The scrum collapse problem according to Link

[Lee Grant]

At last, an opinion of an elite ex-prop who is a current coach at the professional level. [I hope that this has not been part of another post.]

From the SMH:

******

Crouch, touch, pause... audience disengaged

Ewen McKenzie
March 24, 2011


Unlocking the scrum collapse has been a topic I have been avoiding due to the technical complexities of the task. I will do my best to enlighten you as to why the “dark arts” of scrummaging are so topical.


First and foremost, if you have never packed in a scrum or even been attached to one, then you go to the back of the commentary queue as you will never be able to fully understand the important ingredient of “feel”.


Scrummaging as a technical exercise has not changed vastly since its inception. The physical forces and dynamics remain the same and have even been worthy of scholarly analysis at universities where forces and leg angles have been measured and optimised.


Regardless of the science, there is the optimal and there is the effective. The effective come in all shapes and sizes and their abilities up front are partly due to the size of their thighs, glutes and chests. Importantly, it is also due to their ticker and nous.


Good scrum exponents are not just restricted to the front row – second rows that know how to push are revered and backrowers who remain attached long enough to the scrum to actually push are appreciated.


But does it solve our dilemma as to why scrums collapse?


A scrum will collapse because the directional forces - one and a half tonne in each direction - get to an impossible angle so that collapse is inevitable.


Loose footing, feet too far back, standing too far apart, poor techniques, inability, lack of sound mind and heart all might contribute. But essentially, the physics dictates it will happen if there is mis-alignment.


The scrum laws of today have evolved primarily to add safety to the process and assist in controlling the variables at the scrum engagement. The bit when the scrums come together has not changed a great deal. How you get to that point has.


“Crouch…..Touch…..Pause……Engage” is what is called the cadence and there are efforts worldwide to make the timing of this to be consistent and slow. This is to make the scrum entry more homogenous and safe.


What is interesting is that in some games there are many collapses and in some games there are none.


So why are there still collapses? There are the ad hoc reasons I have already mentioned and there is the possibility that it occasionally might be coached as some part of an overall strategy.


The referees have got the bum lot in the whole process as they have to administer the process when quite often, as I mentioned at the start, they might be at the back of the queue as not having the “feel” of what a scrum is like.


They are a diligent lot and no stone is unturned to find a refereeing solution. But it’s not necessarily solving the problem.


I cast my mind back 20-odd years and even looked at some video. We actually used to morph the scrums together. The front rows joined even before the second rows had arrived.


The scrum was effectively built or constructed and the only job the referee had was to wait for it to be steady and instruct the ball to be fed. I don’t reckon we are far off a revolution on this topic and we could do worse than just turn the clock back a bit and see if a better solution might be in the past.

I am betting the players and referees would like it all to be a bit simpler and self- regulated. I always say “less is more”.

****

I was misty eyed reading the bolded bit, and recognised a validation of my rants on the matter. I hope someone puts copies of this in the in-trays of the IRB Brahmins. I had a vision of the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and an almost nude Link offering his finger to to put life into the IRB. It was horrible.

I blame the third glass of wine after dinner.

 

[TOCC]

At last, an opinion of an elite ex-prop who is a current coach at the professional level. [I hope that this has not been part of another post.]

is this supposed to be a dig at me?
Links not the first person to suggest this solution LG, i would have linked to it, but i couldn't find the article

 

[Lee Grant]

I don't understand your remarks TOCC. Why would it be a dig at you?

 

[Sandpit Fan]

I was misty eyed reading the bolded bit, and recognised a validation of my rants on the matter. I hope someone puts copies of this in the in-trays of the IRB Brahmins. I had a vision of the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and an almost nude Link offering his finger to to put life into the IRB. It was horrible.

I blame the third glass of wine after dinner.

Lee,

I think you need to have a word with your local bottleshop - I reckon you've been stitched up with some dud stock that's been left in the sun. I might have to turn to the bottle myself to get that x rated word picture out of my mind.

One can only hope Links optimism on the revolution is well founded. Bring it on.

 

[vidiot]

I thought Link was channeling you when I read it, Link I mean Lee.

 

[TOCC]

I don't understand your remarks TOCC. Why would it be a dig at you?

my apologies, i misinterpreted your comment

 

[Lee Grant]

I'm slow - I still don't get it - but never mind.


If the IRB think about the situation out of the box (instead of trying to get the power engage working properly) I reckon that there will be a dramatic reduction to the time wasted in scrum resets and also to the cancelling of several scrum contests because of early engages being free kicked. I've mentioned Link's idea of going back to the future on a regular basis; too regular for most.


