The Scrum

[Mikey Brown]

What I meant was that more yellows will surely lead dominant scrums to keep pushing for pens (and a card) even more often. Maybe it would just be something we'd have to persevere with and teams would quickly start co-operating, at least where they could.

The flipside to your other point is that we now have every dropped pass being potentially worth 3 points.

[Digby]

I agree with this whilst they are moving backwards but once the oppo start disintegrating or popping up, anything that will impinge on the dominant team's ability to scrummage, then a pen should be awarded.

Nope. If the oppo is disintegrating or popping up then the dominant team has no excuse not to have hooked the ball and got it out of the scrum. There is no need for them to continue to exercise their "ability to scrummage". Remember, it's a restart, not a pissing contest.

Is it a restart or a contest for the ball? Not wholly relevant to this specific discussion but it is important when you are discussing how the scrum should be viewed within the laws of the game.

In what other facet of the game do the laws stop a team being able to maximise their advantage in that facet? If a team can't defend a rolling maul the ref doesn't demand they use it once they've gained dominance. At no point in any other facet of the game is it 'well, you've gained enough of an advantage so use it.'

I don't have an objection to the dominant scrum being allowed to play were there are no scrum penalties and no resets occurring. Seeing as there are way too many resets and penalties, and seemingly all too often no scrums actually completing, then I'm with Lizard on this, get the ball out of the scrum and get on with the game. So a dominant scrum can get a shoulder up and even edge a team back 1-2m, but after that they need to get the ball out and set up a maul if they want to drive it.

[Pie Man]

Might have already been mentioned but to incentivise a dominant scrum to attack from the base then why not move the offside line for the defending team back from 5m to 10 or 15m? Gives them more space to work in and therefore increased chance of territory gain (or even, you know, a "try").

[Mellsblue]

What I meant was that more yellows will surely lead dominant scrums to keep pushing for pens (and a card) even more often. Maybe it would just be something we'd have to persevere with and teams would quickly start co-operating, at least where they could.

The flipside to your other point is that we now have every dropped pass being potentially worth 3 points.

I've no huge problem with dominant scrums gaining an advantage for being dominant; though, the game would be prettier if the dominant scrum used the ball more often. My problem is weaker scrums going down in the hope the toss of the refs coin lands their way, they get a reset or the ref calls play-on, as the ball is at the 8's feet, and instead of gaining 5 more metres and having a retreating, surprised defence to run at the dominant team go from where they are against a set defence.

I was going to suggest that knock-ons are just a freekick but then realised that I should try and do some work (I tried but quickly got bored). In the NH you'd get rid of 50% of scrums almost immediately.

[Mikey Brown]

How about we card all knock-ons? Eventually we will have far better handling skills and far fewer scrums.

I think I've solved this one, chaps.

[Puja]

Is it a restart or a contest for the ball? Not wholly relevant to this specific discussion but it is important when you are discussing how the scrum should be viewed within the laws of the game.

In what other facet of the game do the laws stop a team being able to maximise their advantage in that facet? If a team can't defend a rolling maul the ref doesn't demand they use it once they've gained dominance. At no point in any other facet of the game is it 'well, you've gained enough of an advantage so use it.'

But if you don't use your advantage at a rolling maul before it becomes a mess, then you lose the ball.

Puja

[MrK]

Make Scrum Infringements a free-kick unless in 22 where they are a penalty

Make the Free Kick
1) No scrum restart choice
1) A tap and go
2) An up an under, or
3) A kick to touch from which you retain poesession

[Mikey Brown]

Make Scrum Infringements a free-kick unless in 22 where they are a penalty

Make the Free Kick
1) No scrum restart choice
1) A tap and go
2) An up an under, or
3) A kick to touch from which you retain poesession

That sounds like a nice reward.

[Mellsblue]

Is it a restart or a contest for the ball? Not wholly relevant to this specific discussion but it is important when you are discussing how the scrum should be viewed within the laws of the game.

In what other facet of the game do the laws stop a team being able to maximise their advantage in that facet? If a team can't defend a rolling maul the ref doesn't demand they use it once they've gained dominance. At no point in any other facet of the game is it 'well, you've gained enough of an advantage so use it.'

But if you don't use your advantage at a rolling maul before it becomes a mess, then you lose the ball.

Puja

Only if the opponent spoils it legally. Which is the crux of my argument - the ball should always be a contest unless unplayable. If we had the ruling that the team in possession must use the ball after a set time or territory gain then a scrum equvilant of spoiling a mail by contesting for the ball isn't possible. At no point in a maul can the ref tell them to use it, unless the attacking team lose their dominance.

[Mellsblue]

How about we card all knock-ons? Eventually we will have far better handling skills and far fewer scrums.

I think I've solved this one, chaps.

Not one for hyperbole or only seeing things in black and white, are you.

[Beasties]

In all this discussion is no one interested in speeding up the actual engagement? That's where I'd start as I've mentioned before. Concentrating efforts on penalising simply isn't going to improve things, we've had years of this fiddling now and we still have the same basic problem.

[Mr Mwenda]

My eyes do tend to glaze over during the scrums but wasn't Moore wittering on about simply not allowing people to push before the ball was in. Likewise they could stop feeding the ball in so crooked. Then maybe it'd be easier to identify solutions to the scrum problem.

Regarding people not being penalised for standing up, or splintering after being driven backwards. Won't that just mean the defending team will stand up immediately and look to get in a defensive line?

