Scrums - the dinosaur of Rugby evolution.

[Springs]

Scrums are needed for a break in play, we can't just have everyone going at 100% for 80 minutes, which is the reason why we shouldn't stop the clock when the ball goes out either.

I say have the positions locked in at 8-13 for every scrum and have the halfback feed the ball in front of the loose props legs. What makes scrums a joke isn't that they aren't contested, it's that every scrum the referee has to pull them and give them a lecture on how to pack the damn thing. Also the referee shouldn't pull up a scrum because one team pushed or struck at the ball. You're allowed to do that. The refs have to stop trying to control the game like that.

I don't like people suggesting radical rule changes. Firstly the majority of people don't agree and secondly we always say we have the greatest game on earth, why do we keep wanting to change it to a game that will barely resemble what we have now?

Scrums as a break in play are needed by players. Teams on the upper hand will often kick for touch on the 5th or their fullback will let it go out. This is to give a break to their players and keep the tired team in their half. Quick changeovers will remove a lot of the tactics and variety.

 

[LineBall]

Scrums are needed for a break in play, we can't just have everyone going at 100% for 80 minutes, which is the reason why we shouldn't stop the clock when the ball goes out either.

I say have the positions locked in at 8-13 for every scrum and have the halfback feed the ball in front of the loose props legs. What makes scrums a joke isn't that they aren't contested, it's that every scrum the referee has to pull them and give them a lecture on how to pack the damn thing. Also the referee shouldn't pull up a scrum because one team pushed or struck at the ball. You're allowed to do that. The refs have to stop trying to control the game like that.

I don't like people suggesting radical rule changes. Firstly the majority of people don't agree and secondly we always say we have the greatest game on earth, why do we keep wanting to change it to a game that will barely resemble what we have now?

Scrums as a break in play are needed by players. Teams on the upper hand will often kick for touch on the 5th or their fullback will let it go out. This is to give a break to their players and keep the tired team in their half. Quick changeovers will remove a lot of the tactics and variety.

I agree with most of this Springs - we can't have a game that goes flat out for 80 minutes - unless you want unlimited interchange and become a tackle version of touch football.

However - I disagree about radical rule changes. The game of Rugby league today is very different animal compared to its early form. Even looking back 30 years, the rule changes may not have been as obvious - but have had a huge impact on the game and how it is played. Rule changes can be a good thing - but must be careully thought through and ideally trialled for a season or two in lower grade ( NYC ) to look for any unforseen ramifications.

I think we all can agree that the current scrum gives nobody any joy - they either go back to having it contested - or get rid of it all together.

 

[firechild]

I think I'm in the minority when it comes to contested scrums. So many examples of why they should not be contested. Firstly, your team manages to pin the opposition in their own end for a full set, they manage to make 15m and end up kicking from inside their own 20m line. All that hard work tackling is rewarded with just a 50% chance of getting the ball. Or, the opposition is attacking your tryline, after holding them out for successive sets, a player comes up with a huge hit that results in a knock on. A scrum ensues and there is a 50% chance of them retaining possession. I don't like either scenario.

 

[rabbitohs]

I think I'm in the minority when it comes to contested scrums. So many examples of why they should not be contested. Firstly, your team manages to pin the opposition in their own end for a full set, they manage to make 15m and end up kicking from inside their own 20m line. All that hard work tackling is rewarded with just a 50% chance of getting the ball. Or, the opposition is attacking your tryline, after holding them out for successive sets, a player comes up with a huge hit that results in a knock on. A scrum ensues and there is a 50% chance of them retaining possession. I don't like either scenario.

Contested scrums are never 50/50, the team with the head and feed will win 80%+ of the time unless your forwards moster them, which is the attractive part and also ensures it is forwards in the scrum.

 

[firechild]

True, 50% was certainly an exaggeration of the point. But I still don't like giving a reasonable chance of success to a team who really do not deserve any. It would certainly reduce the relevance of the 40/20. As it stands now, if a team wins a scrum against the feed they deserve it, it happens so rarely and even then 99% are called back because the ref can't work out why/how it happened.

 

[gUt]

I think most people would be happy with scrums being a contest again, or abolished in favour of something else. Anything but the current setup looks stupid and doesn't achieve its stated aim.

 

[docbrown]

Why can't the ball already be on the ground and the two packs meet after the ref steps away?

No need to repack or refeed then.

 

[RABK]

Keep scrums they are fine, need to fit ads in somewhere. If you want to give scrums a bit more purpose and encourage set plays of a scrum feed then make an 8 point try the reward for any try scored off a scrum feed.

To ensure we saw some 7 vs 7 backline action have the refs enforce only forwards pack the scrum.

 

[StormHi]

Current version of the Scrum is a utter waste of time I would like to see the Scrum utilised properly. (If we did might even nab us some Mugby fans)

 

[Springs]

I agree with most of this Springs - we can't have a game that goes flat out for 80 minutes - unless you want unlimited interchange and become a tackle version of touch football.

However - I disagree about radical rule changes. The game of Rugby league today is very different animal compared to its early form. Even looking back 30 years, the rule changes may not have been as obvious - but have had a huge impact on the game and how it is played. Rule changes can be a good thing - but must be careully thought through and ideally trialled for a season or two in lower grade ( NYC ) to look for any unforseen ramifications.

