Wider purposes of the scrum

[HansNZ]

I am attempting to understand rugby better, but I haven't really found the answers I am looking for in my google searches. My question may have an obvious answer for people well accustomed with rugby, so please bear with me. I am trying to understand the purpose of the scrum. Every time I search this topic I get "to restart the game". But considering possession goes to the team feeding in the ball 92% of the time it seems quite pointless and unnecessary. Why not just give possession to the team feeding in the ball and scrap the scrum altogether. I figure there must be other reasons to keep the scrum. One page I found incidentally mentioned that having players congregated in a scrum creates space elsewhere on the field for open play to occur. This made sense to me. But are there other substantive reasons for having scrums when otherwise possession of the ball is largely a forgone conclusion? Thanks.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Well, I think your fellow NZ'er @smartcooky would be able to answer it the best.

But let me have a stab at it. The Scrum is the restart mode in play when an unforced error occured. While the team who didn't cause the error gets the feed to the lineout, it doesn't necessarily mean that they will get an advantage when the restart occurs, as the scrum itself is a contestable facet, and the opposing team could still win the ball back when it's being fed in the scrum, by either hooking the ball or pushing the opposition to win the ball.

Every facet of Rugby Union is that there must be a fair contest even with restarts like scrums, lineouts and kick-offs.

As for the positioning of the scrum, where both teams have 8 players in the scrum, is to create space around the scrum to get the game going.

As for the history of the scrum, or the origin, as far as I know, it was how the men congregated together to get to the ball during William Webb Ellis' time... (I could be wrong).

 

[duncanb]

You have found the correct answer,if you are not happy with type of process that for 8% of time other team can gain possession then rugby league or NFL are sports for you.
I assume this is a genuine question rather than a daft troll post.
The history of rugby union is contest at scrum and line out is always dominated by putting/ throwing in team after all this is an integral part of the game.
We can debate this till the fat lady sings but why change a fundamental part of our game for no valid reason you post ????

 

[Which Tyler]

Scrums and ones out are restarts after a non-foul stop in play.
Because there was no foul, there should be competition for the ball; but equally, there needs to be a bias gainst the team who caused the break in play.

Many feel that the chances of securing possession at both scrum and line-out is a little too great, but certainly not to the point of throwing a strop about it and throwing away that 10%ish chance.
The bigger problem with the scrum at the top end of the game, is that it's more used as a way of "earning" a penalty, rather than securing possession.
None of the issue are easily solved

 

[smartcooky]

Some other purposes of the scrum are

► To tie up half the players in one area of the field so that there is more space elsewhere. Its one of the reasons why teams take a scrum option rather than a tap kick when they are awarded a free kick. If there were no scrums, just free kicks whenever there was a forward pass or knock on, attacking play becomes easier to nullify because the defences just spread out along the offside line to minimise gaps.

► To tire out opponents. A dominant scrum can and does fatigue the opposing scrum players both mentally and physically . Physically fatigued players are more likely to make mistakes such as missed tackles, dropped passes and poor positioning. Mentally fatigued players are more likely to make poor decisions both on attack and defence.

 

[RedruthRFC]

I would add that it creates a need for larger, less fit / agile players to be on the field. That might not sound like a good thing, but it leads to mismatches which can be exploited by the attacking side. If scrums were removed, we'd see an additional three flankers per side and a less tries as a result.

 

[smartcooky]

I would add that it creates a need for larger, less fit / agile players to be on the field. That might not sound like a good thing, but it leads to mismatches which can be exploited by the attacking side. If scrums were removed, we'd see an additional three flankers per side and a less tries as a result.

Not to mention of course, that Rugby Union is touted as a "game for players of all shapes and sizes". Compare that with Rugby League, where the scrums are little more than group hugs, and there is no place for the tall, gangly locks or the short "no-neck" prop. Without the scrum, RU players will evolve to look very much like the sort of homogeneous "one size fits all" players we see in RL.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Some other purposes of the scrum are

► To tire out opponents. A dominant scrum can and does fatigue the opposing scrum players both mentally and physically . Physically fatigued players are more likely to make mistakes such as missed tackles, dropped passes and poor positioning. Mentally fatigued players are more likely to make poor decisions both on attack and defence.

