On Scrums

During the 2011 NRL grand final, justly won by Manly, there was an incident where Anthony Watmough played the ball facing more in the direction of the sideline than the goal posts. It didn’t advantage Manly or alter the flow of the game, but assorted paid and unpaid clowns started going on about “Why weren’t Manly penalized?”, as if the referee had just missed a deliberate forward pass.

Who gives a fuck? The point is simply to roll the ball behind you to the dummy half and let the attacking side get on with the job. Since 1995, the defending side can’t even contest the play the ball anymore.

Have you ever seen a rugby league scrum? The props are usually standing upright, with the attacking hooker hanging across the scrum. The props cock their leg and try to piss on the halfback as he feeds the ball under the second row’s feet. I rarely see a penalty awarded for not feeding the ball in straight or not packing properly. When one is given, it appears to be at random.

Again, the point only seems to be to give the ball to the team feeding the scrum while half the players are concentrated in a small section of the field. How often do you see a rugby league scrum won against the feed?

When league scrums are such an obvious farce, why would anyone care about the play the ball in an ordinary tackle? Just pass it between your legs and get on with it.

I know a rugby union scrum is made more stable by the two extra players on each side, but that is no reason why league scrums should be such a joke. Forwards used to pack down properly, push and hookers contest the ball. Why can’t they still do it?

There are occasionally mealy mouthed suggestions of doing away with scrums in rugby league because of the farce they have become. Instead, why don’t the people who run rugby league, who allowed this situation to occur in the first place, rectify it? Set proper scrums and fans might be interested.

Rugby union scrums on the other hand are so technical that they are often reset two or three times before the ball comes out. Often, the result is a penalty instead, particularly with a northern hemisphere ref.

Scrums in rugby union are a serious business: wins against the feed, wheeling through 90 degrees, pushover tries. They are often where the battle of the forwards is won and lost.

The problems with them are too many boring, time wasting resets and far too many penalties for dubious, technical infringements which result in 3 points to boring (mostly northern hemisphere) teams who play for scrum and ruck penalties instead of running the ball.

So often, one sees the front row collapse with the ball won and at the number eight’s feet, then the referee blows it up for a reset. How does this increase safety? There is no need for another scrum in this situation. Just get the ball out and run with it.

The ref should shout: “Use it or lose it!” If the team who has won the ball doesn’t get it out within 3 seconds, the scrum is reset and they lose the feed.

The front row will not be on the ground any longer in this scenario and there will be no need for another scrum, another possible collapse, or a stupid penalty which just pisses fans off, unless they are British and think 12-9 all in penalties is a good game.

Obviously if the ball hasn’t reached the second row by the time the front row collapses, then the scrum needs to be reset, but the above rule change would improve the flow of the game immensely.

The principal bad outcome of far too many scrums are highly dubious penalties awarded against the defending team for collapsing, which then result in 3 points to the opposition. How can the referee tell who is at fault for collapsing a scrum in most cases? What front row would deliberately collapse in their own 22?

I asked this question of a first grade front rower who played for the Australian Schoolboys. His answer: “Of course you wouldn’t. It’s the other bloke pulling or pushing you down. Sometimes a weaker front row will just collapse under the pressure, but it’s not intentional.”

Someone else made the observation that since the referee can’t tell in the majority of cases who is at fault when a scrum collapses, if you’re in doubt just penalize the attacking team so at least no-one can score any points as a result.

The suggestion was partly facetious, but illustrates an important issue: points are being scored and often games won and lost as a result of unfair scrum penalties.

Obviously there need to be penalties for foul play, such as deliberately pulling the front row down, feeding the ball under your own hooker’s feet or packing down at an angle so you’re spearing in. However, there are many breaches of the rules which are unintentional, such as a front rower briefly putting their hand on the ground to avoid falling down, or even a front row collapsing because they are not strong enough to hold the scrum up.

There is a school of thought that a dominant front row proves its case by breaking up the opposition, causing them to collapse or splinter and lose their bind under the pressure, thus receiving a penalty as a reward. I agree with everything except the penalty part. There is nothing wrong with receiving a free kick, or ten metres and a free kick or another scrum, but not 3 points.

There is a better solution: the rules already distinguish between intentional and unintentional forward passes, so why shouldn’t they distinguish other unintentional infringements?

Extend the range of infringements which result in a free kick instead of a penalty. There could be an intermediate category of infringements which result in a ten metre loss as well as a free kick. If a front row loses their bind, puts their hand on the ground or unintentionally collapses, march them ten metres and give the opposition a choice of a free kick or another scrum.

What if they did it within 10 metres of the goal line? March them half the distance, even allowing the minimum 5 metre rule to be waived in that case. You can’t give a penalty because it’s still the same infringement. If the attacking team really wants a shot at goal, let them put the five eight behind the scrum and go for a drop goal. Only a gutless side would do this from a 5 metre scrum anyway.

Would these rule changes ever get passed? Not with the IRB controlled by the northern hemisphere. How would their teams ever win a game?

We need to get more representatives from the Pacific Island nations on the IRB and increase the southern hemisphere’s voting power. Then we can get rid of all these stupid penalties that make you cry out: “What the fuck was that for? You’re a fucking clown, ref!” and actually have some properly flowing rugby games, which of course would always be won by Australia, New Zealand or South Africa.