Of all the grubby tactics that Wigan employ, trapping the ball in the scrum is the least egregious.

To suggest Hull KR were trying to cheat by breaking early is ridiculous. Teams are used to the scrum being quick and the ball out almost immediately it's put in so ALL teams automatically break from the scrum almost immediately.
Hull KR were caught out that's all.

As for the tactic of keeping the ball in the scrum, there's nothing wrong with it. Teams need to adapt and push in the scrum to combat it.

I think it's great, I think we need more pushing in the scrum and could do with the occasional scrum being won against the head. Bring it back as an additional tactic teams can use if they want to.

It was good play. HKR jumped the gun by ASSUMING the ref was about to call the ball in play, but he (correctly) didn't. If HKR had waited for the ref to call they would have had no problem. They chose to take a risk to gain a split second advantage, and it didn't pay off.

Wigan are probably the best team at "earning" their time on the tackle.

They get plenty of players involved in contact and they ensure that the tackled player ends up on their back.

Like it or not, technique does allow them that extra time to peel off.

If the ball carrier breaks the tackle or lands facing forwards, the tacklers have no such privilege.

It's down to who wins collision.

Amen to this.

Does your head in though as a fan!

As frustrating this is, at the end of the day no rules are broken and who knows maybe it will eventually lead to contested scrums once everybody wises up to it. Unless the mighty at the RFL make up a rule just to stop teams doing it.

Deliberately not playing to the rules is, by definition, cheating. And you're right most teams do it - doesn't make it right.

There is little creative play from scrubs BECAUSE teams don't play to the rules and bind.

The rolling of the ball back, instead of playing it with the foot the PTB is equally irksome. Some players seem to be exempt from playing to the rules.

BTW, I do agree that Wigan get away with illegally slowing the PTB; that's partly because they are so good with technique on most occasions and partly because they are Wigan.

It's illegal for the loose forward to old it in, but not the second row. Seems inconsistent to me. But with the rules as they are there just has to be someone responsible on the defending team telling the scrum when to break, schoolboy stuff really

There is - the ref calls "out" when the ball is out.

Schoolboy stuff indeed.

I do wonder if Wigan themselves are prepared for this tactic. (And Leeds too as they have also been seen using it)

If the ball isn't live when it's being held in the scrum, what's the stop the ball staying at the feet of the second row for ages to time waste?

Defenders shoving them off the ball and taking it.

I'm suprised it isn't more common as IMO it is a clever tactic especially to help clear your line. All the defence need to do is not move up until the ref shouts the ball is clear. It's certainly not cheating as Mr Netherton states in his tweet from last night viewtopic.php?f=28&t=573273&tsmp=1408105055

I'm suprised it isn't more common as IMO it is a clever tactic especially to help clear your line. All the defence need to do is not move up until the ref shouts the ball is clear. It's certainly not cheating as Mr Netherton states in his tweet from last night viewtopic.php?f=28&t=573273&tsmp=1408105055

I like it when a team exploits the rules and does something new. Adds an extra dimension to the game.

Much better than going through the motions at the scrum and everyone, including the fans, accepting that every scrum breakdown will be virutally the same.

In relation to scrums in general, I think teams should be encouranged to do something different - pushing, trapping, kicking after the breakdown, running through the broken scrum. Much better than the safe "a few passes to the left and a tackle".

Holding the ball in at the scrum is a smart tactic and we should never have stopped the loose-forward from being allowed to do it.
If the opposition can be kept 'honest' (i.e. bound-in in the forwards and onside in the backs), we may see more expansive play from the scrum. It would give the scrum a 'modern purpose'. (I'm not one of those who wishes to return to the mess we used to have with so-called 'competitive' scrums and which rugby union are now finding a royal pain in the backside).
One of the criticisms I hear levelled at RL is that it can sometimes be a bit one-dimensional. Having handovers instead of scrums would make it even more so. The scrum having a modern purpose helps to counter this.
I'd be tempted to ramp up the potential benefit of chancing your arm from a scrum a bit further by having a think about other ways of creating space for the backs. For example, does a scrum pack have to consist of only six players?

It's a legitimate tactic but if refs are going to penalise it they should penalise it consistently.

That aside, once again Silverwood showed why he shouldn't be given the very big games. The holding down was horrendous at times. Eventually he'd tell them to move, a couple of seconds later they'd do so and time and again no penalties were forthcoming. Awful. Thaler or, at a push, Bentham should get the CC final if it is to be a proper spectacle.