News: Santiago discusses the scrum
By Santiago
April 17 2010
It is not often that a first posting is turned into an article. But the editors felt that this contribution to Ajack's thread on "cleaning up the scrum" was worthy of a wider audience. Welcome to the site Santiago, and lets have more please!
Really interesting thread this. I couldn't agree more about the need to respect the 'Crouch-Touch-Pause-Engage' procedure. This procedure, along with all the other requirements at the scrum regarding body position, binding, and direction of push concern themselves, primarily, with safety.
With safety in mind, I am sympathetic to the view that the role of 'the hit' should be, if not removed from the game, then significantly reduced. To my mind, not only does 'the hit' increase the risk of injury, but it also does away with any form of fair competition.
My point about increasing the risk of injury I think is more or less self-evident. Any instance that allows sixteen guys to anticipate the call of 'Engage!', spring off their toes, and crash together forcing the resultant tonnes of force through the shoulders and necks of the six guys at the front is really asking for trouble. Thankfully, this trouble has, so far, mainly manifested itself in having to reset scrum after scrum.
However, whilst safety at the scrum is of prime importance, I don't think that we can afford to lose site of that the fact that the scrum is essentially about competing for the ball and 'the hit' more or less negates this. Let's remind ourselves that the vast majority of scrums (unless they are opted for after a penalty or free kick) occur following a stoppage of play brought about, for want of a better term, by an accident or mistake. Certainly, anyone who argues that the team putting the ball in has a God-given right to get the ball out needs a severe talking to. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the emphasis that today's teams place on 'the hit' has actually done away with any semblance of competition at the scrum. Basically, if the team that puts the ball in wins 'the hit', then regardless of the states of binding, body position, or direction of push, the ball gets fed in quickly (often, if Chris White is to be believed, completely unbeknownst to the referee – as he is apparently watching for the binding, body position, and direction of push) and the momentum gained from winning the hit means the pack pushes over the ball, without hooker having any need to strike for the ball. Conversely, if the team putting the ball in doesn't win the hit, then the scrum-half will dance around, stall the put-in and protest to the referee about the scrum not being stable. In some cases, while the scrum-half makes a song and dance of things in front of the referee, his front row will just give up on the scrum altogether and bring it down; and thus the whole sordid procedure starts again. Not only unsafe, but also a far cry from anything approaching a fair competition for the ball.
I, for one, am in favour of seeing the scrum form up row by row. In this way the referee can ensure the front row engages correctly with proper binds (with or without binding patches or loops) and body position, and then, only once he is satisfied that the front row is safe and stable, he calls for the second row, checks for safety and stability, and finally calls in the back row. The referee can then step back, watch the put in, check for foot up, and then referee an actual competition for the ball.
Now, I know that 'the hit' is the part of the scrum that the front-rows relish, and that the psychological advantage of getting one over at 'the hit' stage is invaluable, but surely there is a better alternative. One that is both safer and promotes a proper and fair competition for the ball.
What I've suggested may seem laborious and methodical, but by virtue of the fact that it would safer, fairer, less prone to collapse, and easier to police, would it not actually take up less game time? Not only this, but would it not also reintroduce a proper competition for the ball? The ball would go in straight, both hookers could hook for the ball or alternatively instigate an eight-man push, and the referee would stand more of a chance of seeing what's going on.
Or am I just being naïve?
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010:04:17:08:22:01 by St Marlowe.
I hope you keeps posting.
You can't always get what you want, But if you try sometimes well you might find, You get what you need.
Richards/Jagger
No alcohol for January. I'm a dryathlete in aid of cancer research.
Dryathlon
I wonder if it would help if "pause" and "engage" were removed and the front rows came into contact at "touch" ie without hitting. Once they were properrly bound you could shove with all your heart? Wouldnt slow things down to much.
Welcome Santiago - great first posting!
In the recent Ospreys/Biarritz England/France games, Clancy and Lawrence held the Pause for a very long time, which is a nonsense when you have 8 hulks in a crouched position on each side waiting to charge, Presumably the long pause is there with safety in mind, but if the worry is safety then do away with the hit altogether. The Ospreys were penalised time after time, this led to a hesitation on their part and inevitable difficulties in the scrum. Interestingly, in the crucial scrum prior to the Bz winger's 100 metre try you could see Clancy hesitate before allowing Bz's early hit. England had similar problems, referees having home and away syndrome I call it.
The purpose of the Touch is presumably to get the front rows near enough to negate the power of the hit. Engage at the touch I say and get away from inevitably flawed decisions on the timing of the hit.
Once the scrums are together - after the hit - they are not supposed to push - well how is that actually policed from a refs stand point?
I get the feeling that taking away the hit may give other and potentially more difficult issues to resolve.
“Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
Benjamin Franklin
Tetleys Block F E143
But that would negate an awful lot of training, drilling and probably some parts of the conditioning as well. Unlikely to happen unless the Australians have another go at the Elf'n'Safety angle.
Taking Eifion's point, where he is talking about the timing of the hit, shows just where the debate has gone. We are no longer talking about a contested restart with a marginal advantage to the team that did not have an accident when last in possession. We are talking about managing a contest ("The Hit") which is no part of rugby law.
As eloquently put in the original piece, get the packs safely and squarely engaged (proper binding, square shoulders which are also above the hips), get the ball put in straight and leave it to the skill strength and technique of the front rows.
Playing and refereeing practice is so far from the law as written virtually anything a player of the current generation says on the subject tells you only how to win at the new game. When referees tell you that they have so much else to watch that they don't monitor the put-in, it is laughable. They have ceded control of the situation and make themselves a laughing stock.
The laws that each and every watcher knows are that passes may not go forward and put-ins should be straight. When the game is static and you choose not to monitor what 10,000 people know is wrong, your credibility when it comes to other decisions that may be contentious is, shall we say, low.
[lowrence.com]
However I do not think that many of the "rules" need tweaking. I feel the area that needs to be addressed is the referees interpretation of the order of events and solutions when things go wrong.
As a prop myself playing a fairly decent standard of rugby referees will talk to the whole of the front row before the game going over specific things he/she will be looking for. This can include body positions, referees calling procedure and other activities that can occur. I do not know whether this talk goes on at a professional level but I feel it should as props and hookers automatically know where they stand. Maybe even talking to the whole pack about the scrummage so there are no eager locks or 8s pushing early.
I like you're idea of building the scrum up row by row but this could become time consuming and put teams off certain rituals they may have. The way players and teams form up is a very personal process and disrupting this could do more harm than good.
Policing the scrum with a minimal hit could almost produce an uncontested scrum, as from experience if you win the hit, you often win the ball and the a good hit is the basis of a good drive. Another reason you seem to want the hit to be made less significant is to reduce the risk of injury. I therefore ask you this... How many injuries actually come from the hit? Not many. I appreciate that when injuries occur they can often be very serious. But at a professional level where bodies are very muscular and prepared for contact injuries are minimal.
Personally I would like to see free-kicks and penalties used instead of resets. Unless there is a genuine slip then there is the reason for collapse/wheeling is likely to be illegal. Referees need to be taught what to look for when scrums go wrong; it is pathetic the amount of times scrums are just reset when a team could be penalised quite easily.
Keeping the scrum how it is but using the sanctions available more often would clear up the scrum. Along with everyone's little annoyance - Scrum halves putting the ball in straight and maybe even more importantly, putting the ball in quickly. To ask six 17-20 stone men to hold a position at which they are subjected to tonnes of force for longer than required is a recipe for disaster.
This coupled with maintaining a hit at scrum time provides safety but still a competition.
bigtobes.