There are new scrum laws? THAT’S RIGHT, RUGBY fan. The powers that be have enacted a new scrummaging sequence which they hope will have the by-product of easing the level of frustration among supporters and pundits concerning the game’s defining set-piece.
What’s new? Remember when the referee used to say ‘crouch, touch, pause: ENGAGE’?
Well, he hasn’t said that for a while. Since the start of the ITM Cup in New Zealand this summer, officials have instead been calling the scrum with: ‘crouch, bind, set.’
So…? ‘Set’ means go, but don’t get hung up on that. The big change is the instruction to bind.
Rather than the front rows attempting to get an advantage through a hit from a foot away, they will already be locked together when the pushing starts.
In addition to the changed sequence, referees have been told to start policing crooked feeds. In the first weekend of the Rugby Championship this drew the most ire as commentators complained of ‘pedantic’ refereeing when, in fact, only forgotten rules had been applied.
Why the change? While the reduction of dead time between reset scrums is a strong factor for the change, the IRB council’s John Jeffrey says the amended law is “purely down to player welfare.”
Jeffrey cites extensive tests conducted by the governing body which found that the impact force between two bound front rows will be reduced by 25%. In addition, he says that the key metric of the law’s success will be based on the number of collapsed scrums.
“We’re looking for at least a 70% completion rate. You might not think that is that much, but when you think, in the Six Nations this year, there was only 40% of scrums completed… it is purely down to player welfare.”
How is it working out? Once scrum halves get used to fair put-ins again, then the number of stoppages around the scrum will be cut to a fraction. Already the number of collapsed scrums per game has plummeted.
The reduced emphasis on the initial hit is being said to encourage a return to traditional skills: props will scrummage more and hookers will need to hook if the feed is genuinely straight.
Rob Griffith/AP/Press Association Images
All good news then? Perhaps not. In some quarters, there are fears that there will be reduced need for bulky props and second rows to lend their weight to the shove. This in turn, could lead to a change in the physical requirements for the tight five positions. A lighter, more agile lock would in theory make defences quicker to react and harder to break down.
Oh? What do the experts say? Former Wallaby hooker Phil Kearns has voiced another opposition to the law, saying it favours the team not in possession as they can shove with all eight men while the hooker of the team in possession must hook.
Another detractor is former New Zealand prop Richard Loe who complains that the new laws lead to ‘folding and dismantling’ after the feed.
However, writing in his column for South Africa Rugby magazine, Ireland’s new forwards coach John Plumtree is positive about the new sequence. Plumtree believes that fears of a reduced need for bulk up front is unfounded as the know-how of those working at the coal-face will always be an asset.
“Good props love the dark places on the field and there is no darker place than the front row battle. Having technically good props and a scrummaging hooker is still going to be crucial under the new laws.
“Because the hit has been de-powered, the back five now also have to generate power by – shock, horror – having to push in the scrums. This is great news for the backs, who now get a little more time with the ball before having someone like George Smith breathing down their necks.”
Joe Schmidt’s assistant also points out the added bonus of a longer time when forwards are actually shoving, thereby increasing their rate of fatigue and creating more opportunities for backs to find space.
“The main talking point has been that a scrum now lasts another three seconds,”Plumtree writes, “so it’s all now about ‘scrum endurance’ for the eight most important guys on the field as they are in a scrummaging position for a longer period of time.”
Have you played with the new sequence? Either way, give us your thoughts in the comments section below.
The straight feed will bring back hooker Competition. Give it a few months and everybody will adapt
When I played lock 20 years ago this is how you scrummaged. Hookers swung wildly, and skillfully to win possession with a well timed drive from the rest over the ball. As a second row I often found my face perilously close to flailing boots of opposing hookers.
The Argentinian national team of the time experimented with playing a three prop system. Effectively driving over the ball with a well timed shove as opposed to hooking thereby securing possession. I’m totally in favour of the new (old) rule having seen it in the southern hemisphere rugby championship. Imagine, a generation of rugby fans will see real scrums for the first time. Brilliant.
From watching the Rugby Championship, so far its working well. Theres still a little bit of confusion with the ball not being fed straight but this is just bad habit more than anything. Most importantly, scrums haven’t been collapsing nearly as much, with the ball coming back into play from the scrum, without stopages or penalties.
