I think we need MORE scrums. I love rugby. WE DON"T WANT RUGBY LEAGUE !!!! Targeting South Africa, what next ? limiting the number of rolling mauls? Scrums reduce the number of defenders, creates space.

I'm a Bok loyalist; what concerns me is where you draw the line. If Coaches and Players are finding new creative ways to play, can World Rigby just let them be? What's good for the goose is good for the gander! If it's a safety concern, I am all for it but leave the scrum alone. Love you Jim and Goodey!

There's no spinning that can convince people that the no scrum law was not influenced by SA scrums in any way.

As a South African, it feels like a slap in the face because we did the scrum off a mark once, and then they ban an age-old law against it I also believe it will be fine without the scrum off a mark because of the dupont law. We only used that scrum because the French farwards did not have to chase the ball

While I understand what Goodey is saying on the second free kick offence being a penalty, it still allows the weaker scrummaging team a 'get out of jail free' card multiple times to avoid a dominant scrummaging team. Can you imagine a team getting a scrum 5 meters out and the weaker team does a brake foot to avoid the scrum? Or a weaker team then decides at the next scrum 5 meters out to then push early and then avoids another scrum? There is at least 5 different strategies you can utilize once each to get a free kick instead.

How convenient that these law changes come into effect one week before Ireland arrive in SA for a two-test series, the Irish must thrilled and thankful.

You need to remember that the Springboks don't just want to scrum for penalties, they scrum to break down the legs of the opponents, they whole idea about the bomb squad is to come on against fatigued packs.

That moment when Willemse called the scrum from the mark was amazing,. Possibly the defining still of that whole world cup for a lot of people. And WR want less of those amazing moments of creativity and surprise. I'm more sad than angry.

You said holding the ref accountable? When has that happened.

This really feels like world rugby is over the cup being passed between SA and NZL

Regarding the point of too many replacements these days, it's been 23 players for about 10 years. NZ won the RWC in 2015 because their subs were as good as other tier 1 countries' first XV, and nobody complained. How come we're only hearing that it needs to be reduced since the 2019 RWC?

@Goodey you can early engage on the first one, move the break foot back on the second, let the flank hook the ball on the third, let the prop block the ball on the fourth and the just take more than 30 seconds on the fifth so you have already skipped 5 scrums. Most games don't have 5 scrums against you so you have definitely made scrumming almost completely useless.

In the 1987 WC the average game had 32 scrums and 45 lineouts. In 2023 WC the average game had 15 scrums and 27 lineouts. The 1987 WC final had 28:11 minutes of ball in play time and the 2023 final had 34:18 minutes ball in play time. So we got six minutes more ball in play time with 17 less scrums per game. Now we might lose one or two scrums, how will that make any difference to the ball in play time?

Was the Caterpillar ruck addressed? If not it should have. Thats a big time waster.

What about the argument: "stop changing the laws so frequently!"?

That no scrums from a mark, seems really targeted hey 😂😂😂😂😂😂

According to a certain rugby youtube channel, there are 9 ways in the law book to concede a short arm at a scrum. What this new law amounts to is that even if a ref stands firm and penalizes repeat infringements, a team with a weak scrum has 9 opportunities per game to cheat a stronger scrum out of their opportunity to win a penalty in a fair contest. Insane

6 free kick offences can come from scrums which means there are 6 occasions for one-off free kicks before the second time gets a penalty. Savy teams can keep several in the back pocket for the most important moments knowing they won't get pinged. Take England against SA, the scrum that led to the penalty which won the game. England has been losing scrums but not giving away free kicks all game, now they use their trump card, early engagement, free kick, get the ball back, and play on. How the GIANT holes in this law haven't already been patched up by WR is incredible.

It is just strange that Du Pont's Law has been exploited for a while already, the Croc Roll has been used a lot and the one time a scrum gets called as seen in the WC final, it is suddenly ruled out by World Rugby. Goodey's logic goes both ways, if teams were using it extensively and it made the game look stupid, like Du Pont's law obviously does, then it needs to go, but it was used once and suddenly World Rugby felt that it needed to be addressed.

The Damian Willemse mark is not the problem. That hardly ever happens. There are many things that can lead to a freekick at scrums, not just early on the ingage. Even if you can do it only once, you can use that one opportunity to change the outcome of a game. Scenario, World Cuo final, last minute of the game, team A has a dominante scrum and gets a scrum advantage in a very kickable position. Now they won't be able to use their scrum to potentially get a penalty and a shot at goal. This law will still come and bite a team. If it happens in a World Cup final the shite is going to fly.

