Scrums - the final solution

[imported_Mailman]

Alot of these suggestions seem to be coming from a desire to see the game played as it was "back in the good old days". I don't see much benefit from bringing back the striking rule, or the scrum rule for that matter. Let's stop dwelling on the past. Let's get excited about the game today, andits future.

And as for Noodle's comment: "How about a few rules to toughen the game up again."

What so many people fail to realise is that today's players are tougher than ever. They are fitter, stronger, faster, more powerful, more dedicated, more skilful and more professional than any other generation that has played the game. Yeah, we are seeing bigger score lines, but the game is played at such a fast pace now, and the 10 metre rule (which often ends up being more like 12-15 m in games) gives attackers more space and makes defenders work a helluva lot harder than they ever had to under the old 5 metre rule. I bet if today's players performed under the 5 metre rule people would be complaining that we don't see enough tries, because the defence would be just relentless and ferocious. Of coursefooty isstill tough - there is no tougher contact sport in the world. Just ask the players how tough things were the morning after a game.

For the record, if anyone thinks that a combined team of the 80's or 70's would defeat today's Australian team, think again. Thisgeneration would absolutely carve any opposition from previous eras, just through their overall professionalism and athletic ability. Footballers' from yesteryear survived on a diet of beer and pies,as opposed to today's professionals who are health conscious and aware of what foods and drinks need to be consumed to achieve optimal performance.

Let'srecognisethestars of today for their sheer athleticism, skilfulness, and yes, toughness.

And that's my rant for this evening...

 

[Paul]

Willow, I agree that there should be a "final solution" applied to scums. I think that they should be abolished completely! I've said it before, but I'll bore you with it again, Rugby League is a game about competition WITH the ball, and NOT about competition FOR the ball. I agree with Ozbash that getting rid of scrums from Rugby League would be ridding ourselves of one of the vestigial remains of the fossilised relic game of union. Union may be trying to become more like Rugby League, and attracting more fans by doing so, so I think we should be trying to become less like union. How many of you could honestly say that you found scrums to be an entertaining part of the game? Willow, I think the serious flaw in your proposed handover following a scrum "penalty", is that this would almost certainly lead to constant scrum infringements by the non-feeding team. As they would most likely not gain possession anyway, it would be better to give away a handover "penalty" with the full defensive line set, rather than just the backs. This would definitely be the case when defending in your own 20m, even if a "differential" penalty kick was permitted. I know that I am most probably in the minority when advocating complete abolition of scrums, so I have some suggestions to reduce their number and impact in the game: Scrums should be used as a tactical option following line finding kicks for touch. Scrums should be replaced with a handover following knock ons and forward passes. Why should a team get any chance of regaining possession when an error has been made? I also favour the abolition of the 10m scrum following an attacking player being held up in goal prior to the 5th tackle. I would like to see this replaced by a line drop out by the defending team. To pacify the "scrummists", those scrums left in the game, and hopefully that would be about 6 or less, would be subject to a "competitive" interpretation. I do agree that scrums need a "final solution", but I don't believe that this will be found in a return to "competitive' scrums. The current Rugby League scrum is a blight on the game, and only brings disparaging comments when compared with the scrum in the union game. If not full abolition, then by severely reducing the number of scrums in the game, Rugby League will be able to evolve further as "The Greatest Game of All'.

 

[Willow]

Mailman:
Thanks for your comments - it's all worth debating.

I think it's worth noting that I didn't start this thread because I was trying to compare eras or hark back to the 'good ol' days'. I think we have a great game but IMHO, some changes have been made without proper consideration.
The fitness of players today or in the 80s, or for matter in the 20s is totally irrelevant as far I'm concerned. The training methods were different and I'm sure you'll agree that if we had a time machine, champion players/atheletes from 50 years ago would be just as good as modern champions if given the same access to facilties.

 

[Willow]

Paul: Thanks.
"I think the serious flaw in your proposed handover following a scrum "penalty", is that this would almost certainly lead to constant scrum infringements by the non-feeding team. As they would most likely not gain possession anyway, it would be better to give away a handover "penalty" with the full defensive line set, rather than just the backs. "
I knew of that flaw but IMO the defensive line wouldn't really have time to set. A quick play the ball being the key. I can imagine a situation where the ref makes a mark, the lock or 5/8 goes to dummy half for the half back. The rest of the forwards still trying to get into line.
It doesn't even have to be a play the ball, it can be a tap forward instead. That would make it even quicker.
I'm not sure if I can agree with you that the non feeding team would constantly break the rules. On the contrary, I can see them trying to win the ball. Afterall, the half is in theory putting in a square feed. The attacking team still has the advantage because they have the loose head as well but the front row, in particular, the hookers will dominate and be forced to work for the ball given an even chance.
One way the whole thing will come undone is if the defending team collapses the scrum and buries the ball, thus slowing the next play. IMO, this is the biggest flaw I can find but there may be more.

