Scrums - the dinosaur of Rugby evolution.

[gypsy]

Extending this - why not a 2/3/2 scrum formation

as long as teh ball is fed between the two props then all is fine

then you can get away with not pushing as well

This.

Although, would change it to a 2-3-1 formation, to keep it at 6 in the scrum.

 

[siv]

This.

Although, would change it to a 2-3-1 formation, to keep it at 6 in the scrum.

No 2-3-2 and only 5 in the backline

 

[docbrown]

The point is there should be some of effort being made to devise a workable way to keep some semblance of a scrum (preferably contestable) in the game. There should be some workshops going on looking at different scrum/pack formations and seeing what might work.

Having 3 men in the front row is not something they invented at Rugby School - it is a 20th century invention in RU/RL. The first RL packs often had 4 or 5 in the front row, the NZ All Blacks in late 1800s had two in the front row, Souths Rabbitohs packs in the 1920s were usually 5-man (rarely using a lock).

For example, I would like to see how a scrum packed with 5 men could work - two in the front row, three in the 2nd row. With less players in the front row, the ball (and hooking legs) will be much more visible, much less able to cheat. Perhaps the front rowers can only be allowed to hook the ball with their outside leg, but must must hook it thru the space between themself and their other front rower ie. inside the pack.

Maybe the ball shouldn't be fed, but the scrum contest start with the ball stationary in the scrum and between the two front rows (referee to blow whistle for contest to start).

I've no idea in reality if the above will work. but we do know that no solution is going to suddenly drop from the sky. Some effort to trial alternatives at a scrum workshop needs to be done. Otherwise just give up and replace scrums with a handover.

I remember talking to you about this and I think we're in agreement regarding the stationary ball - it's one less area to penalise. I envision a scrum working a bit like an American football scrimmage line but with hooking rather than the snap.

The two packs bind seperately seperated by the physical presence of the ref. The ball is already on the ground between them. The ref withdraws and blows the whistle, the packs collide and start hooking the ball and pushing. Keep the 3-2-1 concept with only the loose forward or waiting dummy half allowed to touch the ball once its cleared the line of the second row forwards.

 

[newman]

I remember talking to you about this and I think we're in agreement regarding the stationary ball - it's one less area to penalise. I envision a scrum working a bit like an American football scrimmage line but with hooking rather than the snap.

The two packs bind seperately seperated by the physical presence of the ref. The ball is already on the ground between them. The ref withdraws and blows the whistle, the packs collide and start hooking the ball and pushing. Keep the 3-2-1 concept with only the loose forward or waiting dummy half allowed to touch the ball once its cleared the line of the second row forwards.

That's a good idea but it won't happen because of the likelihood of neck injuries in the junior game.

A big part of the reason scrums are so "diluted" is that front rowers were getting neck injuries in their teenage years. In the mid 90s I played in TWO matches where scrums were responsible for broken necks.

I don't see why it's ao hard for scrums to work like this.

- ball must be fed in front row tunnel, as it is today (rolled into the second row is ok)
- no hooking.
- if the opposition can push the other team off the ball, then so be it (without screwing)
- if the ball bounces off legs and into the other packs possession, then so be it.

The scrum as it is is actually ok, it's just geniused when refs repack the scrums because the ball bounced to the non feeding team, or stops the non feeding team from pushing.

 

[gypsy]

No 2-3-2 and only 5 in the backline

So only 12 on the field?

 

[firechild]

So only 12 on the field?

I think the insinuation is that the halfback is counted as part of the scrum even though he is actually an active part of the backline.

 

[RL1908]

I remember talking to you about this and I think we're in agreement regarding the stationary ball - it's one less area to penalise. I envision a scrum working a bit like an American football scrimmage line but with hooking rather than the snap.

The two packs bind seperately seperated by the physical presence of the ref. The ball is already on the ground between them. The ref withdraws and blows the whistle, the packs collide and start hooking the ball and pushing. Keep the 3-2-1 concept with only the loose forward or waiting dummy half allowed to touch the ball once its cleared the line of the second row forwards.

I'm not in favour of the collision. Even in RU it is not a traditional concept, having been introduced to the game in the 1980s. In RU the winning of the collision goes towards winning the scrum. RL doesn't have RU style scrummaging props to play that sort of scrummage battle. Nor do I think the RL community wants that sort of scrummaging game.

