Scrum Talk

[Lee Grant]

My only doubt about all this is that the IRB probably don't have enough sense to implement such a thing. If it goes through it will get the approval of several old rugby front rowers like Poms Moore and Vickery who have spoken out against the power hit. No doubt there will be opinions the other way too.

One thing for sure - the old props should be consulted on it and I hope that there are some even older guys who played in the 60's and 70's also. Then it should be trialled at a lower level - going up to higher levels over time, like any ELV.



There is too much force generated in the power hit in professional rugby and the vectors have to be aligned just so to keep the scrum up. This power hit has destroyed the scrummage as it has lead to too many collapses, too many impact injuries the disappearance of the tunnel as props struggle to keep their feet, and the consequent need, and acceptance by referees, of the scrummie to put the ball in skew into a clear space behind his hooker's feet.

It has therefore destroyed one of the wonderful things in our game: the contest of hookers hooking for the ball. When commentators makes noises about a tight head now I think: "Tight head my arse; the lock kicked it forward."

The power hit has also spawned the abomination of the early engage as the front rows try to win the sprint for the gap. It just gives the referees another thing to get wrong and they do.

Worst of all it devalues the work of the dominant pack as referees play "Guess Who's At Fault", whistle and throw an arm up.

There are a few referees in this forum who will give po faced rebuttals but many of these gents never saw the scrums in the old days when the dominant scrum dominated as it should, without many collapses.



In the old days the packs just folded into each other but were not allowed to push. Sometimes the scrummie would be off picking up the ball and the 10 tight five guys were all packed down then the backrowers would pack in when the scrummie was ready.

There was no push until the ball was put in (that law incidentally hasn't changed). It was only then that everything happened. A weak scrum couldn't get away with an early hit or just getting lucky and getting it right on the money. Nor could they get the benefit of the referee luck when a scrum went down. They went down some but not nearly as often as now. And yes there were a few whistles when a team pushed too early but they would not compare with the "too earlys" now.

Too soft, too easy for below average scrummaging team? Ask any old codger who scrummaged against the Boks in their days of pomp just before or after WWII if they thought they got any change with referees' guesses. There was no place to hide then because the referees knew who was at fault more than now.


I've heard all the arguments against these matters since I started writing about it about 5 years ago when the consequences of the power hit became more and more apparent, and no doubt the same arguments like: "There is no problem if it is done right" (give me a break), but none have resonated with me.

As I have mentioned before: after the RWC is a good time to start an ELV on the matter. I had hoped that it would have been after the last RWC but after this one will do. Let's hope they get it right.

 

[Lee Grant]

I could live without the hit, but I do feel it is a very valuable marketing tool. You can't deny that in the world of sport it is very uniqe and quite spectacular.

And neither can you deny that all the scrum resets made necessary because of power hits are a turn off.

 

[Mank]

As a new member to this board, I am sorry if this topic has come up before, but I was recently talking to my brother who coaches a Jnr rugby team, and he mentioned that at a coaches meeting they were all told by "an ARU guy" that as of next year the 'hit' would be removed from the scrum. This will be announced after the world cup. It wasn't what the meeting was about, it was just mentioned.

If true, this is excellent news.

 

[Riptide]

LG

Excellent post. I found myself in agreement with nearly all your points. Removing the hit will not be a panacea, but coupled with a zero tolerance approach on binding and enforcing the straight feed, it will go a long way to cleaning up the scrum mess. I also think it will favor more technical props and be easier for refs to more accurately determine source of any collapse.

 

[Riptide]

And neither can you deny that all the scrum resets made necessary because of power hits are a turn off.

So true. It's a blight on the game. And refs are powerless to resolve it.

Some time ago, I was fortunate enough to sit among a few wise old front row heads (Keith Woods, Jason Leonard and subsequently Kingsley Jones. Given the fog of beer and wine, I can't remember who said what exactly but the general consensus was that the scrummie should not be permitted to put in the ball until the scrum is kept square, stationary and over the mark and that this must be accompanied by a re-introduction of a striking contest for the ball in which hookers really need to strike the damn ball i.e. a straight feed. Brian Moore has been a huge advocate of this.

