What do you reckon to introducing contested scums & line-outs to League?

[legend]

Contested scrums increase the probability of serious spinal and neck injury so we will never see them again as the insurance premiums for players would probably go through the roof. They are classified as heavy blue collar as it is and introducing contested scrums would make some players uninsurable.

I'd like to see striking in the play the ball and tap ahead with no marker brought back but that's about it.

 

[t-ba]

To be serious, I'd have no trouble if the Quick Lineout was introduced to RL as an alternative to packing down a scrum if the ball is kicked into touch. The less time the ball spends out of play the better, and I reckon this would significantly speed up the slow down tactics employed by teams winning towards the end of matches.

 

[Leagueguy]

I'm all in favour of getting rid of coversions. Especially ones after tries. Fitzgerald is right when he says theres no more skill in scoring under the posts as out wide. No team deliberately sets up to score under the posts to get an easy conversion. It's the same with penalties. I'd rather just see consecutive penalties in your own 20 result in 2 points to the other team, or the option of it.

I'd also like to see scrums gone all together. Why do we need them? I don't by that "we see backs on backs". The scrum hitup is the most boring play in league. A one out pass to a winger who gets tackled. I'd much rather see at tap.

 

[Freddo]

lineouts are you made they look so f**ked up in union domt ruin our game.

the contested scrum maybe a few changes to the rules and were set.

benfit of the doubt must go.

so sick of hearing that term.

if there is doubt then its no try.

 

[ShadesOfTheSun]

At the last Bledisloe game in NZ:

'The crowd is cheering so loudly that his team mates couldn't hear the line out call!'

Enough said. We're better off without those ridiculous things.

 

[Thomas]

Scrums can already be contested in RL. It's just that the players choose not to do it.

Every now and then you see one....

 

[skeepe]

I like the idea of the quick lineout perhaps, in that if a ball is kicked into touch, the team who will feed the scrum has the option of throwing the ball back in, but only if the scrum is not set. Would get rid of a lot of time-wasting at the end of matches.

Apart from that, I agree with legend... striking in the play the ball was an artform and should never have been outlawed.

 

[phonetic]

There's nothing worse than watching a contested scrum in union continually collapse. I think they are a blight on union, and I think they are pointless in league. Just a tap would be fine.

Not a fan of a lineout under any circumstances.

 

[Razor]

No way

There's a reason we got rid of both line-outs and scrums.

I'm all for bringing the contest back into scrums. Otherwise we might as well not have them at all, it's a waste of game time and a waste of the forwards' time.

There is still a point of having them. It gets the forwards out of play, and allows for some great backline set plays.

 

[JJ]

in theory scrums are contestable anyway aren't they? I've seen the odd team (Penrith spring to mind) put weight on in a scrum and they invariably win possession... I'd suggest that it's a great tactic when the opposition has a scrum deep in their own territory - I don't see the great need to detach so quickly in those situations where all that happens is the winger hits it up...

Lineouts are farcical in union, so NO WAY

 

[The Colonel]

There is still a point of having them. It gets the forwards out of play, and allows for some great backline set plays.

Like the second rower or prop standing at 5/8 for the first hit up off the scrum? Or the winger doing the same thing?

I've seen a few backline set plays this year but in most cases what I mentioned above is about it.

 

[Pierced Soul]

No way

There's a reason we got rid of both line-outs and scrums.



There is still a point of having them. It gets the forwards out of play, and allows for some great backline set plays.

when was the last time you saw a great backline play in league?

they dont happen and I dont classify thehalfback running from the scrumbase as a great play. When was the last time the 5/8 received the ball from the scrum? these days it's a forward or winegr who gets the ball

I'd love to see striking in the play the ball brought back, I'd lvoe to see more of a contested scrum but no way to lineouts

 

[phonetic]

when was the last time you saw a great backline play in league?

Saturday night... our first try.

 

[Eddie.]

Lineouts in League??

Please...

God no.

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

Contested Scrums - I'm all for it.

Its the allowing of halfbacks to feed behind the second-rowers feets that is the main thing they have to change. If the rule is enforced that the half must feed the ball between the props feet - then we're on the right track, it then comes down to the attitude of the players.

You rarely see it, but its great to see a side push the other backward in a scrum, or like when Penrith split the scrum up the middle and ran right through it!!! IMO its a much underutilised opportunity for a surprise attack, coz everyones just used to the boring old, quick feed then release.



Line-outs - not on your life.

 

[JoeD]

Contested scrums would also result in a change to the substitution laws as you would need backup specialist front rowers available at all times for safety reasons.

 

[The Dawson Twins Minus 1]

Bring back contested scrums, yes. Lineouts - never.

The contested scrums are really not a problem. That's why they brought in the differential penalty in the early 80s.

Then Arko & Quayle came along and were allowed to dilute the integrity of the game by leaving the scrums in but ignoring rule breaches committed in them.

You can't take a kick for goal from a scrum penalty - that's still on the books, isn't it?

The premise that there were some rules that would be enforced and others that wouldn't is, in my opinion, a reflection of A & Q's worldview - moral consistency was for mugs in their opinion.

It's what used to be great about League - unlike Union, the rules were comparatively comprehensible and almost always applied wherever applicable.

 

[Sea_Eagles_Rock]

The way scrums are at the moment, it may as well be a hand over. I guess there should be an incentive to keep the ball in play, but the current scrum situation requires a serious think tank to fix it.

I also agree that you should be able to play at the ball in the play the ball situation.

BOTD should be to the defensive side.

 

[***MH***]

Scrums are allowed to be contested, the current batch of referees would know the scrum process if it bit them on the arse. If page 29 of http://files.arlfoundation.com/laws/internationallaws.pdf was followed correctly, then scrums would look like more of a contest.

 

[Kurt Angle]

I'm all in favour of getting rid of coversions. Especially ones after tries. Fitzgerald is right when he says theres no more skill in scoring under the posts as out wide. No team deliberately sets up to score under the posts to get an easy conversion.

The conversion location is a defensive onus, not an attacking one. It is a very good concept.