I wonder will the nettle be grasped or do I just live in hope?
Sometime in the new year, probably in early spring, World Rugby will complete a full review of the World Cup and issue a list of new law trials, also specifying the competitions in which they will take place.
These will undoubtedly speak to World Rugby’s oft-mentioned mantra of ‘reimagining the shape of the game’. On that, I can only ask, be careful.
But the nettle that needs to be grasped is the scrum. Over the past few years I have asked several elite coaches why little heed is paid to the current scrum law. The answer has been consistent; the laws have not been changed to keep up with the development of the game.
Try that down in the Four Courts. Try pleading a speeding offence with the argument that the law has not been changed to keep up with the development of the motorcar. His lordship might well not be overly amused.
The scrum’s original purpose was, and supposedly still is, to restart the game after a minor infringement such as a knock-on. What happens nowadays bears little resemblance to the laws and the boundaries have been completely breached.
There is, however, a growing number of people who recognise that things cannot be allowed to continue as they are. These people are rightly calling for change. The scrum is now, too often, a penalty-generating machine, far removed from its true purpose.
The suggestion that all scrum offences should be sanctioned by free-kicks, with another scrum no longer an option, is an interesting proposal. It’s been tried in the past, including for breakdown offences. What we got was constant whistling, a huge increase in the number of free-kicks and any fast ball came from quick taps. So, that’s probably not where the solution lies.
There is also the option of reducing the scrum penalty’s worth to two points. Maybe that’s part of the answer, but if the sanction isn’t meaningful then there’ll be more offences.
If the sanction is only a free-kick, the weaker scrummaging team will happily concede it and a strong legal scrum will count for nothing. But here’s the dilemma – a dominant scrum can manufacture a full penalty. Once they get any forward movement any resultant penalty will inevitably be awarded in their favour, when the offence is often caused by their own actions.
At the moment there are free-kicks for technical offences, such as early shoving, early engagement, and, believe it or not, crooked throw-ins.
But, if the free-kick is extended to include destructive illegal scrummaging, it will likely be the beginning of the end for the set-piece. Some of my Australian friends wind me up by saying that would be no bad thing. Oddly enough, I think they mean it.
The scrum should be a great provider of quick ball as, with 18 players involved, there are acres of space to be exploited. Backs running against backs is a huge part of the game – or at least it should be.
There are some teams that scrummage positively and use the scrum as an attacking platform. The problem is how to stop the penalty chasers.
Some of the solutions are already written down in the so-called outdated laws, which call for props to support their own weight firmly on at least one foot. That would bring a heck of a lot more stability if applied correctly.
What we have now are the frontrows’ feet going so far back, to achieve maximum go-forward weight and pressure, that the whole thing is, too frequently, an impossible balancing act between two packs, weighing the guts of a tonne each.
We all want to see the ball put in straight but it’s not as simple as it seems with these massive forces coming on to the frontrows.
Coupled with the extended leg positioning, the hookers are very unlikely to be able to reach, and strike, for a ‘straight’ ball without putting themselves in an unsafe, vulnerable position with potential for scrum collapse.
While the recent introduction of the hooker’s ‘brake foot’ may help decrease somewhat the initial pressure on their necks, it doesn’t change what happens next. Nor does it alter the critical ‘long leg’ positioning after engagement.
Stability really is key, and needs to be maintained until the ball leaves the scrumhalf’s hands (which is when the scrum is supposed to start, according to those pesky, irritating laws.)
Currently, the frontrows get down to business just as soon as they have engaged. At this point, they should be holding steady. It’s a nightmare for referees, hellishly difficult to get it right, and deliver consistency.
Other potential changes deserving of a trial are a more passive engagement and limiting the distance the scrum can advance. There used to be a thing called ‘channel one’ ball – the scrum advanced, a metre or two would do, after a rapid strike by the hooker. The ball was delivered out and away to the backs at high speed – we see far too little of it now.
Whatever comes next in the life of the scrum, doing nothing is not an option. It needs a proper vision of what the scrum is for, what it should look like and what laws are needed.
I’d find it hard to believe that World Rugby can possibly admire, or approve of, what it has become. It is time to grasp the nettle and needs to be placed high up on the ‘shape of the game’ agenda. We will wait and see.
