Who else is over scrums?

[Western_Eel]

I am, I think the game is to quick for it now.

I say either just hand the ball over or a tap.
Thoughts?

 

[WaznTheGreat]

Scrums are good for the players because its give's them a bit of a rest, scrums are gay for us viewers though.

 

[magpie4ever]

Wazn, still wants scrums. Silent Achiever, you bloody bewdy.

 

[Springs]

The reason scrums are still in is because the game is so quick.
The is one simple rule they can bring in to make scrums relevant again: 8-13 must pack in position.
The way they are now is awful, but if they change it to this then at least we could see properly formed scrums, a rest for the forwards and backs on backs.

 

[thorson1987]

The reason scrums are still in is because the game is so quick.
The is one simple rule they can bring in to make scrums relevant again: 8-13 must pack in position.
The way they are now is awful, but if they change it to this then at least we could see properly formed scrums, a rest for the forwards and backs on backs.

Nope, just make the halfbacks feed it into the middle.

 

[magpie4ever]

The reason scrums are still in is because the game is so quick.
The is one simple rule they can bring in to make scrums relevant again: 8-13 must pack in position.
The way they are now is awful, but if they change it to this then at least we could see properly formed scrums, a rest for the forwards and backs on backs.

Springs, we finally agree - good post.

 

[Springs]

Nope, just make the halfbacks feed it into the middle.

That's not gonna mean anything if there's a winger at fullback and a centre and a five-eighth in the front row.
Although I would like to see that rule brought back in. Might see some penalties for second row feeds but oh well.

 

[Springs]

It will also mean the position names will become relevant again and we won't have to hear debate over 'edge forward' 'middle forward' 'central backrower' 'middle half' and the tons of other annoying terms thought up.

 

[Western_Eel]

I don't want them to have a break, it's better when the players are tired, open the game up a bit

 

[Springs]

I don't want them to have a break, it's better when the players are tired, open the game up a bit

Well if they don't have breaks mate get ready to see both sides score 40+ points. Players can't just keep running and running. It's the same reason we can't turn time off whenever the ball is dead.

The first 'break' we need to get rid of is the video ref.

 

[Snappy]

What scrums achieve is creating space on the field which gives the attacking team one play to put together a good backline play

 

[DC_fan]

What scrums achieve is creating space on the field which gives the attacking team one play to put together a good backline play

The last time I saw a good back line play from a scrum was back in the 70's.

 

[kdalymc]

They're dope.
Gives a chance to be 7 on 7.
Yeah most teams waste it and just have a settler but mad backs on backs plays are awesome.

 

[eozsmiles]

Scrums would be great if the coaches weren't too scared to call a play and the players weren't too stupid to f**k it up.

 

[eozsmiles]

It will also mean the position names will become relevant again and we won't have to hear debate over 'edge forward' 'middle forward' 'central backrower' 'middle half' and the tons of other annoying terms thought up.

Just because a player has a certain number doesn't mean they have to defend in a certain position in the line or attack on a certain side etc etc etc

 

[eozsmiles]

That's not gonna mean anything if there's a winger at fullback and a centre and a five-eighth in the front row.
Although I would like to see that rule brought back in. Might see some penalties for second row feeds but oh well.

Makes no difference who is defending where or where the ball is fed if the forwards won't push in the scrum and the backs won't pass the ball.

 

[Matchball]

Channel 9 likes scrums. Advertising time.
Won't be going away while 9 is pumping billions in.

 

[eozsmiles]

The last time I saw a good back line play from a scrum was back in the 70's.

Silly remark.

 

[Springs]

Makes no difference who is defending where or where the ball is fed if the forwards won't push in the scrum and the backs won't pass the ball.

Forwards pushing in the scrum means nothing. If the ball is fed into the middle the hooker can strike for the ball.
It makes a fair bit of difference having a 6 on a 6 or a centre on centre with space rather than having a one-off run off the scrum running into second rowers.

Having all the forwards out of play and no backs in the scrum makes a lot of difference, it's up to the coaches to take advantage of it or not. We can't make rules based on 'oh the backs won't pass it anyway'. There are more RL comps in the world than the NRL and if the NRL coaches don't want to take advantage of scrums then others will.

 

[sharknows]

The only reason scrums are a joke is because the the NRL couldn't get referees capable of fairly controlling them...... or controlling the game in a manner which appeared fair.... The game as a real game has gone downhill since the competitive scrum was abolished. It is now a game of robotic endurance combined with sufficient middle man interference to achieve a required result. Bring back the big men that were scrummaging experts and it becomes a much different game not played at the frenetic pace of today but with a lot more creativity. However that would suit the TV controllers of the sport who just want action action action and fast.