While the "softer" engagement routine is a sensible improvement the fact the ball is no longer required to be put in straight has made scrums somewhat pointless in most cases.
Eso es cierto acá en Argentina la UAR declaró que el scrum no se deba empujar a menos en casos de que el árbitro lo indique o aiga una especie de torneo de otro modo el scrum solo será la formación
The scrums have improved out of sight ever since the bind command was brought on as part of the engagement. Whoever thought that up at the IRB earned their pay cheque.
Gerardo Aguilera it used to be crouch, touch n then finally you would both slam forward into eachother whoever had most initial force would generally control the scrum, now it’s crouch bind (both teams front row grab onto eachother n then set (start pushing) overall there’s now less force on backs and necks
900kg pack pushing with all of their might over 40cm distance into a pack doing the same thing but in the opposite direction. No wonder people got paralized.
I was into my second year of Seniors rugby then..... Still pretty wee considering my position at lock and dear god did I take some punishment. The rule changes have been a blessing really.
Cool video, my era was mid 80's to 90's. Lots of painful chronic cumulative injuries coming home to roost now.....but sure was freakin fun!!! Wouldn't change it for anything!!!
When I first started in 1977 you established your position by slamming your head into the other front rows shoulder. I wish they had the rules they do now…. my neck wishes they had the rules they have now.
you only stop time when the play is dead. Stopping it for the reason you mentioned would mean we should stop it for conversions and penalty kicks as well
I remember one of the older Irish players getting interviewed on radio about the 5 Nations as it was then. He said that they all met up in the Gresham Hotel, had 4 or 5 pints, then all out into O'Connell St and piled into taxis, off to Lansdown, played the match and then all back to the Gresham for more pints.
If you go back a little earlier, there was a belief that having specialist positions in the scrum was close to professionalism. So, the RFU issued instructions to the England team that they were to form up in the order they arrived at the breakdown.
I really appreciate the technique and beauty of the good scrum these days, but there's something to be said for the pace at which the old ones got done with. Far too many restarts with modern scrums. Need to have an extra official in, or a specialised judge to make a quick judgement on who has erred.
I was reffing during the 90s and naughties. It was the PAUSE command in the sequence that cause a lot of problems, if there's no gap before ENGAGE they'll just anticipate. Result was mistimed hits.
The scrum is an integral part of the game, but they need to bring back the following 5 rules : Scrumhalf must be ready, with the ball already below his knees at the time the front rows engage. Scrumhalf must immediately feed the ball after front rows engage (this b.s. of the modern day scrumhalves holding back feeding until they are satisfied has got be be nipped in the bud - this is the main cause of scrums collapsing). Scrumhalf must put ball in straight. Hooker may not lift foot ('foot-up') before ball is fed. Though it's still part of the rules, it seems referees have forgotten that most scrum transgressions should get a free-kick, not a penalty.
@@neilcaress9036 IKR ! They need to fix it. I can add another rule that should be implemented : Rolling maul, off a lineout - no one other than the players in the line-out should be allowed to join the rolling maul. These days everyone, from scrumhalf, even the fullback is joining - it's no contest.
You can also see the changes in the “philosophy” surrounding rucks. It seems asif the stategy used to be to basically hound the guy who was talked and almost to like maul over the ruck. Almost like the highschool matches of today. Then like in the 90s you can see it starting to change and in the 2000s it definitely has changed. The players stopped hounding the tackle-area and they seem way more structured now, only using like 3 guys maybe in a ruck trying to get posession. Also, the guys in the first few clips really didnt care about high tackles it seems, and they seem to be bigger assholes towards each other (just being unnecessarily tougher)
It is a tremendous contrast to watching the British Lions in 1974. Referee signals for a scrum both packs trot to the place, bind, contact, ball in, ball out and the play goes on. A big effect in the 90s obviously was the start of professionalism in '95
@@dgodgo5983 How old are you if I may ask? And few people knew that until 1905 it was a 7 man scrum. The 1906 Springboks under Markotter started the 3-4-1 scrum. You may be able to tell us why it was changed!?
@@thegulagarchipelago5921 1906 was when springboks used it, but it was used by non white clubs in the western cape since before 1900. It was a way to free up the hooker, giving the opposing team much less chance of hooking the ball.