RIP to rugby union. Happy birthday to rugby league. Hope people are happy

Everyone thinks that fewer scrums will somehow make the Springboks less effective. I have no doubt that Dr Rassie will find a way to make it work for the Boks 😂

Rassie is definitely the GOAT 🐐

It is anti-Springbok but it's also really anti-innovation. Can we split rugby into the version with sane rules and entertainment value, then IRB can have their boring, overcomplicated version?

The most iconic part of Rugby Union is the scrum and that the game is for all sizes of players- remove that and you destroy what makes rugby Union special.

No problem, SA will have several solutions for the freekick scrum scenario, knock-on, forward pass.....etc.

The scrum is the iconic set piece of Rugby union, but it seems that World Rugby wants to turn the game into Rugby league.

Early engage - free kick. Breakdoot - free kick, early shove - free kick = 3 get out of jail cards to deal with three scrums on your own tryline.

The problem that repeated infringements (turning into a penalty) doesn’t solve is if the infringement is the first at the 80th min. Eg - England early bind at 77 mins against SA, no scrum , no penalty

Guys it's not just the scrums, OK. But if you look at everything that can be given a free kick against, that leaves the door open for lots of trickery. Marks from restarts? So nobody is going to kickoff into the 22m now. Whenever the ball is kicked out, just quick throw the ball; no more line outs too, which would actually have helped South Africa in the final since Deon lost a couple of line outs, I mean who needs scrums and line outs and territory mind games and physical mind games. Rugby is terrifyingly technical and this is taking away from the joy of it. If someone can explain to me how the 15s game is better off with almost no scrums or line outs feel free and with clean outs also becoming harder to do legitimately (I don't have an answer here and agree the crocodile roll must go) the attacking team can just keep ball in hand, if they actually are a good attacking team. But at least, from what I remember, League has you go through 5 plays max with a kick away at the end same with NFL. Which makes sense in those sports, since turn overs are hard and limits what a team can do and if they waste their chance then ball gets turned over. Now look at Ireland vs New Zealand QF 2023 there were a couple of times we had near 30 phase possession plays. Great, I think that's masterclass but how would a team that can't jackal, which is now harder because you need to give day light but hands have to be on the ball exactly, contest at breakdowns. So when does the defending team get a turn over opportunity? I think some of the rules are making a mockery of rugby and it's for everyone, not just South Africans. We may be 3rd world but we're not idiots. So take Union if you want, South Africans will be fine; but Union is not League, NFL or Football and if it wants to be just keep in mind that no one ever goes for a cheap knock off and you just end up losing die hard fans.

I think referees already get criticized too much for the way scrums are refereed. Adding more complications and instances where the referee has to make a judgment call or be strong about it is going to make scrums even more contentious. I think there are going to be more calls that fans will be dissatisfied with, even if they're the right calls. Early engagements aren't so common that they might ruin a game, but going from a simple reset to a referee needing to decide if it was intentional and possibly carding someone or just being so severe that it becomes a penalty doesn't seem right. I don't think a single team will ever take a scrum off of a penalty unless they're deep in their opponent's 22, even with a dominant scrum there's too much room for error and it's too risky to be worth it. In an attempt to make the game have fewer scrums, World Rugby might just make scrums more complicated and even more disliked by fans. Instead of trying to have less of them maybe they should put their efforts into making them more enjoyable, turning them into a platform where the teams can compete, let the backs run around while the forwards are locked in, make a scrum something a fan wants to watch. If you're just trying to get rid of them instead of embracing and fixing them, then maybe the South Africans are right, and these rules aren't about solving an issue but instead about giving the springboks less opportunity to assert their dominance.

Constant reset scrums are frustrating but I find a good scrum very entertaining. The theatre of 8 massive humans tightly bound together and fighting for an oval ball is fantastic. Also the backline has the most space off a scrum to work with and do some magic.

Beware thinking that the Boks are only scrummagers!

Why were caterpillar rucks not addressed Is it because it was brought in by the NH teams????

World rugby did the same thing to Ireland a few years ago they were very good at figuring out ways around the law for example the choke tackle Ireland used to do that all the time to gain possession so world rugby tried to take that away from Ireland where in the case for choke tackle you could intentionally collapse the maul and gain possession.

That said, I think the Du Pont law change might have a bigger impact on France than the scrum law change will on SA. All those big, power forwards from France are suddenly going to have to do a lot more running (or France is going to have to do a lot less kicking).

A rule made for gaming... That said the Springboks will just double down on their scrumming power. Other teams should rather improve their scrumming like the Boks have done since 2017 when they were bullied by Argentina. It will be interesting how strictly the referees will police the 10m rule if the free kick is taken really quickly.

