Veteran Lions lobby IRB for scrum overhaul

[Tomsey]

Veteran Lions lobby IRB for scrum overhaul
October 19, 2011 - 11:04AM
Prop forwards fear 'unjust' rules mean World Cup final could be decided by referee's guesswork writes Mike Robinson in Auckland.
Three of Britain's greatest prop forwards have submitted a paper to the International Rugby Board calling for sweeping changes to the scrummaging laws.
Former Lions Fran Cotton, Mike Burton and Ray McLoughlin have branded the present rules "unjust, illogical and inoperable" and claim they could result in Sunday's World Cup final between New Zealand and France being decided by guesswork from the referee.
In all, they have demanded that 13 laws be "amended or eliminated" by the IRB.
<small style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; font-style: inherit; font-size: 12px; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; ">Advertisement: Story continues below</small>
At the heart of their argument is the unworkable nature of the law which states the scrum must be absolutely level when engaged, which they suggest is physically impossible.
The former forwards, who were aided in writing the report by Mike Molloy, a former international lock forward and a medical adviser to the IRB and Ireland, argue that "the action of pushing is initiated by pushing the foot backwards and downwards".
The subsequent forces generated by the loosehead prop is therefore both horizontal and upwards, so the only way that the opposing tighthead prop can keep the scrum stable is by exerting downward pressure with his head below the level of his hips - an offence under the laws, punishable by a penalty kick.
The report states: "If one prop were 6ft 4in and the opposing prop were 5ft 10in then, if everything were equal, it would be likely that the hips of the taller player would be above the level of his shoulders. Surely therefore this law constitutes bias against taller men."
Too often, the report continues, referees are required to "assume" a crime that is unjust and contrary to logic "at least 80 per cent of the time".
The Lions veterans are critical of the tendency for the tighthead to be penalised because he has got himself into a bad position or because he was not strong enough or technically good enough to hold the scrum up - the equivalent, they argue, of a centre being penalised for being "too slow". They call for the introduction of an "unconvertible penalty kick" which would prevent opposing teams kicking at goal after a scrum offence. They also say that a scrum should be reset only once before a range of options becomes available to a referee.
Their analysis of the World Cup pool game between Ireland and Australia, refereed by Bryce Lawrence, indicated 22 scrums, 11 collapses and seven penalties. Just under half - 43 per cent - of the game's points came from scrummage offences and it would have been over half if the kickers had been successful with all their attempts.
Cotton, Burton, McLoughlin and Molloy also criticised other aspects of the scrummaging laws. They point out that twisting is a penalty but inevitable because of the torque created by props who are not directly opposite each other. Slipping the bind is also an offence, but many of the initial collapses in the Ireland v Australia match were caused because Cian Healy could not grip Ben Alexander's skin-tight jersey.
The quartet say that the present command of "crouch, touch, pause, engage" should be replaced by "stand, touch, engage, push". They argue that the requirement to crouch "increases the disposition towards charging" and that the pause "creates a sense of tension of the kind that would apply to a 100-yard sprinter on the starting blocks".
These instructions have created 'hits' that were never part of the scrummage concept and the report warns that spine or neck injuries, coupled with arthritis, will be the long-term consequence.
Cotton, Burton and McLoughlin drew up separate reports, critiqued each other's works, and then prepared the final document in consultation with Molloy.
The paper is now in the hands of Graham Mourie, former New Zealand captain and flanker, and the chairman of the IRB's advisory committee on rugby's laws.
The Telegraph, London
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...um-overhaul-20111019-1m6yz.html#ixzz1bCiAKOTp

What do we think of this then? makes sense to me, although as a fullback what I know about scrums could be written on the back of a 20 cent piece. don't know what I think about the "unkickable penalty" but I do agree that over half the points in a game coming from scrum penalties is way too much.
I would be interested to hear a props take on their analysis.

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

I'm in favour of this. If the hit is depowered, all this crap with reset scrums will disappear and instead the better technical scrummager will win out. The hit is a relatively recent phenomenon anyway so it's not as though this will , as the cliche goes, "turn rugby union into rugby league".

 

[Seaton]

Agree fully, very happy to hear I am not the only one on the forum that thinks that 'the hit' causes more problems than it gives positives to the game.

