Scrum changes: success or failure?

[fatprop]

Great article by Mike Cron

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16016_9339274,00.html

Really worth a read, especially about the put in channel and hooker

 

[Highlander35]

Good article.

Personally, I feel that the scrum has moved away from winning the hit, and onto the technical abilities of the props, the hookers ability to hook, and the push of the scrum unit as a whole.

Regardless of what the statistics say, that's a good thing.

Sent from my LG-P713 using Tapatalk

 

[TOCC]

From a spectator perspective, I think scrummaging has improved significantly this year.. I'd argue they ref's are getting more calls right then they are wrong, which is better then the penalty lottery which used to occur at scrums.

There has also been more pushover tries from scrums this year then I can remember, so maybe that's an indication that the new laws have reduced a teams ability to collapse a scrum when under pressure on their own 5m line.

 

[Bardon]

The scrum has definitely improved IMO. There are more contests than under the previous sequence. As TOCC says it makes collapsing the scrum more difficult, it also makes it more obvious when a team does collapse on purpose.

I'd still like refs to be as hot on the crooked feed as they were when the changes first came in. Hookers focusing on hooking and counter hooking was brilliant. It also meant at the critical stage of the scrum the hookers couldn't put as much focus on destabilising the opposition scrum if they wanted to collapse it. I like Cron's idea of having a feeding channel like the lineout to improve safety but keep the contest and a straight feed.

Then on top of that we had the possibility of the opposing scrum legitimately trying to win the scrum against the head.

Yes in time scrum coaches will figure out how they can more efficiently collapse and/or milk penalties. But the difference from the old sequence is that, at least I feel, there's a framework there that allows a genuine contest at the scrum when refs are hot on all aspects of the new laws.

Seeing two packs contesting for the ball rather than wrestling each other to the ground is one of the best things about the game. For many years I despaired that I would ever see it again. The new rules have given us that back and they can again.

I'd like to see more refs take the Nigel Owens type attitude of if a front row doesn't want to scrum then they're in the wrong jersey and he'll get someone who does to replace you.

 

[wamberal]

Pity that 99% of potential converts to our game think that rugby scrums are the single most boring and unintelligible part of our game.

And if you don't believe me, ask around, particularly amongst loig and lapsed rugby fans.

 

[Omar Comin']

Pity that 99% of potential converts to our game think that rugby scrums are the single most boring and unintelligible part of our game.


And if you don't believe me, ask around, particularly amongst loig and lapsed rugby fans.

I don't think it's the scrums themselves. A good scrummaging battle is very gladiatorial and appealing, and they provide a great attacking platform. The boring and unintelligible aspects are the collapses, the time they take to set and the penalties that occur which no one watching understands yet cost 3 points a lot of the time.

I think the scrum has improved since the law changes but there's still some way to go.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I agree that on the whole, scrums seem to have improved since the changes. One of my pet hates though is that refs don't seem to see LHPs binding under the front of the THP and pulling the front row down. Many do it, but probably the worst offender I've seen is MacIntosh. Watch him against Paddy Ryan. Almost every scrum he bound on the front of Paddy's jersey, or changed his bind there after intitially binding on the back. His left elbow then proceeded to drop to the ground, pulling Paddy with it. Credit is due to Ryan for being able on occasions to stay on his feet. Would really like to see Refs take a firm stand against this practice.

 

[Lindommer]

On that point, BR, an earlier suggestion for the TJ/AR on the short side to move closer to the scrum and watch for any shenanigans could/should be considered. Spectators get the shits when they see Vunipola et al change his forward direction 45 degrees (HTF can the TJ/AR on his side constantly miss that?) 'cause the ref's moved to his scrum's TH side to watch the ball put in. We all want to see ANY funny stuff by front-rowers eradicated in the interest of fair scrummaging.