 

[imported_Noodles]

Mailman
There's no way I'm doubting the toughness of today's players. I'm just saying that the structure of the game today does not allow the players to show this properly.
I like seeing players use their skills to get through a relentless and ferocious defense and earn a try.
As for your point about players being "fitter, stronger, faster, more powerful, more dedicated, more skilful and more professional than any other generation that has played the game", that is also the case with every other sport in the world, I don't see what you are trying to say.

 

[imported_Mailman]

That's fair enough Willow and I see where you are coming from.

I'm not convinced that we need to return to the striking rule, and I think it would be abad move if we did. So too with the tap rule when markers are not square. With the striking rule, very often it made the play the ball a messy area and more often than not resulted in a penalty to the attacking team.

In regards to the tap rule, in my opinion there were always far too many inconsistent decisions made by refs when a player was attempting to make his was to the marker position but wasn't quite square - who the penalty would go to was like a lucky dip, and alot of times, the refs would get it wrong. I also used to see the rule as a favourite of 'selfish' players (I know it was probably a useful ploy but that's just the way I saw it and I always dreaded the outcome of a player from my team doing it - knowing a penalty could easily be given away).

I'd like to see scrums become competitive again but then again I won't be fussed if they don't. It's an opportunity for the forwards to have a breather and the ball can be fed and then retreived by the half with little complications. Willow, I saw that you suggested for the half to remain square when feeding the ball, but the referees ask the halfback to do that already (I play halfback and I hear the ref's advice all the time). Standing square does not stop us from feeding the ball favourably for our team. People claim that the ball is fed in " the second row " all the time but that's a lie - we don't get away with that much, if we did we'd give away penalties. What we do is feed the ball in the gap between the front rowers outside leg and inside leg - the ball never goes in the middle. Personally that's why I don't mind the scrums remaining the way they are - they make my job easier, the ball is in and out quickly, and it gives the backs an opportunity to get clean, quick ball and put on a play.

 

[Willow]

Mailman: No, perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough. I didn't say that the half has to stand square... I said the halfback has to feed the ball square. That is, into the tunnel.
We have to stand square, I know that.
Also, I think I said that it's the intention of modern half backs to feed the ball towards the 2nd row. Getting behind the loose head prop's outside leg sees to that.
My main point being that the hooker become less relevant.

 

[imported_Mailman]

Noodles,

I was just trying to explain that indeed they were tough, and that their professionalism and committment to the sport allows them to be no other way.

It was also a message to other people ( no one on this forum but some footy fans in general who refuse to remove themself from the past) who fail to accept theworthiness of today's generation of players.

 

[imported_Mailman]

Willow,

Thanks for clearing that up.

I like many of your ideas. However, instead of handing the ball over for a resultant play the ball, why not hand the ball to the opposition halfback who then gains the feed for his team for another scrum ?

That way the scrum is being heavily used, it becomes an important element of the game again, and there is no need for penalties which, as you said, made the scrum ugly in the first place.

 

[Willow]

Mailman:
That idea is another good one for the cooking pot but your assuming that the probable infringement has been made by the attacking halfback. It is probably more likely that the infringement, if any, will come form the defending front row.
In fact, we'reboth assumimg that infringements will happen often which is something we don't know until it's trialled.

 

[Eldorado]

Thisgeneration would absolutely carve any opposition from previous eras, just through their overall professionalism and athletic ability. Footballers' from yesteryear survived on a diet of beer and pies,as opposed to today's professionals who are health conscious and aware of what foods and drinks need to be consumed to achieve optimal performance
Mailman, I am quite intrigued with this statement and I take it you make it on the basis ofactual knowledge, yes?

Out ofcuriousityare youproposing thatplayers such as Ray Price, Wayne Pearce,Steve Folkes etc were not health consciousand were unfit?

I would really like to know just what your assumptions are of what type of skill, fitness and dietry regimes were used by coaches of "yesteryear"such asJack Gibson for example and just how they compare to say what Brian Smith uses today.

