- Joined
- Oct 12, 2006
- Messages
- 4,662
- Club or Nation
As reported by Brian Moore in the Telegraph.
It's bound to happen. I think it's a good thing and should have been implemented during the summer instead of the ridiculous "crouch, touch, set" procedure. I suppose now the IRB can claim they're only doing it on safety grounds thanks to a report rather than being hit with the lazy criticism that they're turning Union into League.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...s-of-IRB-examination-of-the-modern-scrum.htmlRugby union's referees left exposed by findings of IRB examination of the modern scrum
This column has consistently, many would say pathologically, complained about rugby's modern scrum and the way in which the hooker's role has been unilaterally altered by the failure of elite referees to properly apply its laws.
This has never been, as some have claimed, because of personal affront that players of my ilk have been almost completely marginalised; it is far wider and at its very foundation is the issue safety. Hooker is the most dangerous position on a rugby field and I have visited too many catastrophically injured hookers since retirement.
Three years ago I posited the prospect of the Rugby Football Union and International Rugby Board being sued for damages for personal injury because of their failure to act over dangers in scrum which were well known and for which there were solutions. My basic premise was that as a result of the then new 'crouch, touch, pause, engage' sequence and the condoned ignoring of other laws, the scrum had become a contest of brute power where the primary aim of both packs was to win the 'hit'.
The word hit is not in the law book but is now freely quoted and accepted by referees who allow front rows to engage with as much force as possible and immediately thereafter drive forward as quickly as possible. Not only do they condone this dangerous practice, they have actually invented a new penalty offence, one not in the law book, of 'not taking the hit', which actually means penalising one pack for not pushing with enough illegally-early force to counterbalance the other pack's illegal shove.
Elite referees, including Paddy O'Brien, the then IRB refereeing supremo, didn't accept the point saying they had too many more important things to worry about to apply the laws as written and that most people were not that concerned anyway. They might now have to reconsider that stance, because recently the IRB published a report on the most detailed examination ever of the scrum, undertaken over three years in South Africa and at Bath University. It isn't revolutionary in the sense that it contains startling results, indeed it mostly confirmed many things already known by experienced practitioners. The point it that for the first time these things cannot be dismissed as anecdotal or personal, they come from tests carried out at six levels of rugby from international to school.
The conclusions to the report expressly support my above contention that "modern scrumming involves a high initial impact or 'hit' on engagement, followed by sustained pushing forces throughout the scrum" — contrary to the law stating pushing should only begin when the ball leaves the scum-half's hands.
Chief amongst a number of recommendations is the removal of the artificially created "hit" by, at least at amateur level, front rows engaging passively. This would most easily be achieved by the addition of the second and back rows quickly thereafter.
I also claimed that impact scrummaging was giving rise to the risk of chronic back injury and early retirement and permanent longer term spinal damage. The empirical conclusion of the report is that the scrum is now " ... a situation which has the potential to produce the repetitive sub-critical injuries that in theory could lead to chronic pain and early degenerative changes to the cervical and lumbar spine".
I also recently criticised the IRB's failure to address the well-known fact that modern jerseys, designed to prevent gripping in tackles, are dangerous when props are supposed to bind on them in scrums. The report asks for clothing modifications.
The IRB, particularly its refereeing department, is now in an entirely new legal position. Previously courts had to decide between the opinions of opposing expert witness, of which I am one, based on their personal experience and knowledge. Now they have concrete research and recommendations from rugby's global governing body to assist their decision. The IRB, RFU and other Unions can no longer defend cases by claiming a contrary view is just one expert's opinion. If they do not take all reasonably practical steps to follow their own safety recommendations they will have no defence, legally or morally.
The hitherto silent majority and I, as a no-so-silent Jonah wailing in the wilderness, are tired of farcical, dangerous and illegal scrums. We are now supported by the IRB's report recommending they "Bring back the 'scrum'", which is backed by a direction for correct Law interpretation and enforcement by the referees.
No more excuses; we're not talking about trifles. Elite referees are not amateurs, giving up their spare time, they are decently paid employees who can and should be sacked if they do not get in line. Brett Gosper as the IRB's CEO and Joel Jutge, as referee supremo now have the impartial evidence to implement the necessary changes.
.