Although he didn't mention it we must infer, since he is an old prop, that Link wanted a valid contest at the scrum and that diluting it would be anathema to him. He also didn't mention, specifically, that in his day the contest came after the scrum was settled, not at the joining of the front rows in a power hit. If he did he would have added that, in his day, the dominant scrum dominated more than it does presently. Now referees reward inferior scrums, especially in professional games, by guessing who was at fault for a collapse, but very few of those refs are forwards, let alone front rowers; so they don't have a feel for the game.


Actually, when Link was playing, the malign virus of power hits had already infected the body of the rugby as in the first stages of a cancer. It was even healthier 10 and 20 years before he started playing. The laws don't have to to be changed a lot to fix it. All it would need is an ELV after the RWC at the NPC or Currie Cup level with Laws 20.1 (f) and (g) deleted and replaced with something else. 10 minutes should do it.


If that happens there will still be a few collapses, and pushes before the put in will be pinged as in the olden time, but there will be fewer resets, no early engages, and more rugby.


And as yours truly has mentioned before: scrummies will find that the tunnel will be defined enough, for long enough, to feed the ball in straight. Power hits have not only created the collapse disease, but also there has been a secondary infection whereby the disappearing tunnel has caused the crooked feed syndrome.


Referees recognised the struggle of front rowers subject to power hits to keep their feet in a place that made a tunnel credible; so they allowed scrummies to put the ball in skew. Thereby they created a convention for their successors to follow and without intervention by other stakeholders in the game, the power hit became an icon in modern rugby at the expense of the hooking contest, which died.


By going back to the future as Link recommends the hooking contest will rise again.


We've heard all that before Lee?


Agreed, as you were then.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Having grown up playing with the 'power hit' in the scrums and having seen footage of how a scrum was once packed I could never understand why the changed the laws. They appears to be perfectly competitive and more importantly far safer in terms of head and neck injuires. Packing in before applying force would make far more sense than charging in full throttle risking possible serious injury. So many times would I have to pull up on the hit against often smaller, less experience opponents. It was just too dangerous. Bring back the (forgive me for using this term) 'old school' scrums.

 

[Ruggo]

Link should get a nobel piece prize for that article.

Cheers for posting it Lee.

 

[Slim 293]

Anyone else seen that the NRL have introduced scrum penalties?!

It's causing a bit of a stir with many teams being penalised in the first couple of weeks...

Front rows have been penalised for incorrect binding!

INCORRECT BINDING IN A RUGBY LEAGUE SCRUM!?!?? THE FUCK?!??!!?

 

[Gagger]

David Flatman the English prop is pretty clear that we need to move this way. His point is that these guys' careers on the line and for them to be in the balance to a guessing referee is just ridiculous.

 

[Skippy]

I'm sorry but exactly how many quadraplegics and tetraplegics in the world of rugby over the last 30 years FROM scrum collapses(not from rucks or mauls or spear tackles etc) just from SCRUMS COLLAPSING????? - I'm going out on a limb and saying probably less than 5-10 all around the world in 30 years. And how many scrums is that in the last 30 years all around the world, how many resets and props and collapses.... probably millions. SO % wise, were talking about 0.01% or less.
People...we've been sold a lie. We got sold this myth that scrum safety was oh so important so Mums around the world would let little Jimmy (her fat son) pack down on a Saturday afternoon.
MAssive over reaction.
Now... how many players have given up the game or retired in the last 5 years, how many serious next injuries etc have occured from front rowers having 900 plus kilos smash into them?
And whats more dangerous or likely to cause an injury? The collapse or the impact of 900kg on your neck?
I know I'd perfer to be in a scrum that forms up without impact and then playing/pushing when the ball comes in, and possibly collapsing INSTEAD of being a bloke getting squashed from 900kgs hitting from behind him and another 900kgs hitting me from the front. And I reckon I know which is more likely to break me. Or cause me long term damage!

