New Scrum laws

So I don't think there has been much discussion about the new Scrum laws, so what are your opinions?

I quite like the fact there are less restarts/penalties at scrum time and that the scrum halves have to be more consistent with their put ins. However will this lead to a change in tactics for a lot of teams? Eben Etzbeth says in this interview that the whole pack is responsible for scrums now to help drive forward, will this result in heavier packs selected?

I havent seen one game yet...has been an obvious diffference?

If it results in props and hookers...ACTUALLY having to scrum (and hook) again then its great....but means athletic mobile props might need to work on their day job basics...

As for Etzbeth...not sure what he's been doing but i reckon the whole pack should still have been driving anyway...

Heavier packs...not sure. Its about technique aswell. By all accounts Parling for example is an excellent scrum second row...and he's not what you would call a heavyweight ....though still around 18st.
Although...im sure all England fans would love to see a young Simon Shaw in the middle of our pack...and we appear to have a few coming through who are his size...

Will we see the return of the Julian White type scrummaging animals...still not convinced...but certainly all props will need to be a darn sight better at scrummaging than some certainly are at the moment.

OK I haven't really looked into this much but on the surface this looks decidedly bad news for Ireland as we neither have the skill levels to avoid scrums nor the tight 5 to contest them.

England and SA will be happy campers though.

Do Ireland not have any good young front rowers coming through rodders? I mean scrummaging ones.

rodders wrote:OK I haven't really looked into this much but on the surface this looks decidedly bad news for Ireland as we neither have the skill levels to avoid scrums nor the tight 5 to contest them.

England and SA will be happy campers though.

Ireland just is not good at the dark arts. Hopefully these will reduce.

The Scrum SHOULD be about all 8 forwards shoving,weight Is important BUT technique more so .
The front row mafia will still try disruptive tactics,and the second shove to slow the heel may
reoccur.
Classic defence tactics at scrum are negated by having to stay bound,and 5 metre law.
Needs fine tuning Props who can scrummage,hookers who can heel and 9s who can feed a
scrum will be at a premium.
The feed seems to be delayed which needs looking at,feed technique seems to differ from
classic 9 feed hands being along the ball,NOT across it.
Theory says less collapses,maybe more short/longarm penalties until teams realise squint feeds are now verboten.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Do Ireland not have any good young front rowers coming through rodders? I mean scrummaging ones.

Nope.... so if anyone knows of any more ozzie shotputters with Irish Grannies then please give us the heads up.

rodders wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Do Ireland not have any good young front rowers coming through rodders? I mean scrummaging ones.

Nope.... so if anyone knows of any more ozzie shotputters with Irish Grannies then please give us the heads up.

What about the 'project' players.



In all seriousness, the major impact is the crooked feed being penalised. Witness Aus v NZ on Saturday. While I enjoy his commentating, Brian Moore will have bugger all to complain about in his newspaper colymns.

rodders wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Do Ireland not have any good young front rowers coming through rodders? I mean scrummaging ones.

Nope.... so if anyone knows of any more ozzie shotputters with Irish Grannies then please give us the heads up.

S'okay. Ship 'em to Quins, and claim them back once we'vefixed 'em. It's worked before....

I am looking forward to seeing a free kick given for an offence that I haven't seen penalised for years in an international - "foot up" by the hooker.
On the plus side, there seemed to be less gobbling about before the scrum engaged in the NZ/Oz match but there were still a few collapses.
Too early to make a definitive call but it does look promising

Personally I cant help but think that theyve gone a bit too far on this issue of not feeding the scrum straight. by trying to make criminals out of the half backs is ridiculous.

A half back when deemed to have fed a scrum not straight is penalised, yet a hooker who feeds a lineout not straight is only punished with a scrum.

rodders wrote:OK I haven't really looked into this much but on the surface this looks decidedly bad news for Ireland as we neither have the skill levels to avoid scrums nor the tight 5 to contest them.

England and SA will be happy campers though.

Well. Argentina (and Italy?) were renowned scrummagers/hit-men which belied their all-round game competence. Now the hit is effectively out of the game, there is a great likelihood that loose heads will become more effective (if refs actually monitor the feed).

I don't see the problem as being an Irish one in particular. Wales might have a greater worry with Adam Jones though.

I have tried to stay off this site as of late, because no local rugby has made certain members on here a bit irate to say the least, but I have watched every game of the championship so far, all two of them, and I can honestly say that the new scrum laws are a revelation. I think the idea of binding first then engaging take out all the bullocks of the hit and the scrum going straight down, so far the scrums for the most part have been all about strength and technique, and none of the games thus far have had multiple re-sets. This new rule in the scrum is going to be one of the much better one's of them all in years gone by.

Removing the hit is a good thing in all honesty, less collapsed scrums, less time wasting.

They need to get the scrum stable before the ball is asked to be put in straight.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Personally I cant help but think that theyve gone a bit too far on this issue of not feeding the scrum straight. by trying to make criminals out of the half backs is ridiculous.

