Scrums

[siv]

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.

Because they changed one vital scrum rule
- putting the ball in straight and between the hookers feet

 

[POPEYE]

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.

You work on heresay and I've watched the game develop from 1963, I can promise you while scrums were contested the idea was to keep forwards isolated, if any broke away before the ball cleared the scrum they were penalized regularly. Even today scrummagers are required to lock in for the same reason . . . now just a technicality

No place in today's game for contested scrums with injury/litigation concerns and forwards allowed to rotate, Blocker would be allowed back on. No place for non-contested scrums either unless they are used to isolate forwards, if that is not the case a handover is all that is necessary

 

[LeagueXIII]

Here is a classic try from a scrum in 1994.

Today we have one out football from a big prop at five eighth. Yes the game has advanced......

The scrum in the footage isn't collapsing everywhere looks well formed and no penalties blown.

How many scrums would be in an average game, 10? Surely we can cope with that it would bring specialised positions back and some variety.

Today's excuses for scrums look so pathetic it is embarassing, they look childish.

 

[LineBall]

You work on heresay and I've watched the game develop from 1963, I can promise you while scrums were contested the idea was to keep forwards isolated, if any broke away before the ball cleared the scrum they were penalized regularly. Even today scrummagers are required to lock in for the same reason . . . now just a technicality

No place in today's game for contested scrums with injury/litigation concerns and forwards allowed to rotate, Blocker would be allowed back on. No place for non-contested scrums either unless they are used to isolate forwards, if that is not the case a handover is all that is necessary

Heresay? All you've said is "you need to talk to the players that were there" and "I can promise you". For somebody who's watched the game for 54 years, you haven't learned a lot. If you want to go down that track, I've spoken to a few blokes who played during that era too, and they would consider your opinion on the scrum laughable.

Again, I'd like to see something to back up your claims that scrums were invented primarily to benefit the backs. I won't hold my breath.

As for replacing the scrum with a tap, no thanks.

 

[magpie4ever]

I think Popeye has had too much spinach.

Know your history. The league scrum was a follow on from the union scrum, a contest for the ball after an error had occurred and the ball was dead, the non-offending team had the advantage of loose head and feed.

The ball the play was a change from the ruck or maul, as in union, it was a mini scrum to compete for the ball after a tackle (again, a dead ball). That is why the player was called a dummy half behind the player playing the ball.

My solution, if they don't want a contested scrum, is for players numbered 8 to 13 (or their replacements) to be required to pack into the scrum and are then forced to remain in the love-in (scrum) for 5 seconds before the 2nd ref calls break. This will give time for the backs to have at least one attacking play against defending backs.

 

[Danish]

Here is a classic try from a scrum in 1994.

Thats some god awful defence by the bulldogs!

A basic run around and by the time they get to the middle of the field they've created a 3 on 1 with the dogs winger about 35m in from the sideline.

You see better structure than that in jim beam cup these days

 

[simmo05]

What is stopping 1 team from contesting every scrum? When the refs pulls it up, just keep doing it. Eventually the other team will start pushing back and before you know it it will becone standard again. The nrl wants tired forwards, this is a different way, as opposed to dropping interchanges again. And it will be less embarrassing

 

[POPEYE]

I think Popeye has had too much spinach.

Know your history. The league scrum was a follow on from the union scrum, a contest for the ball after an error had occurred and the ball was dead, the non-offending team had the advantage of loose head and feed.

The ball the play was a change from the ruck or maul, as in union, it was a mini scrum to compete for the ball after a tackle (again, a dead ball). That is why the player was called a dummy half behind the player playing the ball.

My solution, if they don't want a contested scrum, is for players numbered 8 to 13 (or their replacements) to be required to pack into the scrum and are then forced to remain in the love-in (scrum) for 5 seconds before the 2nd ref calls break. This will give time for the backs to have at least one attacking play against defending backs.

A lesson in the obvious

 

[The Quest For Glory]

 

[LazyDreamer]

What is stopping 1 team from contesting every scrum? When the refs pulls it up, just keep doing it. Eventually the other team will start pushing back and before you know it it will becone standard again. The nrl wants tired forwards, this is a different way, as opposed to dropping interchanges again. And it will be less embarrassing

Because the ball isn't in the scrum for long enough. Sure, the very occasional one-off attempt has been made to do this (push in the scrum), but it won't become the norm. Either the 'contesting' side would be pinged for pushing too early, else their forwards would be locked in together longer, meaning they couldn't disperse as quickly as they do now to defend.

Contested scrums do see more penalties: pushing off the mark, not feeding the ball straight, striking early, collapsing. Hence why the refs back 30 or so years ago were effectively told to ignore second row feeds - with the ball in the scrum for far less time & the side without the feed far less likely to be able to contest the ball and thus cause penalties in the process, it sped the game up for television audiences. And television audiences are the NRL's number one priority.

Likewise, why players can no longer strike in the play-the-ball: eliminating penalties (and scrappy-looking play) so it looked better on the telly.

