The Scrummage: a theory

Hot (well, relatively warm) on the heels of my recent musings about the demise of scrummaging as an art form at the elite level comes my latest offering as to why this particular part of the game is now such an unholy mess.

Long time readers of this blog (both of you) might recall my general objection to the introduction of the Evil Law Variations a couple of seasons ago. It’s fair to say that an aversion to unnecessary change was behind much of my opposition with me very much belonging to the “if it ain’t broke…” school of thought. The one ELV that did appear to be reasonably sensible, however, was the moving back of the offside line at scrum-time to 5 metres behind the back foot. This would, so the theory went, create more space for the team in possession to attack and there was no arguing with such impeccable logic.

Sadly, however, things haven’t quite worked out as expected and here’s my theory as to why. A 5 metre offside line should give the attacking team a huge advantage, all the more so if the attacking team manages to wheel the scrum slightly anti-clockwise as this, with the opposition back row forced to stay bound, opens up acres of space to attack. It has therefore become absolutely imperative for the defending team to prevent this from happening and for them to cut down the space by disrupting the scrum by hook or by crook, ideally by wheeling the scrum clockwise. The result? Chaos and a plethora of collapses, re-sets, penalties and free-kicks.

The scrum ELV has meant that the scrummage has perhaps now become too important, especially for the defending team. It may therefore be that the only way to safeguard the future of the scrummage is to reduce its significance by reinstating the back foot as the offside line, thus making defending easier and reducing the need to disrupt the set-piece.

As Alanis Morissette might say: “Isn’t it ironic?”

Just a theory…

Whatever happened to: the Scrummage?

scrums - remember these?

Another in an increasingly sporadic series of ramblings about elements of the game that have changed beyond recognition since I first played the game way back in the mists of time...

Whatever happened to the scrummage?

You remember the scrummage don't you? You know, that bit in the game when your eight forwards pack down against their eight forwards and compete for the ball fed in between them?

Perhaps it's just me, but I distinctly remember that used to happen - quite regularly in fact - and, if I'm honest, I acknowledge that in the grassroots game the lost art of scrummaging does break out from time to time.

At the elite level, however, it's a different story and at international level the genuine scrummage has become a seriously endangered species. Whilst in the professional game destructive scrummaging props, and tightheads in particular, still appear to be highly valued, their natural habitat - the scrummage - is fast disappearing.

How often, for instance, do you see two sets of forwards pack down, the ball fed into the middle, a clean strike by the hooker and the ball appearing as if by magic at the number 8's feet? Once in a blue moon, that's how often. It is far more likely that you'll see the scrum collapse, re-set, collapse, re-set and collapse again to the sound of the referee's whistle and the award of a free kick or penalty to one team or the other, seemingly at random. And it seems that many refs, understandably perhaps, now can't even be bothered to go through the charade and just award the free kick or penalty at first contact (whereupon particularly sadistic captains elect to subject the paying public to the farce of another scrum).

In last weekend's England v Australia match there were only 8 scrummages, 6 of which resulted in a free kick or penalty and only one of which ended up with the ball emerging at the back. That's ONE scrum in the whole match in which clean possession was secured.

I've no idea what the solution is - the IRB's Crouch, Touch, Pause & Engage directive doesn't appear to be doing the trick, despite their assertions to the contrary. I'm pretty sure that props wearing tight lycra shirts, as well as it not being particularly aesthetically pleasing, is hardly helpful to successful scrum binding so perhaps a few sensible regulations in that direction might help but, as always, I suspect that non-interference is probably the best policy.

Ditch the directions, make the referees take a back seat and let the players sort it out.

Scrum dot gone?

According to a so called expert (i.e. someone who clearly knows nothing about rugby), scrums should be banned in schools to protect children.

This is the conclusion reached this week by Professor Allyson Pollock, director of Edinburgh University's Centre for International Public Health Policy following a study carried out during 190 rugby matches at five schools, during which a grand total of 37 injuries were recorded.

"If youngsters were coming back from school trips with these rates of injuries it would be enough to trigger a major inquiry," says Prof Pollock, missing the point entirely.

Perhaps she thinks it is healthier for kids to stay indoors in front of a TV or computer all day and no doubt she is also recommending that hockey be played without sticks, that cricket be played with a soft foam ball and that children be banned from riding horses?