A half back when deemed to have fed a scrum not straight is penalised, yet a hooker who  feeds a lineout not straight is only punished with a scrum.

It opens the door for teams with dominant scrums to convert line outs to scrums.

The tolerance involved in throwing a ball 5-15m (usually 1-handed) down the middle of a line-out is much, much less than a scrum half feeding a ball 1.5m down the centre of a scrum.

And there is also the problem of adjusting for any wind affect.

What Im getting at Portnoy is that in a lineout the Hooker can put the ball in when Histeam is ready, however with a scrum the halfback has to put it in when the referee commands, which is no good when the other side is moving the scrum around.

Scrum is too much hassle. Dump it i say.

lol. You're nearly there now GE. Really think you should give Rugby League a try!

No 7&1/2 wrote:lol. You're nearly there now GE. Really think you should give Rugby League a try!

There was a funny one in the NRL last weekend I think it was Penrith.

There was a scrum and the halfback just put the ball on the ground next to his second rowers foot, picked it up and fed his pivot, and the game carried on. the ball never went in any scrum.

Rubbish isn't it. Scrums are integral to the game though. All we need is refs to actually enforce the rules.

Yes GE... let's get rid of competitive scrums, remove the lineout, rucking, mauling and drop goals. In fact any area of the game where NZ are not that strong.

Also... when the AB's are tackled we should not be allowed to compete for the ball. The attacking team should always retain possession. But let's make it fair... only 6 times then they should kick it to the opposition so they can have a go too.

.....suddenly I feel like I am on the wrong board??

aucklandlaurie wrote:
What Im getting at Portnoy is that in a lineout the Hooker can put the ball in when Histeam is ready, however with a scrum the halfback has to put it in when the referee commands, which is no good when the other side is moving the scrum around.

Just caught up with this post, laurie. The new Laws are there to remove the hit from the scrum.

The scrum is now suposed to be a two-part process: The engagement [steady and settle] then when the scrum is stable, the referee tells the scrummie that the ball can be fed (straight). Nothing new to we oldies then.

I missed all of last weekend's games but from what I've seen so far, the refs appear to be terrified of their new-found powers and pertinently, instructions to enforce them.

The ref, imo, should be much quicker to upgrade nascent, perpetual offenders to comply with the Laws early doors. That's what YCs and penalties are for.

Was reading in the rugby paper about this, tom youngs was saying he was a little worried that it will be dangerous. There's far more power in the scrums now a days and with the hooker on one leg trying to hook the ball, it will result in injury and a lot of crabbing scrums.

There's a lot more power in both scrums so if we want it to be stable it will be stable. Gee it was beautiful see the tight head the ABs won

nathan wrote:Was reading in the rugby paper about this, tom youngs was saying he was a little worried that it will be dangerous. There's far more power in the scrums now a days and with the hooker on one leg trying to hook the ball, it will result in injury and a lot of crabbing scrums.

LH's job to keep TH away from the Hooker. Seems for Leicester and England, he'll be pretty well protected.

nathan wrote:Was reading in the rugby paper about this, tom youngs was saying he was a little worried that it will be dangerous. There's far more power in the scrums now a days and with the hooker on one leg trying to hook the ball, it will result in injury and a lot of crabbing scrums.

Sounds like crabbing sideways before a scrum collapse is infinitely preferable than going straight down on the crown of the head and hearing your spinal cord stretching and the cervical vertebrae groaning whilst squealing like a pig for the pressure to stop - not that I've experienced it. Not.

Was just relaying those comments, i have no idea what goes in those scrums!

These laws might also end up helping some props that were written off and turn them into quality players.  For example, Buckley was/is a monster of a man.  If there was a clean hit, he could lock a scrum easily and start using his power to disrupt the opposition.  He used to suffer because his opponent would line up very close to him and use beat him to the hit buckling the big fella before he could put his power into the scrum.  Having to bind first should allow the likes of Buckley to get his spacing correct before the engagement.

Am I being mad with that kind of thought? Or will technique/dark_arts comes to the fore in other ways.

Surely now we have the front row actually having to wrestle and use technique to get on top of each other. Its a proper scrum competition from the old years again...and means you dont have to be a gorilla to play there anymore. Smaller props can still compete if their technique is strong.

Seems to me the people complaining are the ones worried about their technique and actual scrumaging ability.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Surely now we have the front row actually having to wrestle and use technique to get on top of each other. Its a proper scrum competition from the old years again...and means you dont have to be a gorilla to play there anymore. Smaller props can still compete if their technique is strong.

Seems to me the people complaining are the ones worried about their technique and actual scrumaging ability.

Smaller props should actually have a bit of a mechanical advantage don't they? If the shoulders have to be level with the hips, a tall prop has to crouch a long way to bind with a smaller prop and get under him.

Exactly Mike, players like Tom Smith etc could be back at a level playing field again.

Its going to be interesting to monitor over the next few months and see how it affects personnel...

thebandwagonsociety wrote:Am I being mad with that kind of thought? Or will technique/dark_arts comes to the fore in other ways.

