Crouch, touch, pause etc....................

[Spifflicator]

Most fans are frustrated by the reffing of scrums these days, particiluarly by the long drawn out sequenece of ref's commands, frequently with a pause that seems to go on forever.

One possible way around this would be to eliminate the "pause" phase but also to require front rows to stay in contact after the touch command. At present, "touch" means almost nothing, since front rows merely brush each other with fingertips, then go back to the un-touched state, regroup, then engage with a jolt.

If they remained in touch and were not allowed to untouch before engage we might see fewer problems and the bind could actually start during the touch phase.

So I'd like to see the sequence :

Crouch - Touch - Engage, but no losing the touch before engage.

You know it makes sense.

[Parsifal]

As you will know, prior to the 2007 scrum rule amendment there was no obligation for each prop to touch the opposing props shoulder and the distance between the two front rows was often larger.

Engage, or "Hit" in the post-2007 game is a bit of a lottery though. So many things have to be right: technique, alignment, the referee’s calls, footing, and so on. Not to mention, who’s been smoking chicken’s entrails (available as a “Kearns Rotisserie,” apparently).

Where this ‘Hit’ came from is a mystery to most people. When I played, the scrum formed up and then things got lively once the ball was fed, which seemed to work quite well. Also, I remember the ball going down the centre and hookers striking. So the "Hit" doesn’t seem to be based on the rules and could almost be penalised under the charging sanctions!

The point is that scrum resets are a blight, and their cause is contrary to the specific intention of the rules, which state “the purpose of the scrum is to restart play quickly, safely and fairly after a minor infringement or a stoppage.” (Law 20). So the call must be to eliminate the ‘Hit’ (along with that painful three step call) and we can eliminate 90 percent or more of resets.

The rugby union scrum is a wonderful thing: the power, noise, and steam can be a majestic sight. As it is an opportunity to open up the field, of course, we need to keep it but we should be insisting that the administrators and referees look after our game by eradicating or amending the crouch, touch, pause, engage sequence.

[Dacre]

I've noticed over the last few weeks that during the 'touch' some front rows are having 'head to head contact' as well as touching with the arm. They don't seem to 'disengage' the 'head to head contact' and when 'engage' is called tilt their heads slightly and then engage.

Has anyone else noticed this and is this something that is being trialled?

[fivepointer]

Watch any junior match or any youth rugby and you rarely, if ever, see refs introduce a pause. It seems to only be at the top level that some refs insists upon a drawn out engagement, although Nigel Owens in yesterdays Saints V Falcons game let the front rows engage at a good, brisk pace.

Its quite simple and anyone with ANY understanding of the front row will understand that once the players are down they want to get in. Just let them get on with it.

[BBD]

^ what that man said!

[Adrian]

I agree with BBD.

I'm off to say 10 Hail Marys now.

[BBD]

say 20 and we throw in a free absolution

[JohnBuggy]

It would have made more sense to post this thread on the WMB.

[Adrian]

It would have made more sense to post this thread on the WMB.

Thats never sensible.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Most fans are frustrated by the reffing of scrums these days, particiluarly by the long drawn out sequenece of ref's commands, frequently with a pause that seems to go on forever.

One possible way around this would be to eliminate the "pause" phase but also to require front rows to stay in contact after the touch command. At present, "touch" means almost nothing, since front rows merely brush each other with fingertips, then go back to the un-touched state, regroup, then engage with a jolt.

If they remained in touch and were not allowed to untouch before engage we might see fewer problems and the bind could actually start during the touch phase.

So I'd like to see the sequence :

Crouch - Touch - Engage, but no losing the touch before engage.

You know it makes sense.That would be an improvement but not as much as packing down the front rows first then the 2locks then the back row.

[Dacre]

It would have made more sense to post this thread on the WMB.

I assume Spif only posted it on here so that you could join in

[grimoald]

I've noticed over the last few weeks that during the 'touch' some front rows are having 'head to head contact' as well as touching with the arm. They don't seem to 'disengage' the 'head to head contact' and when 'engage' is called tilt their heads slightly and then engage.