The old scrummage, despite looking better (more savage, physical) was freaking dangerous and prone to chronic, painful illnesses. The current mechanism to the scrum imo is near perfection. Very little room to explosive, harmful impact; it is about steady, massive strength output (which I think that is what the scrum is supposed to be, a unique contest of sheer power and strength by both packs). However, the scrum-half thingies and the fact that you no longer need to insert the ball straight is really stupid. I mean, the "hooker" position no longer lives to its namesake, the ball is kinda thrown almost directly to the second row players with little to no chance of contest by the opposing team - except to force a scrum collapsing by force. As a hooker myself, it is really boring to participate on scrums in either way. World Rugby must revise these aspects.
La velocidad y los choques de antes le daban una perspectiva más adrelanilica al juego pero la seguridad es lo primero y como primera línea agradezco los cambios
even though C-T-P-E looked great and more entertaining to watch, the failure rate was quite high. C-B-S reduces the amount of failed scrums because the bind adding more stability. but the obvious main reason for C-B-S was to reduce neck injury to forwards, because the distance the engagement has with C-T-P-E, making collisions stronger and more injury prone. so C-B-S is an appropriate compromise.
Ramus Sumar - As a coach I have a rule for flankers - push as if your life depends on it, cause if you don't Im going to switch you with the prop and see how you like playing in the front row.
Yup - thats what the all say. It is very effective. Sadly the reverse does not work. Telling one of my fat props "If you don't start running to the next phase I'll move you from tight head to flanker" seems to only slow them down. Go figure.
If you watch matches from the 60s, the scrums were a little similar to modern rugby league scrums but pushing must be done. Watch the Ebbw Vale vs Maesteg match from 1969 here on RU-vid.
The Scrum (at least in my opinion) is the defining characteristic that not only separates Rugby from all other games, it is also the Scrum is also what makes Rugby "rugby". Which now leads me to my question: can anyone tell me the origins of and the history behind "The Scrum" as well as how it became formalized in the sport of Rugby??
Scrummages and football codes in general originate from "mob football," which was a chaotic and violent game played in mediaeval villages. Some are still played today ( ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-CRrXHyb6O5Q.html ). These games became more formalised in English colleges, with most retaining a scrum. Eventually, most of these codes merged into association football (soccer), or lost the scrum (Australian football). Early rugby football required the ball to be kicked forwards always. Eventually, players found loopholes or just stopped enforcing the rule, leading to in being a rule with a big wink attached to it. Interesting tidbit, in one of Harvard's game against McGill, they put no men into the scrum, forcing McGill to kick the ball forward directly to Harvard's backs, which is a likely precursor to the "open formation" found in American and Canadian football. Somewhere in the late 1800s--early 1900s formations began to form, namely 3-4-1 (the currently used formation) and 2-3-2. Games still retaining scrums are rugby union (calling them a "scrummage"), rugby league ("scrummage" / only exists in theory), American football ("scrimmage" / uncontested), Canadian football ("scrimmage" / uncontested), Winchester football ("hot" / identical to union's), the Eton field game ("bully" / one team has to stand up, leading to it being largely one-sided), and the Eton wall game ("bully" / akin to a very messy ruck). To my knowledge of the organised codes, only association, Australian, Gaelic, and Harrow football lack a scrum. If you want to see what those more arcane games look like, I put some videos below: Winchester ( ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-zsjVwoa9z2Y.html ) Field game ( www.newyorkjets.com/video/eton-college-brings-field-game-to-metlife-17047055 ) Wall game ( ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-UhG4829Opn8.html ) Harrow ( ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-4qDzSmDqcTQ.html )
I played rugby from the 1950s to the '80s. The selection of scrums here is very biased, in that they are all messy. Most scrums were formed quickly and with no fuss, and the ball was cleared expeditiously. That was the object of the scrum, not, as nowadays, an attempt to con the ref into giving a penalty.
The scrum needs to be reformed again. Best example was today between Wales and France. Scrummaging at its best in the last minutes of the Game. Scrums are slow, likely to fail and finally hard to watch.
It's more a time waste nowadays. If the scrum was reformed or banned, players of the 1st and 2nd rows would be less pumped, thus quicker. The speed of the match would increase. I know there are scrum enthusiast, but in the long run they will be a minority.
