Are we having scrums this season?

Isn't this the same as playing the third prop at 13? Or are you thinking we would have an advantage by having the third prop lining up at hooker in the scrum?

No we want the third prop at dummy half and Darryl carrying the ball in to tackles to take the pressure off lineham and charnley.

Depends if my secret bag of maltesers is discovered at Weight Watchers.

I hope not as i think the games are much much better, and i'll watch a full game with out skipping anything. Really enjoyed the games more this year, i think they're so much better

However that pointless standing around to use up the clock followed by the last minute scurry to play the ball needs tidying up. Looks very amateurish

With you on this point. Scrums were an excuse to adjust headbands, tie shoelaces, be checked out by a physio, and now we have standing around with one player not quite square at marker.

No it isn’t really the same, and yes the advantage is there with a 3rd prop on the field pack size. Playing the prop in between 2 props...means Clark is free to break the scrum at the rear and link up in an attack from the scrum, if he packs down between two props, he is effectively out of play for at least 1 tackle.

Reading on, it’s lost to some on here that a scrum is effectively a penalty, Taking the big guys out and opening up play for the backs. There was some craft by a 7, stand off and quick breaking loose forward from a scrum, working it to attack the line close up, enjoyed seeing blind side attacks of yesteryear...

I have to go back to Nat Wood at 7, and before him, Mike Gregory at 13 to recall an attack from 2 of those positions from a scrum. We can see Clark doing something from the ruck occasionally, but he doesn’t have the space as he may get from a scrummage break.
Pack size and broken field are the ingredients of margin, the difference between 2 equally funded teams not running a tie every game....yes I know, there a factors, but when all is equal, that is what you get.

Are you Ray French?

The attacking "hooker" has been packing down at the back of the scrum for at least the past five years, in effect playing dummy half from there.

No I’m not Ray French and the point of my post seems to have been lost on you, perhaps cutting the topic short...
To recap, to have an extra prop and not play him at a loose forward scrum position.
‘The best pack I saw played a prop at 9’....that was Kevin Tamati btw.

I get the theory of scrums producing more space but the number of breaks I have seen from the base of a scrum are minimal. In fact they are so rare they tend to stick in the memory.

You beat me to it, sometimes I do wonder if people realise that its not the 70s or 80s anymore and tactics that were a necessity or byproduct of the game at that point are irrelevant in this day and age.

As you say in 99% of cases modern day scrums the hooker (best hands) are at the base of a scrum in possession, in defence the fullback is, so he can get back into position, without getting tied up in the first tackle.

The NRL have recognised this and are introducing new focus on keeping players packed down until the ball has broke from the scrum-base. Also additional consequences for repeat offenders.

It would be good if Super League aligned its rules with the NRL's excluding those involving the bunker due to logistics. Especially in a World Cup year.

Personally I would now get rid of scrums.

I agree, they slow the game down, the supposed advantage is never realised, most of the time it's a tackle very shortly after the ball is taken out of the scrum and often in line with where the scrum was.
They're absolutely pointless. Take a tap, it's quicker and there would be a sligtly higher yardage gain for the attacking team.