New law to 'depower' scrums

[Burgs]

New law to 'depower' scrums

From correspondents in Dublin
November 18, 2006

A new scrummaging rule will be introduced to rugby union next year in a bid to improve safety, the International Rugby Board announced today.

The new IRB Council law will see a four-stage "crouch, touch, pause, engage" process that will bring packs closer and cut the force on impact when it is implemented on January 1.

The world governing body has reviewed the safety of the scrum after recommendations by its medical committee although it rejected calls to follow rugby league and "depower" the scrum.

The key change to the present sequence is that the two props will have to touch their opponent's shoulder. Currently, the two packs often charge at each other from up to three feet away.

Front rows will also be prohibited from engaging with their head and shoulders lower than their hips in a bid to reduce the number of collapsed scrums while keeping set-pieces competitive.

IRB chairman Dr Syd Millar, quoted on the official IRB Web site, said the contested scrum remained central to the sport.

"An essential element of rugby is its physicality. This has to be appropriately balanced with the welfare of participating players and the IRB continues to take such issues very seriously.

"The IRB believes that the contested scrum is an integral part of the game and that rugby is unique in that its playing charter provides the opportunity for individuals of all shapes and sizes to play the game," said Millar.

He added, however, that expert medical and technical advice had indicated it was appropriate for the game to adopt a "less vigorous scrum engagement sequence".

Former England front row forward Jason Leonard, who helped the IRB review the scrum, told the Website: "This new engagement sequence will standardise the distance the two sets of forwards are apart, reduce the collision at engagement and will assist in ensuring that both sets of forwards are at the best horizontal height possible.

"This is crucial to the successful engagement of the scrum."

"With the reduced impact and forwards at the correct height we will see an associated improvement in the bind. This should also assist in minimising collapsing of the front row.

"It also ensures that the scrum remains a true contest which is important for the game. It in no way impairs both teams ability to contest for the ball," added Leonard.

The law change will accompany the zero tolerance policy on crooked feeds to the scrum that comes into effect next year.

Reuters

[frontrow]

I am going to reserve my judgement on this one, having played all my rugby with "crouch hold engage". I need to ponder on this one....

[.X.]

The distance is an issue, delibrately wheeling the scrum to gain the "feed" is the problem - which we have discussed elsewhere. I agree with you on this one frontrow. lets give it a chance and see what happens.

[frontrow]

As discussed with Burgs on another thread (something rotten), i believe this law will actually help make mediocre props (ie Baxter) pack into the scrum better as their binding hand will basically be in position before the engage is called, thereby limiting the distance needed to grip the opposites jumper.
It will take out a lot of the skill,(or challenge), that exists between props, out of the game...If it makes the game safer i wholeheartedly agree with it, but at the top level you should be able to compete safely without introducing new laws to soften the impact...I am truly torn about this new law...I would like to hear Ben Darwins opinion on this move, and see what he thinks...Has anyone out there been involved in nasty moments up front, i have witnessed a few but thankfully have walked away relatively unscathed. It is very scary being involved in a collapsed scrum, especially as a hooker, and i would like to gauge other peoples opinions before finalising mine...Comments please

[RugbyFan]

I think these laws will be good for amateur rugby, but for professional (s14 and international) it will be taking away a lot of the contest, which at that level players should be able to cope with.

[Pumbaa]

the thing that needs to be asked can a scrum collapse accidently, or is it a delibrate ploy used by the team to try and regain the momentum when they are losing the scumage's. i think there should be greater emphisis on punishing players/teams for delibratly causing a scrum to collapse but to newter the big fella's is a little poor form. Would fotball be football if they could take a big leap, would you call a league scrum exciting, i dont think so it is so pedictable, whats exciting is watching the all black and wallaby forward packs square off, the the sound of the bodies crashing as they engage and the grunt the back rowers and then the struggle to push the other side off the ball.
Its War
Next they will ban Yorkers (toe breaker) because they could be miss bowled and become a bean ball (nut crusher).
Screamers because you could damage your back if you dont land properly.
and golf becuase you might hit a spectator

[Mtbeaver]

Well, I think its a good idea, my brother thinks differently.

He is a state level hooker, but he is only 5 foot 10. He uses his height to get under the big ass props of the opposition in the engage, so he thinks it will completely ruin his advantage of being able to do that!

[JediKnight]

Like most others to comment on this, I remain to be convinced. "Crouch, hold, engage" has been used for so long with only a relatively few incidents of major injury. However, one bad injury is too many and if this can help a better scrummaging position at amateur rugby then I'm all for it. However, the professionals should be able to get themselves into a position to scrum properly...after all, that's what they're paid for!

[brokendown gunfighter]

The number of collapsing scrums in international rugby has reached epidemic proportions.Something needs to be done.Whether this law change is the answer we will find out next year

[Sagerian]

Remove the stupid law about turning the scrum 180 degrees and we'll see less collapsing guaranteed

-EDIT-

X already said this... I agree

[Burgs]

Interesting from the statistical review and match analysis of this years Tri Nations:

In Tri Nations Series 2006, while there were 170 scrums,
there were also 74 resets making a total of 244 scrum
engagements in the nine matches.
On only 4 occasions in 9 matches was the 'use it or lose it'
law seen to apply - and there was not a single free kick
awarded for a crooked feed.
What was of interest at the scrum - apart from there being
many fewer penalties this year - was that of the 13 penalties
awarded, 5 were against the team putting in the ball. This
contrasted with 2004 - 2 years ago - where the
corresponding figure was just 1 of 20.
In last years Tournament i.e. 2005, of those occasions when
the scrum was reset or penalised because of a collapse,
65% occurred on Australia put ins. The percentages for New
Zealand and South Africa were 16% and 19% respectively.
This changed in 2006 with 43% of resets occurring on South
Africa put ins, 23% on New Zealand put ins and 34% on
Australia put ins.
It was also noticeable that when New Zealand were involved
in a scrum, it was twice as likely to be reset when they were
not the team putting in the ball as opposed to when they
were the putting in team.

[.X.]

Here is a theory:

Every scrum the the Defending team is trying to wheel the scrum to get the feed.

As soon as the Attacking team senses the scrum is about to be wheeled, they collapse the scrum hoping for a reset to combat the attempted wheel.

Sheds a new light on all the scrum resets doesn't it.