Rob Baxter on scrums.

[twitchy]

England were “found out” at the World Cup, with years of scrummaging neglect requiring a cultural “sea change” in this country, Exeter’s Rob Baxter has warned.

Steve Borthwick’s side were beaten 16-15 by eventual champions South Africa in the semi-final earlier this month, having conceded a stream of set-piece penalties after Joe Marler and Dan Cole, their starting props, were replaced.

Asked about the prospects of Ehren Painter, who arrived at Exeter from Northampton Saints this season, Baxter launched into an extended observation on how the scrum has been refereed in the Premiership, as well as how that area of the game is covered by media.

Painter, 25, represented England against the Barbarians in 2019. The tighthead prop helped force a pushover penalty try for Exeter against Sale Sharks last weekend and Baxter saluted his influence before confronting wider issues.

“Ehren’s been fantastic,” Baxter said. “He’s a guy who’s working exceptionally hard and getting his rewards for being part of an eight that are going well and buying into things together. Without a doubt, it’s going to be hard not to see him as one of the top scrummaging tightheads in the Premiership. Let’s see what happens.

“We’ve probably got to make a sea change as a sport that we all need to be talking about the scrum being a big part of the game and not a hindrance. Without doubt, we’ve forced a situation, whether it’s been TV or media, where we don’t want scrums. Potentially, we’ve been found out for it now when we’ve got to the international stage.

“We don’t have to try to force referees to make a decision at every single scrum. You do that, and you start getting props rewarded for just trickery, really. That’s got to stop. If you want to develop scrummaging props, we have to start deciding that we like scrums, that we want them to be a big contest, that we want them to happen.

“I thought our referee against Sale [Joe James] refereed them really, really well. He allowed re-sets to happen when they should have been re-sets. That meant there was a really, really good scrummaging contest. He made decisions on what was actually happening rather than rushing into decisions that didn’t have to be made. If we can work towards that, we’ll see a growth of scrummaging props. But we won’t get it [otherwise].”



“When you get rewarded for not scrummaging, which has been happening for quite a few years, you’re not going to develop scrummaging props,” Baxter added. “When you look at how England needed to go back to two senior props, who used to be rewarded for scrummaging, you can see how different things need to be.

“That’s all of us as a game. Media play a part as well. If you’ve got someone on the TV who’s moaning every time there’s a scrum, that doesn’t make anybody think scrums are good. That isn’t how you develop scrummaging props, by complaining every time there is a scrum.

“In France and South Africa, they love seeing scrums. They are highlights of the game. That’s why they develop props. It doesn’t happen by accident. It happens because the whole game is focused on it. That takes pressure off the referees to make snap decisions. We are so geared towards thinking that ball-in-play creates great rugby that we are shooting ourselves in the foot. We’ve got to re-adapt.”

Baxter will ensure that props at Exeter are left in no doubt as to their chief responsibilities.

“You put things in priority,” he added. “The priorities are maybe set-piece, then maybe defence, then clear-out skills. If they go all the way through to being a guy who can run a try in from 50 metres, fantastic, but that isn’t going to be priority number one. That’s going to be a long way down the list.

“I would think that if you looked at the props playing for South Africa, are those the distributors and midfield steppers playing for other countries? But they’ve won World Cups consistently and they’re right at the top of the world game. There are priorities there, and some people are getting it wrong and some are getting it right.”


The Rugby Football Union recently staged its inaugural camp for promising tight-five forwards, in part to accelerate the development of potential internationals, and Baxter believes the selection of Marler and Cole to face the Springboks was another indication of England being left behind by other nations.

[morepork]

Yay. Let's all use the SA philosophy as a template for rugby everywhere. That should make for some riveting viewing.

[Spiffy]

Yay. Let's all use the SA philosophy as a template for rugby everywhere. That should make for some riveting viewing.

There is no reason that strong-scrummaging props should preclude adventurous back play and running rugby. A good well balanced team should really have both.

[Banquo]

Yay. Let's all use the SA philosophy as a template for rugby everywhere. That should make for some riveting viewing.

