The scrums are a joke and are mainly used for the players to get a breather.

Let the referee place the ball on the ground, the scrum then forms over the ball but the hookers are not allowed to touch or strike for it until the referee blows his whistle.

Thus we would have contested scrums again and add some element of skill for the hookers and some more unexpected outcomes for the spectators. Ican see no problem with this proposal and it would add the uncertainty factor that would make it fascinating. The scrum halves would retire behind the scrum waiting for the ball to appear.

I'd like to see the exit of the ball from the scrum delayed a second or two to give the non-feeding team more of an opportunity chance to fully contest if they wish. An idea I had was to require the ball to exit the scrum either at the base of the scrum (by the loose forward picking it up or the SH getting it from the LF's feet) or on the opposite side from where the ball was put in. The feeding team would be allowed to choose which side to feed from in return.

I don't know if this would work in practive without making the scrum a disaster area like those in another code but it might encourage both teams to bind properly rather than preparing to run back to their defensive or attacking positions.

or feed the ball in straight … (as the letter of the rules actually still requires)

or replace a scrum with a lineout (waits for tb to give me another history lesson)

I was jesting

Yes, though I seem to remember reading about an amusing IRLB decision to make an official amendment to the unofficial policy of ignoring that rule in the early 90s!

My idea is for an tweak/evolution of the existing 'settlement' rather than rolling back to feeding the tunnel.

i used to think the same regards competitive scrums but now i don't care, it's just a good way of removing the forwards for one play and giving the ball to the team that deserves it.

Leave it alone (in terms of non competitive)

I'd like the kickable penalty withdrawn for putting the ball straight into touch from the kick off. To harsh imo. Tap on the halfway line is enough.

The one that got me and maybe not a rule as such was Hull KR vs Leeds on friday. Leeds 18-0 down with about 50 minutes gone are having to drop out again from under their own posts. Sinfield messes about abit and then Alibert stops the clock. Why is he stopping the clock when Leeds are the ones 18-0 down? Surely they can waste as much time as they want when they are 18-0 down

1) You only get a conversation attempt if you score a try where the ball has NOT been kicked by the attacking/scoring team in the build up ie, since the last play the ball.

2) If the ball is dropped by the attacking team, then it is an automatic knock-on regardless of whether it goes backwards or forwards.

3) Bring back ball stripping - it's the attackers responsibility to securely hold possession and if the ball is clearly stripped then it's play on and the player picking the ball up gets "six to go".

Number 3 would remove offloading plays. It would simply stop players promoting the ball and slow the game down and take away a good part of the game.

The forming of the scrum with any players around, in order for the ref to call time off and usually in the dying minutes of the game.

Either : Get the players to request time off to the official and then contest the scrum with those players present, regardless of their field position.

Or : Continue to run the clock down until the players you want to form the scrum / regular pack are present.

It seems unfair that the ref calls time off, only for the pack's make up to radically change using the benefit of players that have strolled back whilst the clock has stopped.

This shouldn't have a massive impact on the game, as most teams at various points in the game, seem to play a back as a 2nd row / loose forward ....

no lifting at all in the tackle, would reduce the chances of serious spinal injuries

Hear hear!