If you are a referee and you believe that with superior game management, and complete knowledge of scrummaging, you will always be able to prevent collapsed scrums or, if not, you will be able to identify the player(s) responsible for a collapse, put this article down and find something else to read!  Give up refereeing and take up golf.

Are you still with us?  If yes, you have acknowledged that dealing with the collapse situation is very challenging and that it is not always possible to identify the individual(s) who caused the collapse.  This paper is intended to demystify actions and events that happen in a scrum which might lead to a collapse, and, if it does collapse, to provide a logical framework to assist a referee to make appropriate decisions.

It will also help referees to anticipate.  This method of preparation mirrors how successful coaches prepare their players to deal with the challenges they encounter in the modern game by developing the ability to anticipate the actions and reactions of the opposition.

Rugby needs referees who are knowledgeable and thoughtful, who are serious about their preparation, and who are able to make correct, consistent and logical decisions.

A logical decision will be respected and will maximise the likelihood of good game management.  An illogical decision will not.

The scrum collapse situation must be handled correctly – by the players, who must know what to do to minimise the risk of injury; by coaches, who have a duty of care to ensure that players have practiced what to try to do in this and all game situations; and by referees who must “…apply the Laws fairly”.

As our Charter and Law book tell us, it is very important that players play the game in accordance with the Laws, and be mindful of the safety of themselves and others.  And it is the responsibility of those who coach to ensure that the players are prepared in a manner that ensures compliance with the Laws and in accordance with safe practices.

Law 20 provides – in eighty-eight paragraphs – a detailed account of:

• Forming a scrum
• Positions
• Binding
• The throw in
• The start and finish of scrum
• Wheeling
• General restrictions, and
• Off-side

and it instructs the referee as follows, that he/she must:

• Whistle immediately if the scrum collapses
• Award the throw in to the same team when there is no penalty
• Penalise front row players who twist or lower their bodies, or pull opponents, or do anything that is likely to collapse a scrum
• Penalise any intentional collapsing, or kneeling or falling

But what call to make?

The trouble for the referee is that if one player intentionally twists or lowers, the effect on the opposition is very often to cause an unintentional twisting and lowering.  We all recognise that this is not only dangerous, but also often very difficult to determine whether or not the collapse was intentional, or which player or players initiated it.

We have read that the Law requires a penalty against an offending team, and referees know that the crowd and their assessors and referee coaches expect them to “sort out the problem”.  A referee will be marked down for allowing collapses to continue, and we know that a referee has in the past been found in court to have been guilty of not providing a duty of care to the players, and liable for a serious injury, for opting out of Rugby Law.

It is sometimes possible for a referee to be able to accurately detect the responsible player, by identifying body alignment (“spine-in-line”), bind (“horizontal-arm-bind”) and elbow positioning and/or foot placement in contravention of the requirement of the player to be in position to generate a proper “…forward shove”.  But this is very often not the case.

So what advice can we give a referee that will help him/her to do the right thing?

Firstly, it is time to dispel a few myths.  Most importantly, there is no mystery to front row play.  There are no secrets.  Everything happens for reasons predicated upon:

• The requirements of Law
• What the players are going to try to achieve, with each team having different goals, and
• the mechanics and forces acting arising from what the players are trying to achieve.

Any referee, assessor, referee coach (or spectator) who cares enough to think these things through, and to seek advice from players and other knowledgeable people will soon achieve a working understanding.  It is often said that unless you have played in the front row you will never understand.  Well I agree with this to the extent that you can never know what it feels like to be in there.  But understanding is different.

Referees need to know:

• WHAT are the players trying to achieve?
• HOW are the players trying to achieve it?
• WHAT might you see?
• WHEN might you see it?
• ARE THERE ANY tactical considerations?
• Bearing in mind that the collapse might have been accidentally caused by a slip.

 

What are the front row players trying to achieve?

Team with the throw in

Pack down in a position that permits the hooker to strike successfully for the ball, to drive or to resist drive, to channel the ball, and be able to dictate attacking options.

Team without the throw in

To prevent the opponents from achieving this.  They will try to limit the options of their opponents by making the delivery of the ball uncontrolled.  In addition they may do this perhaps to win possession by hooking for the ball, or by challenging the opposition eight after the strike.

 

How are the front row players trying to achieve this?

Team with the throw in – pre-engagement

• Assemble as a strong unit.
• Prepare to make early coordinated and strong engagement.

Team without the throw in – pre-engagement

• Assemble as a strong unit.
• Prepare to take the initiative and prevent the opposition from achieving its preferred engagement by dictating the timing, height and location of the engagement.

Team with the throw in – engagement

• Dictate the engagement with togetherness of binding, timing and effort.
• Establish a position which permits the hooker to strike effectively

◦           Tight head square, at a convenient height

◦           Hooker solid on engagement, then find a comfortable position in which to strike.

◦           Loose head at a convenient height (perhaps a little higher than the tight head side), and engaging as much of his/her body as possible on the opposition, without compromising the requirement to transfer weight into the opposition, and/or to resist the opposition shove.

