Richard Loe: Call changes won't address scrum issues

The rules should focus on scrum collapses. Photo / Getty Images

Most of the law changes just announced seem pretty good to me, with the exception of the supposed new scrum call.

Instead of that bloody awful crouch-touch-pause-have a pie-put the tea on-shear a sheep-engage nonsense, they are talking about saying "set" instead of "engage" to speed things up.

As a two-syllable word, the refs are not really getting past the "en" bit. But, you watch, the scrums will hit as soon as they hear an 's' now.

The other thing is that they are not really addressing the problem.

They need to address the reasons scrums are collapsing rather than pussyfooting round with the wording of the scrum call. I have said it for a long time now: If you have a decent hit, get your bind up as aggressively and as quickly as possible and don't let go, the scrum will not collapse.

It might sink down for a bit or rise in the air - but that is just the power and pressure being applied and has to be accepted.

What happens is that players losing out in the hit are either letting go of their bind or twisting round and either pop up or take down the scrum. That's what refs should be focusing on.

The new rules regarding TMOs seem pretty good to me, too. A lot of people said straight away that they are scared the game will be held up by officials going back six or seven phases to find reasons not to award a try. Won't happen.

For the most part, the ref and two assistants will see and act on infringements and will play advantage in the phases leading up to a try.

The TMO examination which allows them greater powers to assess whether a try has been scored will take in only the final moments of a try being scored, I am sure - and it's a victory for common sense.

We all remember the time last year when Jimmy Cowan was denied a try by the referee against the Boks because the South African TMO told the ref that there had been a forward pass.

He wasn't supposed to have any jurisdiction in that area but he did it anyway.

A lot of people were outraged but let's face it - it was the right outcome even if for the wrong reasons.

Now the TMOs are able to do that. Some might think the new lineout options further dilute the effect of the scrum in the game but I don't see it that way. They are trying to speed up the game and the ability to take a lineout from a knock-on which goes into touch, for example, won't happen very often at all.

The other change - the ability to call for another lineout at a penalty or free kick (in addition to a kick or a scrum) just brings the lineout more into play if a team has more prowess in that area than a scrum, or if they are weaker in the scrum.

That doesn't bother me - it's all part of the game.

I'd say bringing in the lineout option evens things up.

One of the most effective changes will be the five seconds to use the ball at the back of the ruck.

This is, I think, to stop teams winding down the clock at the end of a match by playing endless pick-and-go rugby.

Fair enough, too. You don't see that type of rugby at any other part of a game than the end and, while there's some skill attached to it, I would far rather have a more exciting finish.

The only change that confused me was the trial to have eight players on the bench, with the eighth being a front row forward. It's not clear what is meant by this. Does that mean three specialist front rowers have to be on the bench now? Can you make do with two if they are loosehead and tighthead props? If you can only play loosehead, then being forced into tighthead doesn't do much for safety.

Some explanation is needed there but, overall, I'd say these changes will help speed up the game and will help keep injustices down.

Things like the five second rule will provide more exciting conclusions and it will also stop refs yapping away, saying "use it or lose it" and generally being coaches instead of adjudicators.