Jeremy Guscott: Ref scrums as laws say and all will be fine again

The scrum statistics from the Six Nations makes grim reading and tell us a great deal about the state of the game in the Northern Hemisphere. There were 280 scrums in the tournament and only 37 per cent resulted in the game re-starting as it is meant to from the scrum. The scrum, according to rugby's laws, is meant to be a contest for possession in which the game is re-started safely, quickly and fairly.
However, the scrum in Union at the moment can be described only as a total waste of time given what it is supposed to do. So much time is spent actually getting ready to scrum, only for more time to then be wasted re-setting after collapses – and all for what? For one team, most likely the team putting in, to be awarded a penalty or free kick.
A very sad state of affairs is made worse by the approach taken by coaches. We can only assume they are happy with the scrum situation because none have spoken out. Coaches rarely speak out for the good of the game, only when they feel they have been wronged or robbed by a referee's decision.
The scrum may be an absolute shambles, but the coaches are happy, because it is a relatively safe way of regaining possession.
I understand that 65 per cent of penalties awarded at scrum time go to the side putting the ball in. Scrum possession in matches evens out to the same for each team unless something unusual happens – so everyone's happy.
What's really sad about the current scrum situation is that the IRB lawmakers and referee bosses have allowed it to happen, with nothing being done about it until there is public outcry, as now. Even so, they have still managed to get it wrong.
There is a trial currently taking place that will go global next season, and, if deemed to be successful, it will be introduced as law a year before RWC 2015. It's a new engagement. However, I see no reason for the new laws because, if the scrum was refereed as the law's currently state, we would not be in this mire.
Scrums today, rather than being square and stationary as required under the laws, hit and keep moving. Whoever wins the hit wins the scrum, and it almost ends there with the team that loses the hit physically and mentally switching off. When a scrum is refereed to the laws, and there is no pushing until the ball is put in straight down the tunnel, the battle starts and continues right up until the ball has left the scrum. It's more physically demanding and requires better individual technique and fitness than the current ‘hit' scrummaging.
I really don't know why Ed Morrison, who is in charge of the RFU referees, hasn't called them all in and demanded they referee the scrum as it is written down.
I listened to Radio 5 on Thursday night with Brian Moore and Phil Vickery in the studio, and various authorities on scrummaging adding to the debate. It was abundantly clear that most agreed that if the scrum was refereed as the laws state it would be a better contest, with fewer re-settings and penalties.
The IRB is very health and safety conscious, which it has to be, but the scrum at present is failing that test. This is mainly because the scrum is functioning outside the laws, and being allowed to. The new engagement process being trialled is about a more passive hit, because the impact today is twice what it was 20 years ago. The packs will crouch, bind and engage, which the trials to date suggest are having the desired effect. The only worry here is that there will still be a hit, and a continuation of the drive, which would be illegal.
Modern shirts do not help the situation – they are so tight-fitting it's almost impossible for props to get a decent grip – but referee bosses like Morrison have to be a lot harder. The scrum should be stable and square before the ball is put-in straight, with no shoving until it is in. If referees applied those laws right now then we would have a better spectacle. It was crazy listening to Morrison agree that the scrums were pretty farcical and agree the hit needs to be removed. He can do it, so why hasn't he?
What the coaches with good scrummaging units are missing is that, if the laws were applied correctly, they would be even more dominant than they are currently. It is why they should be calling for scrums to be refereed correctly.
For instance, I'm convinced a team like Leicester, with their prop squad, would cause even more problems to the opposition if they scrummaged to the letter of the law. Likewise, I believe Wales would have beaten England even more convincingly had the scrums been referreed to the letter of the law.
The hit scrum has had a disastrous knock-on effect on the attacking ambitions of coaches and players, to the extent that a lot don't even practise three-quarter moves from scrums. This is because they know they aren't going to get the ball.
Back in the day scrums were the ideal attacking platform to launch fantastic three-quarters moves to break defensive lines and score great tries. That this no longer happens is a very sad indictment of where the game has gone in terms of attacking ambition – and it may be heading further into the dark.
An advantage of having scrums refereed to the letter of the law would mean hooking the ball was once again required. A quick strike by the hooker was crucial to scrum moves. At Bath the backs would work off channel one ball, where the ball was heeled hard past the legs of the prop, and through a channel in the second row to the feet of the No.8. No sooner had the ball been put-in than it was out, with the scrum-half whipping it away to the fly-half, and we were away, attacking with quick ball.
However, because you were attacking an organised defence man-for-man, you had to execute your attacking move with precision to beat it. The sense of superiority when you achieved that was the same as a pack scrummaging legally and driving the opposition back. You had them psychologically – and that's a very strong advantage to have.
It is deeply disappointing that no one has spoken up about the lost art of attacking off scrum ball. Yet, the new law of backs having to stand 5m back from the back foot of the No.8 in the scrum presents the almost perfect attacking opportunity. Player against player, the only difference is one team knows what they are going to do, and one has to prevent it. That's a tantalising scenario, the attacking mind versus the defensive mind. That contest rarely takes place anymore because the scrum doesn't allow it.
New Zealand, who are the best tier one attacking team in world rugby, are almost the only exceptions. Of the 18 tries they scored in last season's inaugural Rugby Championship, five were from scrums. By contrast, Wales, who were the top try scorers in this season Six Nations with a paltry nine, did not score one from scrum ball.
When the scrum is finally restored to the contest it is meant to be, we will see a rise in tries. And those are the sort of statistics we want to see more of, not scrum re-sets and penalties.