 

[ranger]

Love it. It would be sad to see the hit go, as its a bit of fun for me as a flanker (not so much for the guys bearing the weight though i assume.) but its for the good of the game. They point they raise is very right, its the only aspect of the game in which players are actively penalised for honest mistakes and just plain not being very good.

P.S a tad convenient that the NH guys want to change the scrum laws up now that King Franks has risen to the throne

 

[User1245]

Yeah I agree about the hit being half the problems with reset scrums. And please nobody come with the whole 'tiddly winks' argument. Scrums should not be decided on whether you can hold your bind on some dudes sweaty jersey with 800 kgs of man in momentum behind you. Also can we please sort out skew put ins while we at? Genia basically throws it in straight to the locks, everytime. Keep an eye out tonight.

 

[nickdnz]

I'd hate losing the hit. As a prop, the entire "stand, touch, engage, push" is a shocking idea. The crouch is what generates the power and the position to push. What he seems to want is hitting a scrum while standing virtically (how does that even work?!) and how is that not automatically disadvantaging taller player who don't have as low centre of gravity?

There does need to be several changes to the scrum, which is pretty evident. They are right about the jerseys and as a prop I'd be more than happy to wear a jersey considerably looser fitting than a skin tight jersey, it would improve my scrummaging (easier to bind on your own player and theirs) and I can walk around the field with a tad more pride. I also think that the rules need to change in terms of the calls. They've slown down way too much and the "pause" is redundent. If I was the change the calls it would be "crouch, touch, engage" or even "crouch, touch, hold, engage". Either way it shouldn't be more than four seconds. All it takes is one man of eight to get over zelous and your teams gets penalised for an early hit and everyone turns to the props.

I also disagree when penalties are given for when a scrum disintergrates as they mentioned. His analogy is dead on. I have no problem with a scrum continuing to drive and plow through the other scrum, but if they're not good enough to hold it, you can't punish them for it, they're not intentionally breaking any rules.

 

[TrueSlawter]

Or even just make the pause stage last no longer than 2 seconds. "Stand, Touch, Engage, Push" makes no sense really to me as a second row/backrow either.. if they go that route it should be "Crouch, touch, engage, push"

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

Also can we please sort out skew put ins while we at?

There's a way around this - don't have the scrum half put the ball into the scrum. Have the referee place the ball on the ground, the packs bind over the ball and upon the refs command, the hookers strike for it.

I can't say crooked put ins bother me though. If a team is inept enough to knock the ball on, why should they get an equal opportunity to get the ball back at the following scrum? Some advantage must be given to the team putting the ball in since they didn't screw up in the first instance.

 

[Conal]

I'd hate losing the hit. As a prop, the entire "stand, touch, engage, push" is a shocking idea. The crouch is what generates the power and the position to push. What he seems to want is hitting a scrum while standing virtically (how does that even work?!) and how is that not automatically disadvantaging taller player who don't have as low centre of gravity?
.

could keep a similar setup to now just instead of touch pause engage
the front row crouch (closer together than at he moment)

bind or form (effectively a gentle hit forming the front row allowing set binds)

then the ref could call in for the ball also signifying when the push is allowed if this is done also allow the ref to look at the put in closer as well

so
crouch
bind
ball in

 

[McTallshort]

There's a way around this - don't have the scrum half put the ball into the scrum. Have the referee place the ball on the ground, the packs bind over the ball and upon the refs command, the hookers strike for it.

I can't say crooked put ins bother me though. If a team is inept enough to knock the ball on, why should they get an equal opportunity to get the ball back at the following scrum? Some advantage must be given to the team putting the ball in since they didn't screw up in the first instance.

And what advantage does that give to the team awarded the scrum?

Regards scrums, we need to go back 15 years to when you couldnt push before the ball was in (less collapsing on the hit) and the ball going in straight on the call of the attacking hooker. The whole touch pause engage thing is a farce and the penalty for collapsing is a complete lottery. Its about the only area of the game that has gone backwards since the game went pro.

 

[j'nuh]

Simple solution to scrum put-ins: the ball must be thrown down the middle channel, but can go anywhere in the middle channel. That way, it doesn't get thrown directly to the 8 (which makes scrums pointless), but there is an advantage to being the team putting the ball into the scrum.