My pet peeves are the time taken to form up, and the too many instances of front rows standing up. Refs should clamp down on this. Otherwise, scrums have improved.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I think on the whole the scrum is improved with the new laws. Lord knows it needed to after the turgid spectacle that your average scrum was from about the mid-2000's onwards. I don't have any empirical evidence to back this up but I have a sense that the number of resets has dropped and the genuine contest for the pill has improved. I'd hate to see it ever disappear out of the game so anything that improves it and also makes it safe is a good thing IMHO.

 

[gel]

I have enjoyed the resurgence of the pushover try.

If that is a byproduct of the new rules, then I am ever so grateful to whoever thought them up.

 

[Pfitzy]

They still get it wrong occasionally though -last night the French didn't take the weight twice and we got short armed for it

 

[Rob42]

The changes have generally been positive, but the time taken to set a scrum still frustrates me. The Eng v Aus game from 2002 was on TV the other day - the speed with which the scrums were set (from the time of the refs whistle) was impressively fast. Now, the delays are interminable, and no better when a reset is required.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Omar Comin']

They still get it wrong occasionally though -last night the French didn't take the weight twice and we got short armed for it

Depends how you interpret it. Was it France not taking the weight or were we pushing before the ball was in? Is there anything in the law that states a team must 'take the weight' (i.e. push) on the set call before the ball is fed?

 

[Pfitzy]

20.1 (j) Stationary and parallel. Until the ball leaves the scrum half’s hands, the scrum must be stationary and the middle line must be parallel to the goal lines. A team must not shove the scrum away from the mark before the ball is thrown in.



Is the only Law that covers it. So its difficult to adjudicate, but its a known tactic.

Note also that nowhere in the Scrum Law are the terms "hinging" or "whip wheel" used in terms of "Dangerous Play"

So yet again, the Law book and the reality diverge

 

[kiap]

I like Cron's idea of having a feeding channel like the lineout to improve safety but keep the contest and a straight feed.

But with the scrums contested as they are now, Cron's wider channel is essential to allow the ball to be hooked safely (or sometimes at all).

Without that official wider leeway, the refs have seen common sense and just provided it anyway. They've given up on being "hot" on dead-centre feeds. It's good that they are doing so.

 

[Bardon]

But with the scrums contested as they are now, Cron's wider channel is essential to allow the ball to be hooked safely (or sometimes at all).

Without that official wider leeway, the refs have seen common sense and just provided it anyway. They've given up on being "hot" on dead-centre feeds. It's good that they are doing so.

Refs have rightly given up on the dead-centre feed which is fine. Allowing the scrumhalf to move off centre and feed in straight is good. But many scrumhalves are going back to just feeding crooked and aren't being pulled up for it.

There wasn't too much hooking going on during the weekends test matches and only the most outrageously crooked feeds were penalised.

 

[boyo]

Refs have rightly given up on the dead-centre feed which is fine. Allowing the scrumhalf to move off centre and feed in straight is good. But many scrumhalves are going back to just feeding crooked and aren't being pulled up for it.

There wasn't too much hooking going on during the weekends test matches and only the most outrageously crooked feeds were penalised.

Many scrummies are still feeding directly into the second row.

EDIT: Often the contest for the ball has been removed.

 

[It is what it is]

I'd like to see 2 changes.
Firstly referees penalising flankers who purposely slip up onto their own front rower and add pressure on the opposition prop.
Secondly to stop No 8 from moving his engagement from between the Locks to between the lock and flanker.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Secondly to stop No 8 from moving his engagement from between the Locks to between the lock and flanker.

I saw this policed in one of the U20 games I think.

 

[ChargerWA]

I think it is time to revisit the Scrum engagement process again. In the NRC game on Thursday night and the test tonight, the ref is wasting time trying to stop the front rows pre-engaging.

Just do away with the bind call and let the front rows engage, then the scrum becomes a pushing contest as it has always been except for the last decade. This silly little "hit" we currently have is a hang over from the power hit era and is completely unnecessary. The lack of a power "hit" has increased the enjoyment of watching scrums immensely and I think it would only improve once again with the bind step removed.