[thedman]

In all this discussion is no one interested in speeding up the actual engagement? That's where I'd start as I've mentioned before. Concentrating efforts on penalising simply isn't going to improve things, we've had years of this fiddling now and we still have the same basic problem.

How do you speed it up safely, though? When I've looked back at scrums from the early 2000s before the rules were introduced they involved pretty frightening collisions.

[thedman]

My eyes do tend to glaze over during the scrums but wasn't Moore wittering on about simply not allowing people to push before the ball was in. Likewise they could stop feeding the ball in so crooked. Then maybe it'd be easier to identify solutions to the scrum problem.

Regarding people not being penalised for standing up, or splintering after being driven backwards. Won't that just mean the defending team will stand up immediately and look to get in a defensive line?

He also said the front rows should have one leg in front of the other rather than with their legs side by side in order to make the scrum more stable. Does this make sense - and if so why don't they do it?

[Beasties]

My eyes do tend to glaze over during the scrums but wasn't Moore wittering on about simply not allowing people to push before the ball was in. Likewise they could stop feeding the ball in so crooked. Then maybe it'd be easier to identify solutions to the scrum problem.

Regarding people not being penalised for standing up, or splintering after being driven backwards. Won't that just mean the defending team will stand up immediately and look to get in a defensive line?

He also said the front rows should have one leg in front of the other rather than with their legs side by side in order to make the scrum more stable. Does this make sense - and if so why don't they do it?

Trust me, you'd have to try playing prop to understand. To the best of my knowledge Moore hasn't. That's not to say standing with your feet inline is a good technique mind, it isn't.

[Beasties]

In all this discussion is no one interested in speeding up the actual engagement? That's where I'd start as I've mentioned before. Concentrating efforts on penalising simply isn't going to improve things, we've had years of this fiddling now and we still have the same basic problem.

How do you speed it up safely, though? When I've looked back at scrums from the early 2000s before the rules were introduced they involved pretty frightening collisions.

As already mentioned here, the NZ players introduced the hit. That should've been stamped out as it was NOT allowed under the rules. This is where the whole thing started to go wrong. Just take the whole thing back to before the hit became standard practice and you'll find most of the other resultant problems simply melt away.

[Mikey Brown]

How about we card all knock-ons? Eventually we will have far better handling skills and far fewer scrums.

I think I've solved this one, chaps.

Not one for hyperbole or only seeing things in black and white, are you.

I wasn't suggesting that was your view. It's mine. I think I might try and patent that idea.

[Digby]

Only if the opponent spoils it legally. Which is the crux of my argument - the ball should always be a contest unless unplayable.

Ball held at the back of a dominant scrum isn't contestable, though the attacking team too often still consider it unplayable Vs waiting for a penalty

[El Tigre]

My eyes do tend to glaze over during the scrums but wasn't Moore wittering on about simply not allowing people to push before the ball was in. Likewise they could stop feeding the ball in so crooked. Then maybe it'd be easier to identify solutions to the scrum problem.

Regarding people not being penalised for standing up, or splintering after being driven backwards. Won't that just mean the defending team will stand up immediately and look to get in a defensive line?

He also said the front rows should have one leg in front of the other rather than with their legs side by side in order to make the scrum more stable. Does this make sense - and if so why don't they do it?

Trust me, you'd have to try playing prop to understand. To the best of my knowledge Moore hasn't. That's not to say standing with your feet inline is a good technique mind, it isn't.

One leg in front of the other adds stability and prevents the prop from going face first into the floor if they break their bind. It amazes me how often we see a front row go down with one of the props flat on his stomach.

Also, the added stability means that if a bind is broken the player has a chance to re-engage allowing the scrum to continue rather than constant resets and penalties.

In this case I'd say Moore is making perfect sense.

[Mikey Brown]

How do you place your feet at different distances to the opposition and shove without shoving at an angle?

[Mellsblue]

Only if the opponent spoils it legally. Which is the crux of my argument - the ball should always be a contest unless unplayable.

Ball held at the back of a dominant scrum isn't contestable, though the attacking team too often still consider it unplayable Vs waiting for a penalty

It is contestable. It might not be much of a contest if one pack is clearly dominant but it's still contestable. That's before you think of the many fumbles at the base by a slight shift in momentum either way.

[Mellsblue]

How do you place your feet at different distances to the opposition and shove without shoving at an angle?

They same way sprinters push of their blocks without moving at an angle.

[Banquo]

In all this discussion is no one interested in speeding up the actual engagement? That's where I'd start as I've mentioned before. Concentrating efforts on penalising simply isn't going to improve things, we've had years of this fiddling now and we still have the same basic problem.

I think both 5p and Liz made this point; I agree, get back to when scrums didn't have a 'hit' and feed straight.

'workarounds' create their own issues, without getting to the crux.

[Banquo]

In all this discussion is no one interested in speeding up the actual engagement? That's where I'd start as I've mentioned before. Concentrating efforts on penalising simply isn't going to improve things, we've had years of this fiddling now and we still have the same basic problem.

How do you speed it up safely, though? When I've looked back at scrums from the early 2000s before the rules were introduced they involved pretty frightening collisions.

go much earlier then

[Mikey Brown]

How do you place your feet at different distances to the opposition and shove without shoving at an angle?

They same way sprinters push of their blocks without moving at an angle.

That doesn't seem like a direct comparison. Props will presumably still want to push as hard as they physically can and I don't see how you can do that from that position. Nevermind how difficult that would be to enforce.