Law Discussion: Fixing the scrum
The scrum is a problem. The falling of the scrum is dangerous for the players and tedious for the spectators. The International Rugby Board has sent out instructions and changed laws, and yet even with the top practitioners in the world, it stays a problem. Can it be fixed or is it a running sore in the game? Or just part of the fun for a few?
Recently northern hemisphere teams visited the south. The worst of the scrummaging was in Perth when Australia played England, but there were others - not as bad, but bad enough. There were 10 teams playing - ranked 1-9 and 11 in the world, the best rugby teams on the planet.
The 13 referees used in these matches were all in the world's top panel of 19 referees.
Top teams and top referees and still the scrums are the top problem.
Australia vs England:
Australia: 9 scrums, 2 resets, 9 collapses
England: 16 scrums: 9 resets, 22 collapses.
In this match there were two free kicks, 9 penalties and 2 penalty tries.
That was the worst.
The last match was between Argentina and France in Buenos Aires was better:
Argentina: 4 scrums, 0 resets, 0 collapses
France: 9 scrums, 3 resets, 6 collapses.
There were three free kicks and 5 penalties. It was much better but still problematic.
There is a problem and there is no point in labouring the problem.
You talk to props young and old and you ask if there is a solution.
Should there be a solution at all? Oh yes. You cannot just scrap the scrum. Scrumming is a unique feature of the game and it ensures that it remains a game for all shapes and sizes. Scrumming is deep in the soul of the game and essential to its maintaining its soul. It is more than just a means of starting the game.
Talk to men of not so long ago and they will say that scrums hardly collapsed in their day. They say that today the scrum is over-regulated with who binds where and the palaver of the four-word commands to get the scrum down.
"In our day," they say, "it was my ball my call and we just went down." It was every prop's pride not to fall down.
Then things changed - in two ways.
There was concern about catastrophic, life-changing injuries from collapsed scrums, especially for teenagers. This led to paralysis for victims, court cases and mothers' refusing to let their sons play. The result was a worldwide attempt to make scrums safer, which included setting the scrum - at one stage in phases for Under-19 players - and things like binding and angle of pushing.
There is now less talk about injuries which may mean that there are fewer injuries or that injuries are less newsworthy. But even at the height of the concern about injuries there were in fact very few compared with the whole activity. That said, if the number has been reduced that is a huge blessing.
Then you watch Australia play England or you watch Free State play Western Province at Craven Week and you shudder at the number of collapsed scrums.
The nature of scrumming changed with the introduction of the bajada scrum, worked out by an Argentinian engineer Francisco Ocampo. This virtually did away with a hooker who hooks. The hooker now became a scrummager at fussy angles and winning the ball was about shoving. Gone was the contest between two slightly built players with clever feet to win the ball. Gone was the boast of how many tightheads won. Now the only way you won the other side's scrum was by ricochet or shove.
This was further exacerbated by the disappearnce of the strict need to put the ball in straight. Putting the ball in straight was almost the commonest penalty in olden days. Now it is rarely a free kick. Hooking a tighthead is virtually impossible.
So the nature of the scrum has changed. Now it is more contest of strength than of skill. Because it is a contest of strength, there are times when this gets out of hand and the scrum falls down.
The first scrum of nearly every match will collapse as the muscle men flex their muscles and seek to dominate opponents. Scrums five metres from the goal line will collapse as two teams become desperate.
When Wales played South Africa in Cardiff there were 15 scrums, seven resets. There was one five-metre scrum which collapsed four times, was reset three times and then let go. When Argentina played France there were three five-metre scrums with five collapses, three resets, two penalties and a free kick. In the match between England and Australia above there were two penalty tries from five-metre scrums.
Why would teams collapse? After all international players are at the top of their professions and should be able to scrum properly. There seems no genetic reason why English players should outscrum Australian players to the extent of the problems above. In fact in the second match things were better - better but not good with 8 resets, 12 collapses, and 5 penalties in 14 scrums.
Teams collapse because they slip, because they are under pressure, because they did not get a good hit, because they are not good enough and even, it has been suggested, as a tactic to tire out bigger, less fit opponents.
Who is to blame? There is blame apportioned to law-makers and law-enforcers, but really it is the players who go down. Recent law changes have been introduced with far, far, far greater and more thorough consultation, experimentation and transparency than ever in the history of law-making in rugby football.
Referees spend more time trying to get to know and understand scrums than on any other phase of the game. The top men consult experts, talk to players, attend practices - and then get blamed on Saturday! However one looks at it, when it comes to the collapsing of the scrum, the referee can react only after the event. The scrum collapses - and that is wrong - and then only can the referee react. He will try beforehand to get player co-operation and he will take care in setting the scrum, but even then things go wrong.
Some blame the way the setting is done - the long pauses between each command - Crouch, Touch, Pause, Engage. It is almost pathetic watching big men restraining themselves waiting to be allowed to engage.
But since the longer pauses were introduced into the setting of scrums, there have been statistics to suggest that it works - 24% fewer resets in the 2010 Super 14 scrums than in the 2009 Super 14 scrums. It's hard to argue against that, though there are suggestions that the long pause between Pause and Engage serves no purpose.
How to fix it? Old players say deregulate and go back to letting the players doing their thing. Put the ball in straight and have proper hookers.
Others say, be stricter in enforcing what is now law.
If you have suggestions, please, send them to pauld@365digital.co.za and we'll publish them.