Ooh, nice semantics. See what you did there.

There's a bit of truth to both sides of this discussion. The record books will show this season as more successful than most in the club's history because we won the CC. That win means a lot to a number of our squad. Hopefully it won't interfere as much with next season or thereafter, but I think some are definitely underestimating the mental impact of finally getting a CC win will have had on some of the squad (Sinfield's been playing for 17 years, JJB 15 years etc).

Having said that, I think fans generally have a right to expect far better from the team at the end of the season. Not winning the GF necessarily, but at least hoping to be in with a genuine chance. I think GH is fully aware of the need for improvement there, but in any event the change in league structure and format will force a different approach - and not just from Leeds.

I tend to think that Leeds can genuinely challenge for the championship next year, even without many changes to the squad. What we've yet to see is any evidence that the club has genuine plans in place post 2015.

Equating the Lazenby Cup with the World Club Challenge.

Straw clutching noted.

I thought it was the worst Grand Final I can recall watching.
Saints without any playmaker were clueless against 12 men.
Similar to the LLS which they won almost by default by being the least bad of all the potential winners in the last weeks of the season, they then won the Grand Final due to the stupidity of one their opponents not by good play on their own part.
I do agree though that Saints have shown great spirit in the face of huge odds & for that they deserve congratulation.

The Lazenby cup in the 1950 and early 60s was taken very seriously indeed and attracted very large crowds

We also had 4 tackles then - the game has moved on and the relevance of the Lazenby Cup has disappeared.

Never saw the game played with a 4 tackle rule. Out of off-season interest, did it result in anything other than increased kick frequency?

Wasn't it four tackles then a contested scrum, rather than a handover?

I can't remember what the game was like under 4 tackles . I do remember most people thought the 4 tackle rule was a failure. A school of thought wanted 8 tackles obviously we arrived at 6 tackles .
A lot of players at the time did not want the existing rules of unlimited tackles changing . They claimed it would halt attacking rugby,
A team working its way up the field and gaining good field position would be forced to either kick the ball or turn the ball over.
Unfortunately for me I am of an age when I watched the game as a young lad it was unlimited tackles.
Ball possession was vital, so if team knocked on it was a proper scrum, with both sets of forwards pushing and the hookers striking for the ball.
The hooking berth was vital as it as your main chance of regaining the ball. Some teams had hookers who weren't much good in the loose,but were excellent in winning the ball in the scrum. So teams carried some of these hookers.

Apart from coming extremely close on numerous occasions.

Since it's the off-season, what would people's thoughts be on bringing proper scrums back?

I used to be dead set against it but I've changed my mind a bit over the last few years to the point where I'm 50/50 on it.

Having seen defences become so good both here and in Australia, would having proper scrums lead to bigger, less mobile forwards and so free up some space in defences?
Also, since you get a chance at gaining possession from a scrum, would it lead to teams taking more chances in attack?

The RU experience suggests that the full time athletes are too big and powerful to make scrummaging viable. They collapsed too often and too dangerously. So they were cleaned up, and now take about 5 minutes per scrum. And that's with flank forwards to stabilise them and reduce wheeling.

No thanks from me.