Scrums: Let's Make 'Em Useful Again...

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

May have been a by-product when scrums were used to give teams an opportunity to win possession, once the push became obsolete there can be no reason for having scrums other than taking 6 players out of the contest for as many tackles as possible.

In theory, 6 backs v 6 backs is supposed to inject some razzmatazz however fleetingly into the game, if forwards are allowed to particpate the scrum may as well be replaced by a turnover.

This would be totally impossible to police, once players start interchanging.

But, going back to the idea of a 4 point conversion, that would be the perfect way to bring back the "razmatazz" (seriously, who says shit like that?!?).

A single tackle off a scrum with the opportunity of another try, coaches will be coming up with awesome set plays and trick plays to take advantage of the 7-a-side formation.

Right now, these trick plays off scrums are not rewarded because you might lose the ball, but given this opportunity these First Grade coaches will put in time to create these great set moves...

 

[Bring it home Knights]

Scrums are used as a tactical ploy to have a breather as well. I remember when the knights played the bulldogs in a semi in 1998. The knights were very underdone and had a lot of players coming back from injury. It got to the point where Johns on occasions would try to kick the ball into touch to try and wind the clock down, as well as giving the players a breather. It's a ploy that I don't think should be taken out of the game.

 

[ram raid]

Whats' wrong with getting rid of them altogether?

 

[Springs]

8-13 must pack in position. No backs in the scrum, no forwards in the backline. Then they are at least relevant again even if they aren't contested.

 

[Springs]

Whats' wrong with getting rid of them altogether?

It will change the game a lot, more than most people clearly realise.

 

[POPEYE]

This would be totally impossible to police, once players start interchanging.

But, going back to the idea of a 4 point conversion, that would be the perfect way to bring back the "razmatazz" (seriously, who says shit like that?!?).

A single tackle off a scrum with the opportunity of another try, coaches will be coming up with awesome set plays and trick plays to take advantage of the 7-a-side formation.

Right now, these trick plays off scrums are not rewarded because you might lose the ball, but given this opportunity these First Grade coaches will put in time to create these great set moves...

How the f**k is it impossible to police . . . if you don't have a number from 8-17 you can't pack in a scrum. Referees are thick but they can read a number

It used to be 5 man scrums were allowed when a forward was down so the backs could have equal opportunity . . . how long have you watching the game and how long do you think coaches have been planning moves around scrums

 

[firechild]

What if scrums were completely taken out of the game EXCEPT for post-try Power Plays (come up with a better name though).

For the chance to convert for 4 instead of 2, a team gets a scrum 10m out and one play to score a try. It would make scrums useful and exciting again AND it would get rid of the idea that a 7 point lead is a winning margin, so a few more exciting finishes...

What do you all think????

Think it's one of the stupidest ideas I've come across on this forum. Right up there with Gypsy's suggestion of fans travelling half way across Sydney during Wednesday night peak hour for 10 minute long games as rugby league's answer to the Big Bash.

 

[ek999]

8-13 must pack in position. No backs in the scrum, no forwards in the backline. Then they are at least relevant again even if they aren't contested.

TBH I think you would probably see players get named in different positions just to suit what they like to do in scrum formations then. Sam Perrett would wear 13 yet play at fullback for example because he almost always locks our scrum in both attack and defence. James Graham would get named at 6, Josh Reynolds in the centres and Kasiano at hooker and someone else at fullback.

 

[POPEYE]

The thread title mentions making the scrums useful again which is null and void, they've always been useful, not incorporating the players intended to participate as they once did only makes scrums slightly less useful than they should be

 

[POPEYE]

TBH I think you would probably see players get named in different positions just to suit what they like to do in scrum formations then. Sam Perrett would wear 13 yet play at fullback for example because he almost always locks our scrum in both attack and defence. James Graham would get named at 6, Josh Reynolds in the centres and Kasiano at hooker and someone else at fullback.

Dearie me, you think the backs wouldn't want to be part of an attacking movement from a scrum, if they're wearing forward numbers they wouldn't be allowed the privilege

 

[ek999]

Dearie me, you think the backs wouldn't want to be part of an attacking movement from a scrum, if they're wearing forward numbers they wouldn't be allowed the privilege

Watch from 2:49 Pops and see a Bulldogs attacking scrum play with the fullback at lock and a prop at 5/8. Bulldogs use this scrum formation almost exclusively no matter the position on the field or in attack or defence, you really think Hasler wouldn't name players out of position to suit the only time the numbers would be relevant? I would also bet Kasiano would be named at 9 every week even if he is to play on the bench just so he can't get caught out in defence from a scrum

[youtube]CLx5vbC_wng[/youtube]

 

[sharknows]

Bring back real scrums and then we need to develop real front rowers & hookers which will change the whole make up of the forwards. Then we'd need referees capable of controlling scrums......ah forget it....