5m scrum and cause a short arm deliberately (aftersaving it all game). Great stuff bro..

Scrums are such an integral part of our wonderful sport... Rugby Union will die at the hands of World Rugby. This is going to have such a negative impact on the balance of the sport. I'm not even sure I want to watch anymore, the game is being ruined by World Rugby.

hope all these changes can allow especially the north /other nations to win World Cups😀

So not simplifying anything. Not speeding anything up. Not making it easier for referees. More intentional early engage and foot ups. Hilarious 🤣🤣

The frequent law-changes over the past 20 years discourages innovation within the current laws (meaning the laws of the day). If World Rugby left the rules alone it would naturally lead to periods where defence is dominant and then the attacking play would catch up and be dominant for a few years before swinging back. Soccer/football is an excellent example of this where the scores are all low-scoring in a season before becoming high-scoring a few years later, then changing back as tactics change. Furthermore all the innovations of the Springboks and South African teams seem to be met with accusations that we are bad for the game, which is simply ignorant of the critics to say. Not every team or culture has the same strengths and weaknesses, so unless you want every team to play the same style and make rugby boring there should be space for different game-plans and tactics. Lastly, I’m 5ft3 and have played both hooker and scrumhalf. One of the reasons I love rugby is that there is space for someone of all shapes and sizes, and the front row is one of the places where you don’t have to be a Goliath-lookalike like Eben Etzebeth to play, you can win a spot in the team by being sturdy, powerful, and having good technique despite not being a rugby league-type of athlete. So yeah, all these rule changes has made me switch to watching the NFL instead. These are not “fan-focused” as Andy says, since casual fans don’t follow all the rule changes and they end up not understanding why decisions are made. Just ask my wife. As obsessed as I was with rugby in my youth, I basically only watch the Springboks now.

There are 9 ways of getting a free kick from scrum time, and about 6 of them are ways for the opposing team to give away a free kick.

i think they missed a very important scenario here. How often do we see a team scrum for the penalty in the last couple of minutes during a tight game ? If a team gives up the free kick to avoid the penalty in minute 43. Not such a big deal. But this will eventually happen in a big game with time up on the clock. And dont think this wont happen to your team Goodey ! SA 22 - Eng 21, 40 secs on the clock. SA knocks on in their half. Scrum Eng. with SA vs Eng scrums 50/50 all game long. Eng has a fresh front row that won a penalty of the last scrum. SA front row looking tired. Rassie flashes the the red light from the box. SA pre-engage free kick Eng. (Ref cant straight arm SA, because no side has really been scrum dominant all game) Time up. Eng has to tap 30m from the try line. This law will be taken advantage of sooner than we think. Probably even this season. So, don't come crying when it happens to your team.

It can be frustrating to see the scrum setup take so long, only for the actual scrum to be rushed. I agree, there should be more emphasis on the power against power contest. It would be great to see the setup process streamlined and the scrum itself given more time. And you're right, it's important for referees to enforce laws like throwing in straight to ensure fair play.

I mean, as a Saffa, I know they did it to mess with South Africa. But I doubt it makes a big difference. How many do you see anyway.

What happens if a non dominant scrum doesn’t use the brake foot, just to concede a free kick. Then the next scrum they engage early and the one after that they push early. Would the latter two be penalized or will they be free kicks. Different infringements, and I’m wondering whether they’ll only be penalized for the same infringements ,

Funny they are allowing the mark off a kickoff. That is a very old law which was scrapped in the 1990s I think. Naas Botha used to wait for the kickoff. Mark. Boom it back at loftus to the opposite 22. (Would that be a 50-22 today?) Interesting...

Does the second offence pertain to the same infringement or any infringement at the scrum? Because we could do the merry-go round of free-kick infringements before we see a penalty. Loopholes galore with this one if that's the case.

Fewer. It's "fewer scrums".

On replacements, I like the idea of reducing numbers on the bench... but that is detrimental (posh word?) to player safety. What they should do is cap the number of matches players can play in without having 2 weeks rest. For example, say players need 2 weeks off after having played 6 matches in a season. That forces squad rotation, gives emerging players a a run and is great for player welfare. But (and here's a big one) it can only apply to club / provincial matches. Otherwise you'll have club / provincial teams use up players' allotted matches and force national teams to rest them.

Here is the best solution. Make all infringements at a scrum penalties, no more freekicks. When a team is awarded a penalty for a scrum infringement they can't take call a scrum. That way teams will have to scrum and can't get away with any tricks.