Has anyone else noticed this and is this something that is being trialled?

That is generally one of the props (front-rows) being a dick, playing a game of you move first, turning yourself at an angle and weakening yourself for the hit, or I'll attack the side of your head and hurt you(r ear).

It seems more and more like some sides are being coached to do it.

[old-n-slo-2nd-row]

Most fans are frustrated by the reffing of scrums these days, particiluarly by the long drawn out sequenece of ref's commands, frequently with a pause that seems to go on forever.

One possible way around this would be to eliminate the "pause" phase but also to require front rows to stay in contact after the touch command. At present, "touch" means almost nothing, since front rows merely brush each other with fingertips, then go back to the un-touched state, regroup, then engage with a jolt.

If they remained in touch and were not allowed to untouch before engage we might see fewer problems and the bind could actually start during the touch phase.

So I'd like to see the sequence :

Crouch - Touch - Engage, but no losing the touch before engage.

You know it makes sense.

In under 19 until the most recent law changes the "touch" was a "hold" (with the players remaining "bound") then pause, engage. This has now been done away with and the same sequence is used at all levels. The prolonged pause is being used to minimise a rolling hit which was being introduced as teams got the timing of referees sequences and would were going back to the engagements that the whole "touch, puase, engage" was trying to eliminate. In some ways I don't have a problem with a delayed pause, it means that the scrum units have to be balanced before engagement so technique becomes more of an issue. The real scrummaging of the past is more likely to occure from the delayed "pause" then not.

[Tumpman]

When the front rows face each other they should say " One~two buckle my shoe , three~four knock on the door " prior to contact .

1. They'll remember it , even front rows.
2. It'll take the heat out of a possibly tense situation .


I'm taking my coaching badge next year btw.

[hwntw]

When the front rows face each other they should say " One~two buckle my shoe , three~four knock on the door " prior to contact .

1. They'll remember it , even front rows.
2. It'll take the heat out of a possibly tense situation .


I'm taking my coaching badge next year btw.

Jesus wept, a little bit of the art of comedy just died.

[JohnBuggy]

I assume Spif only posted it on here so that you could join in

Nah, if it had been posted on the WMB, it would have ended the way all threads end in there: a one eyed rant about cheating Irish refs, AB's, Munner and Leicester.

[JohnBuggy]

Thats never sensible.

Not if it you're looking for some comedy gold.

[Lizard]

The "Hit" is mostly dumb front rower macho BS. You might as well give all front-rowers dispensation to throw one punch per game as long as they promise to use it in the first or second scrum of the match. Then they can have a wee scuffle, decide who's boss and get on with playing the game.

[truckntrailer]

As you will know, prior to the 2007 scrum rule amendment there was no obligation for each prop to touch the opposing props shoulder and the distance between the two front rows was often larger.

Engage, or "Hit" in the post-2007 game is a bit of a lottery though. So many things have to be right: technique, alignment, the referee’s calls, footing, and so on. Not to mention, who’s been smoking chicken’s entrails (available as a “Kearns Rotisserie,” apparently).

Where this ‘Hit’ came from is a mystery to most people. When I played, the scrum formed up and then things got lively once the ball was fed, which seemed to work quite well. Also, I remember the ball going down the centre and hookers striking. So the "Hit" doesn’t seem to be based on the rules and could almost be penalised under the charging sanctions!

The point is that scrum resets are a blight, and their cause is contrary to the specific intention of the rules, which state “the purpose of the scrum is to restart play quickly, safely and fairly after a minor infringement or a stoppage.” (Law 20). So the call must be to eliminate the ‘Hit’ (along with that painful three step call) and we can eliminate 90 percent or more of resets.The rugby union scrum is a wonderful thing: the power, noise, and steam can be a majestic sight. As it is an opportunity to open up the field, of course, we need to keep it but we should be insisting that the administrators and referees look after our game by eradicating or amending the crouch, touch, pause, engage sequence.

Couldn't agree more. Never played in the front row so will never truly understand the goings on there, but it seems a bit pointless to me. I have read front rowers say that it is all about getting the upper hand at the hit and if you remove it you may as well have league style scrums.