• Minimal foot movement

Team without the throw in – engagement

• Prevent the opposition from achieving its preferred engagement by preparing lower, by making the engagement inconvenient – by moving sideways, forward or back – to cause the opposition to move its feet.  And, in so doing:

◦           The tight head aims to force the opposition loose head into a too-low position.  Keep the loose head’s head and shoulders out to dissipate the opposition shove.  Alternately, seek to apply pressure on the opposition hooker with shoulder, neck and head.

◦           The hooker applies pressure downwards and/or directly into the body to make it difficult for the opposition hooker to secure a comfortable position

◦           The loose head attempts to force the tight head out of a square position, to dissipate the shove and destabilise the opposition scrum.  The aim is to get the head and left shoulder into the action under the tight head’s torso.  Dictate the height of the scrum.

Team with the throw in – after engagement

• Ensure that the hooker is able to strike effectively
• For a stationary straight scrum, after the strike, the hooker assumes a strong locked position and role.  Props maintain their solid positioning with minimum foot movement.
• For a straight scrum moving forward, after the strike, the hooker assumes a shoving position and role.  All members of the pack engage in a “called” and coordinated foot movement and drive.
• If an attacking wheeled scrum is preferred, there will a unified drive through the side of the scrum that is intended to go forwards, with less push and sometimes a pull on the other.  The loose head will normally advance, but counter-clockwise may be chosen near to the left hand touch-line to minimise defensive effectiveness, predominantly of the opposition back row.
• To counter a defensive wheel (and sometimes drive), it is necessary to match the forces.  This sometimes results in a sideways movement of the scrum.
• Against a superior scrum, one way to dissipate the shove of the opposition is to force it upwards, or downwards.  The days of skying a prop (or front row) have passed, but popping out the front row shoulders and heads remains.  Likewise, although there is now much less frequent occurrence of intentionally forcing the scrum to ground, it still happens, often for tactical reasons.  All of this is “collapsing” which is, at once, dangerous, and likely to draw a whistle.

Team without the throw in – after engagement (ball lost)

• Prevent the opposition from achieving its preferences by continuing to challenge even after the loss of possession, by a straight shove or resisting their shove, by wheeling, and/or by wheeling and driving.
• They may use a tactical collapse.

Sadly, few hookers attempt to strike against the head these days.  This is in part because it is felt that better strategy is to engage eight players in an initial defensive shoving movement.  It is also a result of referees (and their Unions) opting out of their obligations to ensure a fair contest for possession, and intentionally allowing a crooked throw in.  This is institutionalised breach of one of the most essential tenets of The Charter and of Law, and is a serious malpractice that surely must be corrected some day.  It is the easiest thing to put right.

One aspect I have not mentioned is the pure competitive nature of propping – the necessity to physically (and subsequently psychologically) dominate the opposition player.  A dominated front row player can undermine the confidence of the entire front row, then the rest of the pack, and eventually rattle the whole team

Sometimes the need for a prop to attain such dominance, or the opportunity to do so, transcends any other game logic.  Hence:  Question:  “Why did he/she do that there? – Answer: “Because the opportunity arose”.

What might you see?

Team without the throw in – engagement

• Movement before or after “Crouch, Touch,Pause, Engage”  intended to crowd or stretch the opposition, and force them to have to move their feet prior to engagement.  Either prop can cause the necessary minute sideways action.  This will normally happen on the side of the scrum that the referee is not standing!  Look for an unusual delay in the throw-in and watch the feet of the hooker with the throw-in.  He/she won’t want to be adjusting foot position.  If the hooker’s feet are moving, they are probably moving sideways.
• Shoulders below hips by the tight head and/or the hooker.
• A pincer movement by the tight head and hooker on the opposition hooker.  In this case you will see the tight head spine angled in, with wide foot placement.  In some countries this is referred to as “boring in”.

Team with the throw in – after engagement

• Before the throw in a player who has failed to secure a strong position, and who has been forced into a weak or vulnerable stance, may collapse to force a re-set and have a second chance at engaging.
• Ball won, going forwards … beware a wheel with a pulling action by a prop
• Ball won, going backwards … watch for the head of the opposition front row emerging, being popped by an upward force, or for an intentional downwards collapse by the team going backwards indicated by shoulders below hips and/or pulling down on outside binds.
• Ball won, wheeling motion … a collapse caused by the tight head if the loose head succeeds in angling in and under, often causing a quick wheel.

Team without the throw in – after engagement

• Before the throw in, a player in a weak scrummaging position may collapse to force a re-set, for the same reason just as his/her opponents, as above.
• Ball lost … beware a wheel with a pulling action by a prop.

