Scrum law ammendments I'd be interested in seeing

[ratsapprentice]

Just a couple of ideas that I've been nurturing. I'm a big scrummaging fan, but the current state of this set-piece is embarrassing at times.

Firstly, vertical angles and collapses:

Front rows are now setting up close to parallel with the ground - this is a very strong pushing position, but it is also very unstable if you are pushing against a dynamic object (i.e. a fat man).
This has shown itself to be a fundamentally flawed technique. Players simply cannot maintain that position - it is the primary reason for both unintentional and intentional collapses.
They need to be forced to scrummage higher - there are two possible "cues" or "checks" that a ref could use in order to enforce a position that is less likely (unlikely) to collapse.

i) They define an angle of scrummaging (between the hips and shoulders/head (X)) that is deemed to be high enough to stop collapses and check for it on the "set" and ensure that no prop is attempting to go below said angle on/after the engage.

ii) Distance (horizontally) between hips and feet. As with the angle mentioned above, a distance is determined that is conducive to not falling on your face.

Secondly, scrummaging for penalties:

I think the scrum's purpose as a means of restarting the game needs to be re-emphasised, whilst still allowing for an advantage to be had by dominant scrummagers.
In order to stop teams from trying to win penalties you need to remove the motivation for defensive sides to stop the scrum illegally.
In my mind the only way to do this is to put a limit on how far back a scrum may be pushed, as is the case in junior rugby.
If the worst that can happen to a weak scrum is that their team concedes 5 metres then I think that you will see a lot more teams accept the opposition dominance rather than trying to collapse or wheel.
Scrum are not mauls. It is (IMO) practically impossible for a scrum to not break up after being pushed back more than 2-3 metres - the position that the tight 5 players are in during a scrum makes it incredibly difficult to walk backwards whilst trying to push forwards. This inevitably means that players will stand up, fall over or the scrum simply disintegrates as the dominant side pushes through at a very fast pace.

I think the distance should either be set at 5 metres, a not inconsiderable gain for the attacking side (and still allows for pushover tries) or even better the initial centre line of the scrum (about a 3m~ gain).
Once the number 8 of the dominant side has reached/gone past the line then the ref should call "use it" and just as in mauls and rucks the team then has 5 seconds to use the ball (or realistically, a reasonable amount of time to use the ball as long as they aren't time-wasting or milking it).

The red side is the dominant scrum in this diagram, and they are successfully pushing the blue side backwards:

Once the number 8 crosses the centre line of the scrum, then the ref calls use it:

Once the ref calls "use it" the dominant scrum can continue to drive as normal, but if the team with the ball fails to use it then the ball is turned over and the opposition have a free-kick, as happens in mauls.
A penalty cannot be awarded for scrum infringements after this call has been made, except for in cases of foul play.
This further encourages teams to actually ****ing use the ball.

Whaddaya think?

 

[ncurd]

Can't really comment on the first part, I'm not an expert scrummager.

The second part your entirely right about I'm sick and tired of a team dominating in a scrum and just trying to get penalties just because the other side happen to rubbish at it in comparison. Give penalties for teams trying to cheat scrum time stop giving them and yellow cards to rubbish props.

Also sort out feeding, everyone with eyes can see it and simply do not know why it's not enforced.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Have you ever played prop??

The main reason why props try to be as low as they possibly can, is to ensure they get in a dominant horizontal position. This along with preventing the prop's back from being crooked. The first thing I was taught as a prop is to keep my back straight when connecting with my opponent at scrum time.

When a prop's back is crooked/roundish of shape, he is not in a dominant position and then his opponent already has the upper hand.

My opinion would be to add an area or a handle of some sort to make the gripping easier. And also to allow a prop to get straight even if he's on his way to collapsing. By placing your hand on the ground shouldn't count against the prop, and it wouldn't make him the dominant prop when doing so, so why penalise him further??

With that said, I think you have some valid remarks.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Yes - I have played prop. And I've got a very strong interest in powerlifting/strength sports, so I'm acutely aware of the fundamentals of biomechanics as they relate to pushing.
What I've suggested in no way compromises a player's ability to scrummage with a straight back.

I am absolutely aware of why they go low - the problem is that it doesn't work.
They are going too low - they aren't going to voluntarily go higher, so you need to force them to.

There is a reason why bridges are traditionally arched - because they are far less likely to fall down.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I've supported the idea of having a 2nd "scrum ref". I know people are opposed to the idea and potential complications but it's tiresome having players on the side opposite to the ref playing silly buggers then playing sensibly when he comes their side only for the other side to start pratting about. Even if the same side does it twice, it is a scrum reset that shouldn't happen. Ultimately the assistant refs never get involved at scrum time so I think a second pair of eyes right at the scrum would be helpful.

I'd also like to see there be some sort of penalty for teams setting up too slowly, a large chunk of scrum time is teams setting up, the same with the lineout.

