Quote: Redscat "It would appear from your post then, Slugger. that should "contested" scrums become part of the game again it would probably require a formal set of rules to be written up and included in the "rules of the game."'"
I am not against the idea of contested scrums and can absolutely see their benefit to the game, but how would you ensure scrums were contested without taking a disproportionate amount of time in resets and then ending up more often than not in a penalty?
There are too many variables that all have to be done correctly for a successful scrum. If the only sanction is a penalty for not conforming, then all scrums will end in a penalty or ceding possession without contesting. If you could come up with a set of rules where a contested scrum is possible, I'd be all for it.
Growing up through the 70s & 80s, I 'played' as a hooker and then, though watching the pro game, I saw first-hand how the scrum 'evolved' into what it ended up as now. They should have been scrapped when it became obvious that it was seen as fair that the team with the put-in should win the scrum. Slowly the interpretations were adjusted to reduce penalties and increase the likelihood that the 'non-offending' team would gain possession that it became pointless and a waste of effort to try and contest the scrums. I'm not sure, but I think the only actual law change was for who gets the head & feed. It used to be possible that one team got the head and the other the feed (I think it depended on which half of the field you were in, but it's a while ago now).
As an aside, when I was about 10 and playing at Eastmoor, Fred Lindop often used to ref the games and I used to think he was saying 'pudding' rather than put-in.
