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.

Shame Silverwood didn't apply the rules properly when Charnley clearly knocked on just seconds after the penalty, just before he scored.
Should have been a scrum to Rovers.

It wasn't a clear knock on in real time. It was only clear on slow motion, high definition replays.

Criticism of Silverwood in that game should be directed towards his allowing Wigan to hold down. That's the kind of thing that annoys me as a fan because that's a ref not applying the rules properly and allowing a team to slow the game down.

Getting an incredibly difficult, tight, 50-50 call wrong is purely a mistake, and an understandable one.

I agree that invention is a good thing, but, we should be wary of over complicating scrums by giving them so many dimensions that officials will be forced to consider a variety of possible scrum infringements.

Look at the state of RU where some games descend into scrum fests that last for minutes on end and the likes of Brian Moore eulogise over technicalities that any non international front rower can't spot without HD slow motion replays

Be careful what you wish for

Feeding the ball directly between a prop's feet or into the second row at a scrum is against the rules and, by definition, cheating. Every team does it but it is NEVER penalised.

So is cheating only cheating when it is penalised?

What are your thoughts?

Scrums in RL are already a farce and penalties could be given at EVERY scrum that is "formed".
If it's within the rules, which it clearly is, then good on Wigan (or anyone else) for profiting from keeping the ball in.

Having said that, the scrum is an absolute joke.