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.

I could never fathom how refs decided/penalised feeding when 100% of scrums were fed.

Not for me either why take 5 mins to restart a game when you can achieve the same result in 30 seconds.

The priorities need to change - more focus is needed on attacking structures and plays. It appears to me coaches are more focused on conceding less rather than scoring more than the opposition. The point of franchising was to remove relegation so teams could play in a more expansive way. If you have coaches who cannot coach attack e.g. McDermott then you have problems with removing the sterility of play at some sides

I agree. Not sure how you impose such a change in priority though?

It has to come from the top - they have to employ coaches who want to play a style of attacking rugby that appeals to the customers. Winning isn't everything its important but the way in which you play is also important. Leeds won the CC but for many it was a hollow victory because of the style of the play.

That has to come from clubs though. It's hard for the RFL to influence that. We could think about RU-esque bonus points for tries scored, but I'm not sure that would work in a sport where 5-6 tries plus for the winners are already a pretty common occurrence.

I work in HE, and I got chatting to a guy from the uni RL team in the gym the other week. The RFL are investing in the sport in universities, which seems a good move (given that 51% of 18 year olds go to uni now - don't get into the rights and wrongs of that, I haven't got time...).

I keep wondering whether the RFL could ringfence some of the new TV money for an elite academy system, and then run a draft system for its products, keeping them off the salary cap, for 5 years or so after they "graduate". A funded scholarship scheme for universities to take the top 100 or so 17-18 year olds. A stronger university game, draft system. Egalitarian distribution of talent, and more freedom for clubs to pay the elite seniors within the cap. Unis would snap your hand off.

Naturally I highlight the pros, there would be cons of course.

From the top I meant the CEO of the clubs not uncle Nigel.

Perhaps you could have regional academies run by the RFL where all players under age of 18 are developed. Qualified coaches could concentrate on developing their skill sets rather than the priorities some clubs appear to have. At that point you could have a draft system where the bottom side gets first pick or sells the pick.

I guess the reality is that whatever else happens, the sport has to drive revenues up to a point where the salary cap can be increased without creating massive top to bottom disparities. Otherwise we will continue to struggle to keep the best players we develop.