Home Tags Rugby Laws

Rugby Laws

The TMO – Fix it, or get rid of it


In the beginning of the year I wrote an article expressing my concern on the effect the extended power to the TMO will have in the game in this year’s competition – with some justification it now seems.

The ‘hit’ is the problem after-all


A week or so back I (stupidly) decided to give my opinion in an area of the game very few know anything about, the scrum, but it seems by a shot of luck I might not have been far off!

My post ‘The hit is a miss’ dealt with issues at scrum time and suggested that the actual ‘hit’ in the scrum could be the root of all evil.  Well here is something I came across from someone that knows a hell of a lot more than I do on matters like this, and also provides some astonishing scientific data.

Scrum ‘hit’ is the problem after-all
The Roar – Jeznez

The ‘Hit’ in Rugby Union scrums has come under widespread criticism for a number of years now.

I have been arguing that it is players willfully collapsing which is the major issue, rather than the hit but new evidence is coming to light which suggests I am wrong.

The IRB sends regular emails to accredited coaches and the January installment arrived this week.

Included was a presentation by IRB Chief Medical Officer, Dr Martin Raftery titled “Scrum History, Scrum Force Project and Scrum Injuries”. The presentation cited a number of studies that have been predominantly conducted at Bath University.

In the history section the studies showed that between 1982 and 2004 the number of scrums per game went from an average of 31 to 19, a drop of 60%. This reduction has been maintained with the RWC of 2011 averaging 17 scrums per match.

During the 1982-2004 period the number of scrums won by the feeding team has stayed aligned going from 88% to 89%.

The biggest change reported was in relation to penalties. Back in 1982 scrum penalties were evenly distributed between the feeding and defending scrums. As of 2004 the side feeding the ball enjoyed a 6:1 advantage in having a penalty awarded to them.

Something has drastically changed if the defensive side has become six times more likely to give away a penalty at scrum time.

The presentation also compared the 2003 Rugby World Cup to the 2011 version. The latest RWC had twice as many scrum collapses and twice as many penalties compared to 2003.

The 1995 RWC was also compared to 2011 with an even bigger difference; there are now three times as many collapses and four times the penalties.

An analysis of the scrums in the 2011 World Cup showed that there are an average of 17 scrums per game; half of these are won cleanly, a third collapse and the remaining 20% result in a penalty or free kick.

This seems to be a first world problem though. A review of the pool matches showed that when two Tier 1 teams played each other the stats are much worse than if two Tier 2 teams play each other.

The 2011 RWC Pool Matches break down as follows; these are average results per 100 scrums.

Tier 1 v Tier 1 – Collapse = 50, Re-Set = 31, Penalty/FK = 41
Tier 1 v Tier 2 – Collapse = 34, Re-Set = 17, Penalty/FK = 29
Tier 2 v Tier 2 – Collapse = 19, Re-Set = 9, Penalty/FK = 17
6 Nations – Collapse = 54, Re-Set = 30, Penalty/FK = 44
Tri Nations – Collapse = 43, Re-Set = 25, Penalty/FK = 25

The Tri Nations numbers are surprisingly good but it could be argued that South Africa and Australia have been scrummaging at a Tier 2 level so skew the results.

Finally the studies showed that scrums are taking up more than their fair share of the game. Scrums make up 8% of all contested events in the game but consume 17.5% of total playing time.

All the above points to scrums materially being an issue today compared to prior eras, and an issue at the highest level compared to lower tiers. It doesn’t pinpoint the ‘Hit’ or show that my defence of it was wrong. The next section of the presentation addressed that.

Bath University has conducted extensive studies measuring forces on scrum machines. With the assistance of the RFU they were able to gain participation from International, Elite Professional, Community, Adolescent, Women and U/18 teams.

The study focused on:

Peak Engagement Force (PEF) being the maximum force generated on impact.
Sustained Compression Force (SCF) being the force maintained after impact.
Lateral and Vertical forces.

They looked at a number of engagement methods from the Crouch, Touch, Engage (CTE) to Passive, including the variations of hitting and holding versus double shoves, amongst others.

The key finding is that the PEF which measures the force on the ‘Hit’ is twice what it was 20 years ago. PEF are also twice as large as the SCF.

The International and Elite packs generated significantly higher PEF, even after normalising for their greater mass. It was deemed that the speed of engagement these professional packs were able to generate led to the difference.

The PEF on a normal engagement are twice as large as that on a ‘passive’ engagement. All engagements, including passive produced similar levels of SCF.

Passive engages involved reducing the engagement speed by between 55-75% compared to a normal one and as well as a 50% reduction in the Peak Engagement Force, the downward Vertical force was reduced by 20%.

Given the twin pieces of evidence that the peak engagement force in scrums is twice what it used to be and that this is a particular issue at the elite levels. We need to revisit the engagement method to get rid of the blight of collapses and penalties on the game.

The new Crouch, Touch, Set engagement call that has been introduced is an improvement with the removal of the Pause and change to a single syllable pack call. However it does nothing to address the distance between packs, and does not limit the speed at which engagement occurs.

These are the two key areas that need addressing. The IRB’s Scrum Unit is due to release more information and recommendations shortly so we can expect to hear more on this during the year.

Video killing the Rugby star?


Rugby just would not be rugby if we went into a new year without some law changes or amendments, and the boys at the IRB and SANZAR did not disappoint.

The hit is a miss


This time of year rugby lovers (in the Southern Hemisphere) are forced to sit through the best Europe has to offer if they want their weekly rugby union fix and it has been interesting in some aspects to see what is happening up North.

Are refs just making stuff up?


It has long been suspected that referees are guessing when it comes to calls at scrum or ruck time, but blatantly making laws up as they go along?

IRB introduces new law amendments


The International Rugby Board and its Member Unions have sanctioned a global trial of five aspects of Law amendments following an extensive process of consultation and evaluation.

Cooper appeal dismissed


A SANZAR Appeals Committee has dismissed an appeal by Australian first five-eighth Quade Cooper against his two-week suspension imposed after the Australia v South Africa Tri Nations Test match in Brisbane on Saturday 24 July 2010.

Stormers cheated out of fair contest


I KNOW northern and southern hemisphere rugby is played to different laws, but I never knew that the northern and southern discrepancy applied to South African rugby.

A move in the right direction


The talk prior to the start of the Super 14 is the breakdown, and after all is said and done, from what I have seen I believe we are moving in the right direction.

Leave the laws alone


I am getting so sick and tired of rugby experts bitching about the laws of the game in the mainstream press.