I think props should have special grip areas on the side of their shirt to allow a decent bind. Some of the shirts are skin tight and it's not suprising that some people let go. Also there is no defined area that they must grab. If you have a set area on the shirt of high grip material that is maybe a different colour and set the rule to state you must bind on this area, it should make binding better and more easily penalised when done incorrectly.

 

[ratsapprentice]

R.e scrum shirts...

The issue is that they are relying on their grip of a shirt to hold themselves up in the first place - they are too low if they cannot hold themselves up without a bind.
You remove practically all binding issues by making them scrummage higher.

 

[goodNumber10]

shoulders above hips, head above shoulders

on number two what about push over trys?

 

[TRF_heineken]

Yes - I have played prop. And I've got a very strong interest in powerlifting/strength sports, so I'm acutely aware of the fundamentals of biomechanics as they relate to pushing.
What I've suggested in no way compromises a player's ability to scrummage with a straight back.

I am absolutely aware of why they go low - the problem is that it doesn't work.
They are going too low - they aren't going to voluntarily go higher, so you need to force them to.

There is a reason why bridges are traditionally arched - because they are far less likely to fall down.

True, and I hope you didn't take my comments as derogatory towards you. I meant it in the manner as to most people who want to make suggestions for the scrums, have never played prop, and don't understand the intricacies involved in scrummaging.

I agree with the too low part. and that is especially a problem for taller props scrumming against shorter props.

I was taught that when you crouch and bind with your own players, you should basically be in a squat-like position sitting on the lock behind you. And when you go in to bind with your opposing prop your back would be straight from using that form of binding and connecting. But now the problem is that the recipe for having a dominant scrum is to be in a lower-straight position than the opposing team. I just think that by adding a bit more assistance to the props who can't have the better setup prior to the scrum itself, and by this I mean before the Ball is put in the scrum, will already help a lot, and have a lot less scrum resets and penalties

 

[ratsapprentice]

shoulders above hips, head above shoulders

What you describe, sir, is standing upright. :lol:

on number two what about push over trys?

As I've described, you can continue to push after the ref says "use it" but you mustn't attempt to delay playing the ball.
If you can push over in the allotted time then you get the try. Think of how long you have to play the ball from a maul when the ref says "use it".

Or you could simply say that a team may attempt to drive over the line from a 5m scrum but as with mauls if you lose momentum then the ref will tell you to "use it".

 

[goodNumber10]

What you describe, sir, is standing upright. :lol:

Rugby League scrums are the way forward!

No seriously, if you think of how shallow an angle that is achievable with it doesn't have to be standing up, you can make that literally in the space of a foot. it just has to be an upward angle.

As I've described, you can continue to push after the ref says "use it" but you mustn't attempt to delay playing the ball.
If you can push over in the allotted time then you get the try. Think of how long you have to play the ball from a maul when the ref says "use it".

Or you could simply say that a team may attempt to drive over the line from a 5m scrum but as with mauls if you lose momentum then the ref will tell you to "use it".

yeah, that actually makes sense

 

[ratsapprentice]

True, and I hope you didn't take my comments as derogatory towards you. I meant it in the manner as to most people who want to make suggestions for the scrums, have never played prop, and don't understand the intricacies involved in scrummaging.

I didn't... I just wanted to make it clear that have at least a small idea of what I'm talking about!

No seriously, if you think of how shallow an angle that is achievable with it doesn't have to be standing up, you can make that literally in the space of a foot. it just has to be an upward angle.

It's the same principle as mine, just taken to the extreme.

I don't think they need to be that far upright, but they are definitely waaaaay too low these days - they need to be engaging at 30-40 degrees IMO.

 

[Every Time Ref]

I can't comment too much on the biomechanics and the intricacies of scrummaging, but the idea of a reasonable angle above horizontal seems simple common sense to me. Of course it will be very subjective, and some referees will be known to be too harsh while some pay it no attention at all, but it will give a benchmark nonetheless.

I also second with @ragerancher's support for a specialist referee on scrums. One endlessly repeating theme among complaints about the scrum is that referees don't understand it very well. It is such a complicated thing to understand, and there are so many other areas of refereeing to think about, that it's becoming clearer and clearer that the scrum needs to be refereed by someone who focuses on it exclusively - not an ordinary IRB ref on rotation (like touch judges) but someone whose job is only to referee scrummages. That person would always be in charge and assisted by the main referee, choosing the side he thinks he's most needed and advising / communicating with the main referee about the other side.

EDIT: mentioned the wrong poster

 

[ratsapprentice]

Also: an added bonus of making them scrummage higher is that set-ups should take less time.
Again, one of the primary reasons that setups take so long now, is that it takes a lot more effort to get into such a low position.

And yet another benefit - Hookers can actually hook far more easily.

 

[TommiG88]

I agree penalties shouldn't be given for scrums. Free kicks should suffice, I agree with most of your ideas.