 

[POPEYE]

Watch from 2:49 Pops and see a Bulldogs attacking scrum play with the fullback at lock and a prop at 5/8. Bulldogs use this scrum formation almost exclusively no matter the position on the field or in attack or defence, you really think Hasler wouldn't name players out of position to suit the only time the numbers would be relevant? I would also bet Kasiano would be named at 9 every week even if he is to play on the bench just so he can't get caught out in defence from a scrum

[youtube]CLx5vbC_wng[/youtube]

It's up to the coaches how they use their forwards but if Kasiano wears #6 he has to stand out of every scrum and have Thurston run him ragged all day, if Reynolds wears 8 he can't participate in any backline movement from a scrum. If you think having 50-60 minute players continually in the backline while their 80 minute players are cuddling in the middle isn't something opposition coaches would work on you're mistaken

 

[ek999]

Graham would wear 6, Kasiano 9 (which hides him completely in defence from a scrum when he is on the field), Reynolds would probably wear 1, and Ennis would wear 11 or 12 and a back rower would wear 8. So the hypothetical team from Saturday night when orignally named would look something like

1 Reynolds
2 Brown
3 Morris
4 Mbye (originally Lafai)
5 Thompson
6 Graham
7 Hodkinson
8 Williams
9 Kasiano
10 Tolman
11 Ennis
12 Jackson
13 Perrett

14 Finucane
15 Browne
16 Klemmer
17 Eastwood

Then when it comes to naming the final team before kickoff do a late swap with Eastwood in for Kasiano. It would just be ridiculous but the Bulldogs would be able to keep the formation they want from scrums.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

The thread title mentions making the scrums useful again which is null and void, they've always been useful, not incorporating the players intended to participate as they once did only makes scrums slightly less useful than they should be

When i say they are not useful, i mean that, off almost every scrum the half gives it to the first runner and he takes the tackle. THIS is why they have become useless; there is no icentive to use the open field because it is on the first play.

The point i was trying to make in the OP was the benefits of bringing in a 4-point conversion...

Instead of a shot at goal, give teams the opportunity to get another try. It was trialed int the All Stars a few years ago, but that didnt work because teams were just given a tap in the middle of the field, they couldnt structure anything so they just threw it around.

Let teams go for the extra point, but give them a scrum to work off of; a more open defence without actually taking players off the field, opportunity for sweeping plays and set movements created by the best coaches in the world.

I bet we'd see some pretty spectacular plays...

 

[Captain Apollo]

The reason scrums, like play the balls, became "uncontested" was because the league wanted to reduce the penalities for infrinegments. There are that many rules for scrums that it was one facet of the game where a penalty was just about as lilely as one side winning the ball at a scrum. Hence they started tinkering with them to reduce the incidence of penalties - that was why they removed the requirement for the ball being placed in the centre of the tunnel at the feed as the first step.

As to getting rid of them altogether, bybdoing so you would remove one of the few times during a game where the players and the officials get a chance to catch their breath. You cannot expect them, interchange or no, to keep running for a full 40 minutes per half non-stop. They are human beings not machines.

Additionally it is also one of the few times when set plays get used due to the lesser number of players in the defensive line.

To use the 9s not having them as an example is poor as they played games of 9 minute halves and had no restiction on interchanges during a game.

 

[Nightward]

If scrums are going to stay I'd rather see them contested again.

So what if this results in a lot of penalties? Players are paid professionals and train to play the game. If they can't get their scrum technique right, they should pay the price.

I would also like to see refs penalise scrum errors more. Why they insist on rebinding the scrum or letting it go while front-rowers are standing is beyond me. If they can't get it right, blow a penalty and move on. Don't waste five minutes trying to teach the players what they should have learned to do five or more years ago. Start blowing penalties and I can guarantee the scrums would be cleaned up in short order.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Why can't they just require players to bind and require the hooker to feed the ball straight? Would stop the scrums looking like a complete joke and lead to the occasional win against the feed which I think everyone would enjoy seeing, and require minimal changes. And I really can't see a downside to it.

 

[Captain Apollo]

Nightward, most modern day league payers would not have that much knowldge of scrums and scrummaging as you think. If they've been playing league since, say Under 7s, in Mini-League (which is for Under 7s through to Under 9s) the rules provide for very few opportunities for scrums (e.g. both teams knock the ball on). Thus they can play a whole season and maybe only pack into 1 or 2 scrums in that whole time. Additionally the scrums have no pushing in them.

Even when they get to Under 10s, which is where Mod League rules apply (from Under 10s to Under 12s), they still rarely get scrums - only difference is they go from 8 players scrums to 10 players scrums (Under 10s and 11) or 12 players scrums (Under 12s).

Thus when they get to Ubnder 13s, when full international rules apply, with the safe play code which is adopted in junior rugby league this means that scrums are depowered, there is no pushing/pulling or screwing allowed, only hookers can strike for the ball.

So by the time they proigress to SG Ball, or Toyota Cup, players have very limited experience with contested scrumagging at all.

 

[Captain Apollo]

Why can't they just require players to bind and require the hooker to feed the ball straight?

Traditionally it is the halfback who feeds the ball. The hooker is usually in the scrum. ;-)