Just get rid of the hit-squad to solve this scrum farce

Scrum guru Phil Keith-Roach claims the chaos and controversy surrounding the set-piece would be gone within a month if the IRB removed one sentence from the law book.
The former England scrum coach and one of the leading experts on the much-maligned set-piece that the scrum has become, insists the only change needed is to IRB law 20.5.
He believes that one simple move would be enough to eliminate the flurry of free-kicks for early engagements, as well as 90 per cent of collapsed scrums.
The law book states that: “As soon as the front rows have come together, the scrum-half must throw in the ball without delay.”
According to Keith-Roach, it is this section of the laws which has allowed the development of the infamous ‘hit', and is also responsible for the tendency of front rows to jump the gun to gain an advantage.
Ironically the second sentence of the same law – which states: “The scrum-half must throw in the ball when told to do so by the referee.” – would appear to be a contradiction, but is also Keith-Roach's solution.
He told The Rugby Paper: “There has been a lot of talk about the scrum over the last few weeks, and this is a real opportunity to make it clear what changes are needed to solve the problem.
“It's very simple and it's clear to me and so many others that the scrum is meant to be a two-part process.
“First the scrums are brought together as per law 20.1 (j) which says that the scrum must be stationary until the scrum-half puts the ball in and that a team must not shove the scrum away from the mark until the ball is put in.
“And then, more importantly, they need to cross out the first sentence of law 20.5 which says the scrum-half should put the ball in without delay. As per the second part of the law, it's the referee who must decide when the ball is put in, and he should be able to check the scrum is steady before letting the scrum-half get involved.
“It is then, in that second part of the process, where we'd have the contest, after the referee has checked the scrum is stable.
“If that were changed, you would entirely remove the incentive of charging in for the hit.
“There'd be no benefit because you couldn't get the edge before the referee has checked the binding and that the scrum is stable, and it would also make it easier for the officials to check on crooked feeds.
“If you do that, then there will be no more early engagements. I still do a lot of work with top level clubs and we do live scrummaging sessions with a two-step process, first the engage, and then the push once everything is stable.
“I can say that there are almost no collapses, the concussive nature of the hit is completely removed. You can still go for pushover tries and put teams on to the back foot.
“Just as importantly, as Jerry Guscott said in The Rugby Paper last week, it gives the team with possession a prime attacking opportunity with 16 players all held in by the scrum.
“The players would adapt very quickly, and it would take a month at most for the referees to get up to speed. The benefits would be immediate.”
Keith-Roach's views differ only slightly from those who believe that simply enforcing the current laws is the solution to the problem.
However the IRB's scrum steering group are going in a different direction by instructing props to bind from the start of the engage sequence.
One member of that group, All Black scrum coach Mike Cron, insists the results of a trial taking place in the Pacific Rugby Championship have been positive.
But according to Keith-Roach it is simply another blind alley, with the only difference being that props will be able to cheat earlier to get the edge.
He added: “The engagement sequence is not the problem, it doesn't matter what words are used, the problem is the ‘hit'.
“The trials are simply a licence for props to cheat when they are binding, earlier.
“According to the initial results there will be a 25 per cent reduction in collapses, this is nowhere near enough to protect the players and the solution is a lot more straightforward, it's virtually in the law book already.
“There is testing being done at Bath University which is in line with some of what we did at Rhino when we were developing an early scrum machine.
“As was mentioned in a letter to The Rugby Paper last week, the research shows that the majority of injuries are caused by the hit.
“This new trial still allows the hit but just gives an extra opportunity for the props to move their opponent about.
“But there is a way forward and, with IRB support, it can be introduced immediately.”
PAUL EDDISON