New move on scrums

[Different kind of Rabbit]

Sounds great in theory.

In reality, it will mean that the bloke hitting the ball out one up from the scrum win will make an easy 10 metres instead of an easy 5.

Can't see coaches risking flashy set plays on the first tackle of a set after a scrum win, just because you get more room around the scrum. Lost ball on the first tackle is stil lost ball on the first tackle, no matter how good you look before you drop it.

 

[Mr_Raditch]

I think this proposed rule would be great for my team (Tigers) but that said, it just shows how the coaches only have the best interests of their teams at heart when they propose rule changes. I can understand & dont begrudge them for this, its what they are paid to do. However I think rule changes should be taken out of the hands of coaches, they should have no say in it. A panel of well respected ex players should be set up who can review the season at the end of the year & then proopse any rule changes to the NRL.


Edit: The game needs rule changes otherwise it stagnates. You just have to look at Yawnion to see why rule changes are neccessary.

 

[adamkungl]

shouldn't any rule changes be ratified and adopted by the RLIF? Would hate to see a situation where you end up with games being played under different rules depending on which country your in.

You mean, exactly the situation we have now?

 

[adamkungl]

sounds like a "Benji" rule to me to give him more room to move

just get the offensive team to stand deeper

this.

 

[I Bleed Green]

I don't understand why there's so much criticism about Sheens' suggestion - I think it's a very good one and should make for more entertaining footy!

 

[adamkungl]

I don't understand why there's so much criticism about Sheens' suggestion - I think it's a very good one and should make for more entertaining footy!

a) it comes across as very self interested, with Tigers being known for their backline flair

b) on the other hand entirely, as someone mentioned earlier, this could be used to simply get even more space for a boring hit up. Leaving the rule as is already allows for backline play for the scrum - the backline just has to stand deeper.

c) the principal of the entire thing - coaches shouldn't be making rule changes!

 

[Rhino_NQ]

isn't a bad suggestion, gives scrums a chance to become more interesting without making it more complicated (touchies jsut need to take 5 more steps backwards). Any change that gives more potential for attack without causing confusion/debarcles with video refs etc is always good.

Yes supercoach only has his own team in mind with this one but coincendently made a pretty good suggestion as well. If it hadn't of been somone looking after their own halfback that made it ie robert finch himself (although that wouldn't happen cuz it would show some sort of competence) or a nrl board member, ex player, U/20's coach etc would it get as much critisism as it had so far on the forum?

Atleast it will give webb a few more metres of space to regather the ball he just dropped taking the hitup from 5/8

 

[Danish]

Edit: The game needs rule changes otherwise it stagnates. You just have to look at Yawnion to see why rule changes are neccessary.

Completely disagree.

Soccer hasn't changed a rule in god knows how long, and it does just fine.

Yawnion, on the other hand, has chopped and changed its rules over the past 4 years and it is still a boring game, except nows its boring and loaded with penalties for new infringements.

We need to stop trying to fix what was never broken in the first place.

 

[Doug2234]

I look forward to the whinge fest by these same gooses 6 rounds in when whatever rules they bring in predictably turn out to be unworkable.

Des Hasler anyone!!!

 

[boxa777]

If you want contested scrums, go follow rugby union. It is such a f**kin flawed comeback when a rah-rah comes back with 'atleast our scrums are contested.'

Sure they are.. But they are boring as f**k. Crouch-Hold-Engage. Get up, do it again. On and on and f**kin on. Pathetic.

The way scrums are in league at the moment I am fine with because it serves the purpose of moving some of the forwards out of the way and clearing some room in the backline.

Sheens is looking for advantage here but I don't think that it is necessarily a bad idea at all. Lately the trend has been to play a forward at five-eighth from the scrums so that they can hit the ball up into the line. Giving teams more space might coax the team into trying something adventurous.

 

[adamkungl]

Completely disagree.

Soccer hasn't changed a rule in god knows how long, and it does just fine.

Yawnion, on the other hand, has chopped and changed its rules over the past 4 years and it is still a boring game, except nows its boring and loaded with penalties for new infringements.

We need to stop trying to fix what was never broken in the first place.

We need to find our feet, find a set of rules with no glaring issues, and stick to it.

We are pretty close, in my opinion the only things that need tweaking are the obstruction rule, the strip rule, and the use of the video ref.

edit: oh, and that ridiculous try rule of last year that had clear knockons being awarded 4 points

 

[Doug2234]

Seems fine as it is now. Sheens is a bit agenda driven with that suggestion but each to there own.

The grounding of a try with the TORSO is a wank! the ball has to be grounded with the hand(s) - nothing else!!

 

[BIKER_DRAGON]

Make the scrum a contest again or you might as well stand the hooker on the street corner.

 

[_snafu_]

Here's a rule change suggestion...

How about the halfback being required to feed the ball in the tunnel instead of behind the second rowers' feet?

 

[skeepe]

If it hadn't of been somone looking after their own halfback that made it ie robert finch himself (although that wouldn't happen cuz it would show some sort of competence) or a nrl board member, ex player, U/20's coach etc would it get as much critisism as it had so far on the forum?

Anything that pelican does should be criticised until my throat is sore.

An absolute fraud that is ruining this great game with his sheer incompetent boobery.

 

[gronkathon]

I actually see this as being advantageous to more teams and actually limiting the effect o players like Marshall off scrums.

Well orchestrated and executed team moves will have more effect but the defensive line will get a better look at runners like Marshall and co and actually be able to get in less one on one positions

 

[mickdo]

Any rule change like this should have to be trialled in NYC for a season before being applied to the top grade IMO. While Sheen's idea could be good, there are a few possible flaws in it and it would be wise to test it out first.

 

[Pierced Soul]

There is always another option....not even a radical one....the attacking team could actually stand deeper if they want space to launch a running/passing play. It seemed to work ok for Messenger, Gasnier, Langlands, Fulton, Daley, Lyons & many others.

theres always another option but coaches arent interested in anything remotely risky. why risk your 5/8 getting smashed when you can get a winger or backrower take the hitup?

ive said for years its the way the coaches make their gameplans which can utilise the rules we have rather than tryingt o change the actual rule. if coaches encouraged ball movement form scrums and became successful at it other teams would follow, as it is some coach said 'lets use the first tackle as a hit up' and every other coach followed....

i dont want to see scrums like back in the 60's, however i'm disgusted at 2nd row feeds and appalled you cant even f**king push anymore. i dont want to see this crouch-collapse sh*t yawnion has but i want the ball in the f**king middle and the opportunity for a team to push in the scrum

 

[JB]

Been wanting to see this happen for a while.

Still, if the refs grew a pair and actually penalized the buggers not packing in properly or leaving early, it wouldn't be needed.

 

[Where Eagles Dare]

a) it comes across as very self interested, with Tigers being known for their backline flair

b) on the other hand entirely, as someone mentioned earlier, this could be used to simply get even more space for a boring hit up. Leaving the rule as is already allows for backline play for the scrum - the backline just has to stand deeper.

c) the principal of the entire thing - coaches shouldn't be making rule changes!

I don't care about a). Sheens and his Tigers play an exciting brand of footy, the kind that fans want to watch. People have complained about the successful teams in recent years also being the boring and predictable ones, with their 5 dummy half/one-out runs and a kick to the corner. It seems this type of play is best suited to achieve success under the current rules. I would much rather the most successful teams also be the most skillful and the most entertaining.

But then we get to b), which is a very good point, and would most likely be the result if this rule was introduced. Back to the drawing board.

Oh and on c), I don't have a problem with coaches merely suggesting rule changes, because everyone else has to agree upon them before they are actually introduced, right?