We are now 2 years on from the first match under the new scrum engagement laws, brought in after tolerance of the mess the scrum had descended into reached its limit in 2013 and WR were forced to make changes. Here is a look at how those changes disappeared.
After much debate amongst experts, general consensus seemed to be that an essential part of fixing the scrum lay in merely properly implementing some of the most basic laws as they are written.
The main two being 20.6 (d): 'the scrum half must throw the ball in straight along the middle line, so that it first touches the ground immediately beyond the width of the nearer prop's shoulders'.
And also 20.1 (j): 'until the ball leaves the scrum half’s hands, the scrum must be stationary and the middle line must be parallel to the goal lines. A team must not shove the scrum away from the mark before the ball is thrown in'.
Hardly complicated laws. In fact two of the easiest scrum infringements to spot, but it had become the norm for whatever reason to ignore both.
The view that enforcing the straight put in was essential, also came with wide backing from the public and media who wanted something to be done.
So WR made changes, with an emphasis on the scrum feed supposedly coming back into play.
WR CEO Brett Gosper said 'there is a commitment to ensure strict policing of the scrum feed'. John Jeffrey, chairman of WR's law representation group and member of the 'scrum steering group', said that now 'definitely the ball will go down the middle'.
Video: John Jeffrey, chairman of WR's law representation group, saying
that 'definitely the ball will go down the middle' under the new laws.
The move was backed by officials, media, fans and even referees as a positive one.
One of WR's leading referees Craig Joubert talked of how of removal of 'the big hit' (something referees themselves introduced) would allow refs to 'look at other important things such as the scrum feed'.
Video: Craig Joubert saying the new laws would allow him 'to look at
other important things such as the scrum feed'.
And in the very first international under the new laws between New Zealand and Australia, Joubert called 4 scrum feeds in the first 11 scrums.
Video: Craig Joubert penalised crooked feeds 4 times in the first international
under the new laws. Since that match he has gone 12 matches and 143 scrums
without penalising a single scrum feed.
After the match Joubert was reported as having told the teams 'we want it dead straight, we are under pressure to get selected for games so we have to make sure we enforce it'.
His countryman Stuart Berry, another referee who will be going to the RWC (albeit as a touchjudge) tweeted that day 'I can tell you it WILL continue'.
 |
| GIF: A scrum 2 minutes into Berry's first international under new laws in November 2013. In August 2013 he said 'I can tell you it WILL continue' in regards to feeding being penalised. |
After blowing for 4 feeds in the first match, since then Joubert has done 12 internationals, overseeing 143 scrums and guess how many feeds he has blown for? Answer: zero.
Clearly not under that much pressure 'to get selected for games' after all then, as Joubert remains a referee WR give a lot of major games to. 13 of his last 15 internationals have been either New Zealand, Australia or England ones.
That Joubert has not given a single scrum feed since, makes a mockery of how he talked of being now able to 'concentrate on scrum feeds'.
 |
| GIF: Joubert said the new laws would allow him to 'concentrate on scum feeds', so what was he concentrating on here as one side walks over the ball? |
Leading English referee Wayne Barnes told media at the start that 'our priority is the scrum feed' and that 'we don't want to start off being very harsh in week one then by week 20 everyone's forgotten about it'. Followed by Brett Gosper tweeting 'and hopefully beyond' in response so a headline saying they were to be enforced all season.
Despite that, just 3 weeks later, Brian Moore wrote in his Telegraph column, that at an RFU open day when he pointed out a clear crooked feed, he was told by Barnes that referees 'had agreed that type of feed would be allowed'.
Moore stated 'a familiar sinking feeling that this would lead to only one end', and stats show he's been accurate, as contrary to Barnes comments about not forgetting it after a while, a penalised scrum feed has become progressively rarer over the course of the two years.
