IRB to trial new scrum engagement

[Dave Cahill]

The IRB has announced a trial of new scrum sequence “crouch, bind, set” Props to bind using outside arm after the referee has called "bind"
The front rows will maintain the bind until the referee calls “set”. At that point, the two packs will engage.
Referees to ensure the ball does not enter the tunnel unless the scrum is square and stationary and a straight feed is strictly policed.

Example from the PRC where it has had a trial already (using touch instead of bing as the keyword)

[johng]

That should remove the hit and perhaps solve the scrum colapse issue at a stroke.

[Donny B.]

a straight feed is strictly policed.

Will believe that when I see it.

[Xanthippe]

That should remove the hit and perhaps solve the scrum colapse issue at a stroke.

Cian Healy response to the announcement was:

• 'goodbye props, hello 2 new flankers'

[ronk]

[Xanthippe]

That should remove the hit and perhaps solve the scrum colapse issue at a stroke.

Cian Healy response to the announcement was:

• 'goodbye props, hello 2 new flankers'

And Mike Ross just replied:

• 'if they just got rid of the 90 degree rule it'd probably eliminate half their problems'

[Dave Cahill]

I'd suggest that this is a great thing for props, real props who can scrummage. Removes the hit, puts the emphasis on technique

[FLIP]

Maybe if the IRB dealt with the real problem with scrum refereeing we'd see some actual change. The wilful ignorance of every top level referee when it comes to scrums (ex backs for the most part) is astounding. It's not even that hard - keep the binding off the arm, keep the driving straight, and understand simple physics.

[ronk]

a straight feed is strictly policed.

Will believe that when I see it.

Me too, but it's going to be essential to the operation of these laws. Crooked feeds are not called because there's so much going on that the ref doesn't want to bog things down by being fussy.

With a sequential engage, the feed IS the counterattacking opportunity.

[johng]

What about a "Ciaran Fitzgerald rule" where hookers have to be "no bigger than Ciaran Fitzgerald" and actually have to "hook" again?

[Logorrhea]

Looks a good idea to me, for both safety and continuity reasons. Michael Bent is probably laughing now

[Peg Leg]

Id agree with DC, if its about the push and drive then id say the heavy technician has a greater chance than another pair of flankers.

[TrapperChamonix]

They did trials on the Couch Touch Pause and Engage format. Got good results from the trials as well.


Interesting podcast on BBC 5Live Specials Podcast on Scrums (28th March). Argies responsible for the elimination of the "hook" by picking larger hookers in late 70's and walking over the ball. If you can get over Brian Moore's apoplexy and ignore Phil Vickery completely, there is some interesting discussion with an Argie bloke, Mike Cron, Nigel Owens and also John Jeffrey (who is leading the trials). Essence of the debate is Moore questioning why existing laws are not implemented (ball straight, binding rather than the hit, not pushing before the ball is in) and when were the refs given license to make up new rules by themselves. By extension, forget trials, just implement existing laws.

[ronk]

The last sequence (which was an improvement) isn't even 12 months old. It's going to take time for some of these things to really be understood.

I'm not sure what the effects will be, but anything that depowers the the scrum will favour the guys whose strengths are around the park. Bringing scrums even closer together means that the only practical way to get much lower is to be short. But that's balanced by the fact that the big units will be more able to get away with scrummaging higher.

[Logorrhea]

I'm not sure what the effects will be, but anything that depowers the the scrum will favour the guys whose strengths are around the park.

I'm no prop, but I've always seen the "hit" and the "scrum" as two different instances. A good hit could would always give a weaker scrum a chance against a stronger scrum, hence why so many front rows wanted another chance at it. Removing the emphasis on the hit should, in my limited mind, empower stronger "technical" scrummagers no?

Fixing the binding issue will also remove 80% of the scrum collapses, and a massive number of penalties, we see at the moment.

It sounds good to me, but then again if Healy and Ross disagree, what the f*ck would I know.

[ronk]

Measures to stop collapses don't always have that effect. Much of that is down to the dynamics of why scrums go down and whether refs can police them.

So long as players can figure out a way to get away with it, it'll keep happening, laws or no. I don't know if it'll work, partly because early engages become harder to police and more critical the closer the scrums.

[Darce]

The issue really is coaching at the top level.

Props seems to be told if you lose the hit or are in trouble, drop the scrum because its 50/50 whether we'll win the penalty or be penalised. It seems to be an acceptable gamble.

We need to take that out of the game...

[johng]

If there's no "hit" then there should be less reason to drop scrums. pressure comes on slower and you can handle it better.
Then again. Last time I played in the front row, I think it was under 13s.

[Lar]

If there's no "hit" then there should be less reason to drop scrums. pressure comes on slower and you can handle it better.
Then again. Last time I played in the front row, I think it was under 13s.

They really should stop adults playing in Under 13 matches.....

[simonokeeffe]

with 'bind' they can speed up engagements too and stop scrums wasting time but people can still scrummage, the straight feed will be a big one and easier for refs to police if scrums less likely to collapse on engage