Between 2005 and 2013 scrummaging was slow and the collapsing was due to each team relying on a big hit at the engage, but now that it’s more based on the technique of the scrum, the ball comes out a little quicker whilst still maintaining safety of the players
The ball comes out quicker..... after roughy 2 entire minutes have been wasted resetting the scrum over and over again. Scrummaging has never been slower. The scrum half always feeds the ball crooked. The scrum nowadays is completely pointless
how can they say this is the full evolution of the scrum? there used to be a 2-3-2 scrum which apparently resulted in very quick and clean possession into which the referee's actually fed the ball. I've not seen any video of this type of scrum but it would be interesting. Only read about them.
Dean Kruger I remember crouch-touch-set was actually used (but only for one year) between crouch-touch-pause-engage and crouch-bind-set. Or was it an experimental rule which was used only in Japan?
Perhaps have the players bind on their feet and then lower to a more horizontal position upon which the ref can feed in the ball straight down the middle?
Its almost like trying to add rules to the scrum made them messier. Better now, I think. I always used to hate having to engage. Could never hit it properly.
mid 90s were the worst. they insisted on a huge gap before the engagement. my neck makes sounds like bubble wrap being popped everytime i turn my head to the left. even now
All the IRB ever needed to do was eliminate the 'Hit'. A pointless procedure. Engage respecting the 'Mark', bit of movement while the front rows get their feet, when that stops feed the scrum. Both hookers must get a chance to strike, then play diesel tractor if you wish. The End. The move to tight (slippery) jerseys hasn't helped either but not insurmountable.
Although softer engagement was inevitable, scrums are too much scutunized now days. Scrum should be played for what they are. Not as a way to get a foul. Doesn’t mater If it turns or falls or if a head comes up. It should be the players responsability to hold it. And introduction should go back to the first row.
But those scrums that need 7 resets mean players dont get paralysed. I was a hooker for ten years and the scrums we had at the end of my playing days were much better, slower but safer.
@@harrybrown1513 Then they should just get rid of it. A set piece shouldn’t take several minutes to set up and then end with no actual contest for the ball or a penalty given for no reason. At that point I see the scrum as redundant.
Original laws allowed the strength, skill & technique to win most of the time. The more Laws you have the more parity the poorer scrumagers can gain….It’s all about weight now…one thing that will never change though - only the Front rows know who had the dominant day. 💪
California rugby tour thanks for Shari Eubanks for getting that all organized 3 hours plane 9 days car and your spring dues can be made out to USA rugby. College rugby.
Scrums have been ruined by the fact that they are now just a penalty generating mechanism. There used to be a fair contest and it happened a lot quicker.
can anybody explain to me why this sport needs scrums at all? whats happening here any why? it looks like the ball gets to the middle and the stronger you push away the back guys can grab the ball.
Because the scrum is the only occasion in sport where you can fight T-O-G-E-T-H-E-R. If you're alone, you're nothing. This is why rugby, and especially scrums, is the best sport.
Played in the scrum for years. It was hard on neck, shoulders, and back. Why not go to the 3 man scrum used in 7s? It's a quick and safe restart to the game.
I see no evolution of the scrum from a bird's-eye here in 2020. In fact, if I see anything at all, I see the decline of that once - masculine of men's institutions ie the rugby scrum. ps I enjoyed the carmeraderie of the front row Union while I was playing! Happy days!