• Ball lost … watch for a step out by the loose head in an attempt to get in on the tight head, often causing a quick wheel.  The wheel can cause the legs of the locks to cross, and with a sharp forward drive the scrum can dangerously collapse.  Of course, this step out is often hard to detect because the referee is generally on the side of the throw in.  But a referee who understands the mechanics will look and identify the stepping out motion.
• Ball won, going backwards … watch for the head of the opposition front row emerging, being popped by an upward force, or for an intentional downwards collapse caused by the team going backwards, as above.

General

After engagement, it is virtually impossible for a player to be the cause of a downwards-collapsed scrum if all four props, once packed down:

• Retain “spine-in-line” with
• A “horizontal-arm-bind”, and
• Their upper bodies remain parallel with the touchlines and
• Horizontal with the ground.

 

Any breach of these four points (in italics), might lead to an early penalty, and prevent a collapsed scrummage.  Or at a collapsed scrummage they could be identified as the cause.

A player who wishes to exert downward force will often be seen to have:

• Feet well back.  (Foot positioning can tell you a great deal about all aspects of players’ intentions.  It is difficult to move shoulders and hips without first having the feet in a position to permit it.)
• A low elbows bind, pulling down.

Are there any tactical considerations?

If a player (or a team) decides to collapse a scrum, they have done so for a reason.  What was the context in which the scrum collapsed?

• Has there been a pattern of collapsing?
• What was the score?
• Was the scrum within kicking distance of goal?
• Was a try likely to be conceded?
• Did a team have difficulty establishing a strong scrummaging position?
• Was the loose head having difficulty coping with downward force by the tight head?
• Was the hooker under too much pressure?

Don’t forget the “double bluff”.  Many a scrum has been collapsed by a superior scrum unit because it wanted the referee to penalise the weaker team for collapsing by making it look as if the weaker team had intentionally collapsed for the tactical reasons listed above.

And there is always the possibility of the accidental slip.  Keep an eye on the feet.  Why not assume that a slip is deliberate, as in collapsing over a ruck?

What call to make?

It is very often difficult to detect whether or not the collapse was intentional and, if so, which team was responsible.

A referee should maximise the chances of getting it right:

Look                           Concentrate, clear vision, know what to look for

See                             Identify the cues that identify what players are trying to achieve

Understand              Be clear how to interpret what you have seen, and

Act                              Make your call.

As follows:

 

“SNAPPA”

SEE                            Know what to look for

NOTICE                     Notice what is happening – cues

ADDRESS                Address the problem and act

POINT OUT               To the player

PENALISE                 Make your call   Decision

ACT                            Equitably

Or “SNAP Decision”

SEE                            Know what to look for

NOTICE                     Notice what is happening – clues

ADDRESS                Address problem and act

POINT OUT               To the player   Decision

Making the logical call – case studies

If you are unable to identify the culprit…

1)             Half-way, middle of the second half, 10–0 score.  Stationary scrum collapses.

What is the logical decision?

• No previous problems.  Re-set, no penalty
• Several previous collapses.  Penalty against the team not in possession.

2)             Close game, scrum on the twenty-two.  Defending team with throw in has hooked the ball and is retreating under pressure with the ball still in the scrum.  Heads pop out of the front row.

What is the logical decision?  Penalty against the team in possession.

3)             Four metres from the goal line.  Attacking side possession, driving forward intending to score a push over try.  Scrum collapses.

What is the logical decision?  Penalty try and possible caution

The importance of logic

Collapsed scrums cannot be allowed to continue.  The referee must deal with the situation.  A foot-slip may cause a collapse, but (in almost all conditions) more than slippage will be the cause of repeated collapses.

So the referee will admonish, give management advice and one second-chance reset.  After that it is time to penalise to straighten out the serious issue.  (It is fair to ask why two identical collapses result in two different decisions – the first a reset, the second a penalty?)

This paper has addressed a logical framework that will help referees get it right.  But sometimes the referee will get it wrong.

If referees were school playground monitors, they would soon identify children playing games hard but within the playground rules.  They would also know which others were cheating and bullying.  A good monitor gains playground respect if he/she is judged to have been logical about identifying the naughty bully, rather than by an illogical guess at the underworld of the playground!

Players will be frustrated if the referee penalises the wrong team.  But it is much worse if the referee makes the wrong call, and the call is at the same time an illogical decision.  This leads to flash points, because the penalised players will feel that they have an ignorant referee on their hands – so the only way they are going to be able to deal with the situation is by themselves, illegally.

By the same token, if a referee gets it wrong, but the players know – they will always know – that the referee has made the correct logical decision, it leads to respect.  They know that they are being refereed by a person who knows the Game, knows the front row, and has spent time learning about and understanding what players are trying to achieve within the tactical context.

How strong must the logic be if the outcome of the decision is five points, or three, or the outcome of a match?  Very strong.

Respect leads to good rapport.  Good rapport and good game management.  Good game management leads to good Game.  Good Rugby.

So the advice is:

• Know your Law
• Develop an understanding
• Observe player actions carefully
• Interpret, in context
• Manage
• Penalise the identifiable player, or
• If you are not certain, make the logical call.

• «Previous Post
• Next Post »

---