Ignoring the fact the Super League don't have two referees, and have reduced, not increased, the number of substitutions - what on earth has all that got to do with whether we should retain scrums or not?

Not yet, but we are following as usual!

So nothing to do with removing scrums then, which in turn has nothing to do with us becoming more like the NFL. Gotcha

It doe's not take long to get you to take the bait, does it!

p.s. How is United going on these days?

How should I know? I don't watch football. What has that got to do with scrums?

My view is that they are not required but what is an unknown is the impact on the overall game not having these short breaks.

Purpose of scrums in rugby league was:
- Quick restart (We have found a quicker way by removing them)
- Advantage to attacking team to have 1 on 1 attack vs defence (Stats show not many tries scored from scrums)

That try should not have been given because the scrum half never retired to behind the scrum. He was offside and a penalty to Salford.

Either have proper scrums or bin them. I say bin them and I've been watching since 1965.

Nah that's not a rule. You're getting mixed up with the defending scrum half. The attacking scrum half is onside as long as he isn't ahead of the front row of the scrum (which never happens due to the fact he feeds it). He can go where he wants once he has fed the ball in.

Thanks for correcting me

but I still say bin 'em.

The new rules in the NRL have made scrums that bit more dangerous with being able go split the field. Keep them for me.

So are you saying that you are not Grimshaw on Wigan World?

Not me I'm afraid.