But won't it be confusing for kids trying to get into the game and learn the rules ? Certain offences are sometimes free kicks, sometimes penalties. It also just seems like it's skewering the game away from all shapes and sizes have their uses. Even if it's a slight change it's moving away from what makes rugby great isn't it? These rules seem like they're decided based on the top level but don't spare a thought for all the fat boys at grass roots level. People that choose to get into rugby as a kid because they haven't got the right body for other sports might think twice about rugby now (I was one of those boys).

Players that are built like Ox won't be needed in Rugby anymore. Very discriminatory rule change.

So if it almost never happens and the change will not have an impact, then why make the change?

WR is changing our beautiful game into league. Scrums and the drama it creates around it i big games is what makes our game beautiful. 2 countries head to head in a battle of attrition. Just beautiful

Don't think it will hurt the Boks, but the animosity against scrums doesn't make sense. It is what makes rugby rugby as opposed to rugby league

New Law --- South Africa must beat other teams by more than 10 points to win the game. Everyone happy now?

Just the opposite. I find that the scrum adds a tremendous amount of charm to the game. They are fascinating and fun to watch. They are idiots to get rid of scrums. And, if England or Australia were Masters of the Scrum, this rule never would have been implemented.

As a prop who played in the pre-professional days, I deplore the way the scrum has deteriorated and is used as a means of conning the refs into awarding penalties. I say "conning" because the refs don't really have a clue what is going on in the scrums. When i was playing, the ball could be won against the head. Scrums took less than a minute. And to give a penalty simply because a scrum is pushed backwards is ludicrous! I've almost got to the stage where I'd prefer to see League scrums.

Why not just ban these teams dominating the last 30 years on WC stage.

If I'm not mistaken, are there less scrum penalties as well? Help me here please

Is that how the free kick rules works? That they stack into penalties? So, for example, you might get away with 1 pre engage at scrum time but if you then give away any free kick its an instant penalty?

Ok so I early engage once, I lift my brake foot once, I put wrong numbers once in the lineout, I waste time once that’s already 5 saves

I totally can relate to this. I played rugby for over 20 years and my final season at 36 years old I felt better in almost all attributes except for top speed. Unfortunately all that time beating up my shoulders added up and I had surgery this year. I'm a bit nervous to see how I can bounce back from that time off recovering. I've also shifted a lot of focus to endurance running so doubt I'll be able to get back to some of those lower body power outputs. But all that said, keep grinding kids, you can do more than your dad did at your age!

When are cricket tests going to be changed to 3 days of 100 overs, and no fast bowlers or bouncers... because that's what people want isn't it? World Rugby are destroying our sport.

As a casual rugby fan a lot could be solved by stopping the clock whenever a scrum is called and it restarts when the ball comes out. Too many games there is so much time taken out of the game because of reset after reset. Not attacking the sport, and no doubt I'll take some stick for suggesting it. But it's an issue that needs resolved.

Hi Guys, 20 min Red Card, can be structured better...(The offender is not permitted back on the field, but can be replaced with a bench option after 20min)....Simple and easy to manage.

The srum rule is wrong

What problem is this new free kick law solving? I think adding laws on top of laws makes the game less appealing.

Question: Does a scrum penalty result from repeated scrum free-kicks or repeated scrum free-kicks of the same type???

I still believe there should be a situation if a player do deliberate dirty play where a player can be red carded and maybe black carded to stamp out that type of play. Which mean no 20 min sub.

Waiting until rassie tells damien to catch the high kick cleanly and then just drop the ball forward to get a scrum anyway

Let's stop pretending like the Springboks are the only team in the world that scrummages. We see it all the time in professional Rugby, if a team has a weak scrum, the opposition will always take that option and use that advantage.

Weve seen red cards that should never have been given ruin the contest in games, the 20 minute red card fixes that. If a player commits a particularly grevious offence they will be banned for multiple games. The system has been working really well in SRP

There should be difference for a free kick from a kick, vs a free kick from an infringement. I would only apply the new law where free kick was given from catching a kick, i.e. in your 22. Infringement free kicks from line outs or engaging early in scrums, should still be allowed to have a scrum.

Been watching the sport for over 50 years and seen loads of rule changes I never liked. The elimination of rucking was one, lineout lifting was another, and moving to tactical subs rather than injury reserves was another. But change happens and if you’re any good you’ll adapt accordingly. Such is life. Looking forward to seeing the internationals this year but doubt the sky will fall.

Poorly thought out law change. Theoretically, you can simply transgress on different scrum infringements in consecutive scrums with no real consequence. Scrum 1 - early engagement, Scrum 2 - brake foot, etc...