 

[TOCC]

I'm sorry but exactly how many quadraplegics and tetraplegics in the world of rugby over the last 30 years FROM scrum collapses(not from rucks or mauls or spear tackles etc) just from SCRUMS COLLAPSING????? - I'm going out on a limb and saying probably less than 5-10 all around the world in 30 years. And how many scrums is that in the last 30 years all around the world, how many resets and props and collapses.... probably millions. SO % wise, were talking about 0.01% or less.
People...we've been sold a lie. We got sold this myth that scrum safety was oh so important so Mums around the world would let little Jimmy (her fat son) pack down on a Saturday afternoon.
MAssive over reaction.
Now... how many players have given up the game or retired in the last 5 years, how many serious next injuries etc have occured from front rowers having 900 plus kilos smash into them?
And whats more dangerous or likely to cause an injury? The collapse or the impact of 900kg on your neck?
I know I'd perfer to be in a scrum that forms up without impact and then playing/pushing when the ball comes in, and possibly collapsing INSTEAD of being a bloke getting squashed from 900kgs hitting from behind him and another 900kgs hitting me from the front. And I reckon I know which is more likely to break me. Or cause me long term damage!

i have seen plenty of props, hookers and locks stretchered from the field because of injuries to there backs or necks which occurred in a miscalculated scrum engagement or collapsing scrum.. They might not have been quadriplegics(thankfully) but its nonsensical to dismiss the other neck or spinal injuries which occur.

The point is that a big cause of scrum's collapsing is due to the engagement, its not going to completely eradicate collapsing scrums, but it would surely reduce the number and potentially make it easier for the referee to officiate.

 

[Gagger]

, its not going to completely irradiate collapsing scrums,

What's it got to do with Japanese rugby?






Too soon?

 

[vidiot]

Too soon?

:-X

Nah. I've been waiting for someone else to kick off - thanks!

 

[DPK]

What's it got to do with Japanese rugby?






Too soon?

That's terrible.



...how could you confuse the Japanese and Ukrainian scrums?

 

[Lee Grant]

David Flatman the English prop is pretty clear that we need to move this way. His point is that these guys' careers on the line and for them to be in the balance to a guessing referee is just ridiculous.

I know I'd prefer to be in a scrum that forms up without impact and then playing/pushing when the ball comes in, and possibly collapsing INSTEAD of being a bloke getting squashed from 900kgs hitting from behind him and another 900kgs hitting me from the front.

The point is that a big cause of scrum's collapsing is due to the engagement, its not going to completely eradicate collapsing scrums, but it would surely reduce the number and potentially make it easier for the referee to officiate.

Right, right and right. It was good to read the opinion of Flatman, a practioner, as Link was, and not a theorist like myself.

Let's have a scrum ELV after the RWC that has the front row bind first, then the 2nd row then the back row, but all this done quickly, without delay caused by ritual posturing. Then let the struggle commence with the put in which should not be delayed a second.

Let's see if the dominant scrum can dominate and not suffer from the opinions of ex-backs with a whistle; let's see if the tunnel is clear as the ball is put in; let's see if that enables a straight put-in and if the refs enforce such; let's see if that encourages the defending hooker to hook. What a concept.

The main issue in rugby should be the safety of the players and this will be safer - just ask Ben Darwin. But the secondary issue is to get more rugby in 80 minutes. This will do it and with a clearer tunnel we should see the re-birth of an old skill: defending hookers trying to hook the ball.

But before that: have a scientific survey of professional front rowers done and also interview the oldies who played in the 60s and 70s.

 

[Newb]

i have seen plenty of props, hookers and locks stretchered from the field because of injuries to there backs or necks which occurred in a miscalculated scrum engagement or collapsing scrum.. They might not have been quadriplegics(thankfully) but its nonsensical to dismiss the other neck or spinal injuries which occur.

add to that all the shoulder/pectoral/leg/etc injuries from unsteady hits causing collapse. poor hits does more than tweak that neck/spine.

kepu got done by this.

 

[Scotty]

I suspect the IRB already know that if they get the front rows to bind first they will eliminate a lot of scrum collapses, however I don't think they will change this. At the moment the power hit at engagement is probably the most entertaining part of the scrum, particularly for non front rowers, and even more for non rugby fans. Taking this away will greatly reduce the spectacle of the scrum, so this is why I doubt it will ever happen.

Making them set up closer and touch the opposing props shoulders on the other hand could happen and make a difference.

 

[Groucho]

Unfortunately, the Northern Unions will vehemently oppose this for two reasons.

Firstly, they will reason that it is a ploy by Australia to neutralise the scrum dominance that they (rightly or wrongly) feel they currently have over us. They will not perceive it as a general solution to scrum resets. Their view will be that Australia causes scrum resets. This includes resets in games where Australia is not playing, in a kind of malign telekinesis.

Secondly, they will oppose any initiative with the letter E, L and V in close succession. This is despite the fact that ELVs have a long history as the channel for new laws to enter the game.

If this were Planet Rugby, I would end this post with c***s.