But surely it is possible to assert power and technique from a statically bound scrum, and surely a push over try or drive off the ball may still be possible with good pack technique? There is no doubt it would significantly speed up the game eliminate much of the lottery of penalties for scrum offenses at the hit.

Would be interseted to hear what front rowers would think about removing the hit?

[OHS]

Couldn't agree more. Never played in the front row so will never truly understand the goings on there, but it seems a bit pointless to me. I have read front rowers say that it is all about getting the upper hand at the hit and if you remove it you may as well have league style scrums.

But surely it is possible to assert power and technique from a statically bound scrum, and surely a push over try or drive off the ball may still be possible with good pack technique? There is no doubt it would significantly speed up the game eliminate much of the lottery of penalties for scrum offenses at the hit.

Would be interseted to hear what front rowers would think about removing the hit?

I'm no front rower, but from what I've heard (mostly from RR) the 'hit' is more beneficial to power props (i.e. Sheridan style props), as opposed to props who have good technique.

As for the bold part, I must say that the scrums during the 70's, 80's and 90's didn't look anything like League "scrums"!

[Parsifal]

Couldn't agree more. Never played in the front row so will never truly understand the goings on there, but it seems a bit pointless to me. I have read front rowers say that it is all about getting the upper hand at the hit and if you remove it you may as well have league style scrums.

But surely it is possible to assert power and technique from a statically bound scrum, and surely a push over try or drive off the ball may still be possible with good pack technique? There is no doubt it would significantly speed up the game eliminate much of the lottery of penalties for scrum offenses at the hit.

Would be interseted to hear what front rowers would think about removing the hit?

I should have mentioned that I play/ed centre so never experienced the scrum either but the point remains; the "Hit" is, in my opinion, a lottery much of the time - too many variables.

[Andypropruck]

That would be an improvement but not as much as packing down the front rows first then the 2locks then the back row.

Absolutely - this is the only sensible way to eliminate the totally unnecessary and injury-prone charge that has developed over the years. There is absolutely no justification for it, and it actually runs counter to the laws of the game - calling it a "hit" instead of a charge is ludicrous.

I'm guessing that it developed as a means to negate the hooker "hooking" by placing him off-balance and putting the attacking team on the back foot - ie getting the shove-on early. It has now evolved into a ritual whose sole purpose seems designed to cause neck/back injuries to the front row. A collapsed scrum is pretty much the inevitable outcome as packs seek to negate a backward movement, with all the attendant re-sets. The latest fad for an elongated pause between touch and engage just seems to exascerbate the issue.

Maybe yet another ploy to give an excuse for the powers that be to eliminate the scrum because of too much timewasting, and move towards the back-heel?.......................................

[Puja]

Couldn't agree more. Never played in the front row so will never truly understand the goings on there, but it seems a bit pointless to me. I have read front rowers say that it is all about getting the upper hand at the hit and if you remove it you may as well have league style scrums.

But surely it is possible to assert power and technique from a statically bound scrum, and surely a push over try or drive off the ball may still be possible with good pack technique? There is no doubt it would significantly speed up the game eliminate much of the lottery of penalties for scrum offenses at the hit.

Would be interseted to hear what front rowers would think about removing the hit?

As a hooker (and occasional forced and incompetent prop) I'm all in favour of removing the hit. It accomplishes nothing and reduces the actual contest at the scrum by allowing a less technically adept player to engage incorrectly and screw the entire thing.

Anyone who says a hitless scrum would be like league needs their brain examining. Any prop who can't demonstrate his skills from a standing start doesn't have any in the first place.

Puja

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Another remedy would be to insist on a steady scrum before the ball is put in, as the laws require - bringing it back to the mark if necessary. That would make the hit even more pointless.

[dorset06]

As a hooker (and occasional forced and incompetent prop) I'm all in favour of removing the hit. It accomplishes nothing and reduces the actual contest at the scrum by allowing a less technically adept player to engage incorrectly and screw the entire thing.

