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

Agreed with the first bit. Especially if we made the scrum pack down and stay packed it'd open the game up a bit more. I'm slowly coming around to thinking reintroducing competitive scrums might be a good idea.

As for changing the rules, I agree to a large extent. We tinker far too often with rules and interpretations whereas often if we just gave it some time it'd work itself out. Although I don't see it as a negative to look at the rules every few years or so.

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.

Silly rule. Either quick taps or not. What if your 11 yards away? Is that now somehow fine?

bit irrelevant really.

bit silly, expect to see lots of players simply trying to get a touch to knock it over the line, or get a hand to it when it is clearly out.
probably makes a bit more sense

Poor rule imo. Should be at the refs discretion and a good referee will know when it is in an inappropriate time to have that discussion.

But they at least won't have to stay formed like in the NRL. That's the silly bit in my opinion.

As for punishing the ones trying to get the clock stopped, I don't see it as a punishment, more a trade-off. Either get your forwards back quickly to stop the clock, or get your scrum set the way you want it at the cost of time off the clock.

Not every advantage should be given to the team that is behind in the last few minutes.

Its not necessarily the punishment part of it, it’s the fact it actively encourages a team which is leading to take as long as they want to form the scrum.

There are two outcomes from what you are proposing either A) it takes a longer time to form a scrum, more time is wasted or B) a team who is wasting time, is given an advantage for wasting time. Im not sure why we would want either of those things to happen

I don't see how it would encourage teams to waste more time or how it would take longer to form a scrum than currently


It doesn't affect anything the team who are in the lead would do, it affects the team who are behind. It stops them from using backs to form a scrum and stop the clock, then those players not taking part in the scrum. If you want to stop the clock your team should be ready to play.

You have answered your own question with the 2nd part, it will stop backs rushing to form a scrum to stop the clock. Ergo it would take longer to form the scrum (certainly in game time if not actual time)

And by definition of forming the scrum even with the backs that team is ‘ready to play’ it is the other team we are waiting for. The team whose choice is either waste time by walking slowly to the scrum or form the scrum in response to the team rushing to do it to stop the clock. If Team B (from the example above) accede to a ‘quick’ scrum, they are actively giving up an advantage of either dead time or the chance to line up and plan a specific play, in the rules as they are now they don’t control the ‘dead time’ and nor do they get to plan a play against a scrum which is formed not as a defensive ploy but as simply a time efficient one.

Not necessarily. They still have the option to form the scrum, just they have to be in it. They have a choice, stopping the clock or having the scrum set as they want it. I don't see why they should get the advantage of both.

Yes forming the scrum with the backs means they are ready to play. But. Then breaking up that scrum to replace the players within it means they aren't ready to play. Again, they have a choice. To play the scrum with the players that formed it and thereby stop the clock, or form another (presumably more beneficial scrum) without the clock stopped.

It works quite well in the NRL (the silly staying bound together element aside).

because the other team dont want the clock stopped. Why should they get three advantages of creating dead time, forming the scrum how they want, and head and feed. All that has happened is the ball has gone out of play. Why are we giving so many advantages to a team who is just trying to waste time?

it doesnt work at all because there isnt any positive outcome from it. The only effects it can have is either wasting more game time as dead time or punishing a team for wanting to stop the clock. Why do we want that? what benefit is there to either fairness of the game or the game as a spectacle in seeing less play while the big lads jog back in or seeing one team punished for rushing to restart the game and another rewarded for slowing it down?