The mark was meant to reward the defence and release pressure by hopefully clearing up towards halfway but South Africa realised the other option of a scrum could result in a penalty from which you get the lineout throw. I think the option to scrum should never have been there. There are too many rules for any referee not to make a mistake. The crocodile roll law I agree with but I would like your opinion on the first time I've seen it used in the U20 rugby championship game between New Zealand and Australia when the NZ 10 was given a yellow card through TMO intervention.

Don't worry about the scrum law affecting South Africa. Rassie will find a way. Bokbefok!

"Less scrums"? The pendantic in me has to note that it should be "fewer scrums".

So basically, more responsibility to the Ref, then they get it wrong leading to more complaints.

Forget calling a scrum off a mark. But how can they remove that option from a general free kick like an early engagement..

Instead of this, they should allow the option of a free kick when the opposition knocks on or if the ref stops the game. Teams shouldn’t be allowed just give up the scrum in favour of mobility, but at the same time it’s not fair that if a team knocks on, but they have a much stronger scrum, they’ll likely win a penalty and be better off for knocking on. This is a bigger deal at the amateur level where you regularly get a massive mismatch in the pack

Let's be honest, they did this because the French lost in their world cup and they lashing out through World Rugby. Heavens forbid if the Springboks should win again in 2027 I tell you now that they will ban the boks.

I hear Goode. But what if that one free kick abuse is THE crucial moment in a World Cup final?

The scrum off a mark is a red herring - the scrum you cant take for a not straight throw 5m from the line is a real problem. Now you can only tap against a spread out defence as opposed to sucking in all the forwards. Bad law. So unnecessary.

I think that rugby should do away with substitutions, except for injuries, any player substituted, would then automatically miss the next game, which would help ensure that they were fit, and would act as a deterrent against fake injuries

For me the best games are the ones with the fewest scrums which also means there will be less BS penalties that the refs have just guessed the decision and hopefully it’ll stop these “bomb squads” and encourage teams to be more attack minded, I also think we need to reduce the number of subs allowed but that’s a conversation for another day

7:30 why would you want to take a scrum from a penalty? That's a stupid comment.

1. There’s no new rugby fan who doesn’t want to watch rugby because of scrums. WR are tempering with the soul of rugby, trying to attract new fans 2. Most fans, especially new fans take their queues on what good rugby is from what pundits say. If the pundits say scrums are entertaining, then scrums are entertaining. 3. Changing the laws to be dependent on the ref’s discretion on the day or how many times an infringement has occurred before a certain decision can be made is problematic to a new fan trying to understand the game.

There won't be less scrums. There will just be more knock on's on favorable positions in the field.

Andy’s take is really good, you’ll get more penalties if teams try give free kicks away at scrums.. the issue that this will cause is when games are tight, in an attack able position, teams can give away a free kick and avoid risk getting a penalty which could lead to a match winning penalty and teams will do that. The only silver lining is that Dr. Rassie will without a shadow of a doubt find a way to exploit this law for SA benefit

Fact check: the mark call happened in the quarter (France) and semi final (England). if it's a 5m scrum and the team doesn't want to concede a penalty; or they want to have more defenders they can just take the free kick and that can have a big impact on match. If SA couldn't call a mark they might have not won both games. How can that not be a big impact? How can Goodey not see that?

If you had a strong second serve in tennis, you don't penalise the game and say you can only serve underarm so that the opponent can return the ball - the opponent needs to adapt and be stronger. What world rugby is doing is penalising teams that work really hard on one element of the game and are dominant in that facet of the game. Should SA win another WC, I wonder what law will change then....

Here's another scenario: Scrum is called. team 1 puts in, team 2 gives away free kick. team 1 taps and knocks the ball on frop tap. Scrum is called. team 2 puts in, team 1 gives away freek kick. team 2 taps and knocks the ball on from tap. ... ... ... breaks the law.

So long as scrum halves can feed the ball into the second row's feet on the put-in scrums are totally pointless. Also, penalties in any sport are given against a team seeking to gain an advantage from foul play. How is it foul play if the other team isn't as good at scrummaging as the other team? And how do they hope to gain an advantage by going backwards knowing full well a penalty will be given against them? It's a ridiculous law. If the ball is at the back of the scrum it should be used and that's it.

If a scrum is selected from a mark/free kick then the only punishment should be a free kick.

WR just don't get it, the day they made that rule change was the same day they gave the Boks a new purpose. Never motivate a South African.

Lest see the stats on scrum to free kick in the last season & then see now how many free kicks from scrums post the new law. . Then we will see if teams are giving free kicks to avoid scrumming.