What I suggested was stationary packs (after binding to the opposing front row), each halfback behind his pack, and a stationary ball in the centre tunnel. When the whistle blows, the props can hook and/or the packs can push.

The idea of a two-man front rows is that the ball and hooking is much more visible than under three-man front rows - making officiating much easier, and cheating less likely.

But a I wrote earlier - that is all fine in theory, but what happens on a training field who knows...maybe it will prove quite good, maybe it will be a dud, maybe it will suggest a better alternative.

 

[southwalesrabbitoh]

Seriously get rid of them, they're impossible to referee. The NFL got rid of them decades ago.

 

[docbrown]

I'm not in favour of the collision. Even in RU it is not a traditional concept, having been introduced to the game in the 1980s. In RU the winning of the collision goes towards winning the scrum. RL doesn't have RU style scrummaging props to play that sort of scrummage battle. Nor do I think the RL community wants that sort of scrummaging game.

What I suggested was stationary packs (after binding to the opposing front row), each halfback behind his pack, and a stationary ball in the centre tunnel. When the whistle blows, the props can hook and/or the packs can push.

The idea of a two-man front rows is that the ball and hooking is much more visible than under three-man front rows - making officiating much easier, and cheating less likely.

But a I wrote earlier - that is all fine in theory, but what happens on a training field who knows...maybe it will prove quite good, maybe it will be a dud, maybe it will suggest a better alternative.

Well I don't think that it would ever become a case where they start picking obese players to win the scrummage given that they still have to play the rest of the running game and the scrum isn't as prevalent as in union.

To me the main problem is that if the players are already packed over the ball they're going to keep pushing etc straight away whereas the seperation would minimise that.

The other probably more leftfield idea could be to go one step further - rather than bind at the neck, the first row could put their hands to push back the oppositions upper body, whilst the rows behind still remain bound and push with their body weight.

 

[RL1908]

The other probably more leftfield idea could be to go one step further - rather than bind at the neck, the first row could put their hands to push back the oppositions upper body, whilst the rows behind still remain bound and push with their body weight.

Good grief! I've think you've just invented a means for AFL players to take up rugby league...as front rowers!

 

[docbrown]

Good grief! I've think you've just invented a means for AFL players to take up rugby league...as front rowers!

Like I said, left field. ;-)

 

[The Observer]

I'm not in favour of the collision. Even in RU it is not a traditional concept, having been introduced to the game in the 1980s. In RU the winning of the collision goes towards winning the scrum. RL doesn't have RU style scrummaging props to play that sort of scrummage battle. Nor do I think the RL community wants that sort of scrummaging game.

What I suggested was stationary packs (after binding to the opposing front row), each halfback behind his pack, and a stationary ball in the centre tunnel. When the whistle blows, the props can hook and/or the packs can push.

There has been a lot of debate in in Northern Hemisphere RU (generally play the more conservative Rugby) and Southern Hemisphere Rugby Union (generally play more expansive, flowing football) about the high incidence and arbitrary awarding of scrum penalties at the 2011 World Cup and in other international and domestic tournaments. One major factor is argued to be the hit/collision when front rows engage: the referees protocol (introduced only a couple of years ago to prevent scrum collapses) of crouch, touch, pause, engage did not remove the explosiveness of the hit, and is executed at different speeds by different referees.

Anyway, 3 former England RU props collaborated with the IRB Chief Medical Officer to submit a proposal to the IRB to reform scrums. The article cites the astute technical analysis on the physics of the scrum conducted in the paper. Anyway, the main features are:
* "Crouch, touch, pause, engage" be replaced by "Stand, touch, engage, push". To remove the "hit", potentially, reduce neck and back injuries and arthritis. (However, another former test prop feared removing the hit could decrease hooking)
* Change 13 scrum laws.
* Introduce an Unconvertible Penalty Kick to decrease the number of scrum penalties, and remove penalty kicks from scrums). Presumably where a player can kick for touch, but not go for goal. Similar to their free kick/short arm penalty, or a differential penalty in RL. The NRL All Stars trial of a differential penalty/restart of tackle count seems the best (SHRU trialled a similar Experimental Law Variation in the short arm penalty in 2007 Super 14, but the NH 6 Nations refused to trial it, and vetoed it at the IRB).

That proposal is relevant to RL in that RL could reintroduce competitive scrummaging, minus the hit, to introduce a contest for physical dominance (if not necessarily for possession) that could have a positive flow-on effect on the game, by increasing the variability between positions (in size and body type) and in positional play.