While we're at it, a ref on each side of the scrum is needed. An assistant ref (whichever is closest) can come in and stand opposite to the ref. It's better than the refs continuously switching sides depending on which side the mischief is happening on. Each ref checks the binding on their respective sides, and whilst the main ref checks what's happening in the contact area in the scrum, the assistant ref can police the put-in.

 

[formerlyfastwing]

We need to de-value the scrum in the game, and for that matter the line out....too much fat donkey time with the ball, not enough slim fit good looking guy time with the ball, and touching it down in goal, that should banned to....

In all seriousness the scrum needs sorting. While an important part of the game, it takes up too much of the gametime. I wonder if the type of jersy being worn by props these days is part of the problem, i would suspect it's hard to bind on a sweaty greased pig wearing a skin tight jersy. I don't really have any answers to the problems, as i see the scrum, as a mass of humanity that delays me getting the ball and setting the field alight with my silky skills, be it, kicking running or passing.

I actually think 2 ref would be good for the game in general. It might be the only thing league has got right.

 

[nickdnz]

We need to de-value the scrum in the game, and for that matter the line out....too much fat donkey time with the ball, not enough slim fit good looking guy time with the ball, and touching it down in goal, that should banned to....

In all seriousness the scrum needs sorting. While an important part of the game, it takes up too much of the gametime. I wonder if the type of jersy being worn by props these days is part of the problem, i would suspect it's hard to bind on a sweaty greased pig wearing a skin tight jersy. I don't really have any answers to the problems, as i see the scrum, as a mass of humanity that delays me getting the ball and setting the field alight with my silky skills, be it, kicking running or passing.

I actually think 2 ref would be good for the game in general. It might be the only thing league has got right.

Which is what a back says while sitting on a computer, miles away from where real men can hurt them.

 

[dullonien]

I have never understood the 'hit'. All it basically does is give the advantage to the team that best anticipates the 'engage' command from the ref. The scrum should be fully formed before any pushing is allowed, just like it used to be. This would allow time for the props to make propper binds, even on tight shirts, and allow the genuinely better scrummagers full advantage of their superiority. It would hugely reduce the collision involved, making the whole thing much safer for all concerened. Finally, it would allow the referee time to propperly look at dodgy feeds. I honestly can't see a single downside, yet most scrums should be completed first time (theoretically), reducing the amount of time scrums take up in the match, and it should be more obvious the ref's who the offending player is if it does collapse.

As for the penalties at scrum time. That's a tough one. Quite often, it's the props choice to collapse if he's under pressure, and that choice is made to prevent the opposing team going forward. The analogy comparing it to a slow centre isn't quite right, because if a player is outpaced by an opposition, he simply concedes a linebreak which can directly result in a try, he doesn't have another choice like a prop does to collapse/stand-up under pressure. I feel there are too many points scored directly from infringements at the scrum, but I hope that getting rid of the 'hit' will reduce change that on it's own.

I think something should be tested as soon a possible, because it's all just a bit of a farce at the moment.

 

[Groundhog]

I have never understood the 'hit'. All it basically does is give the advantage to the team that best anticipates the 'engage' command from the ref. The scrum should be fully formed before any pushing is allowed, just like it used to be. This would allow time for the props to make propper binds, even on tight shirts, and allow the genuinely better scrummagers full advantage of their superiority. It would hugely reduce the collision involved, making the whole thing much safer for all concerened. Finally, it would allow the referee time to propperly look at dodgy feeds. I honestly can't see a single downside, yet most scrums should be completed first time (theoretically), reducing the amount of time scrums take up in the match, and it should be more obvious the ref's who the offending player is if it does collapse.

As for the penalties at scrum time. That's a tough one. Quite often, it's the props choice to collapse if he's under pressure, and that choice is made to prevent the opposing team going forward. The analogy comparing it to a slow centre isn't quite right, because if a player is outpaced by an opposition, he simply concedes a linebreak which can directly result in a try, he doesn't have another choice like a prop does to collapse/stand-up under pressure. I feel there are too many points scored directly from infringements at the scrum, but I hope that getting rid of the 'hit' will reduce change that on it's own.

I think something should be tested as soon a possible, because it's all just a bit of a farce at the moment.

it really doesnt help when the ref thinks hes a master of suspense and pauses on the engage leading to some guy engaging early and giving away the penalty