Scrum question

[dasNdanger]

With so many failed scrums, I got to wondering about something. Many scrums collapse or otherwise fail before the ball is fed in. There seems to be too much delay between 'set' and the ball feed while the ref waits for the scrum to stabilize. The scrum has 4 actions ('crouch, bind, set, and...wait for it...waaaaait for it...no-no...wait...okay! tap-tap!'), when it seems more logical for the stabilizing to be achieved on the bind (without pressure and without an unnecessary pause), and for the challenge for the ball to coincide with the push. So, at risk of sounding like sigesige00, I have a question - why have the teams pushing for so long (making seconds seem like minutes) when there's no ball underfoot? Wouldn't it make for a better scrum if the ball is fed in at the same time the scrum sets?


das

 

[Tony Manx]

With so many failed scrums, I got to wondering about something. Many scrums collapse or otherwise fail before the ball is fed in. There seems to be too much delay between 'set' and the ball feed while the ref waits for the scrum to stabilize. The scrum has 4 actions ('crouch, bind, set, and...wait for it...waaaaait for it...no-no...wait...okay! tap-tap!'), when it seems more logical for the stabilizing to be achieved on the bind (without pressure and without an unnecessary pause), and for the challenge for the ball to coincide with the push. So, at risk of sounding like sigesige00, I have a question - why have the teams pushing for so long (making seconds seem like minutes) when there's no ball underfoot? Wouldn't it make for a better scrum if the ball is fed in at the same time the scrum sets?


das

I reckon that it is all to do with eliminating the "hit" that crept into the game where the packs collided with each other! If you put the ball in simultaneously with the set, you would only have gone half way toward that aim!!

 

[ncurd]

Yup the reason for waiting for stabilise is to remove collapsing due to the hit on engage.

I think most things would be fixed by awarding free kicks instead of penalties.

 

[Tony Manx]

Yup the reason for waiting for stabilise is to remove collapsing due to the hit on engage.

I think most things would be fixed by awarding free kicks instead of penalties.

Then there would just be a clamour to get rid of the scrum and off we go on another trip down the road to uniting the game with RL!!!! Get the coaches to get out of using scrums as penalty machines!!!

 

[ncurd]

Well the last point would be great if they'd listen...

To be honest the new scrum set rules have improved immensely two years ago they were a far greater mess than they are now.

 

[ratsapprentice]

You aren't allowed to push before the ball is in, teams do, but it's minimal most of the time...

There are far bigger fish to fry when it comes to scrummaging than how long they have to wait for the ball to come in.

 

[Jack Reacher]

This is really starting to bother me - even the S15 teams are negatively using the scrum to gain penalties. I think with the WC only a few months away, scrums are really going to test the casual viewers patience. Something needs to be done or will be done post WC (I often record rugby and fast forward the scrums, can get through a game in 65 mins!)
I saw a stat where more than 50% of scrums in both 6N and S15 result in penalties or free kicks - thats way too high.
Also, as a side topic, technically should a team who has just made an error (knock on, forward pass, crooked throw etc) get a chance to 'win' possession back by having a dominant scrum. IMO the scrum should be for collapsed rucks, unplayable ball, held up in goal etc. Not sure what the answer is for what in the modern game is an over elaborate way of restarting the game.

 

[MotherRucker1]

I think the referees could be more lenient in some ways, but more tough in others.

Halfbacks mess around a lot, seemingly waiting for their team to get the shove on, or some momentum to happen. Although they'd tell you the scrum is about to collapse or looks shonky. Whatever the reason, they are clearly waiting for a moment when it suits him to feed the ball. That should not be their decision. You feed the ball when those words exit the referee's mouth. Because right now, a good 5-10 seconds gets wasted because the halfback is screwing around and it inevitably collapses. If you just hurry up and feed it, we wouldn't be waiting all day.

But part of me also thinks, when the ball is fed, and yes the scrum has collapsed - but the ball has come out the back to the number 8, do we really need to be pedantic to the letter of the law? Maybe the law needs changing, cause I don't blame the refs. But the ball is out, move on. I suppose a counter argument might say that team who have the ball would just collapse it and deprive the other team of a fair scrum-contest, which defeats the purpose of even having one. I guess that'd be a good argument, but is it really worse than what we have now of restart after restart which equally disadvantages teams who are chasing the score?