I think we all can agree that the current scrum gives nobody any joy - they either go back to having it contested - or get rid of it all together.

I understand that. But most big rule changes come about because of something. Like the limited tackle rule and the 10 metre rule. They were brought in to stop utter domination of the sport by one team or a few teams. There isn't much wrong with the game as it is now. The only rule changes I would have at the moment is to reinforce the scrums and penalise wrestling in the ruck more. All this trials and ideas, power plays, restarting the tackle count, NFL scrimmages? They all seem gimmicky and pointless, taking away from the majority of the fans to please a few.

 

[southwalesrabbitoh]

Have a play-the-ball but having to have 4 defenders lined up behind it in a line, obviously usually 2 now, just two on top of that. Wodya think???

 

[Canard]

Ah the joke account is back!

Call it Topball also mate.

 

[duylm]

Someone mentioned holding the scrum until the first tackle. That would be great. What they could do is call all the scrum participants offside until the 1st tackle, and and then treat the first tackle like a normal restart, the rest of the players can trot back into the lines while the ref holds play up.

That way they are not just hugging each others bums for the whole play, they can mill around and it won't look as stupid. One thing to consider is whether to ban the lock from picking up the ball or unbinding, or allowing them to as the only exception.

Just a thought.

 

[southwalesrabbitoh]

Can,

Steeden mate.

How about a play where 7 players have to lie on the floor in-touch. Teams 10m apart. Ball starts 10m in from touch. All players can move when the whistle goes for the ball to be passed to the first-receiver.

 

[eozsmiles]

How can you tell who is playing where?

They could make them line up as per programme. Whoever wears numbers 8-13 is in every scrum. They can work something out for interchange, maybe players are nominated as backs or forwards pre game.

 

[firechild]

They could make them line up as per programme. Whoever wears numbers 8-13 is in every scrum. They can work something out for interchange, maybe players are nominated as backs or forwards pre game.

Dumb idea. How many times has a 2nd rower on the bench had to shift to the centres due to an injury to one of the back 5?

 

[RL1908]

The point is there should be some of effort being made to devise a workable way to keep some semblance of a scrum (preferably contestable) in the game. There should be some workshops going on looking at different scrum/pack formations and seeing what might work.

Having 3 men in the front row is not something they invented at Rugby School - it is a 20th century invention in RU/RL. The first RL packs often had 4 or 5 in the front row, the NZ All Blacks in late 1800s had two in the front row, Souths Rabbitohs packs in the 1920s were usually 5-man (rarely using a lock).

For example, I would like to see how a scrum packed with 5 men could work - two in the front row, three in the 2nd row. With less players in the front row, the ball (and hooking legs) will be much more visible, much less able to cheat. Perhaps the front rowers can only be allowed to hook the ball with their outside leg, but must must hook it thru the space between themself and their other front rower ie. inside the pack.

Maybe the ball shouldn't be fed, but the scrum contest start with the ball stationary in the scrum and between the two front rows (referee to blow whistle for contest to start).

I've no idea in reality if the above will work. but we do know that no solution is going to suddenly drop from the sky. Some effort to trial alternatives at a scrum workshop needs to be done. Otherwise just give up and replace scrums with a handover.

 

[eozsmiles]

Dumb idea. How many times has a 2nd rower on the bench had to shift to the centres due to an injury to one of the back 5?

If a forward comes off the bench and plays in the backline, their team obviously still has 6 fit forwards on the field and they can make up the scrum.

How many times have we seen a team bring a 2nd rower on to play centre, and then despite the team having 7 forwards on the field a 5/8 still hides in the scrum?

The idea is designed to stop teams hiding their small players in a defensive scrum.

 

[firechild]

True but let me give you a scenario that might make you rethink it. Matai gets injured, Buhrer comes on to cover the centre position. He'd be the extra forward on the field. When the scrum packs, Buhrer packs in as the 6th forward and Glen Stewart stands wide of the scrum. We're back to the problem we had in the first place with a forward standing wide of the scrum to make the first tackle or hitup.

 

[siv]

The point is there should be some of effort being made to devise a workable way to keep some semblance of a scrum (preferably contestable) in the game. There should be some workshops going on looking at different scrum/pack formations and seeing what might work.

Having 3 men in the front row is not something they invented at Rugby School - it is a 20th century invention in RU/RL. The first RL packs often had 4 or 5 in the front row, the NZ All Blacks in late 1800s had two in the front row, Souths Rabbitohs packs in the 1920s were usually 5-man (rarely using a lock).

For example, I would like to see how a scrum packed with 5 men could work - two in the front row, three in the 2nd row. With less players in the front row, the ball (and hooking legs) will be much more visible, much less able to cheat. Perhaps the front rowers can only be allowed to hook the ball with their outside leg, but must must hook it thru the space between themself and their other front rower ie. inside the pack.

Maybe the ball shouldn't be fed, but the scrum contest start with the ball stationary in the scrum and between the two front rows (referee to blow whistle for contest to start).

I've no idea in reality if the above will work. but we do know that no solution is going to suddenly drop from the sky. Some effort to trial alternatives at a scrum workshop needs to be done. Otherwise just give up and replace scrums with a handover.

Extending this - why not a 2/3/2 scrum formation

as long as teh ball is fed between the two props then all is fine

then you can get away with not pushing as well