Could the scrum finally be fixed?

So in a report put together by Fran Cotton, Mike Burton and Ray McLoughlin the scrum has been highlighted as currently too dangerous and complex to carry on as it is now.

The team have put together a number critical points that they shall present to the IRB but two of the key changes to note would be the 'UPK' Unconvertable Penalty Kick and also changing the current scrum sequence to "Stand, touch, engage, push" to take out the hit, which has been highlighted as the biggest area of concern.

Could these changes be iplimented and would they be for the better?

Full article
http://www.espnscrum.com/2011-rugby-world-cup/rugby/story/152618.html

i have been saying for some time the scrum should form up before the 'scrum' can commence.

'form up' the packs form the packed scrum
'scrum' the sh puts the ball in (straight) and hookers hook and packs shove.

simple. it preserves the scrum and makes it much safer. pureist will complain but, originaly, tries didnt score any points.

form up
scrum.



Stand, touch, engage, push. this is too long winded. my boys have a joke. the ref says; crouch, touch, have a cup of tea, go to the shops, clean your teeth, pause, take the dog for a walk, etc

Some good ideas

Too many games are won from penalties from the scrum where it is a total lottery as to whose fault it was or indeed if it was anyone.

By engaging first, like in the old days, and then scrummaging we will get a lot less resets, injuries and wasted time and far more real scrummaging and tests of technique and strength.

Also I quite like the unconvertible penalty bit.

im not sure about the unconvertable penalty. ucp in opp 22, what would the options be? tap and go, kick for touch? could a team opt for a scrum?

It has to change, the hit is bad enough but when you have a ref who goes

Crouch




Touch
































Pause






















































ENGAGE!

It's gonna do some damage one day

Even in the the new recommended setup, engage basically equals hit so it isn't removed. All that goes away is the pause.

If the front rows bound to each other first, with the referee clearing/okaying the binding on one side and the assistant ref doing the same on the other side, then the second rows/back rows lock into place and the ball is fed (straight) then it should be safer for the players as everyone is set, and the ref as they have covered positioning-binding and feeding in a set order and don't have to try to watch both sides of 1800kg of guys shoving and a midget throwing a ball into the middle at the same time. If it goes up or down the team going forward gets the call. Also if someone slips their bind it is more obvious (and you won't have props who just don't bind to start off with -- a very common cause of scrums going down).

I don't agree with the UCP idea. If you are 10m from your line with a weak scrum it is too easy to just give up. The scrum when teams focus on it as a weapon is a real sight to see and rev's up the team, the crowd , the passion. I don't like giving a team with a weak scrum an easy way out. I know people say its a lottery as it is, and it does need to change. But tidy up the messy parts of it, don't dilute its importance in the game.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:Even in the the new recommended setup, engage basically equals hit so it isn't removed. All that goes away is the pause.

If the front rows bound to each other first, with the referee clearing/okaying the binding on one side and the assistant ref doing the same on the other side, then the second rows/back rows lock into place and the ball is fed (straight) then it should be safer for the players as everyone is set, and the ref as they have covered positioning-binding and feeding in a set order and don't have to try to watch both sides of 1800kg of guys shoving and a midget throwing a ball into the middle at the same time. If it goes up or down the team going forward gets the call. Also if someone slips their bind it is more obvious (and you won't have props who just don't bind to start off with -- a very common cause of scrums going down).

I don't agree with the UCP idea. If you are 10m from your line with a weak scrum it is too easy to just give up. The scrum when teams focus on it as a weapon is a real sight to see and rev's up the team, the crowd , the passion. I don't like giving a team with a weak scrum an easy way out. I know people say its a lottery as it is, and it does need to change. But tidy up the messy parts of it, don't dilute its importance in the game.

That is exactly what i would like to see. All of that and props having baggier shirts again for grip.