In matches between top 20 ranked nations under the new engagements. There's been 2224 scrums. Split that into quarters (556 scrums), and in the first quarter (Aug-Nov 2013) there were 20 scrum feeds called (still well below the quantity of feeds there actually were).
 |
| The amount of scrum feeds called has gone down in every quarter of the 2224 scrums between the top 20. |
Over the second quarter, there were 9 feeds called. In the third quarter, there were 8 feeds called. And finally, in the most recent quarter there have been just 2 scrum feeds called. So penalised feeds have fallen 90% from the first quarter.
This year there have been 498 scrums between top 20 ranked international sides and just 2 feeds have been called. The last scrum feed in international rugby was 370 scrums ago, in the France vs Italy Six Nations match.
Despite those figures, unbelievably, some referees actually deny ignoring the crooked feed. With the narrative of 'we need to improve on refereeing it' but 'we're looking at other things'.
In one of the clips above, Joubert said previously 'our focus has been diverted by this massive big hit'.
Nigel Owens was also confronted on this issue by Brian Moore, he said 'it's an area we need to improve on', 'but I'm looking at so many things going on, it's down the checklist of what I'm looking at'.
Audio: Nigel Owens claims he doesn't just ignore the scrum feed, but just that
'it's down the checklist of what I'm looking at'. It's been 'down the checklist' in
all of the past 6 internationals Owens has officiated.
Joubert (0 scrum feeds called in past 143 scrums), talking more recently earlier this year said that 'monitoring the straight feed in the scrum remains an important aspect of scrum refereeing and it’s something we have identified as an aspect of refereeing which we need to be better at'. He hasn't changed his narrative in 2 years.
All that is utterly dishonest, laughably so. The idea that no elite referee has seen a scrum half put in a crooked feed in the past 370 international scrums, and that they're not ignoring it but just looking at other things, is ludicrously far fetched to say the least. Especially with their old excuse of 'the big hit' taken away.
 |
| GIF: A feed that was 'down the checklist' of what Nigel Owens was looking at, or alternatively a feed that was simply allowed by Nigel Owens. |
As John Jeffrey said on his radio interview with Moore, that behind the scenes, of the Tier 1 coaches 'none of them want a straight put in'.
Audio: Brian Moore discusses the scrum with the chairman of WR's law representation group
John Jeffrey, the former Scotland flanker says he 'couldn't agree more' with Moore, yet has
ignored his advice of how to fix the scrum. In response to a question from Phil Vickery as to why
the laws were ignored, Jeffrey responded that none of the Tier 1 coaches wanted a straight put in.
And despite the positivity around the new laws, two of the very few to moan publicly right from the start at the straight feed were also coaches, Leicester's Richard Cockerill and Exeter's Rob Baxter. Both citing safety.
 |
| All Black scrum coach Mike Cron, a critic of straight scrum feed, and a member of WR's 'scrum steering group', and regarded as influential in terms of direction of the scrum. |
Another coach in particular, All Blacks scrum guru Mike Cron, a member of the 'scrum steering group', also in close contact with other Southern Hemisphere coaches, appears to have been highly influential at WR, and appears to have been the main man in shifting them away from the straight put in under safety grounds.
Just one month into the new laws, he said he was with other SANZAR coaches 'proposing that the tunnel should be widened'. Echoing of what Jeffrey said before the change of Tier 1 coaches not wanting the straight put in.
In 2014, Cron again argued strongly for relaxation of the feeding law, under the grounds of it is unsafe for the hooker to hook. He said that the margin for feeding the ball into the scrum 'must be widened' and that 'it is fraught with danger to insist the ball be fed down the middle line'.
Funnily enough, Moore actually pinpointed Cron as a man of influence at WR way back in March 2013. He tweeted that 'Mr Cron clearly leading IRB' and that 'their being led by Cron like bulls to the ring'.
The former England and Lions hooker also saw the 'safety card' coming into play by those against the straight scrum feed as well. Early on writing in his Telegraph column that 'those resisting change are already cynically playing the safety card and take note how this fraudulent line is pedalled in coming months'.
