Rugby: Scrums go under the microscope

Safety rules in the scrum have backfired and are not well thought out, says Enrique Rodriguez, who is writing a treatise on the subject. Photo / Richard Robinson

A major attempt to end, or at the very least curtail, the problems associated with one of the most boring phases of rugby is being made by a former Australian prop forward.

Enrique "Topo" Rodriguez, an Australian of Argentine extraction, loves the scrum, as befits a former tighthead prop. Or rather, he loves the concept. He is far from enamoured with the drawn-out, often illegal mess that the scrummage in modern rugby represents. As England coach Martin Johnson said of one recent match: "What we had at Murrayfield was a game of rugby trying to break out in between scrums."

The Sydney-based Rodriguez, now aged 59, won 26 caps for the Wallabies, 11 for Argentina and one for Tahiti. He is in the process of producing a complete, detailed publication focused solely on the scrum. Called The Rugby Scrum Treatise, it has occupied Rodriguez for the past 18 months and more and he has consulted around 150 ex-players and coaches around the world about the vexed issue of the scrummage.

He starts by highlighting principles of law-making which are what he calls "abandoned" in the current scrum laws.

1) Compliance is relatively easy. But, he says, "it is impossible to pack when you start from a standing position of one arm's length".

2) A law should never be inserted unless the intention is to have it adhered to.

"Seemingly referees have been authorised to allow the scrum put-ins to go behind the hookers' feet. How can the players be expected to comply with some laws when others are blatantly ignored by our leading referees?"

3) A principle of law-making is that in trying to solve one problem you must avoid creating a worse one.

"The law has succeeded in eliminating a potentially dangerous long distance apart before the engagement but has created an equally dangerous short distance apart. It has also succeeded in penalising early engagements, but has forced delayed engagements which have far worse ramifications."

4) Laws must have regard for safety. "The sequence of 'crouch-touch-pause-engage' breaks this principle by causing more collapses than it eliminates."

5) In every contest for possession, both sides must have some reasonable chance of acquiring the ball. The way halfbacks are allowed to put in the ball clearly breaks this principle and as a consequence the power of both scrums is increased.

6) Don't compare apples with pears. "In comparing a school scrum with a full-blown senior scrum, the lawmakers have compared like with unlike."

Rodriguez goes on: "I do not doubt the good will of all legislators because in this case their goal of increasing scrum safety is unquestionable. But it is wise not to become too 'goal oriented' or we are in danger of missing the elephant in the room: the process.

"With the scrum, a partial goal has been attained in terms of getting better injury statistics, but at the cost of enjoyment and spectacle so no one should rest on this laurel."

In Rodriguez's mind, there remain many unanswered questions surrounding the scrum. Here's one: When the power scrum came into the game in the 70s, why was collapsing so rare?

"When people say, 'But you wouldn't be able to do that in the modern professional scrum,' or, 'In this modern game you must have referee management,' I have to ask, 'Why?'."

Like everyone else, he regards safety as of paramount importance. But as he says, "I sincerely hope the pursuit of safety is carried out with an open mind and not driven by alarmist lawyers and insurance companies obsessed with the 'Precautionary Principle'."

He, and those who have advised him around the world, insist that there has to be a return to the ball being put in fairly, but early pushing must not be allowed.

"The pushing contest starts after the ball entry."

He adds: "Before anyone can provide a remedy [for collapsing scrums] we must determine the cause and I don't see that we have done thatyet."

Rodriguez's 1984 Grand Slam coach Alan Jones says, "Safety must be a major consideration.

"But the 'duty of care extremists' have got these scrum laws horribly wrong. In their attempts to legislate safety they have not only denigrated the spectacle, but ironically have added to whatever safety problems might have existed in the first place.

"Anything that increases the collapse of the scrum must increase the potential for injury, and if the risk is in the engagement process, then surely it must follow we should reduce the time, complexity and intensity of this step."

Rodriguez will publish his work in the coming months. It is to be hoped that it is received by those in authority with the due care and attention it requires.

- Peter Bills is a rugby writer for Independent News & Media in London