Scrums

[POPEYE]

Scrums were originally designed for unlimited tackle RL as a ploy to take forwards out of the game and give backs an opportunity to show their talents. As close to serious as I can get the question is why, even though they are not contested, are not the 8/9/10/11/12/13 still required to form a scrum injury permitting. Why are the backs not forced to face off and give excitement a chance

 

[myrrh ken]

Because some genius came up with the idea of having a prop stand at stand off and run at the backs.

Then eveyone copied.

Cue TB.

 

[gUt]

I blame Sam Thaiday

 

[POPEYE]

Ryles must've had something to do with it

 

[LineBall]

Pop, the scrum's primary purpose was never to give backs space. It was a method of restarting play with a contest for possession. This required the forwards to pack in, otherwise the smaller backs wouldn't be able to compete against the bigger pack.

 

[seanoff]

Scrums time in RL has long passed. They do not serve any purpose. They aren't a contest for the ball anymore, no one really packs in (its just a loose collection of dudes now). Its now just 12 guys having a loose hug to no real end.

Just change the rule to a tap restart or play the ball restart.

 

[LineBall]

Or make them competitive again.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Competitive scrums can f**k off. Absolutel shit festival.

Just ditch them altogether.

 

[LineBall]

Competitive scrums can f**k off. Absolutel shit festival.

Just ditch them altogether.

And replace with what? A Tap? People already complain how the game is becoming boring and unpredictable.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

And replace with what? A Tap? People already complain how the game is becoming boring and unpredictable.

The only thing more boring than twelve blokes having a ref orchestrated cuddle while a halfback facing his own goal posts puts a ball behind the leg of his 'lock' is twelve blokes falling all over each other waiting for the ref to give a penalty or repack the scrum.

Scrums were farcical when they were competitive and are farcical now. Chop them, they won't be missed.

 

[adamkungl]

There have been numerous scrum plays leading to tries in both NRL and SL recently, including the GF.

The forwards (or whoever, it doesnt really matter) packed into one spot opens up the field to the attackers advantage. Just because it isn't used constantly or even regularly it doesn't make it pointless.

Dumb opinions like this are what leads to the game becoming more one-dimensional over the decades.

What next? Don't like how the ball is played these days so get rid of it entirely and just have someone tap and pass like backyard footy?

 

[no name]

Yeah, plenty of good scrum moves still about.
And the 100 dull scrums make that one play (ie Sharks try in GF mentioned above.) all the more exciting.
They still have a place for mine.

 

[LineBall]

The only thing more boring than twelve blokes having a ref orchestrated cuddle while a halfback facing his own goal posts puts a ball behind the leg of his 'lock' is twelve blokes falling all over each other waiting for the ref to give a penalty or repack the scrum.

Scrums were farcical when they were competitive and are farcical now. Chop them, they won't be missed.

Most of the old competitive scrums would be over and done with faster than today's rubbish. Even if they had to repack it.

While they're at it, bring back striking for the ball from Marker, would sort out the shitty attempts at playing the ball.

 

[Bronco18]

Most of the old competitive scrums would be over and done with faster than today's rubbish. Even if they had to repack it.

Probably not though. They weren't even a spectacle, the ball vanishes from sight amid collapsing bodies. Then penalties are blown anyway making the whole process redundant while the crowd has no clue what the penalty was for. There's a reason Union has stuck to them rather than League.

 

[LineBall]

Probably not though. They weren't even a spectacle, the ball vanishes from sight amid collapsing bodies. Then penalties are blown anyway making the whole process redundant while the crowd has no clue what the penalty was for. There's a reason Union has stuck to them rather than League.

"They weren't even a spectacle". In your opinion. My opinion says they were.

"The ball vanishes from sight". The ball vanishes in any scrum. What's your point?

"Then penalties are blown anyway" You say that like all scrums resulted in penalties. Incorrect.

"The crowd has no reason what the penalty was for". The ref clearly signals what the penalty is for. Just like any other penalty.

 

[Smack]

They are pointless now. Either make them competitive, or remove them all together. I'd rather see a side have a chance at winning the ball back after an unfortunate error.

 

[POPEYE]

Pop, the scrum's primary purpose was never to give backs space. It was a method of restarting play with a contest for possession. This required the forwards to pack in, otherwise the smaller backs wouldn't be able to compete against the bigger pack.

What a load of f**king crap easy to see you never sat through the unlimited tackle era, at least RL thought of its backs now and again . . . Union still neglects them

 

[LineBall]

What a load of f**king crap easy to see you never sat through the unlimited tackle era, at least RL thought of its backs now and again . . . Union still neglects them

Easy to see you don't know anything about Rugby League's history. If you think scrums were created solely for the benefit of the backs, then you don't understand League.

 

[POPEYE]

Easy to see you don't know anything about Rugby League's history. If you think scrums were created solely for the benefit of the backs, then you don't understand League.

You need to talk to the players that were there dopey, in 4 tackle and early 6 tackle only forwards were allowed to pack in scrums, injuries excepted . . . to give big blokes like Miles and Meninga who could easily have scrummaged and the smaller blokes freedom to move. If a scrum was won against the feed it wasn't hoped that the forwards could progress to the next, it was hoped the backs would take advantage

If we have to have scrums now, I don't know why the f**k we do, we may as well limit them to forwards so the half can get the backs moving the ball faster than the forwards can . . . maybe then the backs mightn't need muscles in their shit

 

[LineBall]

You need to talk to the players that were there dopey, in 4 tackle and early 6 tackle only forwards were allowed to pack in scrums, injuries excepted . . . to give big blokes like Miles and Meninga who could easily have scrummaged and the smaller blokes freedom to move. If a scrum was won against the feed it wasn't hoped that the forwards could progress to the next, it was hoped the backs would take advantage

If we have to have scrums now, I don't know why the f**k we do, we may as well limit them to forwards so the half can get the backs moving the ball faster than the forwards can . . . maybe then the backs mightn't need muscles in their shit

Nowhere can I find any law that stated players numbered 8-13 were only allowed to pack into scrums. If you have some evidence, I'd like to see it.

Again, scrums are not there for the benefit of the backs. Their purpose was to restart play with a contest for the ball.

With regards to what we have today - well I think we can both agree it is an embarrassment. IMO contested scrums would be preferable to what we have now.