Bang on. If you're part of a weak scrum you just want the world to end. If you're part of a dominant scrum you're skipping around like a spring lamb. Except the ridiculous substitutions we now have ruin that....I just hate seeing a whole new front row trot on at a pre-meditated time.

 

[ALJ]

Not to mention of course, that Rugby Union is touted as a "game for players of all shapes and sizes". Compare that with Rugby League, where the scrums are little more than group hugs, and there is no place for the tall, gangly locks or the short "no-neck" prop. Without the scrum, RU players will evolve to look very much like the sort of homogeneous "one size fits all" players we see in RL.

As someone who played both codes for quite a long time, I also think that the RU scrum is another component in why RU teams tend to create closer bonds between players.

People might think I'm a bit mental but I think the multiple facets of play in Union (including the need to create an effective set piece) mean you are closer to your teammates at a personal level because you need to anticipate what they will do in a much wider range of situations.

This understanding then translates itself off the field.

 

[HansNZ]

Scrums and ones out are restarts after a non-foul stop in play.
Because there was no foul, there should be competition for the ball; but equally, there needs to be a bias gainst the team who caused the break in play.

Many feel that the chances of securing possession at both scrum and line-out is a little too great, but certainly not to the point of throwing a strop about it and throwing away that 10%ish chance.
The bigger problem with the scrum at the top end of the game, is that it's more used as a way of "earning" a penalty, rather than securing possession.
None of the issue are easily solved

This is the sort of info I am after. I was watching a YouTube video about scrum strategies and I got the impression that the scrum seemed tactical in some way. So wider purposes of the scrum would be 1) earning penalties 2) creating space elsewhere on the pitch. ?

- - - Updated - - -

As for the history of the scrum, or the origin, as far as I know, it was how the men congregated together to get to the ball during William Webb Ellis' time... (I could be wrong).

Yes, I read also that the form of rugby played at this time was mostly scrummaging.

- - - Updated - - -

Some other purposes of the scrum are

► To tie up half the players in one area of the field so that there is more space elsewhere. Its one of the reasons why teams take a scrum option rather than a tap kick when they are awarded a free kick. If there were no scrums, just free kicks whenever there was a forward pass or knock on, attacking play becomes easier to nullify because the defences just spread out along the offside line to minimise gaps.

► To tire out opponents. A dominant scrum can and does fatigue the opposing scrum players both mentally and physically . Physically fatigued players are more likely to make mistakes such as missed tackles, dropped passes and poor positioning. Mentally fatigued players are more likely to make poor decisions both on attack and defence.

Thanks for your answer.s So far I understand the purpose of the scrum is to 1) create space, 2) win penalties, 3) attritition. Am I on the right track?

- - - Updated - - -

Also 4) to mix up play a bit so that you get a wider variation of players skill-wise and physically to reduce the homogeneity both of the people playing the game and of the type of play on the field so that you don't get like meeting like all the time.

 

[ALJ]

I think you might be confusing what is intentional and unintentional.

A scrum is a way to restart the game that creates space elsewhere on the pitch (primary) and provides grounds for a physical battle (and so gives a secondary element of the match that has an impact elsewhere - arguably an unintended consequence if you go back to it's very start but has long been accepted as a key element).

The aim of winning penalties is something that has become increasingly prevalent, particularly in the higher levels but this was never the intention.

 

[HansNZ]

You have found the correct answer,if you are not happy with type of process that for 8% of time other team can gain possession then rugby league or NFL are sports for you.
I assume this is a genuine question rather than a daft troll post.
The history of rugby union is contest at scrum and line out is always dominated by putting/ throwing in team after all this is an integral part of the game.
We can debate this till the fat lady sings but why change a fundamental part of our game for no valid reason you post ????

Hi Duncab, if you look at my initial question you will see that I mentioned I am unfamiliar with this subject. My question is not an attempt to troll or be controversial as I am not well informed enough to know what is controversial or not. I simply have a very limited understanding of rugby. I can tell that the scrum seems to have more importance in the game than I understand or that my google searches were telling me. The answers given in this thread are exactly what I was looking for.

- - - Updated - - -

- - - Updated - - -

I think you might be confusing what is intentional and unintentional.

A scrum is a way to restart the game that creates space elsewhere on the pitch (primary) and provides grounds for a physical battle (and so gives a secondary element of the match that has an impact elsewhere - arguably an unintended consequence if you go back to it's very start but has long been accepted as a key element).

