I've never subscribed to the theory that scrums are pointless, agreed they're not competitive but they're quick and act as a pivot for a set piece or planned moved with reduced numbers spread across the pitch. They're analogous to a free kick at football, they're not competitive but we accept them.

The problem with scrums is because they arent properly ' held ' together they usually break before the ball is released and therefore they arent any benifit to a set move

Absolutely - no rule change required, just proper implementation of the existing rule; it's become SOP in SL in the last couple of seasons to step off the mark to play the ball, probably as a result of another form of cheating - rolling around in the ruck, pretending you can't get to your feet, in an attempt to impede the tackled player from getting a quick play the ball.

The ruck needs tidying up in its entirety - no question.

2 refs?

That would probably help, but we don't have enough of them do we? I don't think this particular area needs 2 refs to be cleaned up though - get up when the tackle is complete, or be penalised; play the ball on the mark, or be penalised. Continue to make infringements in the ruck and receive a team warning, then lose a player for 10 minutes.

SL coaches are like car thieves - every time a rule is implemented, they find a way to break or exploit it; if they are disincentivised to do so by a consistent application of the rules, they'll go back to the drawing board and find another way to cheat.

Easily enough refs, the problem if you have just 1 concentrating on the PTB, the opposition will start creeping offside, but yes you are correct, all we really need is the proper application of the rules

When Buderus was at Leeds, he was incapable of standing at ' marker ' and not leaning on or touching the player playing the ball ,virtually every time he was in that position it was a penalty

They are all fairly reasonable. Personally I like the 7th tackle for the kick out on the full. I think it's a clear and easy rule to follow. A bit like the advantage rule that was introduced. There is no interpretation required. I think the difficulty with a kick going dead in goal is that you could have an awesome kick that stops centimetres on the otherside of the dead ball line. The intention was to stop in goal not kick it dead, but it would be severely punished if you went back to the place the ball was kicked.

But any other rule would need interpretation to decided whether it was a time wasting kick or not. This is a good middleway. It's not an over the top punishment for a kick that just fails to stay in goal.

Other than that I think that it looks increasingly like the NRL are wanting to do away with scrums where ever possible. Possibly because they don't like them, possibly to create a more stark difference between the two codes. Leaving Union with the scrum and making out League to be a more set piece orientated game.


Having said that I can understand why Leeds fans would not like the rule on the ball being kicked dead. It's kinda their thing

We probably dont have enough refs but having watched some Aussi RL over the recent period I feel that 2 refs on the pitch are having a good effect - not always but most of the time.

Perhaps a regular SL ref and a lower leagues ref could work (training/experience would be a benefit too). The play the ball and say, forwards could be improved without recourse to video? Have we tried two refs over here?

I'd like a change to the rules regarding the forming of a scrum to stop the clock.

The players that form the scrum should have to stay there for the play of the ball..

Agree with that. The players that form the scrum in order to stop the clock should have to take part in the scrum when it takes place.
Don't need the silly NRL rule where they have to stay formed though.

Why?
It's a clever rule. By all means stop the clock but if you can't get your correct scrum then you can't have it both ways. You have to make a decision which is the best option. The trouble is the game is getting rather robotic and formulaic. Time for a great deal more openness and positive decision making. That will confuse some but make things interesting .

Mainly because it looks ridiculous to have 1 side with a scrum formed whilst the others stand around, have a chat and get their breath.
Just make sure the players that initially form the scrum in order to stop the clock are the ones who have to take part in the scrum. Then they've either got to pack the scrum with the faster players who got there first or wait for the props etc to get back.

Exhibit A: Australia's try at the end of the first half in the RLWC Opener......Slater skinned Sam Burgess who wasn't packed down, but was instead standing in a centre defensive position. The Aussies saw this weakness as they packed down and played to it. It was a skilfully constructed play....
Don't see why we need to continually change the rules of a game we consider the greatest

But you would still have that. The only team you are punishing are the ones trying to get the clock stopped and rushing to form the scrum. The other team could still saunter up, have a chat, catch their breath and then set up their scrum to best take advantage of the other teams pack.

For instance, team A is behind, team B have head and feed. Team A rush to form the scrum to stop the clock, team B don’t they are in the lead, they want to waste time. Team A then have to from a scrum with the first players to get there and are left with a prop having to defend the line. Team B spot this and run a set play with a the FB going past him. Team A in this instance have been punished for rushing to form the scrum and get the clock stopped and get the play started quickly, Team B benefit from wasting time and catching their breath.