IRB to trial new scrum engagement

[Dave Cahill]

Brian Moore has an excellent (and occasionally wonderfully bitchy) article in todays torygraph

Richard Cockerill and Premiership coaches are wrong: IRB's scrum moves are vital for the future of the game

The International Rugby Board has acted to address disaffection amongst the majority of rugby people with the elite-level scrum, a blight which has started to affect other levels of rugby and which, if left unaddressed, will poison the entire game.

By Brian Moore
7:15AM BST 04 Sep 2013


What has the IRB done? It has altered the engagement sequence to effect a 25 per cent reduction in the force of impact on engagement.
This minimises the dangers that were clearly identified during a comprehensive three-year study, but that is all that is new.
More importantly, the IRB has instructed all referees to strictly apply the existing scrum laws, as clearly shown in its notes to elite referees.
All players and coaches have to do is use the slightly amended sequence and comply with existing laws – ones that work.

Last month I addressed the IRB and its top 21 world referees to reiterate the importance of the existing laws, which mandate a straight feed and no early shove.

Though there seemed genuine intent to correct previous omissions there was also palpable angst about the flak this would attract.
The referees must remember that the IRB makes laws and players and coaches comply, not the other way round.

They have widespread support when they are firm and consistent and it will not be their fault if they have continually to penalise players who refuse to play within long-standing laws.
The IRB and all true rugby fans have to back them and refute the gibberish already being spoken about this crucial issue.
If they bottle it or gradually tolerate illegalities they will get – and deserve – no sympathy.

Richard Cockerill, the Leicester director of rugby, castigated the IRB for making changes without consulting Aviva Premiership coaches.
He added, splenetically: “It seems that if you are a [radio or TV] commentator and you whinge long enough about it, the law makers will do something about it.”
I do not know who he is talking about, but I do know the coaches were asked to comment collectively, and indeed their own players commented through David Barnes of the Rugby Players Association.
Moreover, since when has he needed an invitation to comment on anything and why are their views special, particularly when only two played in the front row?
Even assuming Richard could have managed a meeting with the IRB in between disciplinary hearings, his contribution would have mirrored his further words.
“I am not bothered about crooked feeds,” he said. “You have a whole generation of hookers that have never hooked. It’s a pushing contest, not a hooking contest.”
It would have been like asking an MP 10 years ago whether there was anything wrong with their expenses system.

Rob Baxter, the head coach of Exeter, wrote a blog on this which is little more than a collection of non-sequiturs.
He fears the de-powering of the scrum, claiming props such as Jason Leonard and Gareth Chilcott will disappear under the new laws, without appreciating that they played under the very laws he now criticises.
Astonishingly, he avers: “These new engagement laws could just be the thin end of the wedge as we head towards a game where the scrum is simply a method for restarting play,” before adding: “instead of depowering the scrum we should make it an even bigger contest.”
The scrum is specifically defined as a means of restarting play, it is not meant to be the boring, dangerous penalty-fest it has become.
When a team knock on or pass forward the other side are supposed to have a good chance of getting the ball to play with, not face being penalised if they have a weaker scrum.

Baxter, like Cockerill, accepts no responsibility for exploiting weak referees and coaching his players illegally to bind, shove, feed and not hook, when he writes: “For me this latest change to the engagement laws has almost been forced through by public demand, without commentators and supporters alike really appreciating the impact this could have on the game.”

They are joined by my old school colleague Jim Mallinder, the Northampton coach, in alleging that some sort of agenda is being pursued.
Change has been forced because of the level of discontent, which they purposely refuse to recognise.
The agenda is simply to get the IRB to enforce its own laws: the likely impact is that the scrum is re-skilled, not de-powered.

Those resisting change are already cynically playing the safety card and take note how this fraudulent line is pedalled in coming months.
The Australian Rugby Club television show, Cockerill and Baxter allege that enforcing the laws is dangerous because the striking hooker has to take his weight on his non-striking foot and is vulnerable when eight opposition players push against his seven colleagues.
Yes. It is called hooking; the clue is in the name.
If the claim is correct it must be the case that the greater the disparity in weight and power between packs, the greater the danger.
At senior level you rarely get a vast imbalance in size and strength.
At lower levels there is often great disparity but no big increase in injuries – the claim is nonsense.
This is the crucial point in this alleged safety debate – the full weight of the opposition shove cannot legally come until the ball leaves the scrum-half’s hands and referees must make sure that it does not.
If this is enforced, a hooker’s strike takes literally one second and this hooking window allows weaker packs to get the ball away before being shoved off the ball.
Now they say they know it is dangerous, are they still going to coach their players to shove early and illegally?

Cockerill knows this is disingenuous because he had a long and illustrious career when the laws were applied.
He managed to strike without difficulty, usually against much bigger and more powerful opponents.
Why, then, does he say this?
It is because having to time a shove is much more difficult and not always successful as it may come too early and get penalised or too late, by which time the ball is out.
What he and coaches with powerful scrums want to maintain is their advantage, whereby dominant packs shove illegally on engagement and deny the opposition this crucial hooking window.
The elite game could, if it wanted to, help us all by simply teaching players how to hook and scrummage within the laws.
It would not take long: they all start from the same point and they have all day to practice.
That they are determined not to do it is evidenced by Cockerill’s uncorroborated claim that “the hooking thing and debate about the feed ... are long gone.”
Really? When did this take place? When did rugby decide that one level of the game did not have to obey its laws?

If they want this, they should have the courage to propose and persuade the IRB to pass different laws.
They should not seek to force the rest of the game to accept what they want through selfish disobedience.
Make no mistake, this is the final battle for the union scrum; if the elite game deliberately sabotages this initiative, the scrum might as well be the same as in league.