 

[Every Time Ref]

I agree penalties shouldn't be given for scrums. Free kicks should suffice, I agree with most of your ideas.

But that'll just lead to more cheating, penalties are the incentive not to.

 

[ratsapprentice]

But that'll just lead to more cheating, penalties are the incentive not to.

2 things:

Scrums cannot go backwards more than 2-3 metres before breaking up if they are moving at any speed (and by speed I mean snails pace) - and if they are moving backwards they probably are.
As a prop - if you know that this is going to happen (because as I've explained, it is inevitable) then you might as well give away the penalty early, or try and con the referee into reversing the decision.
If you ensure that the scrum can only go a couple of metres, then you remove the inevitability and scrums think "right we can keep this up without fear of being absolutely reamed and losing 10 metres".

By also ensuring that front rows scrummage higher it is vastly more difficult to collapse or turn in on an angle.

 

[Every Time Ref]

2 things:

Scrums cannot go backwards more than 2-3 metres before breaking up if they are moving at any speed (and by speed I mean snails pace) - and if they are moving backwards they probably are.
As a prop - if you know that this is going to happen (because as I've explained, it is inevitable) then you might as well give away the penalty early, or try and con the referee into reversing the decision.
If you ensure that the scrum can only go a couple of metres, then you remove the inevitability and scrums think "right we can keep this up without fear of being absolutely reamed and losing 10 metres".

So you can absolutely muller the opposition front row and the most you can gain from it is 3m or a free kick? I do appreciate that "scrummaging for penalties" is becoming a blight on the game, but I think your suggestion is taking it too far the other way. I really think that would remove the scrum as a serious weapon, I may be a nancy back but I like the fact that sometimes a game can be won and lost on the back of the fatties pushing each other, just as sometimes it can be won by people in brightly-coloured boots running round each other. A three metre limit, for me, takes too much away. Maybe ten metres is more realistic?

- - - Updated - - -

I'm definitely on your side re: the angles though

 

[ratsapprentice]

The most that can be gained under these proposals is about 5 metres of territory and the opportunity to attack a retreating backline with forwards that have just been physically dominated coming across to defend against you tired.
And conversely if you are defending you push the attack 5 metres back.

That's what a scrum is - a competitive restart of the game. It's not supposed to be a method of gaining territory - you aren't supposed to be marching the opposition half way down the pitch.
They are not mauls.

The point is that scrums can not go backwards more than 2-3 metres without someone commiting an offense - let me repeat IT CAN NOT HAPPEN.
It is inevitable that a scrum will disintegrate after going back a few metres so you are essentially penalising people for something that they really have no control over.

There are what? 5-10 scrums in most games?
Let's say your team has absolute dominance in this area...
You are then getting an additional 25-50m of net territory over the game alongside physically tiring out your opponents and potentially denying them possession at their restarts.

 

[Every Time Ref]

That's what a scrum is - a competitive restart of the game. It's not supposed to be a method of gaining territory - you aren't supposed to be marching the opposition half way down the pitch.
They are not mauls.

I suppose this is just a philosophical difference but I don't see why they shouldn't be the same as mauls - mauls are equally "unfair" in the sense that once you've got it going it can't be stopped except illegally, so why not apply the same sanctions there? As a side note, I've always thought it's unfair to allow the attacking side two bites at the cherry - if the defence can stop it, why shouldn't the attack have to play the ball then?

The point is that scrums can not go backwards more than 2-3 metres without someone commiting an offense - let me repeat IT CAN NOT HAPPEN.
It is inevitable that a scrum will disintegrate after going back a few metres so you are essentially penalising people for something that they really have no control over.

This is where I do agree with you I think, we should you be punished simply for being worse at scrummaging? The punishment should be what you say - a) a worse platform to attack / defend; and b) territory. I just think that limiting territory to 3 metres seems insufficient. Over the course of a game it might be quite a lot; but scrums are individual, I think you should get a decent return for scrumaging well each time you do it.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Mauls and scrums are not the same. They are fundamentally different things.

If you set up a maul correctly then yes you can basically keep going indefinitely barring illegality or exceptional technique and strength from the opposition.

That is not the case for a scrum - a scrum will disintegrate whether the retreating side want to or not.
The scrummaging position adopted by the tight 5 is designed to push - not walk backwards, you will fall onto the floor if you don't stand up when going backwards.

Have you ever run as fast as you can down a steep hill?
If you have you will recall the point where your legs cannot keep up with how fast you are moving and you fall over/tumble the rest of the way - that's essentially what happens when a scrum goes backwards.
99% of the time that point is about 2-3m back from where the scrum started.

If that point was 10m back then that would be were I would suggest it was set - but it isn't.

I fundamentally disagree about the idea that teams should have the opportunity to make massive gains from scrums though - they are a restart not a method of play.
There should be scope for each team to dominate the area, but not at the expense of the wider game - which is currently being ruined by the sheer amount of time scrummaging is taking, particularly when it so often has such a lacklustre outcome.