The aim of winning penalties is something that has become increasingly prevalent, particularly in the higher levels but this was never the intention.

I suppose the winning penalties issue is more about tactics and perhaps playing the ref? I am also curious whether it has been seriously considered having the ref put the ball into the scrum to avoid the no.9 feeding it to his side? (As he seems to when you watch matches on TV). Might this create a better contest for the ball or is there a reason for not doing it this way?

 

[Which Tyler]

I suppose the winning penalties issue is more about tactics and perhaps playing the ref? I am also curious whether it has been seriously considered having the ref put the ball into the scrum to avoid the no.9 feeding it to his side? (As he seems to when you watch matches on TV). Might this create a better contest for the ball or is there a reason for not doing it this way?

The use of the scrum to milk penalties is an unintended consequence of the laws as they are.
Going back 30-odd years, and scrums formed quickly and without fuss, the ball was in and usually out on a second or so; with about an 80% retention rate for the side putting in. Then professionalism and a different way of scrummaging came along (the hit - which is pushing before the ball is in, and illegal - but ignored and now codified). Some scrum offences are considered accidental/mild/not-dangerous and result in a free-kick; whilst others are considered deliberate/more-severe/dangerous, and result in a penalty; some of which are basically the result as not being as good as your opponent (or more specifically, not being as good, but refusing to admit it and step backwards - front-rowers are basically macho man-children ). There is a further issue that every scrum has so much cheating going on that no ref could ever see everything; especially as most refs come from the backs, not forwardsh; so they often have difficutly getting decisions actually correct. Consequently to this, teams cheat ever more in the hopes that they "earn" a penalty either by dominating and getting the rub of the green, or by cheating in such a way that it looks like the other guy's fault, or simply taking their chance as the ref metaphorically tosses a coin to decide who he's going to penalise this time.

As for the ref feeding into the scrum - this debate has a long and glorious history of a good 15-20 years of being brought up on fan forums - even trialled once IIRC.
The trouble is that feeding is actually easy to enforce, and it tends to be in the amateur game; but the pro.s don't want it; neither coaches, players or ref's supervisors. Basically, the pro.s would rather set up knowing what's likely to happen than to introduce the uncertainty of fair competition - IMO largely as it keeps control with the coach, rather than the players - so much easier to create scripts for more predicatble parts of play.
Basically, in the professional game, the fans are the only people who want the ball fed straight; so it's not going to be.

 

[HansNZ]

Interesting commentary. It is similar to some of the articles I have read about people's disgruntlement with the modern scrum - although much of the detail went over my head. I do recall one scrum video talking about packing/initiating the scrum in a way that makes it look as if your opponent has fouled - even though it was the actions of one's own team that created the movement.

 

[Dunhookin]

Must say the points made by Which Tyler are astute and well made. For me it's the most well considered assessment of the farcical situation we're having to endure with elite level scrums.

In the 6N games at the weekend, both France and Italy have progressed from putting the ball in the second row - to rolling it through the LH's legs straight to the No8. Safe in the knowledge that referees will do precisely nothing. It's utter, excruciating ridicule to see scrums reduced to such a meaningless farce.

Which's point that fan alienation about bent feeding and dysfunctional scrums is of no consequence against the faceless bureaucrats in WR and some elite level coaches who are on their own perfidious agenda with scrums is a major problem. Having said that, if enough pressure is brought to bear by fans like us, the issue would be exposed and those responsible for ruining our scrum brought to account.

I have regularly written to WR and IRB as it was previously, expressing my alienation and disgust with their myopic stupidity on this. I was largely ignored, though some replies were forthcoming talking about how devilishly difficult it all is...! Who do they think they're kidding with such rank Bull**it?!

In 2015, WR come out with an apparent new dawn to deal with bent feeding...'the ball will be going in straight' was the strap line they (WR) came up with. Didn't take long before they reneged on that - no doubt 'levered' by persons/groups unknown (elite level coaches and an acolyte faction within WR) who see nothing wrong with scrums being a source of cheap penalties for pot shots at goal.

WR is proving itself to be a pretty feeble, inept organisation. They have no backbone to deal with those who's agenda has nothing whatsoever to do with the good of our game. Only for what's good for them - the majority disregarded for the gain of the minority.

I would reiterate - genuine enthusiasts, like us on this forum, if we apply enough pressure on WR - then we may just get somewhere with this.