Eliminating the hit accomplishes all the above and takes away the main reason for scrum collapses and resets when props either immediately drop the scrum if they are significantly disadvantaged by the hit, or loose footing because of the force of the hit.

It just makes the scrum so much easier for a ref who now will be able to focus on if the binding is square and legal before then focussing on the straight feed and if players remain bound. It's just better.

 

[Gagger]

While this topic has come up before, that's an intriguing piece of info IronAwe, thanks for a good first post.

I put this to Al Baxter on our podcast a few months back {LINK}, as to be honest I think something has to be done.

His retort was that this will disadvantage the more dominant pack, as smaller scrums can hook the ball quickly, go channel 1 and have it out before power can be applied. He cited the Japanese scrum as being a good example of this.

Al's view is that Rugby's point of difference is that everything is contestable - tackle, lineout, scrum. Hence, every part of the scrum should be, or we end up league style.

The answer I thought of 20 mins later was that while this is in essence the case, not all contesting all the time is good for the game. Look at how allowing the tackler to contest every ruck 100% just fucked the whole shebang until a year ago. Scrums have just gone the same way. The hit wasn't always there, but was the game more like league then?

However, as a rookie podcaster and non international prop, I fucked it up.

I LET THE NEWS GET AWAY

 

[Riptide]

Not sure what Baxter is advocating..But opposition dominance will still be reflected in the weaker scrum getting lousy quality ball going backwards AND a dominant scrum is more likely to truly crucify the weak and ultimately score points on its own put in.

The initial hit determines dominance for the remainder of that scrum. The hit, more so than technique, can determine momentum and positioning that will give one prop a decided advantage over another. not scrumming technique, and that initial hit also leads to a surplus of scrum collapses, resets and an absurd amount of time on resets that nobody wants and a lottery with respect to full arm penalties with potential game win/loss implications.

Love the podcast... Interview lots of props!

 

[Nusadan]

This very eruditie discussion lends credence to the theory that frontrowers do have a lot more grey matter between their ears than the rest of the team...and yes, I am an ex-frontrower who has had the honor of playing all the 3 positions with distinction...

 

[Scotty]

Baxter seems to believe removing the hit would lead to no contest at all. Is he saying scrums didn't use to be a contest. The old boys won't be happy!

After the scrum is bound and set I could see the ref giving a short command to start the contest, such as 'scrum' whereby pushing of the mark is then allowed whether the ball has been fed or not. As long as there is no collapse the scrummie needs to feed it or lose it. To give the forwards a chance to contest first I would have a requirement for the scrummie to be standing up when the scrum call is made, ensuring there is a small amount of time before the ball can be fed.

 

[Sully]

Back in April I wrote a blog post on this. Basically it states the Scrum can be fixed by enforcing the current laws. Have a look.

The Scrum – It’s Neglected, Not Broken!

 

[Gagger]

Yeah, that was a great article Sully

 

[cyclopath]

Baxter seems to believe removing the hit would lead to no contest at all. Is he saying scrums didn't use to be a contest. The old boys won't be happy!

I think it is more the notion that the "hit" has become the main focus; win the hit, and there is a better chance of winning the battle. Lose the hit, and it seems some teams are happy to let it go down to get another crack.
I would be happy to see less emphasis on the hit. There is still plenty of scope for a good contest after it, and a stronger scrum will still be advantaged.

 

[fatprop]

I can be a contrarian here, I reckon they are getting better. The slowing down the hit is having a positive effect

Most sides aren't going for the massive hit anymore (except the Crusaders) and that is making the scrums more stable with more work being done after the hit.

 

[Gnostic]

Why not have the best of both worlds. Have the packs almost together change the touch call to "bind" and then engage. Ball should be fed IMMEDIATELY and straight, let the contest begin. There will still be a "hit" it just won't be like two prize rams running at each other from 10 metres.