 

[POPEYE]

Heresay? All you've said is "you need to talk to the players that were there" and "I can promise you". For somebody who's watched the game for 54 years, you haven't learned a lot. If you want to go down that track, I've spoken to a few blokes who played during that era too, and they would consider your opinion on the scrum laughable.

Again, I'd like to see something to back up your claims that scrums were invented primarily to benefit the backs. I won't hold my breath.

As for replacing the scrum with a tap, no thanks.

I'm just happy that forwards aren't given the opportunity to carry the ball from tryline to tryline or 30/40 tackles, happier when limited tackles were introduced and unhappy that forwards are no longer required to form scrums.

I'm one of those who prayed for scrums to take place so the backs could do their thing, now that backs have to muscle up to face forwards and forwards are allowed to come and go we're on our way back to the 60's when brute force ruled . . . thank f**k corner posts have been taken out of the equation to give us some relief

All I want is a return to forwards facing forwards and backs facing backs as it should be, contested scrums are not necessary for that to happen . . . seems neither of our support will reach a crescendo so lets just ignore each other's opinion

 

[AlwaysGreen]

The first forward I saw standing at 5/8 to take the first hit up from the scrum was Paul Sironen in the early 90s. That's 25 years ago, so not a modern occurrence

The day John Farragher got his neck broken spelt the end of competitive scrums - they lingered for awhile but were genuine shit fests where the chance of another quadriplegic getting made was too risky for the game.

 

[myrrh ken]

Hmm, after watching that - I've made up my mind.

If that's what a contested scrum looks like - that 's a no for me. You can't have hookers lying on the ground, hands on the ground, scrums collapsing. Neck injury city.

They would have to be policed like union scrums - but who wants that?

 

[bad boy bubby]

Here is a classic try from a scrum in 1994.

Today we have one out football from a big prop at five eighth. Yes the game has advanced......

The scrum in the footage isn't collapsing everywhere looks well formed and no penalties blown.

How many scrums would be in an average game, 10? Surely we can cope with that it would bring specialised positions back and some variety.

Today's excuses for scrums look so pathetic it is embarassing, they look childish.

Thanks for that.
I didnt remember this game, or move, but I now know where Cronulla got this move from in 1996 to the Peach.
It is a carbon copy replica.

 

[LineBall]

Hmm, after watching that - I've made up my mind.

If that's what a contested scrum looks like - that 's a no for me. You can't have hookers lying on the ground, hands on the ground, scrums collapsing. Neck injury city.

They would have to be policed like union scrums - but who wants that?

That video has been made to show scrums at their worst. I believe it was shown on the roast when Vossy was there as a bit of a pisstake towards scrums. It is meant to be completely biased.

 

[LineBall]

I'm just happy that forwards aren't given the opportunity to carry the ball from tryline to tryline or 30/40 tackles, happier when limited tackles were introduced and unhappy that forwards are no longer required to form scrums.

I'm one of those who prayed for scrums to take place so the backs could do their thing, now that backs have to muscle up to face forwards and forwards are allowed to come and go we're on our way back to the 60's when brute force ruled . . . thank f**k corner posts have been taken out of the equation to give us some relief

All I want is a return to forwards facing forwards and backs facing backs as it should be, contested scrums are not necessary for that to happen . . . seems neither of our support will reach a crescendo so lets just ignore each other's opinion

I agree with you regarding forwards vs forwards etc, but the only way I can see it happening is to make scrums contested again, so we will have to disagree on that point.

 

[Bronco18]

That video has been made to show scrums at their worst. I believe it was shown on the roast when Vossy was there as a bit of a pisstake towards scrums. It is meant to be completely biased.

But it was made easy for Vossy because competitive scrums were objectively terrible.

 

[LineBall]

But it was made easy for Vossy because competitive scrums were objectively terrible.

What objective measures have you used? Apart from your own opinion.

 

[Captain Apollo]

At NRL level they basically did away with competitive scrums for one reason, to cut down the penalty rate. It was found that more penalties were conceded from scrum infringements than any other part of the game. It is why during the 1970s they made scrum penalties "differential penalties" due to the large number of penalty goals that teams were kicking due to scrum penalties.

They have not done away with as it is one of the few times the game slows down in general play and everyone is able to get a quick breather. You cannot be on the go running at the pace an NRL game is for the whole 80 minutes, human beings are not designed for that level of physical exertion - and no amount of conditioning will allow you to.

Additionally, still having them, even in their current format, allows great attacking set plays as it opens up the rest of the field for the backs. Yes some teams nullify this by putting one of their best defenders out there, however conversely, with some clubs their best ball player or attacker happens to be a forward so they wind up out in the backline at the scrum.

If you go down and watch junior football, until you get to Under 13s, kids may go whole seasons without ever being in a game with a scrum. Even Under 13-Under 16s have a safe play code which puts restrictions on scrums. This is not done to "speed their games up". It was done for reasons of player safety as kids are not fully developed and some kids develop quicker than others.

 

[T-Boon]

Changing 40/20 to 40/30 is the best way to make some space out wide.