There is no reason that strong-scrummaging props should preclude adventurous back play and running rugby. A good well balanced team should really have both.

well quite, and if you don't at least get somewhere close to what SA are doing they'll continue doing what they do. Though the balance and skill in selection is changed radically by having large benches with tactical subbing.

[Oakboy]

“When you get rewarded for not scrummaging, which has been happening for quite a few years, you’re not going to develop scrummaging props,” Baxter added. “When you look at how England needed to go back to two senior props, who used to be rewarded for scrummaging, you can see how different things need to be."

This bit seems to make a lot of sense. Scrum penalties should not be quite so orgasmic, perhaps.

[p/d]

Yay. Let's all use the SA philosophy as a template for rugby everywhere. That should make for some riveting viewing.

There is no reason that strong-scrummaging props should preclude adventurous back play and running rugby. A good well balanced team should really have both.

well quite, and if you don't at least get somewhere close to what SA are doing they'll continue doing what they do. Though the balance and skill in selection is changed radically by having large benches with tactical subbing.

Indeed. If SA can dominate in that area then it is up to other sides to negate it, not for them to ignore it just because Austin Healey doesn't like it.

In tennis a fast server always turns up on the scene, banging down ace after ace and killing off rallies. Laws aren't changed to reduce the advantage just good player's adapt their style to send back returns with 'f**k off' written on the ball.................. and we all end up still treated to final's like Djokovic v Alcaraz.

[p/d]

. Scrum penalties should not be quite so orgasmic, perhaps.

I think an 11 running the width of the pitch to ruffle a prop's hair still a joy to behold

[Which Tyler]

Indeed. If SA can dominate in that area then it is up to other sides to negate it, not for them to ignore it just because Austin Healey doesn't like it.

In tennis a fast server always turns up on the scene, banging down ace after ace and killing off rallies. Laws aren't changed to reduce the advantage just good player's adapt their style to send back returns with 'f**k off' written on the ball.................. and we all end up still treated to final's like Djokovic v Alcaraz.

Is that such a great example? Given the neutering of grasscourts, and balls, specifically to prevent the serve-volleyers like Goran, Rusedski etc; and forcing the likes of Federer to become a completely different player?

[Beasties]

It’s the refereeing that’s been to blame, certainly here. Officials seem determined to award a pen at every single scrum so they’re looking to penalise the slightest thing. Baxter’s point about resetting when they need resetting rather than using the tombola whistle is completely valid. The final scrum in the WC Final being exhibit A. That should’ve been reset all day long. Koch got into a spot of bother and destabilised the whole thing unintentionally, as Corbs pointed out the other day.

I don’t watch the French or SA leagues but it would be interesting to see how trigger happy the refs are in those games.

[Mellsblue]

Indeed. If SA can dominate in that area then it is up to other sides to negate it, not for them to ignore it just because Austin Healey doesn't like it.

In tennis a fast server always turns up on the scene, banging down ace after ace and killing off rallies. Laws aren't changed to reduce the advantage just good player's adapt their style to send back returns with 'f**k off' written on the ball.................. and we all end up still treated to final's like Djokovic v Alcaraz.

Is that such a great example? Given the neutering of grasscourts, and balls, specifically to prevent the serve-volleyers like Goran, Rusedski etc; and forcing the likes of Federer to become a completely different player?

I do miss serve and volley tennis.

[Mellsblue]

. Scrum penalties should not be quite so orgasmic, perhaps.

I think an 11 running the width of the pitch to ruffle a prop's hair still a joy to behold

You’ve fallen in to the trap. A true scrummaging prop has no hair.

[p/d]

Indeed. If SA can dominate in that area then it is up to other sides to negate it, not for them to ignore it just because Austin Healey doesn't like it.

In tennis a fast server always turns up on the scene, banging down ace after ace and killing off rallies. Laws aren't changed to reduce the advantage just good player's adapt their style to send back returns with 'f**k off' written on the ball.................. and we all end up still treated to final's like Djokovic v Alcaraz.

Is that such a great example? Given the neutering of grasscourts, and balls, specifically to prevent the serve-volleyers like Goran, Rusedski etc; and forcing the likes of Federer to become a completely different player?

