• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Expert report: De-power the scrum hit

snoopy snoopy dog dog

First XV
TRF Legend
Joined
Oct 12, 2006
Messages
4,662
Club or Nation
Leinster
As reported by Brian Moore in the Telegraph.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...s-of-IRB-examination-of-the-modern-scrum.htmlRugby union's referees left exposed by findings of IRB examination of the modern scrum


This column has consistently, many would say pathologically, complained about rugby's modern scrum and the way in which the hooker's role has been unilaterally altered by the failure of elite referees to properly apply its laws.


This has never been, as some have claimed, because of personal affront that players of my ilk have been almost completely marginalised; it is far wider and at its very foundation is the issue safety. Hooker is the most dangerous position on a rugby field and I have visited too many catastrophically injured hookers since retirement.

Three years ago I posited the prospect of the Rugby Football Union and International Rugby Board being sued for damages for personal injury because of their failure to act over dangers in scrum which were well known and for which there were solutions. My basic premise was that as a result of the then new 'crouch, touch, pause, engage' sequence and the condoned ignoring of other laws, the scrum had become a contest of brute power where the primary aim of both packs was to win the 'hit'.

The word hit is not in the law book but is now freely quoted and accepted by referees who allow front rows to engage with as much force as possible and immediately thereafter drive forward as quickly as possible. Not only do they condone this dangerous practice, they have actually invented a new penalty offence, one not in the law book, of 'not taking the hit', which actually means penalising one pack for not pushing with enough illegally-early force to counterbalance the other pack's illegal shove.

Elite referees, including Paddy O'Brien, the then IRB refereeing supremo, didn't accept the point saying they had too many more important things to worry about to apply the laws as written and that most people were not that concerned anyway. They might now have to reconsider that stance, because recently the IRB published a report on the most detailed examination ever of the scrum, undertaken over three years in South Africa and at Bath University. It isn't revolutionary in the sense that it contains startling results, indeed it mostly confirmed many things already known by experienced practitioners. The point it that for the first time these things cannot be dismissed as anecdotal or personal, they come from tests carried out at six levels of rugby from international to school.

The conclusions to the report expressly support my above contention that "modern scrumming involves a high initial impact or 'hit' on engagement, followed by sustained pushing forces throughout the scrum" — contrary to the law stating pushing should only begin when the ball leaves the scum-half's hands.


Chief amongst a number of recommendations is the removal of the artificially created "hit" by, at least at amateur level, front rows engaging passively. This would most easily be achieved by the addition of the second and back rows quickly thereafter.

I also claimed that impact scrummaging was giving rise to the risk of chronic back injury and early retirement and permanent longer term spinal damage. The empirical conclusion of the report is that the scrum is now " ... a situation which has the potential to produce the repetitive sub-critical injuries that in theory could lead to chronic pain and early degenerative changes to the cervical and lumbar spine".
I also recently criticised the IRB's failure to address the well-known fact that modern jerseys, designed to prevent gripping in tackles, are dangerous when props are supposed to bind on them in scrums. The report asks for clothing modifications.

The IRB, particularly its refereeing department, is now in an entirely new legal position. Previously courts had to decide between the opinions of opposing expert witness, of which I am one, based on their personal experience and knowledge. Now they have concrete research and recommendations from rugby's global governing body to assist their decision. The IRB, RFU and other Unions can no longer defend cases by claiming a contrary view is just one expert's opinion. If they do not take all reasonably practical steps to follow their own safety recommendations they will have no defence, legally or morally.

The hitherto silent majority and I, as a no-so-silent Jonah wailing in the wilderness, are tired of farcical, dangerous and illegal scrums. We are now supported by the IRB's report recommending they "Bring back the 'scrum'", which is backed by a direction for correct Law interpretation and enforcement by the referees.

