Scrums - the dinosaur of Rugby evolution.

[siv]

I beleive scrums have a place in the game

3 simple but effective changes
- 1 - put the the ball in stright
- 2 - form scrums 10m in from the sideline
- 3 - allow scrums to form within 5m of a try line

We introduced the differential penalty to address the scrum issues

Its a simple matter of the referee blowing a penalty if the third attempt at packing a fails

 

[gypsy]

To everyone who wants the ball put in straight....how would you be if your side defended for 5 sets on their tryline, forced a knock-on, only to lose the scrum?

The fundamental point i'm making is, if you make a mistake, you surely don't deserve a 50/50 crack at possession...surely?

 

[Sunshine Coast Tiger]

Scrums still have a place in the game. It alows space on the field that can be exploited. Watch the Tigers V Raiders semi from 2 years ago. Lote scored a great try from a scrum move. For mine more coaches should spend more time on creating scrum plays. Sheens also needs to try some different scrum plays rather than the same one over and over.

 

[Rudderriffic]

While I would agree with the above, that scrums no longer provide a real opportunity for the backs to run against backs, combined with non-contested scrums, it really erodes any credibility of a Rugby League scrum.

The one thing I will say for scrums and their place in the modern game is that they provide a means for a change of possession late in a half without wasting time on the clock. I can't think of another viable turnover system where it will put the onus on the trailing team to do something to stop the clock and prevent the leading team from wasting clock time (before anyone says "hurr durr just get the ref to blow time off when there is a knock on/kick into touch etc", how well do you think that would work with the already a massive amount of contentious decisions that refs make? Would they have to blow time off in the last 15 minutes of every game while the other side trails by less than 20?).

In addition to that, scrums provide a potential break in play that a straight play the ball doesn't. With the way the integration of advertising into telecasts is progressing, I would expect scrums to stick around by virtue of providing a small space to jam adds into while we are trying to watch SOO.

 

[seaeagle sam]

Personally I'd like to see contested scrums or no scrums. If contested no f**king around with them as in rugby.
From memory, the actual rule (or maybe the original rule) if there is an infringement it's a penalty. Non of this repacking or refeeding shit.

If no scrum, just a play the ball would suffice. TBH I hate the idea of an NFL style scrimmage.

 

[gUt]

Anyone still claiming that scrums allow for 7 on 7, or backs vs backs, or open field play etc. No one denies that's the theory behind retaining the scrum, but it's not what actually happens. 99/100, backs pack into the scrum, forwards take a hit up. If the coaches have worked out that it's better to do a standard type play than a backline move, that's that.

Maybe to encourage open, attacking play after a mistake and turnover there could be a free play to the opposition. During the first tackle of the next set of six they are immune to handing the ball over if they drop it or throw it forward. A knock on is still a knock on but they are made to play it instead of handing it over. After the first tackle it's play on as normal.

 

[gypsy]

Maybe to encourage open, attacking play after a mistake and turnover there could be a free play to the opposition. During the first tackle of the next set of six they are immune to handing the ball over if they drop it or throw it forward. A knock on is still a knock on but they are made to play it instead of handing it over. After the first tackle it's play on as normal.

What about if the teams forward pass turns out to be an intercept try? Is it called back because of the "free play"
Waaay to many grey areas. The Refs are rubbish enough as it is. There have been plenty examples of set pieces from scrums resulting in tries. The current system is at least consistent.

 

[RL1908]

Team A knocks on, then Team B knocks on in recovering the ball, then we have a stop work meeting for 60 seconds, that ends by giving the ball back to Team B anyway.

I'm not sure what the solution to it is, but the above scenario that plays out in every game of RL is, when you step back and look at the whole process, a farce that ultimately robs the fans of 60 seconds of game time every time it happens.

A better option needs to be found.

 

[bobmar28]

Replace scrums with a line of scrimmage.

 

[God-King Dean]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the scrum.

There's everything wrong with no teams willingness to use it.

" No one pushes in the scrum" That's because the defending pack try to break out as quickly as possible to get back the 10 metres for the next play-the-ball.

" They just take a hit-up. " That's because so much emphasis is put on completing sets, no one is willingly to try anything fancy in the chance they'd lose the ball; most scrums are taken by the attacking team inside their own half.

 

[Goddo]

You're right. The scrum at the moment is like that derelict heritage building most suburbs and towns have. They put a protective fence around it, everyone says saving it is important, but no one knows what to do within a framework that negates any innovative renovation to give it a new and relevant life.

So, in the meantime, by neglect and lack of any agreed solution, it slowly self demolishes itself to the point where it is beyond all hope of ever being saved.

The RL scrum needs to replaced by a handover, or completely re-imagined and re-invented.

