The substantive change, as far as I can see (but the consequences of rule changes are complex to imagine), would be that a team that had a try scored against it would have the option of backing its authority in the scrum to retain possession and go straight on the attack in possession. I would imagine that a captain would only pick this option over the kick-off if it (a) had great confidence in its scrum and (b) was prepared to risk a turnover near the half-way in exchange for having a running opportunity. In other words, as I see it, it would be a rare (and powerful) declaration of authority and intent in response to a try, or basically no change bar a slightly more open equivalent of a kick-off. But maybe I’m missing something.

More generally, my most serious concern (of many) over any devaluation of the scrum is that it would increase the risk to what I see as the most unique and outstanding general charm of rugby, which is that I know of no other team game that has a place somewhere for every major body shape known to humanity, apart from the unfit. It is the scrum that gives this most precious of all qualities to rugby.

The advantage to the feeding team is that they are better placed to aim a kick deep at the corner post, or high to a fullback such as Gareth Thomas, and let him hear the thunder of the loosies bearing down. The latter is fresh advantage, the former can be gained from the other choice of a kick off itself. In each kicking scenario, the newly defending team would have to make placement choices – do they set for the kick and leave themselves disadvantaged for running attack, and vice versa.

Its real benefit is that it is a game changer, both in play and psychologically, and for that reason I think it has a place; and hence a limit per match. Alternately, kicking from the scrum win could be disallowed for the feeding team until a ball player is tackled, or some such.

Or, bearing in mind a feeding team may score quickly, the team scored against gets the same option – so how much of it would happen if unfettered, is the first question.

Ps. Do you see it as defending team feed? And if it’s too much advantage, a limit of what, two per match in tournaments?

Itd be a powerful way of signalling the intent in reply.

Geez, wouldn’t it. For a team to choose that, it would come from a try against them say, against the run of play, or when they were fresh (legs) and keen to shove it back, or when in deeeeep guts effort to make a claim and try to change to psychological state staring down defeat. Great idea.

I think the problem with Tuney and to a lesser degree Ben Darwin is that they have too recently been players, which means they are always trying to be careful not to offend their mates and officials. Same problem with Morgs in doing a blog. Even Timmy Horan was impossibly vanilla until he gave his positon as a national selector away. The best commentators are always the old heads who say what they think and don’t give a stuff, like the Ellas, Campo, Nick Farr-Right, Kearnsey … and, well, what ever happened to Poido? Bring back Poido!

But most of all..

the grinning monkey

– well put.

“As scrums are a genuinely unique part of rugby, they need to be brought much more into commentary and promotional focus.”

P’zackly! The punters don’t know what they want until you tell them.

The one shining light in a miasma of commentary awfulness on Channel 10 is Ben Darwin, particularly when he is describing the finer points of the scrum. It is gold! (Personally I think he is touting for a gig as a scrum coach .. but that is ok)

Ben Tune should be taken out the back and shot, and the grinning monkey should be strangled, but Darwin is a gem.

“The front row are settled down nicely on their second rows”

“Dunning has been penalised for rotating his hips”

Marvelous stuff.

21. A scrum option is available for all FKs. [Free-Kicks]

Don’t tell me you were a forward Shielsy. Was that before or after the operation?

The above-cam in the World Cup supplies lots of stuff to work with. The game needs to teach appreciation of the different options, such as when the 8 picks up the ball. I’ve also noticed that Palu switches from packing down between the locks to between the flank and lock sometimes. What’s that all about? We need diagrammatic modules to illustrate the options and shifting tactics.

The idea that scrums are “boring” plays directly into and encourages the presumption of spectators suffering from permanent attention-deficit syndrome. The union needs to turn this completely on its head. As scrums are a genuinely unique part of rugby, they need to be brought much more into commentary and promotional focus.

The potential has been barely tapped. It’s blue-sky …

The trick is to knock off just the right anount of spectators to make it unviable for pay-TV, so we can go back to the ABC. Ideally, this would also be enough to make the Telstra stadium unviable, so Tests would be played at the Sydney Stadium. Even more ideally, this would make the Telstra Stadium unviable commercially overall, so that it would be bulldozed and rebuilt as a functional rugby ground.

Aspiring for a smaller audience and scrapping the pay-TV contract will mean less money of course, but there is plenty of room for savings. Good luck to the top players, but those multi-million dollar salaries are absurd. I’d also like to see the flaming idiot who thinks rugby fans at the grounds need 15 seconds of “Twist and Shout” and “Eye of the Tiger” every now and again sacked outright without mercy, and perhaps put in public stocks somewhere for prolonged public humiliation. And he can take the loser who is resposible for half-time entertainment with him. Silence at half-time would be a real winner, allowing the middle to be occuppied for 15 minutes of the local under 10s. We can also save by shutting off the big screens at the ground for all purposes except replays. And while I’m here, when are rugby’s tv producers ever going to realise that rugby is not league? We do not want to see the last movement in a try played over and over and over like the Mungos do. We want to see the whole movement that led to the try replayed over and over again. And before I go, who is the dimwit who thinks viewers of the current World Cup on tv actually want to hear the players sing [sic] the national anthems? Get that microphone out of there.

This is raises an important question: to what extent should Rugby be seeking a greater audience?

There have been Test Matches between Australia and the All Blacks where scrums were set again and again, for (or as it seems) as long what? ten minutes? Obviously this gave rise to rule changes to free that up and try to attract more spectators.

