front rows in the initial engagement is further reduced through no-one pushing through them.
(c) The 2nd/backrows won't be destabilising the front rows so much as they are joining a stable engagement.
(d) The referee/TMO/TJs have much more time to spot binding/boring/hinging offences.
(e) They should thus have time to watch for the (straight) feed.
(f) The scrum therefore becomes a more consistent contest.


Those that advocate removing the scrum from the game are eejits. There is nothing better than a great scrummaging contest.

Don't you mean is being made illegal? Because nowhere in the laws it says anything about the hit and taking it. The hit was actually started in 96 by NZ and others teams especially England countered it by meeting force with force. Voila the hit was born.

But you guys realize professional scrums won't go backwards nor forwards but only down. Neither team want to show the referee they have the weaker scrum. Players are always trying to gain the competitive edge, so this is understandable from a player perspective.

 

[sigesige00]

My suggestion is total abolition of scrum. Scrum can be replaced by FK or suicide-point (in the case of carry-back).