Anyone who says a hitless scrum would be like league needs their brain examining. Any prop who can't demonstrate his skills from a standing start doesn't have any in the first place.

Puja

Only being allowed to push when the ball comes in should be re-established?

[Spifflicator]

Another remedy would be to insist on a steady scrum before the ball is put in, as the laws require - bringing it back to the mark if necessary. That would make the hit even more pointless.

That would just mean that resetting scrums goes on for even longer that it does at present.

[KK67]

Only being allowed to push when the ball comes in should be re-established?

Exxxxxxactly....!

[Eugene Wrayburn]

That would just mean that resetting scrums goes on for even longer that it does at present.That's the excuse. In fact it wouldn't because if there is no pushing until the ball goes in then it will at least be steady until that point.

[Puja]

Only being allowed to push when the ball comes in should be re-established?

You've just hit the buzzer, considering that my game last Saturday turned on a useless ref who let the opposition drive 5m past the mark and then gave them a free-kick for us not putting the ball in. They tapped, drove over the line to regain the lead and we never recovered.

Unhappy? You bet I am.

Puja

[Eugene Wrayburn]

You've just hit the buzzer, considering that my game last Saturday turned on a useless ref who let the opposition drive 5m past the mark and then gave them a free-kick for us not putting the ball in. They tapped, drove over the line to regain the lead and we never recovered.

Unhappy? You bet I am.

PujaCough!

Another remedy would be to insist on a steady scrum before the ball is put in, as the laws require - bringing it back to the mark if necessary. That would make the hit even more pointless.

[Rugby Nick]

In under 19 until the most recent law changes the "touch" was a "hold" (with the players remaining "bound") then pause, engage. This has now been done away with and the same sequence is used at all levels. The prolonged pause is being used to minimise a rolling hit which was being introduced as teams got the timing of referees sequences and would were going back to the engagements that the whole "touch, puase, engage" was trying to eliminate. In some ways I don't have a problem with a delayed pause, it means that the scrum units have to be balanced before engagement so technique becomes more of an issue. The real scrummaging of the past is more likely to occure from the delayed "pause" then not.

someone with sense at last! you see/hear the complaints about the random pause length everywhere, saying the front row just want to get on with it - as if making the front row happy (in the short term) should be the idea behind the rules.

safety first, not whinging fans who want the scrums to happen half a second quicker than they are, or find resets annoying (think I read a stat recently that said resets in the S14 and 3N this year are significantly down - not sure on that though)

[Tumpman]

Jesus wept, a little bit of the art of comedy just died.


Its laughing boy again , we now have a fun~free zone .

Miserable fecker

[Puja]

Cough!

Duly noted.

Puja

[Lizard]

Most fans are frustrated by the reffing of scrums these days, particiluarly by the long drawn out sequenece of ref's commands, frequently with a pause that seems to go on forever.

One possible way around this would be to eliminate the "pause" phase but also to require front rows to stay in contact after the touch command. At present, "touch" means almost nothing, since front rows merely brush each other with fingertips, then go back to the un-touched state, regroup, then engage with a jolt.

If they remained in touch and were not allowed to untouch before engage we might see fewer problems and the bind could actually start during the touch phase.

So I'd like to see the sequence :

Crouch - Touch - Engage, but no losing the touch before engage.

You know it makes sense.

Sorted. http://www.nowrugby.com/mb/showthread.php?p=2364851#post2364851

Sorry it took me so long.

[Spooony]

They will still mess it up. They will just mess it up quicker.

[olderbackrower]

Another remedy would be to insist on a steady scrum before the ball is put in, as the laws require - bringing it back to the mark if necessary. That would make the hit even more pointless.

Exactly! The 'hit' (engage) goes contrary to the idea of a steady scrum and not 'pushing' before the ball is in. At a coaching seminar not so long back, an RFU 'bod' was saying that after the engage ('hit') the scrums then become stable but then couldn't say why there was the need for the engage ('hit') in the first place!:doh:

[Spooony]

Another remedy would be to insist on a steady scrum before the ball is put in, as the laws require - bringing it back to the mark if necessary. That would make the hit even more pointless.

