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.

The rules weren't changed, but "Feeding" as an offence was done away with a long time, by virtue of guidance given on "interpretation" of the scrum rules, hence it is no longer penalised.

No such guidance on binding at a scrum has been given.

Guidance or none, feeding the scrum is braking the rules, i.e. cheating, you can't move the goal posts to suit your agenda.

The change in the rules was making it that the loose forward could not trap the ball.
Holding the ball in the scrum was in the rules prior 1895 AKAIK.

I haven't. I agree with you.

The interpretations are in place as a result of the coaches advisory meetings! It's the clubs that drive these things.

Fed up of seeing players place the ball on the ground, then use it to lever themselves from the floor. It's a penalty, but when do you ever see it given?

Bit of a cheap penalty I think. Although if it stops the HB from being offside in EVERY scrum then I am for teams doing this.

I must be really old.
Pushing at the scrum or delaying the ball coming out are not new things. They've been around forever. It's just that the rule changes/adjustments around the scrum meant it was better to take advantage of the quick ball from the scrum. If the ball can be put "behind the props leg" then the ball is in and out in a flash. No point pushing as those players need to be defending.
Teams tend to follow each other in style and it looks like it is just the done thing.
They are not taking advantage of the rule, they are taking advantage of the other team following such a regimented plan that they are not playing what is happening on the field, they are just doing what they were told in training blindly.

I think there's little chance of us going down the union road, because the focus and importance of the scrum are so different. In RL there is always going to be the emphasis on breaking as quickly as possible , whereas in RU there is a huge focus on the initial 'hit' and drive as a way of one pack or the other asserting dominance over the other. In RL we tend to assert dominance in open play with the big hits.

Doesn't it just expose the fact that players aren't waiting for the ball to come out before breaking/advancing?


Exactly this. If it was the other way round there'd probably be a thread bemoaning Wigan breaking early at the scrum.

The other side to this is that the defending team will now break less quickly, giving the attacking team more chance of scoring from a scrum where the ball isn't trapped. It returns scrums to the reason they were retained, to provide another attacking option, and gives the greater advantage to the team that hasn't offended to create the scrum.

Have Wigan broken 'The spirit of the scrum'?