Rob Baxter on scrums.

[FKAS]

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

Actually I think part of the problem is that there aren't penalty tries anymore. The props can just drop the scrum at will and chance a yellow card or the ref getting bored with the pressure and then just either pinging the attacking team or making them play from the base.

[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.

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.

Fair point, but aren't scrums supposed to be a contest for the ball? Like line-outs? If the other side is so dominant in the scrum that they can give up possession and be confident they can get it back again, then your team is clearly inferior and arguably deserves to lose.

Others have made the point (and not just here, of course) that reducing subs so that forwards mostly have to play 80 mins would help in reducing the size of some of these unwieldy monsters, and they should do that too.