Again, on both counts, he appears to have turned out to be correct. As prior to this year's ITM Cup which starts this weekend, the New Zealand Herald reported 'don't expect those scrum feeds to go in any straighter from the half backs'.
It stated that after a brief attempt at seeking straight scrum feeds, that 'the thinking has changed after scrum guru Mike Cron raised it as a safety concern'. Again underlining Cron's influence.
This was repeated by referee Nick Briant, who said the straight feed is too dangerous to hook, so the feed now merely needs to be 'straightish'. So pretty much a green light for feeding, just put in a slightly friendlier way than saying they will outright ignore it.
Even in WR's recent 'law application guideline' issued last May, they actually no longer actually asks refs for scrum feeds to be 'straight'. But instead asks feeds just to be 'credible'.
Again, that's simply a cleverly worded way of saying you are actually now allowed to feed the ball crooked, whilst giving the appearance that they still care. (There's been 310 scrums between top 20 ranked sides in international rugby since that 'law application guideline' and not a single scrum feed).
Ultimately, even though John Jeffrey told Brian Moore on the radio that 'he couldn't agree more with him' and saying 'definitely the ball will go down the middle'.
He and WR have ignored Moore's advice, plus that of other scrum experts such as former Wallabies and Pumas prop Topo RodrÃguez who even wrote a book called 'The Art of Scrummaging'. Instead listening to Cron and the safety fears.
Stats that show clearly how the policing of the scrum feed has dropped off nearly entirely, and in recent games we have seen a return to things that were prevalent previously, with front rowers walking over the ball.
 |
| GIF: An example of a pack just walking over the ball in a recent PNC match |
Also WR collapsing to Cron's safety fears doesn't make sense. For years we were stuck with a mammoth hit that had loads of safety issues involved, but that could only be altered following a wide range of studies and trials.
So how have Cron and a few other coaches, have been essentially allowed to unofficially alter the laws on safety grounds (which are contested by others) and not themselves go through the studies and trials to back them up?
Also why have WR dumped the system they seemingly favoured following those studies and trials?
 |
| Brian Moore a leading critic of WR's policy to ignore scrum feeds, made a fair point. If the Cron and a few other coaches believe the straight feed to be unsafe, then why don't they make the argument backed up by trials and studies to change the law? |
Moore finishes his Telegraph article about what he believes are bogus safety fears saying that 'if they want this (non-policing of feeding), they should have the courage to propose and persuade the IRB to pass different laws'.
It's a fair point, if Cron felt so strongly that the straight put in unsafe, then why doesn't he put forward the proposal, gain sufficient support from studies and trials to attempt to get it changed?
Furthermore, if WR seemingly agree with Cron, why do they still have the law that states the ball must go down 'straight along the middle line'? If they think it's unsafe then change the law.
Frankly though, we've seen for years the scrum disintegrate into shambles in the era of 'the big hit'. Now feeding has crept quickly back in, and it seems referees are keen on returning the scrum closely as possible back to where it was.
The scrum was a mess in 2013, it's still a mess with feeding and early engages now, so why was the suggested alternative of applying their own laws barely even genuinely attempted?
In the same scrums from the first game under the new laws, where Joubert penalised for feeding and was praised by Gosper as the 'man of the match' for doing so. He actually completely forgot the early shove law.
Brian Moore wrote the following in 2010: 'you would think that it is easy to see which pack has shoved before the ball is fed and it is. If a referee draws a line in the turf equidistant between the packs, the one that ends up over that line has pushed early or if both have done this has done so with more power and should be penalised'.
And here you can see a scrum on the halfway line, how 'stationary' are these packs? How obvious was it one side was pushing beyond the mark? Yet Joubert still asked for the ball to be put in.
 |
| GIF: In the first match under new laws, Joubert called the scrum feed ... but only after one side had done one of the most blatant early shoves. |
Also in the first weeks of the new laws in Rugby Championship we had other clueless referees such as George Clancy and Nigel Owens overseeing blatant early shoves on the 'set', rather than keeping it stationary until the ball went in. Such as this instance here.
 |
| GIF: Another obvious shove before the ball is put in gets ignored. |
Before the new laws came in, Brian Moore wrote an article for Rugby Refs on officiating the scrum, saying that a pack 'does not have a responsibility to engage as hard as the other pack and certainly not to match any illegal early push - which is what is actually meant when referees say 'take the hit'.