I disagree FP that the slower cadence is what has caused the marked improvement. IMO it has been the scrums being brought closer together and the refs actually enforcing the "touch" on the shoulder of the opposition. The closeness has depowered the impact a bit and ensured props aren't over extended if the opposition fades or "doesn't take the hit" to quote Kaplan.

 

[chasmac]

I think the problem has faded because we are currently playing S15 rather than internationals. I can see the issue of scrum resets raising its head again once the IRB refs come and take charge. S15 has either come up with a working solution - refs and players alike, or the various forward packs that we watch are all at a similar level.

 

[gtjack]

If this proves to be the case, it will be an absolute shame. As a loosehead myself, I know the thrill of getting a dominant hit over the opposition and pushing their scrum backwards before the ball is even fed, as well as the lows of being pushed back, losing the hit or even the rare collapse caused by a good tighthead.

While collapses are a pain to watch, the thrill of the hit in the game would have to be one of my favourite parts, if we were to lose it I would be more than annoyed.

That being said, if Super scrums and international scrums were able to stay up, it can't be that bad. It's interesting to note however, that schoolboy scrums at both low (D's, E's) and high levels, like the Firsts and 16A's, rarely collapse. Whether this is due to lower forces or power I'm not sure. It's not like First XV scrums aren't high force, while players might not be as heavy or strong, their strength and weight are nothing to be laughed at (usually props over 100 kilos, capable of bench pressing 120+) for that age.

I agree with whoever said the scrums would require a lot more strength, they already do, but upper body strength would be a key part of dominating the new style of scrum.

 

[rugbysmartarse]

If this proves to be the case, it will be an absolute shame. As a loosehead myself, I know the thrill of getting a dominant hit over the opposition and pushing their scrum backwards before the ball is even fed,

yeah, but that's illegal. you might as well say ou love to watch McCaw enter the ruck from the side, or See lineout jumpers get taken out in the air.

 

[fatprop]

If this proves to be the case, it will be an absolute shame. As a loosehead myself, I know the thrill of getting a dominant hit over the opposition and pushing their scrum backwards before the ball is even fed, as well as the lows of being pushed back, losing the hit or even the rare collapse caused by a good tighthead.

While collapses are a pain to watch, the thrill of the hit in the game would have to be one of my favourite parts, if we were to lose it I would be more than annoyed.

That being said, if Super scrums and international scrums were able to stay up, it can't be that bad. It's interesting to note however, that schoolboy scrums at both low (D's, E's) and high levels, like the Firsts and 16A's, rarely collapse. Whether this is due to lower forces or power I'm not sure. It's not like First XV scrums aren't high force, while players might not be as heavy or strong, their strength and weight are nothing to be laughed at (usually props over 100 kilos, capable of bench pressing 120+) for that age.

I agree with whoever said the scrums would require a lot more strength, they already do, but upper body strength would be a key part of dominating the new style of scrum.

I am old enough to remember no collapsing, the softer hit - pre the argie 8 man shoves the ABs & now the world has copied - with hookers striking and props scrummaging for position

 

[IronAwe]

I am old enough to remember no collapsing, the softer hit - pre the argie 8 man shoves the ABs & now the world has copied - with hookers striking and props scrummaging for position

And are you happy with it now going back to the old ways or do you think it would be better left alone? I wonder if we can find some footage on youtube of the old scrums, that would be good.

 

[Nusadan]

That being said, if Super scrums and international scrums were able to stay up, it can't be that bad. It's interesting to note however, that schoolboy scrums at both low (D's, E's) and high levels, like the Firsts and 16A's, rarely collapse. Whether this is due to lower forces or power I'm not sure. It's not like First XV scrums aren't high force, while players might not be as heavy or strong, their strength and weight are nothing to be laughed at (usually props over 100 kilos, capable of bench pressing 120+) for that age.

Scrums in schoolboy rugby are depowered by the fact the packs are not allowed to push for more than a metre and half as per u19 rugby laws.