0
Get a grip and deal with scrums
Ewen McKenzie
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Those expecting a breakdown on my relationship with John Connolly in this week's column will be disappointed.
As far as I'm concerned, there are more important issues to deal with and more interesting subjects - like the scrum.
I hold grave fears for the art of scrummaging. Rugby league's decision to all but omit the scrum has seen more ball in play, but it's also cost the game an opportunity to contest for possession.
In the years after league banished the scrum, many a fan would look at the union scrum jealously. But today it's a different story.
Former All Blacks tighthead prop John Drake wrote this week about the new scrum laws and their negative impact.
I have been analysing this area myself, as we have been on the receiving end of a number of penalties in law this season.
Scrummaging in former days didn't seem to be so encumbered by the laws.
It seems that each year we are adding another layer of compliance to a front-rower's thought process, and while we reckon we are all pretty smart up front, this is not necessarily a good thing. While we have added detail to the players, we have also added a heap more for the referee to worry about - and this is definitely not a good thing.
The law demands that all props "must bind" on the opposing prop "on the back or side". Neither prop can grip "the chest, arm, sleeve or collar … and must not exert any downward pressure". Failure to do any of this is a penalty - three points against you if their kicker is good enough. There is even a nice but entirely unrealistic picture in the law book to match the requirement, obviously not drawn by anyone with a basic understanding of physics.
Binding will generally not be an issue in a game unless there are collapses. Scrums will collapse, but it does not need to be this way. At the moment it is possible to lose a game because props are not binding in accordance with the law.
Firstly, it is technically impossible to do it entirely as it is written without potential instability. Secondly, the law does not take into account that props are now wearing tight-fitting jerseys. This does not allow someone to grip easily as per the law. Watch any game and you will see variations in the binding, hands on the ground, the knee or no binding at all.
As a player or a coach, it becomes a difficult pill to swallow when this largely inconsistent part of the game can be worth possession, field position and points. A hand grip, deliberate or misplaced by a couple of inches, should not be so costly. Do players two or three inches offside have the same problem?
The real culprit in scrums collapsing is the angle from the hip that the upper torso is pointing. If both players' shoulders are below their hips then there is only one direction the pressure will go and that is to the ground.
The law demands that "front rows must crouch so that when they meet, each player's head and shoulders are no lower than their hips". The sanction against non-compliance is only a free kick. It is actually a disincentive for a referee to use this part of the law book as often a captain, given a scrum or free kick, will opt for a scrum.
Suddenly, a referee struggling to get this part of the game flowing is presented with a catch 22. The referees as interpreters of the law also need to ensure that all parties are complying with it. The law-makers need to ensure the laws are capable of being complied with. Rugby Inc is investing heavily in the simplification of the game through the Stellenbosch laws, while the scrum is becoming more complicated. The challenge for administrators is to find simplicity and safety while keeping the physical contest relevant.
Reply With Quote
but I agree with you - and with Ewen.. bring back loose jerseys!!!!