But for many rugby folk that intensity of contest served many functions: it brought forward play in so tight that a sort of substory game was being played, as epic contest of itself; it freed the backs (without their play infused and confused by “settler” forwards) and, while the epic scrum contest was fought, made them hungrier and hungrier. To fully appreciate these things required often a playing background: to know what awesome things were going on in there, to feel for your teammate during that epic contest, and to feel that subtle change of energies as the forwards brought all the loose or running play energy into a singular tight battle, allowing the backs to reset and rethink and charge their penetrating- powers, along with a well considered plan(s) of attack for the next passage(s). This was very much part of the fine art of rugby, and part of what set it apart from any other game on the planet. While fewer people wanted to watch the game, those that did were repaid with higher satisfaction rates.

Injuries, too, led to these rule changes, and fair enough. I’ve put the ball into epic scrum contests and, shockingly, not recognised the faces of my front row, so contorted and pressure strained they were. How many more people never broke their necks is beyond me, having witnessed intense scrummaging hits and struggles.

Back to the original point: Rugby, I believe, has to decide how wide an audience it wants. The thing about Grid Iron is not entirely folly: as an extrapolation of current play, to have separate attack and defense teams is a logical integration of the current skills and plays – and look at the width/breadth of that audience. All the plays are there, the skills and required physiques, and the ball is constantly in view (perhaps the major audience factor).

For the Rugby powers that be to decide to seek a more limited audience would allow for rules which guide the play so it is enjoyed at a heightened and more loyal level, than to try to be all things for all people. Exactly what those rules are is no doubt a point of contention. Nor is it necessarily the best way to go; perhaps a change of rules will produce another incarnation which is enjoyed greatly by the many.

I do expect, though, that in seeking the widest audience, loss of the fine art of Rugby play, spirit, development, comaradarie, intensity, loyalty – such as the epic, symbolic, and multiserving scrum battle – makes for a lesser game.

boring scrums is an oxymoron. Ken must have been a back. There is no such thing as a boring scrum. Scrums are the heart of the game. Scrums are what defines rugby. Scrums are where rugby starts. The rugby scrum is one of the authentic wonders of the world. Backs are the game’s optional extras.

Whatever rule it is that is reducing scrums will have to be ditched. We want more scrums, not less. Over these parts, we’re eagerly awaiting Phil Kearns’ long promised DVD “The 100 Best Scrums”, and are delighted to hear that the follow-up is already in planning: “The 100 Best Scrum Re-Sets”.

Altogether now: … crouch … touch … hold … engage … *KABOOM*

Why should I give a bugger? They pay corporate types to think about all that boring business stuff. I just like to watch, and everyone else can make their own arrangements. Go the Wallabies!

Rule changes will certainly help, and is the exact place to start.

The code hasn’t handled professionalism at all well. At administrative level – and this hurts – players are not called that any more, they’re called ‘assets’. Definitely not to mention what teams are called.

Kids of eight years of age are talking about contracts as the reason for their playing. Regardless of whether they know what they’re talking about, this is what’s going on.

And if any Leaguie wanted a laugh, have a look at a rugby development officer doing the rounds. Puts you off straight away, and indicative of lack of vision let alone any cohesion in that state to deliver one. The bickering and power plays in NSW Rugby in the last decade have been shameful. More than once the full contingent of the development team were called to head office, told there and then to place their car keys and other job items in a bucket, to enter a meeting wherein some would discover they’ve lost their jobs. A centre of inspiration?

Add the isolating “structure” of Super 14, and note that a player can no longer truly represent their State, one of the most wonderful paths to maturity for young men, gone. It is insane.

This all translates to the field as risk-averse, corporate friendly personality play. The key thing being ‘risk-averse’, to protect the corporate sponsor image and dollar. And it threatens to become a self-defeating cycle, where onfield play sets the style of player to be developed (and bought) in earlier years.

Modern Rugby is also very indicative of modern times. But while buck-shot with considerable problems, the great strength of its spiritual institution is solid to ensure, hopefully, correct changes are made the direction reasserted.

Out here in the boonies, under the feeble broadcasting efforts of Southern Cross 10, we can’t get the rugby in High Definition as profusely advertised. Only standard definition. This is kind of disappointing as I bought a HD set top box (albeit a cheap one) so I could get some better pictures for events like this.

Why have SC10 not been broadcasting in HD? Their excuse is that they can’t show advertisements in HD. At the moment, when you are lucky enough to get a HD show on SC10, whenever the ad breaks come on, they have been showing the high definition demonstration loop. While this is quite funny (and very relaxing), it hasn’t stopped them re-broadcasting dross like “Australian Idol” in HD. It has put the kibosh on the Rugby though. Not happy!

Patrick

I haven’t noticed that phenomenon in the matches I’ve watched. Most likely it’s a result (as you suggest) of the lower skill and fitness levels among some ARC players (presumably those who weren’t Super 14 players), and perhaps because they’re still getting used to the new rules and working out how best to exploit them. Generally speaking you would expect that there is an advantage for the attacking side in cycling the ball quickly at the breakdown (just as there’s an advantage in rugby league from a quick play the ball), because it catches the defensive team on the back foot before they’ve had time to get their line fully set. Stellenbosch rules should make it easier to cycle the ball quickly at the breakdown. Anyway, to the extent that a trend emerges of holding the ball in at the ruck for prolonged periods of time, an additional rule could be included to award a free kick to the defending team if the ball is held in when it is clearly available. Rules aren’t sacrosanct, and should be adjusted from time to time to deal with emergent problems and keep the contest fair and attractive.