There's not much in the "modern" game that I like about rugby....Most of the palaver about "for the safety of the players" I would like to think true, but statistics are never presented with the claim. I played rugby for 19 years, beginning in the late 60's then coached for a few years after, both men's and women's team....game still amateur. I look at the International and Premier clubs, well-trained pros and am astounded at the frequency with which the scrums collapse even with the slowed and set maneuver. Rarely, did the scrum collapse in my playing days, and I played much in the front row.....Even today in women's matches the scrum rarely collapses.....This leads me to think that there's a mindset and "advantage" sought by top rank men....that there's some major "macho" world view going on and that such is aided by the goal of breaking up the opposition's bind and earning a penalty.....Let's remember the goal of the scrum was to "restart play" from a minor unintentional penalty.....like a jump ball in basketball or a face off in hockey....not this prolonged struggle made much of by commentators as "the dark arts of front row play".....So, if macho is the goal, rather than re-start of play, there'll be a different often be a different outcome....short term and long term...For instance, props and hookers serving the side if they can play for 60 minutes....rather than what used to 90. An athletic event usually looks to develop fitness and skills along with endurance....That used to be the case with American gridiron football until the platooning system....one played with offense or defense came into vogue ie specialized into a net loss of skill. And here's the irony....it was instituted as tactical response by Alabama having to face hulks from the mid-west who out weighed them by as much as 40 lbs to a man....so instead of trying to play strength on strength, and losing, Bama decided to "out quick 'em".....smaller fitter types who just kept coming in waves of fresh bodies, to exhaust the big boys. Now rugby, which is supposedly about running for space, about fitness and athletic skill, requires, indeed, panders to the biggest blokes a team can find....not just for the scrum, but because the "laws" favor ball control and "bashing" rather than more basketball movement of the ball and fitness level of soccer. I think this a net loss to the sport. The talk about "for the safety of the players" would not allow for a Welsh international to play in last year's 6 Nations after 3 concussions in the prior 5 months....It would not create a position for a "jackal" to retrieve the ball from a tackler, where his head and ribs are exposed as he may only be on the back side of the tackled player reaching over him to get the ball which though the Laws say "Placed or released immediately" he would not have his hands on to struggle for the ball if he'd been required to play by the letter of the Law as written.....The jackal is a target for injury. Back to the scrum, a smaller lighter scrum used to be able to wheel the oppositions drive....negating greater force while keeping the scrum intact....meaning heavier brute force was not always to win the day.....Can do that any longer...brute force to back up ball put into the second row.....Why even bother??? Just give the ball to the non-offending team and allow them to play it after a touch with the foot......I would not be inclined to play rugby any longer if I were magically once again a young man....I all discouraged men and women my son's and grandson's age from playing.....Not only do I see the danger's increase, but the flow of the game is a yawn....American grid iron football has greater variety and movement now than does rugby, and that used to be the exact opposite.....
Can someone explain to me why we can’t have the speed of the 1970’s scrum if the “hit” element is removed from it. The players form the scrum, line up ear to ear and the referee shouts one instruction to start the scrum. Because the most boring part of rugby by far is watching players fuck around for several minutes to do one scrum and then have it end with an anticlimactic penalty. Complete waste of time.
As a former player in the 60' and 70s all I can say about todays scrum if BS. Slower is safer, maybe. The game has slowed to crawl now compare to back in the day. Sure players are bigger, stronger, and faster today and that is good for the game. As for the scrum itself, i think they won't have scrums, at least with 8 participants in the future. Already the ball does not come in straight so why have a scrum? Scrum are really not good for the game as played today. A possible solution is a five player scrum with ball in straight at hookers back to work. Sometimes a successful scrum now takes two minutes or more to complete. If you want to keep scrums with eight players, have the players engage and hold position like we did, ball comes in straight, THEN the players move forward. Safe and simple. Side that jumps the gun, gives up a penalty. Go, Portland Pigs Rugby Club.
good lord 90s scrum looks bloody dangerous, i rather prefer the scrum from 60s, but now is safer but instead a fair constest looks like a lazy way to afford for a penalty bloody boring goal .
Kees Meeuws (a former All Black Prop) reckons that they are deliberately collapsed in attempts to win penalties and that the props try to make it look like that other sides fault. But looking at this, the props have gotten fatter and gravity is a bitch. Fitness must be part of it too, the don't hurry through the scurms anymore.
Dave Logan I think the scrums have slowly become a mess since professionalism started in 1995/96. As you said it became a means to win penalties rather than win quick ball. They just got on with the scrums during the amateur days (pre-1995).
Dave Logan I'd agree with the deliberate collapsing to win penalties, every prop should be able to support themselves in the scrum regardless of their bellies gravitating to the floor.
scrums nowadays are set much lower than they used to be due to the smaller gap (its not so much about the stronger pack, its more about the pack with better technique trying to get lower than the other pack to get the advantage of the puch upwards rather than downwards- i.e a more natural movement) plus with props as heavy as they are nowadays of course its going to be difficult for them to hold their own weight set so low haha
+Oscar McCormack And the problems continue because a proper Law Overhaul is needed to bring the law into the 21st century. Look for my book "Rugby-The Art of Scrummaging" There still are many incongruencies with referees and the law that need sorting out.