Who knows. It was merely how players adapt to returning serve coupled with an opportunity to mention the Wimbledon final. That said I do think it has merit.

[p/d]

Indeed. If SA can dominate in that area then it is up to other sides to negate it, not for them to ignore it just because Austin Healey doesn't like it.

In tennis a fast server always turns up on the scene, banging down ace after ace and killing off rallies. Laws aren't changed to reduce the advantage just good player's adapt their style to send back returns with 'f**k off' written on the ball.................. and we all end up still treated to final's like Djokovic v Alcaraz.

Is that such a great example? Given the neutering of grasscourts, and balls, specifically to prevent the serve-volleyers like Goran, Rusedski etc; and forcing the likes of Federer to become a completely different player?

I do miss serve and volley tennis.

Aaaah, Stefan. Pure poetry.

[FKAS]

Yay. Let's all use the SA philosophy as a template for rugby everywhere. That should make for some riveting viewing.

There is no reason that strong-scrummaging props should preclude adventurous back play and running rugby. A good well balanced team should really have both.

Exactly. If you look at Exeter this season they are serving up a lot of running rugby as well as the physical stuff up front. France bring quite a bit of both as well. A good pack wearing down their opposition should if anything create more space as tired bodies won't be able to get into position as well.

[Puja]

It’s the refereeing that’s been to blame, certainly here. Officials seem determined to award a pen at every single scrum so they’re looking to penalise the slightest thing. Baxter’s point about resetting when they need resetting rather than using the tombola whistle is completely valid. The final scrum in the WC Final being exhibit A. That should’ve been reset all day long. Koch got into a spot of bother and destabilised the whole thing unintentionally, as Corbs pointed out the other day.

I don’t watch the French or SA leagues but it would be interesting to see how trigger happy the refs are in those games.

One suggestion which I've heard mooted is to adopt a "scrums can only move back 5m" rule, like there is at age group. I was never in favour of it when it was first proposed (it'd kill the pushover try for one thing), but I'm starting to warm to it - there'd be more incentive to not go down if you're on the weaker scrum side. If you go backwards, but keep the scrum up, then worst case scenario, you lose 5m and the opposition gets a good attacking base with your defence retreating, whereas bring it down and you lose 30-40m with the penalty.

I'd also widen the law trial that's been in the MLR of having the opposition scrum half having to stay behind his own 8's feet. Let's make it easier and more advantageous to get the ball out of scrums - let's see back row moves again, like we used to before every opposition 9 was halfway grappling the 8 before the ball was touched.

Puja

[morepork]

Well, that's me fookin told.

[Gloskarlos]

It’s the refereeing that’s been to blame, certainly here. Officials seem determined to award a pen at every single scrum so they’re looking to penalise the slightest thing. Baxter’s point about resetting when they need resetting rather than using the tombola whistle is completely valid. The final scrum in the WC Final being exhibit A. That should’ve been reset all day long. Koch got into a spot of bother and destabilised the whole thing unintentionally, as Corbs pointed out the other day.

I don’t watch the French or SA leagues but it would be interesting to see how trigger happy the refs are in those games.

One suggestion which I've heard mooted is to adopt a "scrums can only move back 5m" rule, like there is at age group. I was never in favour of it when it was first proposed (it'd kill the pushover try for one thing), but I'm starting to warm to it - there'd be more incentive to not go down if you're on the weaker scrum side. If you go backwards, but keep the scrum up, then worst case scenario, you lose 5m and the opposition gets a good attacking base with your defence retreating, whereas bring it down and you lose 30-40m with the penalty.

I'd also widen the law trial that's been in the MLR of having the opposition scrum half having to stay behind his own 8's feet. Let's make it easier and more advantageous to get the ball out of scrums - let's see back row moves again, like we used to before every opposition 9 was halfway grappling the 8 before the ball was touched.

