Talk:Scrum (rugby union)

typo?
“In practice, however, the team with the 'put-in' usually keeps possession (92% of the time with the feed” I’m assuming the last word is supposed to be feet? I know very little about rugby. If not, the term “feed” could be explained. If yes then, I or someone can fix the typo. :) FourTildes (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Just confirmed feed is a term. It is used as “the feed” a few sentences before the term is explained later as “feeding the ball”. I found that confusing. It could be better worded for rugby newbies like me. Sorry for trouble. FourTildes (talk) 00:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Error in diagram?
The diagram does not have rotational symmetry. The dark-coloured team has 6 on its left, while the light-coloured one has 6 on its right. Is this intentional? --Doradus (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My mistake. The article text describes this further on.  Perhaps the openside and blindside should be marked on the diagram to make this clear?  --Doradus (talk) 05:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

= Wheeling =

There is no mention of wheeling in the article. Gam3 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC).

= ref error = reference 11 dosn't go to the right article Petethewhistle (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fixed Bodsda (talk) 09:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Which side ?
Could someone please add the rule that specifies from which side the ball has to be thrown into the scrum by the scrumhalf ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.34.246.40 (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no such law - however, it would be silly for a scrum half to put the ball in on the tight head side as the opposition hooker would have the advantage as the ball gets to him first. 83.84.45.99 (talk) 10:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Update to the lede
Hi All. I'm not an expert - which is why I am here reading the page - but I think the lede might need to be updated. It states: "In rugby union a scrum is a means of restarting play after a minor infringement. It involves up to eight players from each team, known as the pack or forward pack, binding together in three rows and interlocking with the free opposing teams forwards. At this point the ball is fed into the gap between the two forward packs and they both compete for the ball to win possession. Teams can be penalised for intentionally causing the scrum to collapse, and for not putting the ball into the scrum correctly. A scrum is most commonly awarded when the ball is knocked forward, or passed forward, or when a ball becomes trapped in a ruck or maul. Because of the physical nature of scrums, injuries can occur, especially in the front row." My concerns are as follows: 1. "It involves up to eight players from each team...". Does is involve "up to eight" or eight? In what circumstances is it less than eight? If there aren't any then it should say "It involves eight players from each team". 2. "It involves up to eight players from each team..." but then "At this point the ball is fed into the gap between the two forward packs and they both compete for the ball to win possession". Isn't the pall fed into the scrum by a ninth player? I think this whole thing will be confusing to someone who doesn't know what a scrum is. I do and it's confusing to me! FillsHerTease (talk) 08:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 1. The wording is correct, either team can have as few as 5 players involved in the scrum, but this would likely only occur when some other incident reduced the teams player count. The opposing team is not obligated to match the lower player count and so would gain a distinct weight advantage.


 * 2. Yes, the ball is fed in by the non-infringing teams' scrum-half, but he doesn't participate in the scrum Bodsda (talk) 08:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

= What is the point of a scrum any more? =

It would be useful if the article could highlight, objectively speaking, the sheer cumbersome unnecessary timewasting pointlessness of a scrum. Often a scrum is caused by a totally trivial infringement; it then takes the best part of two minutes for sixteen players to assemble themselves at the site of the proposed scrum, crouch, bind, and set; the ball then typically just gets fed to the side that is awarded the scrum anyway: it doesn't go down the middle, it just goes to, and then back through the legs of, the side putting in the ball, giving the opposing side precious little chance of capturing it. It would be far simpler, and more intelligent, and sensible, and time-saving, instead of there being a scrum at all, for the ball just to be given to the side awarded the scrum, to play on with (as happens in rugby league most of the time) than have all this pointless stupid rigmarole, which wastes a couple of minutes needlessly and typically only results in the side putting the ball in getting it anyway due to the absurd preferential angle of the put-in that is given a blind eye to in the modern game. Since the ball doesn't go down the middle, and no one bothers to see that it does, and it seems to be accepted it doesn't have to, which corrupts the concept of a fair contest for the ball, the most intelligent thing to do is to get rid of the scrum entirely and have a quicker, better, way of simply giving possession to the side that would otherwise put the ball into the scrum (i.e. an instant restart rather than wasting two minutes assembling a conglomeration of players pointlessly). These points could usefully and sensibly be made in the article. 81.98.1.62 (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)