The 8 man drive seems to be of more importance than previously, when 6 & particularly 7 were only half bound, secondary drives are now a bigger weapon.
Other than that though, smaller hookers with low centres of gravity (Strauss as compared to Hartley for eg), will surely benefit.
If the ball is realistically put in any way straight, it’s going to be very difficult for a 6′ hooker to get his foot forward to hook under that much pressure.
We’ll surely see some contentious ‘not straight’ decisions at crucial points too.
MY RESPONSE TO: THE SCORE
In my opinion player welfare and safety has been one of several factors, otherwise these changes would have been introduced in 2009 (two years before the 2011 RWC), as these problems started in 2005-2006.
The most damaging problem for the IRB has been the downtime by rests and collapses which affected television operators, television viewers and live spectators at the grounds. The above factors had a potential for reduced revenues and viewer loyalty.
Referees were not un-affected by it because a minority of them really know how to referee the scrums professionally and proficiently. On the other hand a majority of referees AT ALL LEVELS remain clueless about the complex scrum law which needs an urgent overhaul and update into 21st century.
There are several main POINTS in this Scrum Law changes that may not be apparent to the untrained eyes of aficionados:
a) Both packs are now formed almost touching ear to ear
instead of the customary 80 cm approx of before
b) As a consequence THE DANGEROUS HIT has been
eliminated, this is where the estimated 25% approx.
reduction in the engagement pressure is likely to be
achieved
c) An addition of the PRE-BIND is also a new feature
d) Scrum must be Stationery and Square before put in
e) Ball put in has now been stressed to be strictly in the
middle
Not all is plain sailing here because there will be side effects in other areas: As Phil Kearns said, one team will be pushing with 16 legs and the other with 15.
Now HOOKING is a tactical choice, the put-in team may opt for pushing too if so desire. Thus, I do not begrudge this problem that much because it provides the non-put-in team a slight chance of regaining possession which is part of the “spirit of rugby and the Law”.
My “bee in my bonnet” is that now both front rows have adopted a different, unsafe (in my view) spine and neck position, the pre-bind also lends for older experienced props to manipulate the opposition and to slip and very the grip at will after the initial binding (reflecting Richard Loe’s views)!
In a nutshell I think the risk has increased here and we will only see the consequences in 5 or 10 years (mostly after retirement)
To address the concerns of “change on forwards’ physiques”, The All Blacks in particular have demonstrated in 2 matches that a disciplined and well timed scrum still can make great use of a very solid tight five and a committed back row. Thus, if anyone thinks that the scrum has been depowered they are kidding themselves. The only thing has been depowered is “the engagement” by elimination of the pernicious HIT (which never existed in the Law book o coaching manuals!
“Dark Places” are not Good Props’ first choice of habitat. We play (I played) where we are picked and do the best we can for our team.
Because “the scrum tree has been substantially shaken in recent times ”the whole eight must commit, must say this was always the case before. If you had a volatile back row at scrum time it was at your own peril.
When the scrum goes well, credit to the “8” and when the scrum doesn’t go well, debits to the “8”.
The backline shouldn’t be concerned with the pack of forward whether they are here or there, they have the obligation and very important job of crossing the gain line and putting the pack onside!!!
Thank you,
Enrique TOPO Rodriguez
You’re an awful plank.
Some good, pertinent points. I’m not sure that the danger quotient for front rows has been increased, though and just as in the past, there will be a need for strong, proficient props to allow hookers the freedom to strike for put-ins. The scrum is a weapon again.
Let’s just start playing league
This is all just enforcing laws that were already in place but had been ignored, and clarifying others
Straight feed was always in the rule book. Clever scrumhalves will adapt by putting the ball in such a way that it will bounce toward their own side when it touches the ground. Also no reason why a team can’t do an 8 man shove on their own ball, particularly if the feed is clever.
Again, having the scrum steady before put-in and not allowing a shove til put-in were always in the laws and had been ignored over the years, thanks mainly to sanzar’s insistence on having a better product. You want fast and loose with limited contesting at the breakdown or restart, go play league.
The removal of the ‘hit’ should have been done years ago. Nothing in the laws ever stated that opposing scrums had to charge at each other for a metre away.