But i do like the unconvertable penalty.

unconvertable penalty. im not sure about this. it sounds like the thin edge of the removing-the-scrum-from-union wedge

Surely it makes more scrums? As I assume you can't kick for goal so if you're close to the oppos line you'd go for the scrum again, and with the new rules on scrummaging stopping a lot of collapses you could either get a penalty, penalty try or push over try.

An unconvertable penalty? You mean a freekick?

no no no no, wrong all wrong.

The teams should ONLY push when the ball is put in, not when the ref says so as this would be far too relevant on the ref and take the 'shove' sequence out the players hands.

Its quite simple.

Along with the above (existing rule) The feed gets put in straight (which, is, erm, and existing rule).

When the feed is put in straight the Props HAVE to prop as the Hooker HAS to hook the ball back and cannot really push much with one leg.

This reduces the impact of x3 front row 'props' crunching together (x6 props) in the front row like we get now as unless one side is very weak or cannot bind *assuming there is no illegal boring/pushing) the side getting the put in nearly always gets possession.

Crouch, touch, pause, engage, should stay as that stopped sides using the impact before put in to assert early dominance and make the opponents unstable.


Put simply, the scrum is nothing more than a organised fair push over the ball to gain possession, with the side that has the feed having the advantage of timing... nothing more.

I agree with Brian Moore about the scrum. He basically agrees with thebandwagonsociety.

Red stag, difference is direct kick to touch and own ball from that.

good spot on my Brian Moore impersonation

Just let us scrum as we always have done. you will either turn the sport into league or stop it being a game able to be played by people of all shapes and sizes!!

theskippingpig wrote:Just let us scrum as we always have done. you will either turn the sport into league or stop it being a game able to be played by people of all shapes and sizes!!

theskippingpig
Which version of 'as we always have done'? Formations have change, requirements on binding have changes, and then the All Blacks introduced the 'hit' in the late 80s, which has become increasingly emphasised over the last decade or so.

To be honest, I don't see why it would be so difficult to go back to a passive engagement as was used in the 70s. Simple rules:
Props must keep their shoulders higher than their hips as the scrum is formed
Binds to be correctly made on the opponent's jersey (and with the use of skin-tight jerseys being excluded for all players, not just front row forwards - part of the ref's checking of the kit prior to the match being to ensure that it is possible to get a hadful of the jersey in any random grab)
Scrum to be stationary and square to the touchline before the ball is put in (and allowing sufficient time for the ref to switch sides of the scrum if he wants to check the binding)
Ball to be fed straight and central to the tunnel.

Pretty sure both the last two are actually in the Laws, but are largely ignored.

dogtooth wrote:unconvertable penalty. im not sure about this. it sounds like the thin edge of the removing-the-scrum-from-union wedge

i agree


in fact, lets ban the game.

I played my whole career of 20 plus years in the front row.

The problem is technology, we used to go with the ebb and flow of refs decisions, now we second guess his farts and that is why its no fun anymore. We have over engineered the scrum with CTPE which is SH1TE because different refs have different tempos, and it doesn't prevent the big hit anyway, just ensures both teams are ready for each other which they were before anyway, Binding is nigh on impossible anyway but doing it in a tight shirt onto a tight shirt just gets silly.

every fecker who has ever run on a pitch knows that he might get seriously hurt but did it ever stop you? No. Its called freedom of choice and it is the cornerstone of adult consent. If the H and S nazis get hold of it it will be banned like hunting, or turned into touch. H and S causes accidents, you defer responsibility to others and becoem overwhelemed with safety messages, the world becomes a dangeorus place and you can't process it all so you switch off. How many times do we think we woudl have reached the moon if the H and S Czars had got hold of Apollo? oooh you can't fly into space, its dangerous.

Rugby is inherently dangerous, I reckon we should go back to the good old days when ref was sir and if you talked back he would kick you in the balls when you scrum down.

Happy days

[quote="Gatts"][quote="dogtooth"]unconvertable penalty. im not sure about this. it sounds like the thin edge of the removing-the-scrum-from-union wedge[/quote]

i agree


in fact, lets ban the game.