No more excuses; we're not talking about trifles. Elite referees are not amateurs, giving up their spare time, they are decently paid employees who can and should be sacked if they do not get in line. Brett Gosper as the IRB's CEO and Joel Jutge, as referee supremo now have the impartial evidence to implement the necessary changes.
It's bound to happen. I think it's a good thing and should have been implemented during the summer instead of the ridiculous "crouch, touch, set" procedure. I suppose now the IRB can claim they're only doing it on safety grounds thanks to a report rather than being hit with the lazy criticism that they're turning Union into League.
 
As reported by Brian Moore in the Telegraph.


It's bound to happen. I think it's a good thing and should have been implemented during the summer instead of the ridiculous "crouch, touch, set" procedure. I suppose now the IRB can claim they're only doing it on safety grounds thanks to a report rather than being hit with the lazy criticism that they're turning Union into League.

Unfortunately, the report didn't come out until after the C-T-S decision was made.

When we used to put scrums down THIS way, we didn't have anywhere near as many problems as we do now.



0:06 sec - Scrum ordered
0:16 sec - scrum engaged and packed (10 seconds)
0:17 sec - ball in (1 sec)
0:21 sec - ball out (4 sec)

When do you ever see "scrum ordered" to "ball out" in 15 seconds these days!?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
smartkcooky, I remember those days. I don't remember seeing any collapsing of the scrum either and no crouch, touch, hold on for 5 minutes, scratch your balls, engage. the front rows just sorted it out for themselves, and the scrum half fed the ball into the corridor between the front rows, not into the locks legs.
 
The problem is, there will be many Affiliates who won't be looking at returning to the old school way of scrumming, due to their lack of powerful scrummagers, (here's looking at you Australia).

It seems that the IRB implemented these new process, to make the scrum section a more level playing field which nations like Argentina, New Zealand and SOuth Africa used to dominate.

I for one would be pro-old school. As a former Hooker and Prop, these new procedures are a real pain in the ass (literally)
 
Can you explain why in your first paragraph, what defines the old way as requiring stronger scrummagers.
serious question, I wouldn't know the first thing about scrummaging.
 
Can you explain why in your first paragraph, what defines the old way as requiring stronger scrummagers.
serious question, I wouldn't know the first thing about scrummaging.

Well in the past the winning of the scrum wasn't about the hit, but more about the physical strength of the front row and the push they can accumulate to win the scrum.

now with the hit, it takes that away and focusses more on technique and timing... It's like Jonah Lomu Rugby Challenge... whoever's timing is the best and the quickest will win the scrum, no matter how poor they are...
 
I think it's an interesting discussion. I enjoy watching a lot of old rugby games. While I'm sure we can all agree that the quality of play now is a lot better than all those years ago, the scrum was definitely better in the 60's and 70's. I think going back to the old way would be best and I would love to know why it was changed in the first place. Were there any safety concerns around the old style of scrummaging?
 
That's a matter of opinion. While skill levels may be higher in the modern game and athleticism is far superior, the sport was far better back in the 1990s then now due to of fewer, less complicated laws (not so dependant on interpritation) strangling the game. Safety in scrummaging was not prevalent when the whole thing was built 1 row at a time (front-locks-back) rather then the modern pre-form and hit.

Hitting had its excitement in early profesionalism, but its now the bane of the game due to repeated resets instead of being a decent and quick restart. I roll my eyes in some matches when sir has no control then there's a likely 3-5 minutes repeated reset after a knockon is called.



Back then also, the referee wasn't a celebrity who dictated the ways and falls of a match. I thinking specifically of Wayne Barnes, Nigel Owens and Steve Walsh in that instance.
 
Last edited:
Back then also, the referee wasn't a celebrity who dictated the ways and falls of a match. I thinking specifically of Wayne Barnes, Nigel Owens and Steve Walsh in that instance.

Oh I dunno; there was always Clive Norling.
 
Fields were greener back then too :p.

On a serious note though, I don't really mind. I play prop and for the most part the hit is fine (haven't tried these new laws). However taking the hit out of the game wouldn't over worry me - it would mean less needless free kicks and penalties for an early engage which is nice because the logic of 16 people at any one point of time not going early, can be frustrating. For me the scrums from old clips tended to look like 'golden oldies' in which the people just so happen to push - but from being in that situation I can see how it would be both quicker and safer.
 