 

[Willow]

G'day El Dorado.
I may go back just a little further and also mention John Raper who was a fitness fanatic...even by today's standards.
It's true though that there was not much to training until the the 1950s and that was mainly in the UK. 'Circuit training' didn't really take hold in Australia until the early 1960s.
I think you might agree that training and diet has since become an important part of coaching and the players of the 1980s were pretty damn fit.

Back to the subject though, I'd be interested to hear your view on scrums.

 

[Hass]

The question "who wants to watch a scrum?", shouldn't be asked. Instead the question "who wants to take part in a scrum?", should get some airtime.

We've already got a great product to showcase at grounds and on T.V. However one of the most enjoyable things in football was packing down for a scrum. I don't care if it doesn't make for good television- Rugby League is a game and a game that should be played for the enjoyment of those partaking in it.

Besides, the game is so fast these days that scrums are vital in that they give the players a break and help stop even greater blowouts. Originally you could knock the ball on as much as you liked in the old days of Rugby. Everyone would then dive on the ball in an effort to retrieve it. Considering that sometimes we'd have over 20 people competing for a ball, scrums were introduced. In fairness, the side who didn't drop the ball got to feed it into the scrum with a loose head.

Ball security is great, but it isn't all there is too Rugby League- if you drop a ball and are good enough to win it back via a fair scrum then you deserve it. Rugby League is not just competition with the ball, but every second of play sees competition for the ball. The defence makes hard hitting tackles in an effort to knock the ball lose. They might try and rake it out one-on-one, someone in the team is always on the lookout for an intercept. The attacking team will roll the ball into the in-goal area to get 6 more tackles......but then the defence might put in a short kickoff or a kick towards the touchline in order to have a greater chance of getting the ball.

There are 4 principles in Rugby League....
1. Get The Ball
2. Hold onto the Ball
3. Try and get that ball over the opposition's tryline
4. Stop the opposition from doing all of the above

That's where our game stems from and that's what it's all about- the rules in place should reflect that.

Cheers.

 

[Bryce]

I say piss scrums off altogether.

I used to love watching them, if only for the thrill of a scrum win against the feed, or the lok of a hookers squashed head as 11 other forwards from both packs got of him, and he realised he was being penalised for collapsing!

Scrums are basically a contest for posession of the ball, forced because the attacking side made an unpenaliseable eror (ie knock on). The fact that this contest was decided by two wedges of men colliding and raking for it was merely an 19th century English idea, just like other 19th century English ideas, such as gas lanterns, steam engines and snuff boxes. Both AFL (bounce) and Union (lineouts) have far mor attractive solutions.

Scrums are effectively handovers, where the first play is excusively for the backs. How about just a handover?

Scrum enthusiasts might settle for a bunny scrum (with hookers only).

The call for the raking rule to be reintroduced is an excellent one. The play the ball forward was a problem because, by defenition, the markers are offside. I know there are technically no markers, but unless there are 13 players back 10m at the play the bell ( which NEVER happens), offside must occurr in the case of the tacklers/would be markers.

 

[Eldorado]

G'Day Willow
I pretty much agree with everything you have already said. I believe the game needs them, if only to get those lumbering forwards out of the bloody play every now and then.But they should be a contest. As for the penalties I think we have far more related to ball strippping than we ever had with scrums. Apart from bloody Hartley's shenanigans of course. The refs today tend to let the game flow more and aren't quite so pedantic so I don't see scrum penaltiesas being a major problem.

Of course, just my opinion.

 

[Willow]

I think you may be right El D.
The refs nowadays tend to let things go. They have their own form of 'shenanigans' now but these generally don't involve slowing down the match with penalties.
Occasionally, we do see refs over-interpreting the rules but they are soon bumped back down to reserve grade.
The perfect example of this was Sean Hampstead who wents nuts with penalties earlier this year because he took a dislike to players not getting off the tackled player. There was something like 15 penalties in the 1st 30 minutes. He was droppedthe following week and as far I know he was only given one more match in 2001.... in short, little has been heard of him since.
I always thought the main flaw in the handover (following a scrum infringement) idea was that it assumed that the ref needed regulating. That is, he couldn't be trusted not to give unwarranted penalties.
I think it is possible to re-introduce fair scrums, at the very least on a trial basis and in doing so, give the refs (professional refs!) an opportunity to properly regulate the contesting of the football.