I played my whole career of 20 plus years in the front row.

The problem is technology, we used to go with the ebb and flow of refs decisions, now we second guess his farts and that is why its no fun anymore. We have over engineered the scrum with CTPE which is SH1TE because different refs have different tempos, and it doesn't prevent the big hit anyway, just ensures both teams are ready for each other which they were before anyway, Binding is nigh on impossible anyway but doing it in a tight shirt onto a tight shirt just gets silly.

every fecker who has ever run on a pitch knows that he might get seriously hurt but did it ever stop you? No. Its called freedom of choice and it is the cornerstone of adult consent. If the H and S nazis get hold of it it will be banned like hunting, or turned into touch. H and S causes accidents, you defer responsibility to others and becoem overwhelemed with safety messages, the world becomes a dangeorus place and you can't process it all so you switch off. How many times do we think we woudl have reached the moon if the H and S Czars had got hold of Apollo? oooh you can't fly into space, its dangerous.

Rugby is inherently dangerous, I reckon we should go back to the good old days when ref was sir and if you talked back he would kick you in the balls when you scrum down.

Happy days

[/quote]

What a post

I have to agree though ask who plays rugby because its safe?? Its a mans sport not Rugby League

thebandwagonsociety wrote:Even in the the new recommended setup, engage basically equals hit so it isn't removed. All that goes away is the pause.

I read

arguing that removing the collision which currently comes after the engagement would result in less spinal injuries among front-row forwards.

as removing the hit

Here the opinion of the Welsh nation's favourite ref


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXrnxViI7J0

Sin é wrote:Here the opinion of the Welsh nation's favourite ref


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXrnxViI7J0

Oh thats good....2:15 'we try and get through the game without being noticed, we're here to facilitate something"

RWC semi final....Alain, stop it you're killing me

Gatts wrote:

dogtooth wrote:unconvertable penalty. im not sure about this. it sounds like the thin edge of the removing-the-scrum-from-union wedge

i agree


in fact, lets ban the game.

I played my whole career of 20 plus years in the front row.

The problem is technology, we used to go with the ebb and flow of refs decisions, now we second guess his farts and that is why its no fun anymore. We have over engineered the scrum with CTPE which is SH1TE because different refs have different tempos, and it doesn't prevent the big hit anyway, just ensures both teams are ready for each other which they were before anyway, Binding is nigh on impossible anyway but doing it in a tight shirt onto a tight shirt just gets silly.

every fecker who has ever run on a pitch knows that he might get seriously hurt but did it ever stop you? No. Its called freedom of choice and it is the cornerstone of adult consent. If the H and S nazis get hold of it it will be banned like hunting, or turned into touch. H and S causes accidents, you defer responsibility to others and becoem overwhelemed with safety messages, the world becomes a dangeorus place and you can't process it all so you switch off. How many times do we think we woudl have reached the moon if the H and S Czars had got hold of Apollo? oooh you can't fly into space, its dangerous.

Rugby is inherently dangerous, I reckon we should go back to the good old days when ref was sir and if you talked back he would kick you in the balls when you scrum down.

Happy days

I love you Gatts!

since props now wear very figure hugging shirts and are always being penalised for not binding, where is the common sense. Force props to wear a shirt which allows binding, or even put a handle on their shirts. should resolve binding issues. maybe?

I go with the view that front rows bind first with ref and ass ref each of scrum - then the rest form up. No pushing until the ball goes in. If they don't play ball give the ref the authority to call uncontested scrims for a period of time

[quote="Colchins"]I go with the view that front rows bind first with ref and ass ref each of scrum - then the rest form up. No pushing until the ball goes in. If they don't play ball give the ref the authority to call uncontested scrims for a period of time[/quote]

Thats not a half bad idea their Colchins, I hadn't thought of that. I will say though that it should only be maybe 2 or 3 scrums or 3 minutes before starting again.