Thoughts anyone...?

 

[ALJ]

Thoughts anyone...?

Pretty simple - unless it directly impacts revenue in all its forms then they don't give a **** what we think and nothing will change.

Expect yet another directive in this area before too long that will last 6 weeks and then be forgotten.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

I aim the blame for this squarely at the refs. The law is there, and they're not applying it. WR may now be complicit by their inaction, but if the refs had been doing their job properly in the first place....

"The scrum half must throw in the ball straight along the middle line, so that it first touches the ground immediately beyond the width of the nearer prop's shoulders". Sanction: Free Kick.

Doesn't appear to be a great deal of discretion to ignore it. Presumably refs are assessed? If so, how could they be scored well on ignoring a such fundamental facet of the game which causes huge knock on problems? The annoying thing is that this is so clearly in a ref's hands and could be sorted out at a stroke. It's not something on his blind side, it's right there in front of his bloody face. Ignoring this seems so incongruous when they are so incredibly anal about whether a leg has gone to 89.95 or 90.05 degrees.

 

[Which Tyler]

Must say the points made by Which Tyler are astute and well made. For me it's the most well considered assessment of the farcical situation we're having to endure with elite level scrums.

Whilst I'm being accused of astute observations on the scrum, I'd like to point out that my experience of scrums was generally to feed them the ball and hope they didn't take the term too literally and actually eat the bloody thing.
Plenty of props I genuinely wouldn't put that past.

 

[die_mole]

I aim the blame for this squarely at the refs. The law is there, and they're not applying it. WR may now be complicit by their inaction, but if the refs had been doing their job properly in the first place....

"The scrum half must throw in the ball straight along the middle line, so that it first touches the ground immediately beyond the width of the nearer prop's shoulders". Sanction: Free Kick.

Doesn't appear to be a great deal of discretion to ignore it. Presumably refs are assessed? If so, how could they be scored well on ignoring a such fundamental facet of the game which causes huge knock on problems? The annoying thing is that this is so clearly in a ref's hands and could be sorted out at a stroke. It's not something on his blind side, it's right there in front of his bloody face. Ignoring this seems so incongruous when they are so incredibly anal about whether a leg has gone to 89.95 or 90.05 degrees.

I know they assess it in the USA at regional level. Referee coaches/assessors have written really mean things about my disregard towards feeding.

 

[Dunhookin]

Hey Old Hooker - partially agree with your view - re blaming referees for the debacle of chronic bent feeding. Ultimately they know the law, a blind man could see how the put in is so freely abused, yet, they stand there and do nothing when the ball is blatantly rolled through the LH's legs. Players are being allowed to openly take the p*ss. Referees' credibility diminishes - there's an outpouring of objection from fans...but still they do nothing.

Clearly referees are being instructed specifically to ignore bent feeding, no matter how bad it gets. Instead they focus on fussing agonisingly over anal minutia, ready to eagerly whistle at the slightest infraction. They bore the pants off everyone tediously lecturing front rows, take an interminable eternity to voice the engage commands (another ridicule), then impotently stand there to watch blatant bent feeding...?! WTF is all that utter BS about?

Were referees granted discretion by WR to ping bent feeding or not as they saw fit - we'd see a variation, where some would ping it, others not. Instead they're all ignoring it - to a man. So it's WR who are behind this - I strongly suspect that WR is a puppet whose strings are being pulled by a (probably) small group of influential, myopic individuals, who think we're all chuffed to bits to see scrums as a dysfunctional embarrassment and a source of dodgy penalties.

Elite level coaches seem to have way too much influence - their view is that scrums are only good for screwing penalties out of bemused, under pressure referees - a cheap means of an easy 3 points. That it's ultimately bad for rugby and a betrayal of the core values of our scrum - they don't give a sh*t about - only results, a W in the next game counts, so they coach their packs to screw penalties at scrums and don't want that to change. And WR - complicit in allowing clear and obvious law abuse. It's an absolute bloody outrage.

Pressure and exposure should be inflicted on WR so that they are obliged to explain their scrum policy and identify the individuals responsible for it. With the spotlight on them - the dullards behind this debacle will be exposed - and finally, we'd get something done.

The pressure of disaffected fans starts here on forums like this...anyone game to stand up and do something - rather than just complain amongst ourselves...?