Puja

Age grade (u19) scrum laws have a maximum of 1.5m push and a maximum of 45 deg wheel before reset (or teams told to stop pushing). At U15 and below the defending 9 must stay on the centre line of the scrum until ball is out, both offer various advantages. You rarely see a 5m pushover try these days, so what would be the outcome if these laws were permeated upwards? it might propagate ball getting out quicker rather than teams holding it in waiting for a collapse - I would also advocate free kick sanctions for scrum offences rather than penalties, that would force teams to be more creative in attack rather than relying on penalties to the corner or kicks at posts. This would perhaps de-power the future stature of props... and hence hated by some, but might also bring safety advantages, more clarity around scrum infringements for onlookers and a cleaner game generally.

[16th man]

I'd like Baxter to be asked a follow up along the lines of "so if Paynter give you his scrummaging, but just walked from scrum to line out, you'd still pick him?"

The logic of selection in the current game is driven by the fact you'll have 20 times as many rucks as scrums, so if you're props aren't mobile enough to get back on side, let alone contribute to securing or winning the ball, are you picking them?

Dan Cole survived in the world cup because of England's reductive strategy. There's no way he could have lived with the pace needed if we'd played any of other 3 top sides who would have actively avoided getting dragged into our approach .

[Stom]

I'd like Baxter to be asked a follow up along the lines of "so if Paynter give you his scrummaging, but just walked from scrum to line out, you'd still pick him?"

The logic of selection in the current game is driven by the fact you'll have 20 times as many rucks as scrums, so if you're props aren't mobile enough to get back on side, let alone contribute to securing or winning the ball, are you picking them?

Dan Cole survived in the world cup because of England's reductive strategy. There's no way he could have lived with the pace needed if we'd played any of other 3 top sides who would have actively avoided getting dragged into our approach .

Yet Marler manages to both hold his own in the scrum and get from ruck to ruck really well.

And Joe came through as a prop known for his work in the loose, not his scrummaging.

[Beasties]

It’s the refereeing that’s been to blame, certainly here. Officials seem determined to award a pen at every single scrum so they’re looking to penalise the slightest thing. Baxter’s point about resetting when they need resetting rather than using the tombola whistle is completely valid. The final scrum in the WC Final being exhibit A. That should’ve been reset all day long. Koch got into a spot of bother and destabilised the whole thing unintentionally, as Corbs pointed out the other day.

I don’t watch the French or SA leagues but it would be interesting to see how trigger happy the refs are in those games.

One suggestion which I've heard mooted is to adopt a "scrums can only move back 5m" rule, like there is at age group. I was never in favour of it when it was first proposed (it'd kill the pushover try for one thing), but I'm starting to warm to it - there'd be more incentive to not go down if you're on the weaker scrum side. If you go backwards, but keep the scrum up, then worst case scenario, you lose 5m and the opposition gets a good attacking base with your defence retreating, whereas bring it down and you lose 30-40m with the penalty.

I'd also widen the law trial that's been in the MLR of having the opposition scrum half having to stay behind his own 8's feet. Let's make it easier and more advantageous to get the ball out of scrums - let's see back row moves again, like we used to before every opposition 9 was halfway grappling the 8 before the ball was touched.

Puja

The scrum half thing; absolutely. It seems so bloody obvious too.

[Puja]

It’s the refereeing that’s been to blame, certainly here. Officials seem determined to award a pen at every single scrum so they’re looking to penalise the slightest thing. Baxter’s point about resetting when they need resetting rather than using the tombola whistle is completely valid. The final scrum in the WC Final being exhibit A. That should’ve been reset all day long. Koch got into a spot of bother and destabilised the whole thing unintentionally, as Corbs pointed out the other day.

I don’t watch the French or SA leagues but it would be interesting to see how trigger happy the refs are in those games.

One suggestion which I've heard mooted is to adopt a "scrums can only move back 5m" rule, like there is at age group. I was never in favour of it when it was first proposed (it'd kill the pushover try for one thing), but I'm starting to warm to it - there'd be more incentive to not go down if you're on the weaker scrum side. If you go backwards, but keep the scrum up, then worst case scenario, you lose 5m and the opposition gets a good attacking base with your defence retreating, whereas bring it down and you lose 30-40m with the penalty.

