But they do trap at least half the players on the field in a very small area, which gives a lot of space to the halves, centres and wingers to do something, if they'd take the risk, or ship the ball out quickly enough.

Fair point, but I think that what you're describing has come into the game as a direct result of what I described; players expect to get held down now and know they won't get a quick ptb, so they hold on for a penalty as a form of compensation. If the defenders were required to clear the ruck more quickly, the attacking player would focus on getting up to ptb, rather than trying to react to being held down by overtly demonstrating that he is being held down.

Aussie coaches have broken the system with their wrestlemania tactics; it could be fixed by reverting to an expectation that you'll complete a tackle then get up, not that you'll lay on as long as possible, then roll and climb all over the tackled player and wait for the ref to tell you what to do next.

The 'contested' scrum became a farce in the late 70s/early 80s, which led to the change of interpretation (even though the rules stayed pretty much the same). The scrum was reformed 2 or 3 times and then a penalty was awarded. With the advent of the turn-over, the number and importance of the scrums was reduced significantly.

It still has a role to play, but to hold up RU scrums as an example of how it should be done is fallacy as they never go against the head either and just waste time and energy and require specialised 'atheletes'. I would just make the refs police the packing down, make them bind properly or award a penalty, which would slow down players escaping from the scrum and increase the effectiveness of the situation. From a spectators perspective the current scrums are untidy and seem half-hearted and pointless.

As for forward passes, when I played I'd always assumed that the difference between RL and RU was that in RL flat was forward and this seemed to be the interpretation used although, as I discovered when I did a coaching course, it was never true. A minor change in the wording of the laws would have a significant effect, i.e. the ball must be passed backwards rather than the ball must not be passed forwards.

I agree that the technology to automatically detect a forward pass would be possible. You could combine the GPS system with an accelerometer in the ball which could detect any acceleration of the ball in a forward direction at the time of the pass. It would make a good project for an electronics student and if I were more switched on I would have patented the idea before disclosing it on a public forum.

And would you like black and white telly and horses with carts.

No thanks. In recent RU internationals at least 20 minutes of the game is wasted in setting the scrum!

RL scrums have never been pretty (not in the last 25 years) even when they were "contested". Its just a different way of re-starting the game, as opposed to a tap or ptb.
In yawnion the scrums take forever, but on tv they go back to the studio for a chat and so time passes more quickly.
During the game on Sunday there were 2 or 3 occasions where Smith just put the ball round the second rowers leg and carried on. The ball never entered the scrum, even by todays standards.
Instead of a scrum we could just hand the ball over after a knock on, as we do on after the last tackle, although do we really need to speed the game up any more ?

You're right it's miles from slow, it's completely pedestrian

Get rid of the scrum, outdated rubbish that is boring to watch.

If huge score lines become the norm, a reduction in the number of tackles should be considered.

Yeh Rebel Rebel, plenty of midweek matches then due to postponements. Really something to look forward to in the working week.
Stood in snow and sleet at Fartown, Watersheddings,Thrum hall etc then a few beers n fish n chips on way home.
Paradise.
We had our favourite watering holes on the way home.
One I remember on moors outside Oldham sold ale straight from wooden cask, porued from a jug. Oldham breweries I seem to remember.
Cant remember name of pub.

i understand your sentiment, i think you make the argument for having quick scrums, but i'd still keep them as it takes 12 players out of the game and allows for a different shape to attacks for 1-3 tackles as a result.

i want them to be as quick as possible, but i would like the defending hookers to have a chance at winning the ball, not an even chance but a 1/5 chance.

Agreed, although the scrums themselves are a sham, at least it changes the dynamic of the game for a short while.

I know what you mean, I just don't think teams with big packs should have a chance at a contested scrum even though they have knocked on.

I think any knock on should be followed by a quick tap, I also think we should do away with this 'No it wasn't a knock on it went backwards' nonsense, fair enough if a pass hits the deck, but if a player drops the ball it would be a knock on for me. It always annoys me that a video referee can adjudge a knock on but not a forward pass.

I know having a scrum takes players out of the game, which can make set plays more interesting, but that is the only purpose of a scrum in Rugby League. Do away with them I say, let Yawnion rave on about how good they are. We can concentrate on playing expansive, flowing rugby while they watch a load a fat props and giant second rowers stamp on each other until someone gives a penalty away.

agree, hence my 1/5 chance. it's a sport afterall not a democracy.

don't agree about the tap, i think it prompts sterile and predictable play for 2/3 tackles as we see from 20m restarts. it favours the defenders too.

i think there is an argument for the "you dropped it/lost control so it's a knock on" argument. if the aussies come up with this to make the game easier to officiate then we'll see it here soon after...... we are of course only hanging on their coat tails.

??? Does this mean the acting half backs score every time they touch it if thery can't be tackled?