Crouch, hold, ENGAGE! Crouch, touch, pause, ENGAGE! Crouch, touch, SET! Over the course of my relatively short career, starting in 2008, I have experienced all three of these variations of the scrum engagement sequence.

All administered for the same reason – to decrease time wastage and collapses at the scrum. All apparently failed, given the frequent turnover of ideas.

Crouch, bind, SET! Is the newest revolutionary idea by the powers that be. Given the poor results of the past ideas, why should we believe the next breakthrough will resolve current scrummaging issues?

Facebook Twitter Whatsapp Reddit Email Share

The complexities of the scrum would continue much farther than my word limit for this article, so without delving into the technicalities of the scrum, I will attempt to, briefly, give you some idea of what is happening in this area of the game.

It is important that, at this point in the piece, we remove anyone who hasn’t packed a scrum. Your opinion is null and void.

The talk that often surrounds a change in sequence is often about limiting resets – whether that be from an injury prevention point of view, or from those dreary spectators who want to see ‘a more expansive game’ – a much overrated concept if you ask me.

Regardless of your reason for the change, we have to understand why scrums collapse.

Without getting too technical I will attempt to give you an understanding of why this occurs.

My usual answer to the question ‘why do scrums collapse?’ is generally along the lines of – ‘because we want to pack more of them’ – now, this may be true, but there are other factors at play.



Scrum collapses can be categorised in a few ways: technical deficiencies of one or more players, physical weaknesses of one or more players, poor refereeing, or, as a tactical move.

Now I would say that the new sequence – that we have already witnessed in recent internationals and in Northern Hemisphere competitions – has addressed some of these contributing factors.

I must admit, I was a skeptic when these rules were being spoken about in early 2013 – but what I have seen to date has been positive for all involved – although I believe we are still very much in an adaptation phase.

From what I can make out, we are achieving most of the goals we set out to achieve, and are probably closer to a solution than we have been in the past.

The significantly smaller gap will save some, but not all, collapses caused by technical deficiency.

However it will also require players to increase their technical abilities, as a technically poor player can no longer hide behind a large gap and heavy engagement.

Rather, they are forced into a technical contest, which I think is a brilliant move.

We will not only witness subtle changes in tactics, but just as interesting will be seeing who in Super Rugby sinks and who swims with the new commands.



Physically weak players will always be a problem point in a scrum.

In order to avoid repeatedly grazed foreheads, it is up to the players to be smart about how they attack weak individuals in the opposition.

I believe the calling can do little to solve this problem, but smart scrums will no doubt solve it for themselves.

Scrums can undoubtedly be collapsed as a tactical move to draw penalties, and we have seen examples of this from time to time over the whole range of changing calling sequences.

If I were to advise referees on how to handle any of these situations – my advice would probably not be popular – but it would be to side with the dominant team.

If a scrum has proven themselves to be dominant throughout a game, nothing pisses me off more than seeing the weaker of the two ‘protected’ by the referee. Where then is the advantage in having a strong scrum?

This is where I think the French competition has got it right. Very rarely do we see penalties in this part of the world for minor infringements, nor do we see pedantic interpretations of inconsequential laws.

Here, it is very cut and dry – be dominant, and you will reap the rewards.



I think this eases proceedings for referees as they are not expected to have intricate knowledge of the scrum, but can simply make a decision as to who gained the upper hand.

This is rarely witnessed in the southern hemisphere, with games in previous years being riddled with scrum penalties that the players couldn’t even explain, let alone the referees.

So, in thinking about this, I wanted to propose a system that would be equally effective the world over.

Let us remember that a fat bloke is a fat bloke, regardless of where he lives, or what he does for a living.

Therefore, I think our vision of a solution in this area is too narrow. Bribery is a tried and proven tactic in many arenas. I believe that such tactics could be called into play on this occasion.

The everyday hamburger ticks every box on the nutritional spectrum – protein, carbohydrates, fruit and vegetables, dairy and of course, the all-important sugar and fat.

This wonder food has so far been, I believe, wrongly overlooked in the search for a scrummaging solution.

The answer is self-evident. For every successfully completed scrum, in any given game, each front row player is handed a food and drink ticket, on the spot, for the bar after the game. Now you are talking in terms we understand.



Reward us with a much-anticipated mix of cholesterol and alcohol – trust me, you would not only see 100% success rates in scrums, you would also witness a much happier, jolly and infinitely more motivated group of fat men on any given pitch around the world.

Like in most complex problems in life, the answer is burgers – and lots of them.