 

[The Observer]

When talking about the question of safety in competitive scrums, it is interesting to note that more spinal injuries are sustained in the tackle than in the scrum.

Incidence, severity, aetiology and type of neck injury in men's amateur rugby union: a prospective cohort study

Phase of play
The tackle phase of play demonstrated the greatest number of neck injuries in this cohort followed by the scrum and ruck (Table 4). The tackle phase and scrum demonstrated the most severe (3 + weeks lost from play) neck injuries however, there was no detectable association between phase of play and neck injury severity (P = 0.27)

Spinal Injuries in Professional Rugby Union: A Prospective Cohort Study

BokSmart: medical management of suspected serious acute spinal cord injuries in rugby players

Fuller et al.4 followed 12 English Premiership clubs for two seasons and found an incidence of 10.9 spinal column injuries per 1000 player match hours. None were catastrophic, but 3 were career ending. He confirmed tackles as the major culprit.

<snipped>

Cervical injuries are defined according to mechanism. This is a combination of compression or distraction forces in either flexion or extension as per the Allan and Ferguson classification.6,7 The commonest injuries seen in the rugby context are the distractive flexion and burst injuries. The way the cervical spine is exposed to force rather than the specific event (tackle, scrum collapse) dictates this.

 

[roughneck]

They are an anachronism, they need to be fixed, make them fair dinkum or piss them off.

 

[Kurt Angle]

Scrums do not belong.

Even when they 'work' they are not remotely enjoyable to watch.

Lifting ideas from RU doesn't seem to be in favour here, but I would opt for line outs in certain situations.

For scrums that would result from a knock on, I would award a straight hand over. Maybe a 20 second break for the defence to align (great space for a TV ad) and start on the zero tackle.

For kicks out of touch, I would have a 5 man line out. The would change the RL forward pack immensely, and I think for the good of the game.

8,9,10 would be Webcke types, and would lift in the line out. Outside of that they would be shorter, stronger type props running the ball up, and prone to tire, leaving gaps later in the game.

11 & 12 would be Willie Mason types, tall and being lifted in the line out, and running wide of the ruck in normal play.

13 would be whthe development of a new type of player. They would have to develop a skill of throwing in lineouts, as well as dummy half play.

This type of position specialy would make it difficult for centres to become second rowers, or half backs to become hookers, and vice versa.

 

[Karl]

There has been a lot of debate in in Northern Hemisphere RU (generally play the more conservative Rugby) and Southern Hemisphere Rugby Union (generally play more expansive, flowing football) about the high incidence and arbitrary awarding of scrum penalties at the 2011 World Cup and in other international and domestic tournaments. One major factor is argued to be the hit/collision when front rows engage: the referees protocol (introduced only a couple of years ago to prevent scrum collapses) of crouch, touch, pause, engage did not remove the explosiveness of the hit, and is executed at different speeds by different referees.

Anyway, 3 former England RU props collaborated with the IRB Chief Medical Officer to submit a proposal to the IRB to reform scrums. The article cites the astute technical analysis on the physics of the scrum conducted in the paper. Anyway, the main features are:
* "Crouch, touch, pause, engage" be replaced by "Stand, touch, engage, push". To remove the "hit", potentially, reduce neck and back injuries and arthritis. (However, another former test prop feared removing the hit could decrease hooking)
* Change 13 scrum laws.
* Introduce an Unconvertible Penalty Kick to decrease the number of scrum penalties, and remove penalty kicks from scrums). Presumably where a player can kick for touch, but not go for goal. Similar to their free kick/short arm penalty, or a differential penalty in RL. The NRL All Stars trial of a differential penalty/restart of tackle count seems the best (SHRU trialled a similar Experimental Law Variation in the short arm penalty in 2007 Super 14, but the NH 6 Nations refused to trial it, and vetoed it at the IRB).

That proposal is relevant to RL in that RL could reintroduce competitive scrummaging, minus the hit, to introduce a contest for physical dominance (if not necessarily for possession) that could have a positive flow-on effect on the game, by increasing the variability between positions (in size and body type) and in positional play.

This is a great backdrop to the issue. I agree completely with the last paragraph. To me it just seems so obvious it should be a no-brainer. It's TIME. It needs to get adapted in Union as well asap in my opinion. Rugby Scrums at the moment are too unstable and result in too many penalties.