The "dark arts" you mention are not as relevant (or should I say were not) in the modern game.

I was an old school prop when we used to build by rows and I can vouch that the majority of the shannigans occured in those precious few moments when we were building/engaged (so the ref could not see) whilst waiting for the ball to be popped in.

The big hit combined with the fast feed removed the opportunity for a lot of the "getting to know your opposite number" to occur, but it fair to say that it also introduced a few little idiosyncrasies of it's own.

The new law does concern me a little because of this, but we used to get a hell of a lot less collapses in the old days. So I do think it is a step forward.

Scrum pox needs plenty of engagement time to effectively infect the opposition.

I also reckon that sales of Vaseline will sky-rocket. Free eye jabs from the second row/flankers might also allay fears that NHS privatisation plans are imminent.

The Dark Arts will always be with us,it is a poor comment by a International front row player[ex].That if the Hooker is expected to do his job i.e.HOOK the ball it is dangerous under the new laws.What can be more dangerous than deliberately collapsing a scrum which is trained
now.When it was set by rows collapsed scrums were rare indeed it was considered beyond the pale to deliberately collapse one.The BaJalaa has been with us since the 1980`s players
like Ian MacLauchlan used to hold up weaker props so he could scrimmage.Heaven forbid that hookers,props,and Scrumhalves should have to scrimmage instead of just run around.
The one point that does need looking at is the time it takes to feed,leaving it to the ref is taking to long.Indeed reverting to setting by rows would be far better,incidentally being tall
isn`t ideal for a scrimmaging prop.

It'd be nice to see TV roaming cameramen in line with the feed.

http://www.theroar.com.au/2013/09/04/fixing-the-wallabies-scrum/
More insights. Despite playing flanker, I'd never really thought of pods of three as much as the tight five...

I have played two games under the new laws:

The hit is completely gone from the scrum,

It means that the technically better scrummagers should win the contest,

It gives the advantage to the shorter front rows - who find it easier to get lower and therefor harder to shove back without the 'hit'.

I think it will probably end the endless reset scrums

ChequeredJersey wrote:http://www.theroar.com.au/2013/09/04/fixing-the-wallabies-scrum/
More insights. Despite playing flanker, I'd never really thought of pods of three as much as the tight five...

Surely the author is just pointing out what we all learned in school age rugby....

Keep low. In mauls aswell keep low and drive. The lower you are the better you'll drive. Just like when you are carrying the ball...you go in straight you'll get knocked back...you go in low and you'll get through more distance.

In scrums its no different...if your body is high you'll not be as effective.

It's more about the angle of pushing behind the scrum and the fact that the back row contribute to that more than generally appreciated

Wayne Barnes take a bow sir.

You made proper scrummaging reappear on our screens after years of absence.

Even a foot up call. Music to my ears.
Mind you well done also BT for giving us the live angles to make an assessment.

So is the hit supposed to be totally eradicated with these new laws? Because the Ulster-Dragons match was an absolute shambles at scrum-time and the hit was still there. The only difference was that the players were now binding at the arms (at a distance though) so they still hit on the "engage".

Was this officiated wrongly if the hit was still there? It certainly didn't look right.

There certainly shouldn't be a heavy, dynamic hit as the scrum has to be stable and settled before the ref allows the put in. The top of the front rows heads should be about level with their opponents ears prior to engagement so last year's charge should be pretty much nullified as a hit.

What was particularly noticeable from Barnes was that he took care to get the forwards in place prior to the engagement and watched the feed carefully (much to Stringer's distress when he found out that he couldn't feed it to his second row).

Whoever reffed the Scarlets vs Leinster game looked to have new scrum laws spot on. He picked up on the crooked feeds a couple times too. I'm not so sure what was going on in the Dragons vs Ulster game, however the touch judges worked well with the ref and pointed out 'scrum infringements.' This should negate any cheating and negative play at the scrum in the future, which unfortunately for Italian teams is bad news bears...

The problem as ever will be refs applying the so-called 'new' laws consistently.

I say 'new' as if there are any new laws which there aren't. Just engagement commands.

I'm liking the new laws (or application of the old laws if you like),the dominant scrum is still rewarded but it's no longer an easy route to 3 points.

Personally, I'm not a fan. The old school hooking is before my time so I have no real hankering for it. It looks a little safer, so fair enough, but it seems that the scrum now penalises the team that has won it. As soon as they hook, woosh, they're back-peddaling. A few teams seemed better than others but it seems counter-productive to me.

I thought this weekends internationals went well enough and big improvement on last year.

Watching the Wasps v Quins game yesterday, I regret to surmise that we have an inkling as to how the negativity of 'good' coaches will force their cynicism on the 'new laws'.

Wigglesworth should have imposed himself on the scrums much more like Barnes did the night before. The front rows were neither engaging squarely nor allowing the scrum to settle properly.

And am I not wrong in believing that the feed should no only be straight, but also down the centre line of the scrum?

Maybe Newcastle and Bath were just more compliant.

I shudder to think how Cockerill will instruct his troops.