Cockerill unimpressed with new scrum laws

[fleabane]

http://www.espn.co.uk/scrum/rugby/story ... a=chromium

[Bunchy]

It does make you wonder WHO they consult when making these laws - if anyone?

I do not think that laws and changes to laws should be a committee vote, but getting a rounded view of those who actually play is surely sensible?

[northerntiger]

Although most of the comments are aimed at the fact scrum halves are having to put in straight. This is not a change in the laws.............................

[Bunchy]

true, but it is almost a law when it goes so unpunished or not refereed for such a long time....

[Soggypitch]

The changes should be a good thing IMO. The biggest blight on rugby union is constant scrum resets....if this lessens that then it will have been proved correct.

[northerntiger]

true, but it is almost a law when it goes so unpunished or not refereed for such a long time....

Agree, but I don't think Cockers can complain about not being consulted about a directive to refs to enforce an existing law!

[ellis9]

The law on hooking the ball in a scrum has never changed either as far as I am aware

[FlyingTiger]

The law on hooking the ball in a scrum has never changed either as far as I am aware

Correct. Unfortunately the the use of 'crouch, touch, engage' caused it to be negated and rather than be a competition to hook the ball; it resulted in who can hit and shove the best. Bringing hooking skills back into the game is IMO a good thing. The scrummage is a method to re-start the game, not see how much damage you can inflict on an opponent. Used correctly, with a straight feed of the ball, it will add more to the game than will be taken away. The front row will have to be more alert to the 'put in'. Once the ball is hooked and secured by the second/back row there is a choice to shove or to give a quick release. I don't see what RC has a beef about unless it is the fact that the dominance of the Tigers scrum will be diminished due to more skill being required? I would have thought that players like Cole, Youngs and Ayzera (given their excellent technical skills) will relish the new rule? His (RC) reference to the SH scrummaging game does IMO not figure either. The SH scrummage has always been farsicle due to the way it is refereed and the quick fast ball the the SH like to have.

[mol2]

I'm surprised that he's not happy about the changes - the new engagement laws surely favour the better scrummagers and should make it harder to tactically take a scrum down or up to negate a more powerful pack without it being more obvious what has happened. The dynamic hit we had could taken up or down with a seemingly random chance of the guilty front row being penalised. Likewise the law make an earlier shove more obvious as well as less beneficial than a fractionally early engagement as used to be.

[cidermark]

Just finished reading Nick Cain's article in last weeks RP and, as much as I hate to agree with him, he does raise a very valid point.

In the good old days before all the scrummage tinkering, the players engaged, the scrum steadied, the ball was presented (straight) down the channel, the hookers hooked, the props propped, etc, etc.

Everything was pretty much equal except for the fact that the timing of the put in was decided by the hooker and the scrum-half.

With the new modification the put in is dictated by the referee. Not too much of a problem in itself. It should prevent delayed put ins, trying to bluff the opposition into pushing too early. However, what it does do is give the opposition a massive and, potentially, very dangerous advantage!

There is no law that says the opposing hooker has to attempt to hook the ball. This means that they can put all front eight into the drive whereas the attacking side has, not only one of it's front row on one foot but, also, the two props expending as much energy supporting the middle man as trying to prevent the opposition driving forward.

I'm not, and apart from a small dalliance as a hooker when I was about seven, have ever been a forward and have no wish to tell teach them to suck eggs (unlike the IRB rule-makers ) - but surely this will mean that defending teams will gain the advantage? If this is the case then could we end up seeing teams deliberately giving away scrums knowing that they stand a very good chance of turning over the ball?

[mightymouse]

I'm afraid I have to disagree with Cockers on this

I started playing (first hooker and later tight head ) long before the crouch touch etc farce began

In those days Scrums "came together" because the law was "no charging"- The ball was put in straight and the hookers hooked. The scrum was a) a hooking contest and b) a pushing contest

IT WAS NOT - a charging contest, or a "hit" contest nor indeed a falling over trying to con the referee contest

I love scrumaging and all aspects of it (indeed it is by far and away the most exciting aspect of the game) however even I, stared to baulk at the umpteeth reset and scrums taking 3 and 4 minutes and still no conclusive result.

In my view the only people to benefit from this law (as long as it is inacted correctly and in full) will be hookers who can hook(now that could be interesting!) and props and locks that can push. So I cannot see Tigers for one or the northern hemisphere generally have anything to fear.

[cidermark]

Completely agree with you MM. The scrum is the heart and soul of the game. Not decrying the efforts of the three-quarters, of which I was one for many years , it was always the scrums, rucks and mauls where all the graft was put in.

It was the responsibility of the backs to supply the flair, good looks, autographs and phone numbers!

[TigerCam]

Having just watched Stade vs Barritz, my first sight of the new scrummaging rules, I was pleased to see that only one scrum collapsed. Stade having the advantage secured their ball and then shoved Barritz all over the place. I only saw one really crocked feed. In all the scrums stayed straight and the game had less interruptions. Interesting to see how the prem deal with it next weekend?

[jgriffin]

Having just watched Stade vs Barritz, my first sight of the new scrummaging rules, I was pleased to see that only one scrum collapsed. Stade having the advantage secured their ball and then shoved Barritz all over the place. I only saw one really crocked feed. In all the scrums stayed straight and the game had less interruptions. Interesting to see how the prem deal with it next weekend?

i saw a few 'screw' feeds as well as a couple in the second row. The problem is the ref dictating the put in IMO, but why we couldn't go back to the old way, simply the IRB refusing to admit it got things horribly wrong.

[TomR96]

Played a game with the new set of rules yesterday, and all I can say is they are shocking! We have lost the contest and brutality of a scrum which I'm sure some teams will be very disappointed about. It's turned into a rugby league scrum, where you see a turnover at scrum about once in five games. I'm sure forwards will be disappointed, as their have been on some occasions where the kick off has been placed into touch on purpose just to have scrum.

At least we won't see this Wasps player celebrating again...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L23B-u8flYY