Thanks to the efforts of BoishaaiPa and with the help of a few SBR bloggers who have a vested interest in what happens in the scrums, we were able to present Richard Visagie, the Paarl Boys High scrum guru with a handful of questions about the new school scrumming laws that will come into effect this season. Apart from playing over 100 games at hooker for Boland, Richard has over 30 years of school rugby coaching experience. Along the way he has coached the WP Craven Week team and is currently a WP school selector. He has been responsible for helping to shape the careers of a number of good props (and hookers) over the years.
SBR: How will the new laws affect the tighthead being able to get a right shoulder in?
RV: It should not affect it that much. It will make it more difficult though.
SBR: Do you see the big props being left out for smaller more mobile players if the scrum laws are so stringent?
RV: I would not leave out my big props. We are coaching these boys for the future after school. This is what happened in the 90’s when the 1,5 m scrum was introduced and coaches opted for flankers as props. It took rugby a long time to recover from that.
SBR: How are the new laws going to be safer?
RV: I do not agree with the new laws and that it will necessarily be safer. The scrum is being reduced to no contest. We need to coach future props how to scrum from U13.
SBR: Do you think this will stop teams opting for a scrum rather than a free kick if the attacking options are limited by the new laws.
RV: I think that teams with weaker scrums would go for that option. I would still coach my scrum to dominate the opposition and in doing so give my captain more options.
SBR: As a coach, how do you feel the new scrum laws will affect your team selections?
RV: I would select my players as I would in the past. I will still want to use the scrum as a platform to dominate the opposition.
SBR: How will you adapt your front row coaching methods to the new scrum laws, with specific reference to the new binding requirements (elbow level with shoulder)?
RV: The (severely) limited hit will become extremely important and use the prebind to my advantage.
SBR: How will you coach your players to gain the upper hand?
RV: That is how it used to be before the laws were adapted so we will go back to those tactics.
SBR: How will you adapt your front row coaching methods to the new scrum laws, with specific reference to engagement requirements (mini-hit)?
RV: The problem will be to counteract the negative scrumming from weaker scrums. As I said the mini-hit will be extremely important and I would put in even more time there.
SBR: To what extent do you think the new scrum laws will detract from the contest at the scrum?
RV: The scrum is regarded in RSA as a means of putting pressure on the opponents and eventually dominating them. I fear that it will now simply be regarded as a means of restarting the game. The props who continue with rugby after school will be at a disadvantage.
SBR: On a scale of 1 to 10 – how much did the engagement ‘hit’ affect the outcome of a scrum or overall scrum dominance by a team?
RV: It played a major role both physically and mentally. I would say 8.
SBR: Do you think that these measures are too drastic in terms of the number of catastrophic injuries historically suffered by front row forwards?
RV: I think they are too drastic and I do not think that there has been so many serious injuries during the past 10 to 15 years. The problem is not the scrum ,but the correct coaching techniques. I think we are going to have more serious neck injuries when these players get to senior and club level since they will not have been prepared sufficiently.
SBR: Do you think there are other areas of the game that should receive attention in terms of law revision for safety reasons?
RV: No!
SBR: Do you think that traditional big, solid props will become redundant due to these new laws?
RV: No. Not unless the laws are changed at senior level. We will still need solid props at that level. We are really not doing rugby a favour. How would they play rugby in the Northern Hemisphere without traditional big, solid props?
SBR: I think most supporters are confused on what is actually going to happen with the new scrum laws. It would be much appreciated if we can get a guru like yours view on this.
RV: As I mentioned earlier that rugby in the 90’s was done a disservice with the changing of the scrum laws. Many enterprising coaches at school level went for the mobile flankers at prop to give you more mobility in the pack. When they got to senior level there were no props coming through. I feel the same will happen here and we will end up with more and more uncontested scrums. The importance of the scrum as an integral part of the game will be negated. What will rugby be without a scrum????? The other problem will be how the referees will approach this. I foresee many penalties.
Another main point: 1.5m maximum drive in the scrum now applies to ALL rugby where Crouch Bind Scrum is used i.e. all schools, all club other than 1st and premier division. So the only pushover tries we will ever see now will be from a Crouch Touch Set scrum.
