Jeff Probyn: Maybe the IRB have got the scrum right at last

Crouch, Touch, Set and off we go as the latest incarnation of the scrum engagement is rolled out across the game. From the original, simple ‘engage’ call by the referee that seemed to work pretty well for nearly a hundred years, to the all-controlling calls of recent times that have increasingly failed to deliver the same stable solid scrums of the past, the scrum engagement has been a continual source of controversy.
It has been interesting hearing some of the players’ reactions to the latest dictat and the fact that the ball will have to be put in straight, thereby forcing the hooker to actually hook the ball.
Chris Whitehead the Exeter hooker said, “I do like the idea of having to hook for your own ball.”
I have to say I am more than a little perplexed that a first class hooker who has played the game for a number of years thinks that it is the norm for the hooker not to strike for the ball – this shows just how far refereeing standards have been allowed to fall.
Meanwhile, Toulouse prop Census Johnston, having played a game with the new call, said, “They are a lot different. You use more energy than the last set of scrums we had last year. You have to be a lot fitter.
“When they go to put in the ball, you’re using a lot more energy to keep the scrum straight, you are using your upper body a lot more – rather than when you hit and engaged, you moved forward and the ball was in and out.”
As all scrums were stationary when I played, it explains why all we old fashioned props used to think that the props that were running around the field couldn’t have been doing their job properly in the scrum.
I think that Sale‘s Henry Thomas has an interesting view in that he believes the straight feed of the ball will give an advantage to the opposition by putting the attacking team (the team putting the ball in) on the back foot, whereas history shows that the team putting the ball in always had the advantage, unless of course you were a weak scrum.
Leicester‘s George Chuter (a good old fashioned hooker), in supporting Whitehead’s comments, said he was at a loss to explain how or why referees currently allow the put-in to be so crooked, even though he accepted that the dynamics of the scrum had moved on from what the Law states – stationary, ball in straight and drive once ball is fed.
All in all, most don’t seem that worried about the call but all seem a little concerned that the ball will have to go in straight and be won in a fair (even if slightly weighted towards the team putting it in) competition.
All the referee-led engagement calls and even the new sequence ‘crouch, touch, set’ were never a change in the Laws, just a method for the referee to call the scrums together. As such there should not have been, or be, any major problems come scrum time. That a problem has existed, is purely down to the fact that the IRB have allowed referees to ignore the Laws relating to the put-in at the scrum.
Even if the hit and drive dynamic scrum were to become part of Law you could still have a competition for the ball, but by allowing the crooked feed you take competition out of the equation.
I feel that these factors show the damage that has been done to the understanding and integrity of the scrum within the structure of a game by the IRB’s shambolic efforts to change the way the scrums engage, without actually changing the Laws of the game.
Annually changing calls and allowing referees to decide the cadence of the call, has led to confusion and frustration among players and fans, slowly eroding the perception of the scrum as a ‘worthwhile’ part of the game and also respect for the referee.
The crooked feed has been excused by the claim that referees have so much to look at in the scrum like binds etc and so often ‘miss it’ but I think that is rubbish.
It is often as the scrums engage that penalties or free kicks are given for either  going early  or collapsing, having nothing to do with binding and all to do with the cadence of the referee’s call.
Many referees change the tempo of their engagement calls as if trying to catch out the players who try to anticipate the call and go early.
In putting the referee in control of the engagement, the IRB have effectively allowed them to decide the outcome of games as each referee seems to have their own idea of how the sequence should be called and believe that they should be able to change that sequence whenever they like, despite the obvious dangers to both front rows of delaying the call.
Personally, I believe that if the referee was to simply revert to making the mark, wait until both scrums are ready and calling ‘engage’, then wait until the scrum is stationary before allowing the scrum-half to approach with the ball and insist the ball is put in straight without delay, (in other words enforce the Laws) all the perceived problems of the scrum engagement would disappear and inane penalties awarded at scrums would no longer decide the result of games.
It may be that this time the IRB have got it right and we can at last get back to a fair competition at the scrum but somehow I doubt it.