Well in the past the winning of the scrum wasn't about the hit, but more about the physical strength of the front row and the push they can accumulate to win the scrum.

now with the hit, it takes that away and focusses more on technique and timing... It's like Jonah Lomu Rugby Challenge... whoever's timing is the best and the quickest will win the scrum, no matter how poor they are...

Is that really a bad thing?

I play prop and I've only ever played with the hit I've also now played with crouch touch pause engage and crouch touch set. I actually prefer the former sequence to play with as I think it gives the prop with the better technique a better chance of winning the contest. I don't want it to be that a prop who is bigger and stronger is guaranteed to win the scrum.
 
Is that really a bad thing?

I play prop and I've only ever played with the hit I've also now played with crouch touch pause engage and crouch touch set. I actually prefer the former sequence to play with as I think it gives the prop with the better technique a better chance of winning the contest. I don't want it to be that a prop who is bigger and stronger is guaranteed to win the scrum.

If this happened it would mean that Tony Buckley would be among the world's leading scrummagers. That's a bizarre thought.
 
Bigger doesn't necessarily mean stronger, I recall Tom Smith wrecking many players before the hit was so prevalent. He was hardly a big man.

Conversely, Sheridan is one of the biggest around and he's a bag of **** in the tight.
 
Unfortunately, the report didn't come out until after the C-T-S decision was made.

When we used to put scrums down THIS way, we didn't have anywhere near as many problems as we do now.
Smartcooky, you're usually on the ball with this sort of thing. Are there discussions in place to implement the new recommendations?

My line that it should have been implemented during the summer instead of the ridiculous "crouch, touch, set" procedure was related to my opinion that it shouldn't have taken delivery to the IRB of this report for them to realize that the scrum farce needed drastic action. The recommendations should both speed up the game and improve player safety. It's a no brainer. By having a group say it's for safety reasons that the scrum should be changed, the IRB are shielded from accusations that they're doing it to improve the spectacle for TV and casual fans.
 
Is that really a bad thing?

I play prop and I've only ever played with the hit I've also now played with crouch touch pause engage and crouch touch set. I actually prefer the former sequence to play with as I think it gives the prop with the better technique a better chance of winning the contest. I don't want it to be that a prop who is bigger and stronger is guaranteed to win the scrum.

I'm not saying it is a bad thing, I'm just saying that the scrum is already so technical, which it shouldn't be, and these new rules and implementations requires the props (the Anchors) to be more technical than strong. the real quality props would do well in both circumstances as they are students of the game. My example would be Os Du Randt. Who played with the old rules in the 1995 world cup and was seen as one of the best props in the world at that time. Then in 2007 he was again part of the Boks world cup winning team and under the new laws he still was great.

Guys like Ben Robinson would never have been a good prop if the old laws were still in play. and the many complaints other props have over his scrummaging is proof of that.
 
I'm not saying it is a bad thing, I'm just saying that the scrum is already so technical, which it shouldn't be, and these new rules and implementations requires the props (the Anchors) to be more technical than strong. the real quality props would do well in both circumstances as they are students of the game. My example would be Os Du Randt. Who played with the old rules in the 1995 world cup and was seen as one of the best props in the world at that time. Then in 2007 he was again part of the Boks world cup winning team and under the new laws he still was great.

Guys like Ben Robinson would never have been a good prop if the old laws were still in play. and the many complaints other props have over his scrummaging is proof of that.

I see more where you're coming from now but Randt was also a fairly big guy as well as a great scrummager and I don't think anyone's ever considered Robinson a good prop.

I'm fairly small for a prop but I'm technically good often I can't be as effective if the heavier scrum comes so close the hit is essentially a fold in. I just fell the scrum should be a battle of skill as well not simply a pushing contest.
 
Its a means to restart, not an epic gladiatorial battle.
 

Latest posts

Top