The scrum is one of the biggest issues in world rugby and of great concern to the law-makers, the International Rugby Board.

It's right that it should be of concern as it is an area of potential danger and potential mess. It is estimated than in 80 minutes of international rugby 12 minutes are spent resetting scrums.

We shall look at refereeing the scrum later but here look at some statistics from five of last week's Heineken Cup and make a suggestion which may be reactionary

The Heineken stats are:

Munster vs Northampton: 19 scrums, 9 resets, 14 collapses, 5 penalties
Ospreys vs Leicester: 17 scrums, 11 resets, 17 collapses, 1 free kick, 5 penalties
Edinburgh vs Stade Français: 11 scrums, 2 resets, 2 collapses, 2 free kicks
London Irish vs Leinster: 19 scrums, 3 resets, 3 collapses, 1 free kick, 3 penalties
Sale Sharks vs Toulouse: 15 scrums, 1 reset, 1 collapse, 2 free kicks, 1 penalty

Percentages:

Munster vs Northampton: 47% resets, 74% collapses
Ospreys vs Leicester: 65% resets, 100% collapses
Edinburgh vs Stade Français: 18% resets, 18% collapses
London Irish vs Leinster: 16% resets, 16% collapses
Sale Sharks vs Toulouse: 7% reset, 7% collapse

The first two matches are clearly a scrumming nightmare.

Obviously the referee is not the main culprit in such a mess. He does not collapse or otherwise destroy and disrupt scrums. The first responsibility is with the players. They are the ones who get things wrong and cause the referee to react.

The referee can, of course, play a role. He can, for instance, make clear to the teams how he wants them to set, the cadence he will use in setting the scrum - the CROUCH, TOUCH, PAUSE, ENGAGE sequence - and how he will expect them to react to each of those cadences. Then on the field he will react to non-compliance.

The referee could be proactive.

There is no doubt the clearer the referee is in what he says and the closer he gets, the greater the likelihood there is of sensible scrums.

What bout being reactionary and going back to the days when collapses and resets were rare? What was different then?

The scrum was not nearly as regulated. Most obviously there was no "hit". The players did not bash into each other. They went down when the scrumhalf was ready, just bend down and engaged. After engagement they scrummed and there was still a place for the powerful prop and the dominant scrum.

2010 Laws:

Law 20.1 (h) A crouched position is the extension of the normal stance by bending the knees sufficiently to move into the engagement without a charge.
(i) Charging. A front row must not form at a distance from its opponents and rush against them. This is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

It is not clear why "from a distance is there". They are already set within arm's length. It is not clear why there should be a "hit" which may well be a euphemism for a charge. I team gets freekicked if it does not take the hit or fades on the hit.

Watch the old scrums. They were square and still or the scrumhalf did not put the ball in.

2010 Laws:

Law 20.1 (j) Stationary and parallel. Until the ball leaves the scrumhalf’s hands, the scrum must be stationary and the middle line must be parallel to the goal lines. A team must not shove the scrum away from the mark before the ball is thrown in.
Sanction: Free Kick

Then in olden days the ball had to be put in straight, i.e. under the join of the shoulders. There was lots of emphasis on this and the sanction for not doing so was a penalty. Matches could be won or lost on putting the ball in skew.

2010 Laws:

Law 20.6 (d) The scrumhalf must throw in the ball straight along the middle line, so that it first touches the ground immediately beyond the width of the nearer prop’s shoulders.
Sanction: Free Kick

Then came the hooking. In those dim, distant, pre-Bajada days, there were hookers whose main job was to hook. The contest between hookers was a vital part of the game. Because both hookers tried to hook, they were quasi props not trying to put pressure on the other hooker or another prop.

The ball is still required to be put in straight and it is still required to touch the ground, and there was a thing called foot-up, which was also sanctioned with a penalty. Hooking the ball before it touched the ground was also a penalty.

There still is thing called foot-up, strange as it may seem.

2010 Laws:

Law 20.8 FRONT-ROW PLAYERS
(a) Striking before the throw-in (‘foot up’). All front row players must place their feet to leave a clear tunnel. Until the ball has left the scrum half’s hands, they must not raise or advance a foot. They must not do anything to stop the ball being thrown in to the scrum correctly or touching the ground at the correct place.
Sanction: Free Kick
(b) Striking after the throw-in. Once the ball touches the ground in the tunnel, any front row player may use either foot to try to win possession of the ball.

Putting in skew is occasionally sanctioned - very occasionally,  foot-up never, hooking in the air never.

In the match between Northampton Saints and Munster, Saints were dominant in the scrum. They had three five-metre scrums in a row. Just before the third lock Paul O'Connell was sent to the sin bin for a tackle offence. Again dominant Northampton chose a scrum. Clearly they were going for a push-over. But Munster were clever. Their hooker hooked. They took a tighthead and got out of trouble at a time when they were leading 9-6.

The laws are there. GK Chesterton said: "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried." Is that is what has happened to the laws in an age when rugby is entertainment and calling a referee pedantic is a huge insult - they have been found hard and so left untried, certainly unapplied.

Maybe application is the problem with scrum laws at present and it is becoming more glaringly obvious as the scrum is seen as a powerful weapon, not just an effete way to restart the game.

But referees are more and more told to get tough with scrums. Referees would say it is not our responsibility alone; the players must co-operate. It would seem that the players are not unwilling to co-operate. There is something in the system that is a problem.

Over-regulation?

Non-application?

How's that for reactionary - apply the laws instead of making more regulations?