League scrums

[Pablo25]

I come from an RU background, but like to watch a bit of league. Don't label me a troll - I'm not interested in the "my sport's better than yours" shtick.

Anyway, I've been refereeing since an injury finished my playing career and have developed a bit of an interest in the history of the Laws, and the divergence between the two codes.

I'm hoping someone can answer a question I have about the RL scrum: quite simply, is contest for posession illegal at scrum-time, or just impractical? I've read the Law book and can't find anything to suggest it's illegal, but wanted some confirmation from someone who's closer to the game.

Cheers,
Pablo

 

[Fairleigh Good!]

Its not illegal as far as I know. But the scrum half is allowed to just throw the ball round the leg of the first prop, so there is almost no chance of winning a scrum against the head even if it were contested. The ball barely enters the scrum.

 

[Evil Homer]

Indeed,you're still allowed to contest the ball,but it's virtually impossible to win a scrum unless the scrum half is very careless or the forwards put a big push on.

 

[bartman]

Welcome Pablo. With subtle law changes to the scrum over the years, the contest has become less and less. Changes such as giving the loose head and the feed to the one side each time means it's really under the attacking (or non-offending) team's control.

I remember in Australia there was a big push to make scrums less of a contest after a few first level players became paraplegics in collapsed scrums in the 70s. Also there was the issue of too many penalties from scrum infringements, and before differential penalties the goal kicks from these could often decide games, which was a bit frowned upon and open to accusation of referee bias and inconsistency.

Even with the differential scrum penalties, it seems there was still dissatisfaction with the amount of stop-start and whistle blowing, so scrums gradually became simplified affairs with most teams happy to just set themselves to defend the resultant play, and referees happy to let play flow.

Have great memories of the old days of contested scrums though, and one day in particualr when an unheralded Parramatta front row hooked five against the feed up against the national rep hooker (Ben Elias), the weight of possesion surely counting towards the win. The days when hooking involved skills above and beyond ball distribution and dummy half play...

 

[Pablo25]

Thanks for responses, guys. Have had another look through the scrum law, and the major contributing factor to the lack of contest seems to be the fact there is no obligation on the scrum half to put the ball down the middle of the tunnel. Obviously, this Law is still in effect in RU, but generally poorly enforced (at the top level at least - I still try to penalise it!), meaning the likelihood of a scrum going against the head has declined.

Further question about scrums - more a historic one than a technical one. I know RL reduced teams to 13 players to get more width on the pitch (presumably changing the team size was easier than changing the pitch size once stands had been built?). My question is - why specifically remove the flankers? Anybody know what the logic was behind that particular change? Were they simply the easiest positions to remove?

Cheers,
Pablo

 

[bartman]

My question is - why specifically remove the flankers? Anybody know what the logic was behind that particular change? Were they simply the easiest positions to remove?

I'm not sure, it;s sent me scurrying away to my books....

From p.105 of Tony Collins' new Rugby League In Twentieth Century Britain, "The movement that led to the Northern Union had been one that sought to make rugby a more open and entertaining spectacle for players and spectators alik. Proposals to amed rugby's rules had been voiced even before 1895; as early as 1891 there had been calls to reduce teams to thirteen-a-side, and the constant scrummaging of the game was seen as a severe disadvantage in the battle with soccer for spectators."

The eventual change in 1906 also came with the introduction of the controlled play-the-ball rule instead of a rucks and mauls to decide possesion whenever progress was halted. So given that move toward the running passing and tackling side of play I guess the flankers (or breakaways I knew them) were the more obvious position to remove in reducing the focus on scrummaging play at that time, and re-balance the ratio of backs to forwards?

 

[East Coast Tiger]

They wanted to make league more open so they decided to reduce the numbers, as it was they chose 13. Logically if they wanted to make the game more open and attacking they weren't going to remove backs so they had to get rid of some forwards and the flankers were the most obvious choice. You could hardly remove the props or the inside second rowers (locks) - you'd have a hole in the scrum. So the flankers were just removed from the edge of the scrum, simple and it made sense. Thank God they did it.