Well the halfback insist for a steady scrum before putting it in which off course like the collapsing scrum is a tactic if your scrum is under pressure.

That would make the hit even more pointless.
Do you say the hit is pointless now? Do you know what the purpose of the hit is? The hit is the the first part of the scrum. The 2nd part is just after it. The hit is where the TH has a split second to get his bind right. All the laws protect and favor the LH. Do you want to take that away now? They took away the long distance but the short distance is just as dangerous if not more. Why not adopt the non-contestable Rugby League scrum then? There has to be a balance in (a) trying to reduce the risks involved in a physical contact sports and (b) trying to retain the identities of a sport.

There is Seven Principles of Lawmaking that exist. And most of them are abandoned with the scrum laws.

[Which Tyler]

Well the halfback insist for a steady scrum before putting it in which off course like the collapsing scrum is a tactic if your scrum is under pressure.


Do you say the hit is pointless now? Do you know what the purpose of the hit is? The hit is the the first part of the scrum. The 2nd part is just after it. The hit is where the TH has a split second to get his bind right. All the laws protect and favor the LH. Do you want to take that away now? They took away the long distance but the short distance is just as dangerous if not more. Why not adopt the non-contestable Rugby League scrum then? There has to be a balance in (a) trying to reduce the risks involved in a physical contact sports and (b) trying to retain the identities of a sport.

There is Seven Principles of Lawmaking that exist. And most of them are abandoned with the scrum laws.
Common consensus over here is that the "Hit" is illegal; and therefore, any application of it is pointless, as it really ought to be penalised

[Puja]

Perfect example of this in the Australia vs Wales match. The referee is d*cking with the front row and seems surprised when it keeps going wrong.

Just taken a video of the most egregious example here:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/nnUI8ripFJU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

A full 7 seconds to get through Crouch, Touch, Pause. Utterly ridiculous.

Puja

[Spooony]

Common consensus over here is that the "Hit" is illegal; and therefore, any application of it is pointless, as it really ought to be penalised

Pointless? The engagement has become so important in the modern scrum teams are actively targeting the engagement to get the advantage. This is how the All Blacks dominated the Lions scrum, they worked intensely on the engagement in the build up to the tour. They spent hours just setting and engaging then break up and perform another skill and then back for another engage. Do not think because a thing works well in "school rugby" it will have the same effect with professional players. Engagement miss hits, Thumb in the shorts, Bind on the shorts, Head on the hooker’s knee, Boring in, Dropping the scrum under pressure, Popping up under pressure, Slipping the binding to throw a punch, Stamping on toes etc etc are techniques cheats use to disrupt the scrum. Hit or no hit they are still going to use that tactics.

[convex hull]

As a hooker (and occasional forced and incompetent prop) I'm all in favour of removing the hit. It accomplishes nothing and reduces the actual contest at the scrum by allowing a less technically adept player to engage incorrectly and screw the entire thing.

Anyone who says a hitless scrum would be like league needs their brain examining. Any prop who can't demonstrate his skills from a standing start doesn't have any in the first place.

Puja

I completely agree, the hit is pointless and, as anyone who has propped would know, very difficult to control.

Scrums were hitless years ago, scrummaging was more of a fair contest - and far more skilful - than in the current form.

[Leniency?]

I completely agree, the hit is pointless and, as anyone who has propped would know, very difficult to control.

Scrums were hitless years ago, scrummaging was more of a fair contest - and far more skilful - than in the current form.

I hate the hit, the scrum would be (and was as you pointed out) so much better without it. I would love to know what percentage of scrums collapse because of the hit. It's annoying watching reset after reset.

[convex hull]

Absolutely - this is the only sensible way to eliminate the totally unnecessary and injury-prone charge that has developed over the years. There is absolutely no justification for it, and it actually runs counter to the laws of the game - calling it a "hit" instead of a charge is ludicrous.