Sorry, I know this doesn't answer your question but these are the sort of things bugging me at scrum time.

 

[Jack Reacher]

guess that'd be a good argument, but is it really worse than what we have now of restart after restart which equally disadvantages teams who are chasing the score?

Agree, come WC time if a game is close and you need to kill 2-3 minutes I guarantee teams are working on ways of causing a reset without conceding a penalty. If NZ had done that last final they wouldn't have had to pick and go for 3 minutes (which forced a rule change)

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I think it should be changed so only scrums in the 22 result in penalties (the ref announces before it starts whether the scrum counts as in the 22 or not). Should the scrum fail outside the 22, it is a free kick. So attacker or defender with a scrum in the 22 can win a penalty but in the middle of the pitch, only a free kick or a quick tap and go. I'd hope this would not lead teams to constantly try to get penalties from scrums but still make it viable as a method to clear your lines or get points as long as you have done the work to get to the 22 originally.

Also I think refs should penalise teams that are taking too long to get to a set piece (scrum/lineout) and taking too long to set up.

 

[goodNumber10]

How about just do away with all the laws at the scrum - apart from:

Must be fed straight. (Penalty)
no hands. (Penalty)
Must be hooked through the front row (so no flankers/hands).
If it goes 90 re-set to the team with the same head and feed.
If a team is going backwards and the scrum collapses Penalty (rewards the dominant scrum)

Ref only whistles if the scrum collapses and only gives a penalty for the above everything else is a re-set.

*** completely not thought through just chucked out there***

- - - Updated - - -

I think the referees could be more lenient in some ways, but more tough in others.

Halfbacks mess around a lot, seemingly waiting for their team to get the shove on, or some momentum to happen. Although they'd tell you the scrum is about to collapse or looks shonky. Whatever the reason, they are clearly waiting for a moment when it suits him to feed the ball. That should not be their decision. You feed the ball when those words exit the referee's mouth. Because right now, a good 5-10 seconds gets wasted because the halfback is screwing around and it inevitably collapses. If you just hurry up and feed it, we wouldn't be waiting all day.

But part of me also thinks, when the ball is fed, and yes the scrum has collapsed - but the ball has come out the back to the number 8, do we really need to be pedantic to the letter of the law? Maybe the law needs changing, cause I don't blame the refs. But the ball is out, move on. I suppose a counter argument might say that team who have the ball would just collapse it and deprive the other team of a fair scrum-contest, which defeats the purpose of even having one. I guess that'd be a good argument, but is it really worse than what we have now of restart after restart which equally disadvantages teams who are chasing the score?

Sorry, I know this doesn't answer your question but these are the sort of things bugging me at scrum time.

lots of refs let play continue if the ball is at the 8's feet.

- - - Updated - - -

Agree, come WC time if a game is close and you need to kill 2-3 minutes I guarantee teams are working on ways of causing a reset without conceding a penalty. If NZ had done that last final they wouldn't have had to pick and go for 3 minutes (which forced a rule change)

what rule change?

 

[ncurd]

I agree with rangerancher that sounds like the best option, I'd also add on the the following.

No re-set scrums if the referee really can't make a decision free-kick to attacking team.

Any penalty (including those out of a scrum) committed by the attacking team within or on oppenents 22 is taken from the 22 mark.

Any penalty (including those out of a scrum) committed by the defending team within or on the 5 meter line is a penalty try (given in line with the infringement rather than between the posts).

No yellow cards are given to props for collapsing/standing up in a scrum going backwards, most of time they can't help it.

Should stop defending team cynical play in clutch defending and a real negative for attacking teams (who will find themselves defending a line out in their own half) for attacking teams breaking the rules.

I think those should actually lead to more honest defending (collasping mauls, scrums etc.) but also more honest attacking play with better support (get your player isolated you'll find yourself back in your own half).

