One of the biggest stand-outs from this past weekend of rugby has been the apparent confusion around the new scrum laws. First off, a quick breakdown of the history;
A scrum is formed by the forwards ‘binding’ together in three rows. The scrum then ‘engages’ with the opposition team so that the player’s heads are interlocked with those of the other side’s front row. In rugby union, the initiation of the process is verbally coordinated by the referee. The scrum-half from the attacking team then throws the ball into the tunnel created in the space between the two sets of front rowers’ legs. Both teams may then try to compete for the ball by trying to hook the ball backwards with their feet.
The confusion stems in part from the new calls and cadence the ref’s are using. For a long time the ref’s call was “crouch” – the players get into position; “Touch” – the two props from each side touched each others shoulders in preparation for the “bind”; “Pause” then “Engage”, at which point the forward packs would crash into each other…and nine times out of ten then come crashing to the deck when one of the props failed to bind (essentially grip the jersey of his opposite number, assisting in providing stability for the scrum) properly.
The scrum was far from perfect, and due to the positioning of the players bodies, those in the front row were often at risk of head and neck injuries in a collapsed scrum. This in part has driven the International Rugby Board to look into how the scrums are set and called.
Referees are now replacing the current “crouch, touch, set” command with a new directive – “crouch, bind, set.”
Instead of the previous first-up power collisions between front rows that often resulted in collapses, props must first bind using their outside arms until the scrum has a stable platform. Then, when the referee says “set,” the packs can push forward and compete for possession.
I saw the new rules in action in both the Bledisloe game on Saturday night and the USA vs Canada game the following day (my time). It’s fair to say there are a few teething problems. The scrums seemed oddly disjointed, confused, like players weren’t quite sure what was expected of them. It did also create some interesting plays, such as when Steven Luatua pounced on a poorly placed feed on Saturday night, and turned it into a try.
The question is, will the new rules actually make a difference? Was the old regime really that bad?
Firstly, there needs to be some changes in referee consistency. In the Bledisloe game, Craig Joubert seemed to rule the ball was put in “crooked” almost at a whim, and left the players and coaches frustrated when some plays were left to go, despite plainly looking off centre. All Blacks coach Steve Hansen commented after the game that while on the face of it the new scrum rules were “okay”, but “…we seem to have created another wee problem haven’t we?”
The scrum seemed to be a little better received in the USA vs Canada game, with apparently less confusion on the players’ parts. Even this game was far from perfect though, with feeds going awry and players hesitant to bind, following the previous system. That said, I did find the referee’s calls to be more consistent in the USA game, this may however be more to the fact the North American teams have less exposure to the rule confusion than the Kiwi’s and Aussies.
Regardless, this IS the face of the future. Given it cost over a half million pounds (yes, POUNDS) to devise this new system it’s unlikely the International Rugby Board will be back pedalling anytime soon. So, as we move towards the Rugby World Cup 2015, a lot of players have a lot of learning to do. As, it should be said, so do some referees.
Thanks for reading, you can follow me on Twitter –@recaffeinated99. Give the site a follow while you’re at it – @lastwordonsport.
Interested in writing for LastWordOnSports? Find more info at our “Join Our Team” page.