I'm guessing that it developed as a means to negate the hooker "hooking" by placing him off-balance and putting the attacking team on the back foot - ie getting the shove-on early. It has now evolved into a ritual whose sole purpose seems designed to cause neck/back injuries to the front row. A collapsed scrum is pretty much the inevitable outcome as packs seek to negate a backward movement, with all the attendant re-sets. The latest fad for an elongated pause between touch and engage just seems to exascerbate the issue.

Maybe yet another ploy to give an excuse for the powers that be to eliminate the scrum because of too much timewasting, and move towards the back-heel?.......................................


Absolutely smack on analysis.

[UKHamlet]

The hit is both pointless and unnecessary. Does anyone know who first started using it?

[Leniency?]

The hit is both pointless and unnecessary. Does anyone know who first started using it?

Sorry

[zzypt]

The hit is both pointless and unnecessary. Does anyone know who first started using it?

Its harder to get rid of something once its established and my memory is too poor in retrospect, but I'd like to know how it was ever allowed? I'd have thought the first time it was used the ref would have whistled it off the park and it would never be heard of again.

[Which Tyler]

Its harder to get rid of something once its established and my memory is too poor in retrospect, but I'd like to know how it was ever allowed? I'd have thought the first time it was used the ref would have whistled it off the park and it would never be heard of again.
It was introduced by a team with historic immunity to referee's interpretation

[Digby]

It was introduced by a team with historic immunity to referee's interpretation

Further it was introduced by one of the most leading referees to ever play rugby union

[richy]

i remember in the late 80's - at the dumbo level i used to play (openside or hooker)

There was a marked difference to the sides who used to engage with a hit, or no hit.

I remember that it used to be just a body language/positve/we aint scared of you type of ploy.

Sometimes the teams would get pinged for charging in.

sometimes there was also a prolonged period when the 9 "was waiting for the scrum to be stable, before he put the ball in "when skillfull dark arts were employed" - i.e allowing you front row to get sorted, or the way it used to happen to me - let the opposition screw you and either weld your feet to the floor or get your head stuck up your own arse.

this was the period when opposition hookers used to be allowed to drive there opponent up so his feet were in the air and you would be doing a backward somersault over your locks shoulders if your bind slipped.


ha ha ha......great days.......hence my lower back condition, and having to look sideways by turning from the hips and not the neck . Spot the ex front rower!

[words]

http://www.quins.co.uk/images/news/HALC_shirt_Fitz_370_x_280.jpg

[Exiledholdfast]

The hit is both pointless and unnecessary. Does anyone know who first started using it?

I raised the issue of the hit on another message board in March this year after POB came out and criticised its introduction in an interview. When asked about the mess at scrum time, he says that 'the game has evolved away from the laws' and 'we have to get away from the hit as there is no such thing in the laws'!

2.5 years ago I posted this after the Wales v Aus match where Barnes penalised Paul james for 'not taking the hit':

This is not a dig at Wales's poor scrummaging yesterday but a general observation on why the scrum is such a mess and becoming a real blight.

Waynes Barnes twice penalised Paul James for not taking the 'hit'. What Law book is Barnes refereeing from? The laws require the front rows to 'engage' and Law 20.1(k) states that ' A team must not shove the scrum away from the mark before the ball is thrown in'. There was no requirement for Paul James to take the hit or absorb any force from the Aussie LH. Basic physics shows that a 'body' will remain staionary if equal and opposite forces are applied to it. Therefore if Paul James engages and does not exert any force on his opposite number then the only reason that James will go backwards is if he is experiencing a force from the LH; ie the Aussies were pushing before the ball was put in. Therefore Wales should have been awarded free kicks on both of these occasions.

Barnes's refereeing demonstrates yet another example of the Laws not being properly applied. The 'crouch, touch, pause, engage' was meant to improve the scrum engagement but has had the opposite effect as referees are condoning pushing before the ball is put in. Therefore it is little wonder that every scrum is now a mess and takes such a long time to play out. There have been several comments on this board suggesting that scrums should come together passsively - yesterday's match perfectly highlighted the failure of 'touch, pause, engage' and refs' inability to apply the laws correctly.