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Also to add, I really feel there need to be 2 refs at the scrum, one standing either side. Too many collapse because of something happening on the opposite side to the referee.

 

[ncurd]

Also to add, I really feel there need to be 2 refs at the scrum, one standing either side. Too many collapse because of something happening on the opposite side to the referee.

Well the nearside touch judge is suppose to be doing that...he doesn't.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh yeah free-kicks awarded by scrums can not be taken as scrums.

 

[MotherRucker1]

lots of refs let play continue if the ball is at the 8's feet.

Yep, but a lot of them don't too. Not sure about your side of the world, but I get sick of Super rugby games with reset after reset when you have key moments where the ball is out but it's collapsed, and we have to go through it all over again. That's when we get mexican waves or boos, or people just not tuning in next time.

Why have some refs who let it slide and some who don't? That's inconsistent, which is what we don't want.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

How about just do away with all the laws at the scrum - apart from:

Must be fed straight. (Penalty)
no hands. (Penalty)
Must be hooked through the front row (so no flankers/hands).
If it goes 90 re-set to the team with the same head and feed.
If a team is going backwards and the scrum collapses Penalty (rewards the dominant scrum)

is it fair to penalise a team for just not having the best scrum?

lots of good ideas in here in general, I find it ironic that at least in my opinion the the current run of scrum rules is just as likely to result in injuries as the hit idea...with the down side of slowing the game hugely too

we're asking them to do scrum after scrum after scrum rather than HIT and the ball is in and out

 

[ncurd]

Are there really more scrum resets and more time spent on them Under the new rules.

I seam to remember it being far poorer before. Crouch-Pause-Engage-Collapse-Crouch-Pause-Engage-Collapse-Crouch-Pause-Engage-Collapse-Penalty to random team.

Maybe the new rules are a bigger problem in the SH but the old ones were a definitly a joke for the NH

 

[TRF_heineken]

The scrum, just like the line out is used as a form of reset. Where both teams have an equal (well used to) chance of winning the ball, where the team that caused the game to be resetted (knock-on, ball in touch) don't have the advantage of continuing play, and the opposing team is "rewarded" by putting the ball back into play (feeding the scrum, throw in).

The scrum's purpose is to have a "competition" between the 2 teams to win the ball back. But what now happens is the both teams try to put pressure on the opposing team by pushing. Believe me, it's not that easy to keep a scrum steady. I think the introduction of grips/handles on the props in the Varsity Cup has given the scrum more stability so that the props don't collapse.

I still think that the time should be stopped while the players are combining together to form the scrum, up to the point where the scrumhalf puts in the ball. That way no team will get the benefit from pushing ahead of time.

 

[ncurd]

I still think that the time should be stopped while the players are combining together to form the scrum, up to the point where the scrumhalf puts in the ball. That way no team will get the benefit from pushing ahead of time.

Your already not allowed to push before the ball is put in. I've seen regularly teams pinged for doing so. Most are doing it to try and get their opponents moving backwards and gain an advantage rather than collapse the scrum. I'm unsure how stopping the clock would stop this from happening.

However I'm all up like NFL anytime play stops of stopping the clock. Means last second penalties and the like can actually be kicked to corners. Just don't think it will help scrum completions just time lost due to them.

 

[Rugga-lad]

With so many failed scrums, I got to wondering about something. Many scrums collapse or otherwise fail before the ball is fed in. There seems to be too much delay between 'set' and the ball feed while the ref waits for the scrum to stabilize. The scrum has 4 actions ('crouch, bind, set, and...wait for it...waaaaait for it...no-no...wait...okay! tap-tap!'), when it seems more logical for the stabilizing to be achieved on the bind (without pressure and without an unnecessary pause), and for the challenge for the ball to coincide with the push. So, at risk of sounding like sigesige00, I have a question - why have the teams pushing for so long (making seconds seem like minutes) when there's no ball underfoot? Wouldn't it make for a better scrum if the ball is fed in at the same time the scrum sets?


das

It's the IRB's own fault for the mess in the scrums. Go back to the hit. If they are worried about the players safety, then let the props and hookers all wear scrum caps.