Scrum law ammendments I'd be interested in seeing

[Every Time Ref]

But you do see scrums pushed backwards without collapsing - so it is possible. So if a team can't ensure this happens, I think a penalty seems fair

 

[ratsapprentice]

But you do see scrums pushed backwards without collapsing - so it is possible.

No it isn't - you do not see scrum driven back more than 5 metres without someone either collapsing or standing up.
Search for it happening - you wont find it, because it doesn't.

And we are trying to fix the issue that happens at practically every single scrum, which is collapse or a complete failure to even attempt to play the ball.

 

[Every Time Ref]

Standing up is different though.

Sorry to be brief, but already late going out ... let's come back to this when I'm drunk later?!

 

[ratsapprentice]

Standing up is different though.

No it's not - it's a result of being pushed backwards and not wanting to fall over - you either stand up or fall over.

 

[Every Time Ref]

But without getting under the advancing pack's feet.

I guess what I'm saying is that you can reduce the incidence of the kind of situation we're discussing without making it outright impossible within the rules. I agree that it probably happens a bit too much, but I think the real problem is the immediate collapse, before either side has started moving forward - to prevent that. But I think it should be possible to earn one of those real demolition jobs sometimes, and I think both situations will be reduced by improvements in other areas - your rule about scrummaging above horizontal, and/or specialist scrum referees to cut down on shenanigans.

 

[ratsapprentice]

There's nothing stopping you from doing a demolition job, the difference being that if you absolutely ream the opposition and go beyond 5 metres then you have to play the ball, you cant just fall over and win a penalty.

For me, and I think most people, a scrum followed by the ball being played is far more satisfying than a scrum followed by a minute and a half of a penalty kick.

 

[Tony Manx]

With you all the way on this one Rats!!

 

[smartcooky]

shoulders above hips, head above shoulders

on number two what about push over trys?

Yes, almost

Currently the Law says..."The front rows must crouch so that when they meet, each player’s head and shoulders are no lower than the hips". which allows for a flat backed front row If that was made head and shoulders above hips, I think that might be an improvement and make collapses less likely, although it could cause front rows to "pop" more.

However, if we are really serious about dissuading teams from using the scum as a platform for getting 3 points, then why not just take that particular incentive away altogether.

I have been thinking about a Law change to introduce something which I have called an Indirect Penalty Kick. I even went as far as to suggest a secondary signal...

Arm extended and waved up and down
several times between the PK and
Advantage position.
​

An Indirect Penalty Kick has the following in common with a Penalty Kick

1. A gain in ground when kicked into touch.
2. Retention of the throw in for the kicking team.

However, the following would not be allowed
1. Kick at goal
2. Scrum option

All scrum sanctions would become Indirect Penalty Kicks including ones that are currently Free Kicks, such as squint feeds, shoulders below hips, foot up, SH dummying etc. This would not preclude the awarding of a penalty try for a collapsing or other illegalities in a scrum while being pushed backwards towards their own goal-line.

The only hitch I can see is if an Indirect Penalty Kick was awarded after time has expired, that team might be disadvantaged by not being allowed to take a scrum option. However, this can be remedied by introducing a Law amendment that was trialled in the Australian NRC last season. They allowed at team receiving a penalty after time expired to kick the ball into touch and take a line-out. To end the game by kicking into touch from a penalty, the player had to take a tap kick first (to take the penalty kick) then punt it into touch.

 

[goodNumber10]

i think you suggested that before, and i like that.

 

[RedruthRFC]

I can see a lot of sense in this, playing devil's advocate here.....doesn't it hand too much advantage to the defending side? Anywhere further than say 40 years out, surely teams would surrender the 5 years in return for having their back row not worrying about scrummaging just about being on their opposition as soon as the ball leaves the scrum?

It's a while since I've been in a scrum so I stand to be corrected, but is it possible to go from hurtling forwards at a rate of knots to static in order to avoid exceeding the pushing limit? What's to stop the defending side taking a step back to try and con a penalty out of the referee?

 

[McTallshort]

Change penalties for free kicks at scrum time. Not enough incentive then to cheat/gamesmanship/dark arts/whatever you want to call it.

 

[ratsapprentice]

I can see a lot of sense in this, playing devil's advocate here.....doesn't it hand too much advantage to the defending side? Anywhere further than say 40 years out, surely teams would surrender the 5 years in return for having their back row not worrying about scrummaging just about being on their opposition as soon as the ball leaves the scrum?

That's preferable to 5 minutes worth of collapses and resets for me.

It's a while since I've been in a scrum so I stand to be corrected, but is it possible to go from hurtling forwards at a rate of knots to static in order to avoid exceeding the pushing limit? What's to stop the defending side taking a step back to try and con a penalty out of the referee?

You wouldn't really have to "suddenly" stop driving - the number 8 would just have to use the ball... as long as he does that then it doesn't really matter what the scrum is doing because it's over as soon as he plays the ball.
There wouldn't be a rule saying "you cannot drive further than xx" - it would just say "no scrum penalties will be given once it has travelled 5m".

That means that if you are dominating you can keep going until it collapses but you have to use the ball otherwise a FK is awarded to the other side.

Change penalties for free kicks at scrum time. Not enough incentive then to cheat/gamesmanship/dark arts/whatever you want to call it.

That's essential what would happen - why would you give away a penalty if you can just concede 5m?

 

[jonny24]

Overall rats I think your ideas sound pretty good. As a lock I enjoy scrum time but I do think a change has to be made- a real change, that solves it, and then we can finally stop going through this every few years.

I think the "certain angle" will be a bit subjective for refs to judge, perhaps the "above the hips" wording change would do enough?

 

[Rugga-lad]

Just watching the Highlanders vs Crusaders game. About the 74th minute, scrum in the Highlanders half, but their ball. And there are multiple scrum resets.
I'd like to see the time being stopped until there's a successful scrum completed. It eats away at the seconds and minutes which is completely unnecessary.

Scrumhalf throws in the ball, once it's successful under the feet and going back, ref blows immediately for time back on.

Thoughts ?

 

[ratsapprentice]

I think the "certain angle" will be a bit subjective for refs to judge, perhaps the "above the hips" wording change would do enough?

The "head above hips" is already in the laws - it just isn't applied.
I disagree that judging an angle would be particularly difficult - as someone who is learning joinery at the moment, I can tell you that people have a very strong "visual memory" and can judge angles and small distances quite accurately with only a small amount of practice. Anyway the general principle is that if the scrum is collapsing then they are too low - make them go higher (actually do it, don't just tell them and ignore it when they don't do so).

Just watching the Highlanders vs Crusaders game. About the 74th minute, scrum in the Highlanders half, but their ball. And there are multiple scrum resets.
I'd like to see the time being stopped until there's a successful scrum completed. It eats away at the seconds and minutes which is completely unnecessary.

I watched this game too.

What else can you notice about the scrums?

The props head's are actually below their hips on the "crouch" call at times - it's ridiculous.
Their heads need to be significantly higher.

How a ref does not understand this is beyond me, it's really not a difficult concept to understand.

I do actually agree with Nigel Owen's suggestion that part of the reason front rows think they can scrummage this low is because they train on machines too much.
You can actually scrummage with your head below your hips on a scrum machine because they do not collapse - they only move back and forward.
Some machines do have mechanisms that mimic the vertical/hinging movement but I haven't seen them used much.

 

[Perthshire]

Rugby League scrums are the way forward!

Squint feeds, no hook and no contest for the ball!!!


NO THANKS