I should disclose my interest in this thread - I grew up playing Rugby on the Gold Coast and in Brisbane but watched a lot of League in my household. I was a Paramatta Eels fan until the Bronco's were formed and we had a local team up here. I was a Hooker and a Tight-Head Prop, sometimes a Flanker and trust me - there is a LOT more going on with Scrums than a casual observer or non-player will probably realise. A lot of the disdain for scrums could perhaps be cured with a bit of education and understanding.

Moving on - I have to ask - what is all the yap about SPEED and SIMPLICITY? A game of League should be about the CONTEST between the teams and it's already pretty fast and very simple. A Contest is like an Onion - it has layers (and smells bad if you leave it in the dressing room too long). If it's all about Speed, what about Strength and Power applied with Skill?

It's possible for an action movie to be great without things blowing up and people getting shot constantly. In fact it's better if there's a bit of a break occasionally. Think Die Hard. It builds tension and adds to the overall event. People who say "scrums are boring" are kind of missing the point. A few of them actually. And people exaggerate how long it takes to have a scrum. Most of the delay is players dawdling up to them and faffing around, not the set piece itself. Have teams lose the feed if they stuff around and watch how fast you knock them out. Besides, in the Rugby World Cup the time to RESET a scrum was 53 seconds on average. Its not that long. In 80 minutes of League, with the fewer scrums than Union anyway, it might be 10 minutes out of the game and if they were a proper CONTEST again there's no reason they can't be an interesting or even intriguing 10 minutes. There is a lot of psychology in a power play between forward PACKS as opposed to individual forwards running at a line.

I think the League Scrum should be saved. It's current form is pathetic and frankly embarrassing for everyone involved, but it can be fixed - ve have ze technology!

Set it up incorporating the amazing work done by those English front rowers in the quote above AND - have the Front Rowers with their outside feet forward so they only brace the scrum with the push coming from the back-rowers. There would be less pressure and weight on the contact than a Rugby scrum, more stability, fewer players bound in to stuff it up and it would be a CONTEST again.

I don't think League should get rid of the scrum. Einstein said "Things should be as simple as possible, but NO SIMPLER." If you oversimplify a game like League it'll just get Boring. It's already too simple in my view. I don't think it should become Rugby-esq, and it never will, but legitimising the Scrum as an actual contest for the ball that takes the forwards out of the general play for a moment, adds interest, opportunity and another layer to the overall contest is only going to add a new dimension to the whole game.

I think some people are just big powder puffs who are afraid of the damn Scrum.

 

[gUt]

The current scrum is the one thing that ALL detractors of our game point to as an embarrassing mess. The majority of RL fans seem to agree something has to be done about it. I don't care whether it's done away with and replaced with something else, or it becomes contested once again - anything other than the bad joke we have now.

 

[docbrown]

The Rugby League scrum is a joke but the Rugby Union scrum is worse in my opinion.

For instance in the case of a two way knock on, no team should get a 100% clear advantage, so why isn't it a proper contest?

 

[eozsmiles]

True but let me give you a scenario that might make you rethink it. Matai gets injured, Buhrer comes on to cover the centre position. He'd be the extra forward on the field. When the scrum packs, Buhrer packs in as the 6th forward and Glen Stewart stands wide of the scrum. We're back to the problem we had in the first place with a forward standing wide of the scrum to make the first tackle or hitup.

I'm guessing G Stewart starts the game in the 2nd row? So that is where he plays in a defensive scrum. The idea is to stop forwards swapping to defend in the backline from the scrum while Foran or DCE hides in the 2nd row. If Buhrer comes on to play centre that is where he defends from a scrum. Coaches won't be replacing their starting centre unless things are pretty bad, so it is hardly a scenario where the rules are manipulated.

What you are suggesting wouldn't be allowed under this system - a player that starts the match in the forwards must pack into a defensive scrum. Stewart isn't allowed to go out to the backline, and if a forward comes onto the field to play centre then their team has to deal with their deficiencies in general play.

 

[POPEYE]

The players that start the game with forward numbers on their back, and their replacements, should be kept out of play at the scrum . . . isn't that the idea.

The scrum is designed to give the backs a chance of participating in the game more which has been further eroded by forwards interchanging.

When the time comes that all players have equal physical prowess and speed alone governs where they play on the field scrums will be obselete.

We just need more musclebound backs and forwards with stamina and interchange only when a player is injured . . . what will we call the game