Yet on the same day as the previous example illustrated where Owens ignored early shoves, we also saw another referee, watch another obvious early engage, warn a side 'to take the hit', bumble through another reset, then penalise a side for not 'taking the hit'.
Video: Under the new engagements, early engages being ignored and sides
being told to 'take the hit', ie match the other sides early engage.
JP Doyle gave an interview in The Rugby Paper recently, where he said 'if the scrum's moving, what's the point of calling the crooked feed?'. Yet if the scrum's moving, then likely one or both the teams are pushing before the ball is in, it doesn't take a genius to work that out.
In the same interview, Doyle also said 'I think we're starting to rein in some of those highly dubious feeds' and that 'we're gradually getting on top of it'.
Last month, Doyle was telling players in the PNC 'come on buddy, get in the real world', perhaps given the remark 'we're getting on top of the scrum feed' he should take his own advice.
Video: JP Doyle tells USA flanker John Quill to 'stay in the real world' during a recent PNC match.
After claiming 'we're getting on top of scrum feeds' maybe that's advice he'd like to take himself.
Meanwhile, while feeding in the scrum is blown for once in a blue moon, in 164 internationals and 2224 scrums between top 20 nations, there has not been a single occasion where foot up was penalised.
It's still in the law book, as law 20.8 (a) states 'until the ball has left the scrum half’s hands, they must not raise or advance a foot'. But it is never, ever penalised, no matter how obvious.
This is less well publicised than the scrum feed, but it would be interesting to know why WR even bother having a law in the book that is never used, or why it is never used.
The very fact on the official laws site, the video example they have of a foot up offence being penalised, comes from an obscure match in 2010 between Romania U20 and Papua New Guinea U20 says it all really. They must have really struggled to trawl the archives for that clip.
But despite never being penalised, and less commented on than the feed, 'foot up' is actually a common tactic. Ireland's Rory Best is one of the biggest employers of this tactic.
 |
| GIF: 'Foot up' - advancing the foot before the ball put in, a trick that's a favourite of Rory Best, and that's been penalised 0 times in internationals under the new laws. |
 |
| GIF: Another obvious instance of 'foot up', this time Motu Matu'u's foot advances before the scrum half has even bent down. |
My own theory, is that referees ignore offences such as 'foot up' or 'feeding', and only like to make decisions when the ball doesn't come out of the scrum. Otherwise if the ball comes out, they don't care, are fearful of being called 'pedantic and are just happy just to let the game go on.
Which plays into an attitude of game management rather than refereeing the laws promoted by Nigel Owens who promotes the line of 'it's more important to know when not to whistle than when to whistle', and openly admits ignoring certain offences at maul or offside he feels irrelevant.
For instance, Munster prop BJ Botha, over the course of last season was inexplicably allowed to get away with the most egregious examples of binding on the arm largely unpunished.
BJ Botha's consistent short arm binding over the course of last season
became an absolute joke with it being so obvious yet so rarely penalised.
There's no argument that props should be allowed to bind on the arm for safety reasons, on the contrary Cron stated that incorrect binding on the arm by tighthead props is a major reason in instability at the scrum. Not forgetting of course it gives the illegal binder an advantage.
That a player with the most horrendously obvious arm binding escaped all year doing it, was just referees turning a blind eye. Ignorant to the fact what they allow to happen, adds up to an overall alteration in the dynamics of the scrum.
A solution to the scrum issue doesn't look like happening any time of soon. WR and their elite panel of referees had a golden opportunity in 2013, under a clean slate to put things right, and they bottled it. It's hard to any way out of the scrum mess under this generation of referees.
No comments:
Post a Comment