Having the most banal interaction about contested scrums somewhere else on the internet. Why do people cling to this? Nobody is ever going to do a clickbait article on the ten greatest scrums ever (they might do in union). Scrums are THE worst thing about rugby union. They kill the speed of the game and disrupt the action. Sure they're useful in union because it takes defenders out of the defensive line and puts them in the scrum to make their game more exciting.

Our game doesn't need it. It's a step backwards and I honestly do not know why people (admittedly usually folk over 50) keep harping on about it, without invoking some insulting comment about their brains being stuck in the same time period over and over again.

I think we are more likely to go the other way, given that we have recently removed scrums following 40-20s. I wouldn't be surprised to see us totally move to tap restarts within the next five years.

Not sure it will Grimmy. A scrum breaks up defensive lines and adds a bit more variety into the flow of the game. Even if it's relatively redundant as a process of the game. i.e. coaches setting up with forwards outside the scrum to affect the next tackle's passage of play.

I suppose if we did get rid of them, players and officials would need to be a lot fitter. They add significant breathers. In fact, I'm not sure that forwards in the amateur game would cope.

My issue with scrums at the moment is that they do not really provide an attacking opportunity because they break up so quickly that space is not created. A few years ago we all moaned when teams could hold the ball briefly at the back of the scrum so it disappeared. Personally I liked that. We recognise that the scrum is a bit different but we cannot decide what to do with it to improve the game. I think that we could be moving towards a blander game but I cannot think of a better answer than getting rid.

The scrums now are naff they are a waste of time when a scrum half can feed the back row and it is Ok gets me bloody mad

Although most teams want to break from the scrum as quickly as possible to defend, I've seen several occasions (in Championship games) where this has been abandoned and the 6 have put a real push on. I've only really seen it when the team feeding the scrum is in their own 20, and some refs don't seem to like it and reset the scrum. If timed right, then it's a real opportunity to win the ball back, although it's a bit easier if the scrum half is putting the ball in the 2nd row rather than straight through the LF's legs!

If RL is to keep scrums, and I think we should, we need to get back to the old rules - ball in the middle and can't break from it until the ball is out. Otherwise, as others have pointed out, what is the point in them other than to give the players a slight break in play?

Agree with the OP that that are needed to break up play and give a bit of variety to the process, space out wide for instance will never be created with just a tap restart, or allowing the players to break from the scrum before the first pass is even made, therefore taking away any space that could be created.

I quite like it how it is tbh. Allows for a different kind of set play, players get a breather and there's always the opportunity to push and recover if you want to try a power play.

Dont want to see proper contested scrums, let union get bogged down in that kind of nonsense that gets reset every 2 minutes.

Contested scrums became a farce towards their end. If both packs are seriously trying to win at all costs they become a mess, as they did. They rely on both team "playing the game" and have no place in a professional sport.

I think the problem is that for some reason most teams dont try to make use of it. As many have said above, the extra space in the defence from a scrum should be a phenomenal advantage- it almost makes it 7s rugby for one play. Way back in the day we had Andrew Dunemann at 6 and he would always try something different straight from the scrum

Absolutely spot on. By the time we finally ended them, contested scrums were a complete joke and the refereee had to turn a blind eye to dozens of offences just to get the game re-started. Union vaunts it's scrums, but they are just as bad in their way, and how often does the team win the ball against the head and feed?

Better off staying with what we have now.

It might help if all the reffs sing from the same hymn sheet, especially on when to allow a push or contest for the ball.

The problem nowadays is that the 2nd row and loose forward don't bind at all, so as soon as the ball goes into the scrum they peel off to join the defensive line. One ploy that we've seen successful a few times is to hold the ball in the scrum - if done correctly then a penalty almost always follows because the defensive team is so used to breaking from the scrum as soon as the ball is fed.

If only we had Andrew Dunemann playing for Fax now! We had a seriously good half-back combination with him and Gavin Clinch, and we should probably have done better than we did with both of them in the team.

Correct and scrums in union are one of the very worst things about their game for me. Union needs scrums though because of the general negative play of their game. Scrums provide space for set moves and their game needs that. League creates tonnes of attacking opportunities so it is less important to our game.