We had a very informative talk last night on the new laws by Test Referee Stuart Berry. The following are the main points:
1. Crouch, Touch, Set will only be used in Premier Division, 1st Division and professional rugby.
2. All other rugby will be Crouch, Bind, Scrum.
3. For U14 to U16 inclusive – there is not hit. On the “Bind” command, players engage passively with shoulders touching and arms bound. On the “Scrum” call, the ball gets fed immediately and the contest begins.
4. Above U16 (school opens and all club rugby other than mentioned above), “Bind” command means bind arms and align heads ear to ear. “Scrum” – short hit and immediate contest – ball enters on the call. There is no difference between school 1st team, club 2nd division or school 8th team.
5. The first offence for early engagement will be a free-kick (short arm) per team. Thereafter a full penalty. There can be no penalty for pushing after the “Scrum” call.
6. The scrumhalf MUST feed the ball on the “Scrum call” – he get penalised if he doesn’t – not the scrums for pushing before the feed.
7. Not in straight and foot up will be VERY strict – the thinking is that with the hit gone – this is where teams will try to get an unfair advantage.
On the dangerous tackle:
1. Lift up and deliberately turned past horizontal – yellow card from that point regardless.
2. Red only if followed by a drop or drive into the ground.
Comments?
The most compelling answer in Richards questionaire was when he said that the injury stats do not justify the drastic changes. We are being sold a lie – that the game is being made softer for safety reasons.
One of our referees at our law meeting the other night asked if the front row players will be wearing pink dresses from now on.
I saw several times last year were teams used illegal scrumming in the front row and i think these bad apples have caused this remember school rugby has become a win at all costs game so ye it happens alot.
Pity as this will have a negative of our rugby which SA can not afford as this is the backbone of our rugby which is power skill is not our strong point.
It might makes some games more competitive in fact.
Hi Beet. Thanks for this. I respect Richard’s view on not changing the big prop for a more mobile option for the sake of senior rugby. Unfortunately he will be in the minority as most coaches will only focus on what is good for their team now. The right shoulder is key to an attacking NO 8″s success and for backline moves that require the opposition 9 and loosies to be taken out of the defense. Going to be difficult to justify a big strong scrummager who is not a good ball carrier. I can see why some people have called for this change in the laws. Some coaches teach the ‘dark arts’ of scrummaging which, if not controlled, result in collapsed scrums and dangerous results. I know of some coaches who tell their front row to collapse the scrum on purpose if they have not got the right ‘hit’. We cannot blame the refs in these instances as they have to watch about 10 different things at scrum time. The point I am making is that many coaches are complaining about the law changes and the affect it will have on senior rugby and how the refs are to blame. Perhaps we need to take a step back and look at the real cause of all these problems up front? Are these players not doing what they have been coached to do? Read Ian Macs book, he admitted that they had a devious move that could hurt players and even discussed using it against a certain trouble maker. They decided against it but the fact remains that coaches know what is dangerous and some of them are not scared to use these tactics. All round, this is bad for the game but there are reasons for it.
Yeah really great to have an expert talking about the matter.
It would be interesting to find out if there are any scrumming specialists that are in favour of the changes.
I certainly think we are heading down an Australian path now and who knows 10 years from now we might see the start of a Boks trend of conceding penalty tries coupled with yellow cards at 5m scrums as a result of the recent decision made by SARU
Some props and hookers than I know of that was coached by Richard…Guthro Steenkamp (SA and Bulls), Marcel vd Merwe (Cheetahs), Frans Malherbe (Stormers), Nicolaas van Dyk (SA u/20 and Sharks u/21), Neil Fullard (Ex WP & SA Schools), JD Moller (ex-WP and SA Schools), Neil Rautenbach (Ikey Tigers and WP u/21) , Stephan Coetzee (WP u/21), Freddie Kirsten (WP u/19 and SA u/20 squad), Ignus Nagel (Cheetahs u/19)…etc…These are only ones I can quickly recall since 2000…pre 2000 there is even more! ..There was at least one frontrower representing WP at CW in every team since the 80′ from Boishaai who went through Richard’s hands!
Great answers. This guy knows what he is talking about.