I'd also widen the law trial that's been in the MLR of having the opposition scrum half having to stay behind his own 8's feet. Let's make it easier and more advantageous to get the ball out of scrums - let's see back row moves again, like we used to before every opposition 9 was halfway grappling the 8 before the ball was touched.

Puja

Age grade (u19) scrum laws have a maximum of 1.5m push and a maximum of 45 deg wheel before reset (or teams told to stop pushing). At U15 and below the defending 9 must stay on the centre line of the scrum until ball is out, both offer various advantages. You rarely see a 5m pushover try these days, so what would be the outcome if these laws were permeated upwards? it might propagate ball getting out quicker rather than teams holding it in waiting for a collapse - I would also advocate free kick sanctions for scrum offences rather than penalties, that would force teams to be more creative in attack rather than relying on penalties to the corner or kicks at posts. This would perhaps de-power the future stature of props... and hence hated by some, but might also bring safety advantages, more clarity around scrum infringements for onlookers and a cleaner game generally.

The bolded bit is where I have gradually come to. I loved pushover tries and they were a delightful part of the game back in the late 90s and early 2000s, but there's no point in opposing this idea to protect them because they flat out don't exist anymore. The scrum just collapses or goes up and we get a reset or a penalty try.

I would want to be careful about the potential consequence of depowering props - quite apart from this being a game for all shapes and sizes and not wanting league scrums, we don't want to make incentives for props to lose weight and become as mobile as a flanker. Attack is hard enough with defences as they are - we do want to keep the portly boys as they are, so the fancy dans have someone to target with their footwork.

Puja

[CunningPunter]

Altogether now: "Straight feed, make them hook!"

There are two enduring mysteries in the world of rugby union: why SB keeps picking Farrell, and why the IRB don't enforce the straight put-in.

[Oakboy]

I would want to be careful about the potential consequence of depowering props - quite apart from this being a game for all shapes and sizes and not wanting league scrums, we don't want to make incentives for props to lose weight and become as mobile as a flanker. Attack is hard enough with defences as they are - we do want to keep the portly boys as they are, so the fancy dans have someone to target with their footwork.

Puja

Puja, are you comfortable with two full front rows on both sides to get through 80 minutes? I'd hate to go back to uncontested scrums but I dislike props only needing to be fit and mobile for 50 minutes or whatever. I'm not sure how to change it but I'd prefer injury changes only with, perhaps, starting props only allowed every other game. That's probably impractical but I'd really like to see more players doing the full 80 somehow.

[Stom]

Altogether now: "Straight feed, make them hook!"

There are two enduring mysteries in the world of rugby union: why SB keeps picking Farrell, and why the IRB don't enforce the straight put-in.

But as we saw in this world cup, all that would result in is teams like SA dropping every high ball and going 'Oops, what butterfingers. Oh, you have the put in at the scrum? Oh, that means you have to hook, right? Would be a shame for a big shove to break your scrum apart...'

I would love a return to rugby from years ago, but it's not going to happen. We need to find a way to bring back the spirit of the law without unintended consequences from the fact that props are just bigger and stronger than they used to be.

[Puja]

I would want to be careful about the potential consequence of depowering props - quite apart from this being a game for all shapes and sizes and not wanting league scrums, we don't want to make incentives for props to lose weight and become as mobile as a flanker. Attack is hard enough with defences as they are - we do want to keep the portly boys as they are, so the fancy dans have someone to target with their footwork.

Puja

Puja, are you comfortable with two full front rows on both sides to get through 80 minutes? I'd hate to go back to uncontested scrums but I dislike props only needing to be fit and mobile for 50 minutes or whatever. I'm not sure how to change it but I'd prefer injury changes only with, perhaps, starting props only allowed every other game. That's probably impractical but I'd really like to see more players doing the full 80 somehow.

I would much prefer that. In an ideal world, I'd have a bench of 8, with only 5 changes made in total, including any injury (not including head injuries requiring an HIA). So, sure, you can change your entire front 5 for tactical reasons, but if anyone goes down injured, you're then playing with 14 for the rest of the game.

Puja