I'm happy to see them go - when the hooker was allowed/able to challenge for the ball they were great but did slow the games down - now after a few months of no scrums I like it, I'd still prefer to have scrums that were challengeable but if we aren't going back to them then this is the next best - all or nothing

I don't think there is a rule against contested scrums. The decision not to contest them is down to the coaches realising that the best way to defend or attack is not to be in the scrum, so non-contested scrums become a self-fulfilling prophecy, prompted by the decision to ignore the feeding rule.

If we decided to contest them, we would be marched down the field for penalties, or our best defenders in a heap somewhere as the attackers have departed from the contested scrum the minute the ball was free.

The death knell was the decision not to enforce the feeding rule. If that were still a rule (is it?), there would be contests, as the ball would be there to strike at. But without it, the only contest would be pushing, and without flankers to bind in the second row they collapse.

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.

I had a quick look and it appears that the feeding rule still exists"The ball shall be put into the scrum from the Referee’s side by holding it in a horizontal position with a point in each hand and rolling it along the ground into the tunnel formed by the opposing front row forwards."[/i

That rule is clearly ignored. If it wasn't ignored, you would have de facto contested scrums, as there would be something to strike at. The decision to ignore it spelled the death knell for contested scrums, but why leave it there if it is deliberately ignored?

rlhttps://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/never-mind-the-biff-nrl-should-bring-back-the-scrum-penalty-20201201-p56ji4.htmlrl

An alternative view from down under