The scrum, or the controversy surrounding it, has long been one of the most contentious points of the game of Rugby Union. After a match against Scotland, former England coach Martin Johnson famously said 'what we had at Murrayfield was a game of rugby trying to break out between scrums' and this has become a problem which has plagued the sport at all levels, but not least so on the international arena. As this is the very pinnacle of the sport, and therefore boasts the greatest chance of attracting new fans to the game, it is something the International Rugby Board is keen to rectify as soon as possible.
Whilst in no way a recent phenomenon, the trouble at the scrum has seen criticism laid at several doors, including under qualified referees and overcomplicated scrum procedures amongst others. The most prominent argument suggests that referees have little to no first-hand experience of the scrum, specifically the engagement between the opposing front rows. Although this experience is relatively hard to come by in professionally trained referees, there is a strong case to increase the amount of understanding referees are required to have in order to take control of games both on a club and international level. Better refereeing of the scrum would, in theory, lead to less collapsed scrums as teams would fear being penalised for offences which they are currently getting away with.
Criticisms of modern playing jerseys have also been made, highlighting a simpler cause for the frequent scrum collapses. It is hard to ignore the correlation between the increases in the amount of scrums needing to be reset in the last 10 years and the move from the traditional loose fitting jerseys to the modern tight fitting versions. In order to ensure a scrum remains stable and does not collapse, props must bind onto their opposing numbers shirt, with the disparity between the two jersey types visible in the amateur game, where collapsed scrums are a rarity despite the lack of high level coaching received in the professional ranks.
Although it's unlikely the IRB would move to reinstate the traditional jerseys, they are much more likely to consider reversing their decision to change the engagement procedure, which has seen relatively little improvement, if any, in the reducing the amount of reset scrums. In fact, many players have complained that the 'pause' part of the procedure causes front row players to be thrown off their natural rhythm, and that a more simplistic 'crouch....touch....engage' would result in a more fluid 'hit' motion as the two sides come together, and would hopefully ensure a more stable scrum.
As with any significant change to the rules of the game, it would have to be stringently tested in a lower division or age-group competition before its possible adoption into top tier club or international rugby. The more cynical observers may say that with the advent of professionalism, the price of a loss is more extreme than it once was, and as such, any advantage that can be gained by collapsing a losing scrum may be taken. This is one of the flaws of modern professional sport, and is unlikely to be resolved, but a combination of more well-informed refereeing at scrum time and a simplified engagement procedure could help at least lower the rate of reset scrums and increase enjoyment for both prospective fans and frustrated purists who miss the satisfaction of seeing the Probyn and Leonard's of the world showing one of the most unique sporting events in all its glory.