Jeff Probyn: No guarantee that artificial pitches will boost scrum

Some time ago I wrote about my doubts concerning Saracens' ambitions to play on an artificial pitch and whether it would really happen, given the possible outcry from opponents.
Well I have to say I missed a beat in that Maidenhead rugby club have already got the new pitch and have been playing on it all season.
So far, the reports are so good that it would seem that Sarries have nothing to fear in terms of complaints and may soon be followed by the WRU making the Millennium Stadium the first international rugby venue with a fully synthetic pitch.
The advantage of an artificial pitch is the amount of time it can be played on with minimal maintenance which makes it ideal for training and community use – which will be of enormous benefit to Saracens as they build a new fan base at their new home.
I must admit, though, that I am still a little sceptical about all the claims being made, but there is no doubt that the technology has moved on dramatically since the first days of the ‘plastic pitches' as the modern surfaces have a more ‘natural' feel about them than ever before.
One claim that I find particularly difficult, is the fewer collapsed scrums argument and the quote from Scott Murphy, Sarries' high performance director saying that, “no one can blame it on the footing anymore, so if a scrum goes down, someone has deliberately collapsed it.”
First, there have not been enough competitive games at any level played on the surface (testing in non-competitive environments can never be fully trusted) to make any sort of statistical analysis to back up that claim. No offence to Maidenhead, but half a season of rugby at that level cannot be regarded as a true measure of the capability of a surface. Sufficient information is needed to prove it can remove what is currently one of the major blights of the modern game.
As for Murphy, I don't know whether he has played rugby and if so what position but to say that because a surface gives a good footing that any scrum collapse would be a deliberate act by a player, shows a naivety bordering on ignorance. The scrum is a complex formation of 16 rather large and powerful individuals coming together in two groups of eight who must time the engagement at the precise moment of a third party's choice (the referee).
Even the slightest mis-judgement by any one of either group could cause a significant change in the weight distribution as it reverberates through the bodies of those at the point of impact, the front row.
That weight change can, and does, change the whole dynamic of the scrum itself in terms of the angle and balanced position where each of the participants was anticipating he would be and can cause a collapse. But that is just one of a myriad reasons (some deliberate but mostly not) why it can happen.
By making his comments Murphy is helping to foster the belief held, it would seem by most referees, that all collapses are deliberate and must be punished.
As most referees have never played in the front row, we end up with them making random decisions normally against one side and then the other on a non-factual basis that impacts on the result of games.
How many games have we seen where front rows are substituted and, at the very next scrum, a collapse occurs and the referee issues a penalty rather than allowing a reset?
What should be obvious to anyone is that a change in personnel alters the dynamic and therefore players will need a brief time to adjust to the new angles and pressure coming from their new opposition. Truth is, that although a majority of collapses will be accidental, some are deliberate and a major factor in the deliberate collapsing of scrums has nothing to do with surface and all to do with poor refereeing.
With players aware that the referee will be making what they perceive as a random choice, it can be worth the gamble of collapsing if you have got your hit wrong or are under pressure, because you've got a 50/50 chance that your team will get the penalty.
In that sense the scrum is no different to the breakdown where it is all about how the referee interprets the laws rather than the laws themselves.
The scrum has become a mess not because of poor playing surfaces but because referees are trying to control an area of the game they have little or no knowledge of.
Surface has little or nothing to do with collapsed scrums unless it is very poorly maintained but most Premiership and international pitches (Wales being the exception) are not.
In fact, the surfaces are so good nowadays that they are seen as a possible reason for the increase in the numbers of soft tissue injuries that occur over a season at the top level of the game because the pitches give such good grip that players' boots seldom slip which means their ligaments take the strain instead.
And there is yet another issue, with reports saying that the incidence of injury is no worse from the new synthetic pitches when compared to a natural surface.
Again, I would have to say that not enough games have been played on them to be certain but even so, surely it is beholden on all to try and reduce the number of injuries suffered by players, not settle for an apparent status quo just because a plastic pitch is easier to maintain?
Have a Merry Christmas and go along to watch and support your local club.