How about adding a bit of uncertainty to the feed - if your team wins the scrum, the opposition half back has to feed it to your side.

Dunno, just spit balling.

 

[Phil McGrawhan]

The scrum will stay IF the IC negotiate the best deal & one of the reasons for getting top $$$$$ is more natural ad breaks ...ie..walking to the scrum.
If they are looking to maximise the natural breaks then the scrum will stay for at least the life of the next TV deal.

 

[Goddo]

Handover from an error, get the game going again. League has speed as one of its main attractions, so why not speed it up further.

My problem with that is the scrum is useful for slowing down the game - your forwards are puffed, your field position isn't great, so as a half you try to push it into touch deep to give your blokes a breather and reset the game in a better field position.

You nail the kick and you get the reward. its another way of punishing lazy wingers other than 40/20. Its a strategic play, even if the scrum itself is redundant.

Scrums are also a good natural stopage in the game for a 15 second commercial (TV rights).

We need something that isn't a pointless lean-to like the scrum, but doesn't disrupt the current "flow" of a game.

 

[Scott Gourley's Lovechild]

If someone kicked to touch the only player back there will be the fullback, so he couldn't play the ball to himself (pretty sure you can't do the tap kick without any markers in front of you either).

And with any infringement (presuming my scenario is used), you can't start play until the referee marks the spot of infringement and he has taken the defensive line back 10 metres. So while it's not a huge stoppage like the one currently with scrums, there will still be "down" times in the game.

 

[gUt]

What about if the teams forward pass turns out to be an intercept try? Is it called back because of the "free play"
Waaay to many grey areas. The Refs are rubbish enough as it is. There have been plenty examples of set pieces from scrums resulting in tries. The current system is at least consistent.

The rules of the game wouldn't change, just the punishment for making an error on the first tackle would be removed right up to when the first tackle is made. So an intercept would still be an intercept, an incorrect play the ball would still be an incorrect play the ball. The break wouldn't apply to 40-20 kicks and it shouldn't apply for line drop outs although we can see it already does.

Replace the scrum with a mandatory 30 second stop-the-clock. If an error is made in the first 5 or last 5 mins of each half, don't worry about the break. If there was a mistake in the previous set, don't worry about the break.

On average each side would make 10ish mistakes of this nature (knock on, forward pass, kick for touch) per game right? So we're looking at around 10 minutes of almost guaranteed clock-stoppage (and therefore ad breaks) per game.

 

[Broncomum]

Hmm, considering this is an idea put up by Locky ages ago I agree with it wholeheartedly.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/league/...rom-rugby-league/story-fn2mcuj6-1226081389687

He believes abolishing scrums would improve the code as a spectacle, giving fans more bang for their buck by reducing stoppages and maintaining the attrition from fatigue factor.

Takes a while, but people will come around to this way of thinking. The whole future of any sport depends on making it more entertaining for the masses.

 

[gypsy]

The rules of the game wouldn't change, just the punishment for making an error on the first tackle would be removed right up to when the first tackle is made. So an intercept would still be an intercept, an incorrect play the ball would still be an incorrect play the ball.

Not sure you understand the question I have...

You're saying an intercept is still an intercept.
If the team with the ball throws an intercept pass on this first (free) play...is this seen as an error, and play stopped? Or would the intercept stand?
If it does stand, you're then picking and choosing which rules are being enforced at different times in a game...never a good thing.

 

[gUt]

No, as I said the rules don't change, but the punishment for making a mistake like a knock on or forward pass would be removed. An intercept is not necessarily a bad play (a mistake) by the attacking team as much as it's a good play by the defence. Therefore the intercept would be play on.

Anyway I was just looking for a way to encourage attacking play after a turnover which is what the scrum is supposed to provide, but usually doesn't.

 

[gypsy]

I've had some people run a few tests on it, and they've reached a conclusion.

Thanks for playing, but no dice this time ;-)

 

[gUt]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the scrum.

There's everything wrong with no teams willingness to use it.

" No one pushes in the scrum" That's because the defending pack try to break out as quickly as possible to get back the 10 metres for the next play-the-ball.

" They just take a hit-up. " That's because so much emphasis is put on completing sets, no one is willingly to try anything fancy in the chance they'd lose the ball; most scrums are taken by the attacking team inside their own half.

But that's just the point, under the current conditions of rugby league there's usually no reason to try and put on an attacking play after a scrum because on balance you're risking your next 5 tackles on a play that by definition increases the risk of giving the ball back to the other side and usually won't work anyway.

Thus we see the attacking team inevitably taking a settler by a forward standing at 5/8. All this so 12 (any 12) players can pretend to be in a scrum? It's a terrible look and a pointless exercise.