The throw in at the scrum must also be addressed because the crooked feed has totally changed the dynamics of the scrum. Hookers no longer have to hook which has led to bigger hookers that only have to push. There is no requirement for them to get in a position to hook for the ball, or for their props to establish a stable scrum in order for the hooker to be able to take the weight off one leg. Crooked feeds merely lead to a horizontal pushing competetion that starts long before the ball comes in with no need to hook - little wonder that scrums are now such a mess.

Another, little known or policed law is the need for the ball to be thrown in so it first strikes the ground beyond the shoulders of the loose head prop! Rolling the ball along the ground, as is now the norm, makes it even more secure for the team with the throw in, as there is little risk of the ball bouncing in favour of the other team. The lost art of hooking required the hooker's foot to meet the ball as it struck the ground - when was that last seen?

As a former hooker, turned scrum half, I dispair at the state of the modern scrum and, unless the IRB (and their impotent refs), act quickly there will be a campaign initiated to get rid of the scrum. This would kill the game both as a sport for all shapes and sizes, and as an engrossing spectator sport.

Elite refs have been penalising teams for not taking the hit but who has instructed them to do it? POB of course; but this idiot refuses to acknowledge that he and his self righteous high priests (ie elite refs) are the main cause of the problem. I engaged some refs on this issue in the 'Elite Referees' forum on www.Rugby Refs.com and guess what? They insist that 'the hit' is necessary to stabilise the scrum - what a bunch of twonks. Elite refs are treading a fine line and are in grave danger of ending up like football refs, ie having no respects from players or fans. POB is already the least respected IRB official and needs to be axed immediately.

In summary, the IRB and POB in particular are responsible for the introduction of the hit; which has had all manner of unintended consequences.

[Spooony]

I raised the issue of the hit on another message board in March this year after POB came out and criticised its introduction in an interview. When asked about the mess at scrum time, he says that 'the game has evolved away from the laws' and 'we have to get away from the hit as there is no such thing in the laws'!

2.5 years ago I posted this after the Wales v Aus match where Barnes penalised Paul james for 'not taking the hit':

This is not a dig at Wales's poor scrummaging yesterday but a general observation on why the scrum is such a mess and becoming a real blight.

Waynes Barnes twice penalised Paul James for not taking the 'hit'. What Law book is Barnes refereeing from? The laws require the front rows to 'engage' and Law 20.1(k) states that ' A team must not shove the scrum away from the mark before the ball is thrown in'. There was no requirement for Paul James to take the hit or absorb any force from the Aussie LH. Basic physics shows that a 'body' will remain staionary if equal and opposite forces are applied to it. Therefore if Paul James engages and does not exert any force on his opposite number then the only reason that James will go backwards is if he is experiencing a force from the LH; ie the Aussies were pushing before the ball was put in. Therefore Wales should have been awarded free kicks on both of these occasions.

Barnes's refereeing demonstrates yet another example of the Laws not being properly applied. The 'crouch, touch, pause, engage' was meant to improve the scrum engagement but has had the opposite effect as referees are condoning pushing before the ball is put in. Therefore it is little wonder that every scrum is now a mess and takes such a long time to play out. There have been several comments on this board suggesting that scrums should come together passsively - yesterday's match perfectly highlighted the failure of 'touch, pause, engage' and refs' inability to apply the laws correctly.

The throw in at the scrum must also be addressed because the crooked feed has totally changed the dynamics of the scrum. Hookers no longer have to hook which has led to bigger hookers that only have to push. There is no requirement for them to get in a position to hook for the ball, or for their props to establish a stable scrum in order for the hooker to be able to take the weight off one leg. Crooked feeds merely lead to a horizontal pushing competetion that starts long before the ball comes in with no need to hook - little wonder that scrums are now such a mess.

Another, little known or policed law is the need for the ball to be thrown in so it first strikes the ground beyond the shoulders of the loose head prop! Rolling the ball along the ground, as is now the norm, makes it even more secure for the team with the throw in, as there is little risk of the ball bouncing in favour of the other team. The lost art of hooking required the hooker's foot to meet the ball as it struck the ground - when was that last seen?

As a former hooker, turned scrum half, I dispair at the state of the modern scrum and, unless the IRB (and their impotent refs), act quickly there will be a campaign initiated to get rid of the scrum. This would kill the game both as a sport for all shapes and sizes, and as an engrossing spectator sport.

Elite refs have been penalising teams for not taking the hit but who has instructed them to do it? POB of course; but this idiot refuses to acknowledge that he and his self righteous high priests (ie elite refs) are the main cause of the problem. I engaged some refs on this issue in the 'Elite Referees' forum on www.Rugby Refs.com and guess what? They insist that 'the hit' is necessary to stabilise the scrum - what a bunch of twonks. Elite refs are treading a fine line and are in grave danger of ending up like football refs, ie having no respects from players or fans. POB is already the least respected IRB official and needs to be axed immediately.

In summary, the IRB and POB in particular are responsible for the introduction of the hit; which has had all manner of unintended consequences.

Not taking the hit or a late engagement which is dangerous.

[Spooony]

Absolutely - this is the only sensible way to eliminate the totally unnecessary and injury-prone charge that has developed over the years. There is absolutely no justification for it, and it actually runs counter to the laws of the game - calling it a "hit" instead of a charge is ludicrous.
That is absolutely false. Any proof with actual injuries rather than predicted evolutions from some group of IRB contracted professors and specialists. The engagement is doesn't come close to a collapsing scrum. What causes a scrum to collapse. Professional rugby players using it as a tactic to get a reset or a penalty is the cause. From pulling down on a outside bind, a lose bind with the hooker letting the TH slip through and fall forward to a pure innocent slip of the front rowers. Engagements are not the problem. What makes the engagements more of a force is the no 8 already bound and ignite it and make it more force. But engagements causes serious injuries is false. You have more chance getting hit by a car playing rugby.

It was found that before 2001 the scrum was the most dangerous part of the game accounting for 48% of spinal injuries. Yet between 2001 and 2005 it was the cause of 12.5% of injuries. There was one spinal injury from the scrum in this period, the predicted number was nine.
There was little change in the number of spinal injuries in the other contact areas of rugby -- the tackle, ruck and maul. There were seven instead of the predicted nine spinal injuries in these elements of play between 2001 and 2005. Yet where tackles had accountedfor 36% of spinal injuries between 1976 and 2000, between 2001 and 2005 that percentage rose to 87.5.

I'm guessing that it developed as a means to negate the hooker "hooking" by placing him off-balance and putting the attacking team on the back foot - ie getting the shove-on early. It has now evolved into a ritual whose sole purpose seems designed to cause neck/back injuries to the front row. A collapsed scrum is pretty much the inevitable outcome as packs seek to negate a backward movement, with all the attendant re-sets. The latest fad for an elongated pause between touch and engage just seems to exascerbate the issue.

Maybe yet another ploy to give an excuse for the powers that be to eliminate the scrum because of too much timewasting, and move towards the back-heel?.......................................
Again false. Do not compare the like with the unlike. In other words do not compare a U 13 scrum with a senior scrum. Players never playing prop in their career you get at lower levels not at professional level. There is where your major injuries are at lower level. Honestly I think the scrum is over policed and referees should let the players take the lead instead of the referees. They have been playing there most their playing careers. In todays scrums the players are forced to scrum in awkward positions which is dangerous.

[Puja]

It was found that before 2001 the scrum was the most dangerous part of the game accounting for 48% of spinal injuries. Yet between 2001 and 2005 it was the cause of 12.5% of injuries. There was one spinal injury from the scrum in this period, the predicted number was nine.
There was little change in the number of spinal injuries in the other contact areas of rugby -- the tackle, ruck and maul. There were seven instead of the predicted nine spinal injuries in these elements of play between 2001 and 2005. Yet where tackles had accountedfor 36% of spinal injuries between 1976 and 2000, between 2001 and 2005 that percentage rose to 87.5.

Not to impugn your honour, but can we have a citation please? Those are awfully big figures to throw into a debate without seeing where they come from.

Puja