People bang on about player welfare and yet we are just doing everything that we can to speed the game up even more, I understand that they are professional athletes but the game is fast enough as it is without many breaks. It`s funny how quickly agendas change, it was only a few years back they the RFL introduced water breaks every 15/20 minutes in a game after the tragic death of Danny Jones, that quickly went out of the window.

For me, we can go too far on speeding the game up, along with this; wrestling (I understand you can argue that goes against the pace of the game comment) that has come in in the last 7/8 years - I understand the game has developed and the wrestle is probably here to stay but it is certainly becoming a bigger part of the game, some clubs are even looking at floor work (Training BJJ) and how they incorporate that into there defence, when you watch the Oli Holmes/Myler situation a couple of weeks ago, this is a prime example. I sometimes watch games from 10 years ago and think it was so much more enjoyable to watch.

Just a point on the wrestling as well, the clubs aren't at fault, it is effective but I think somewhere along the line RFL need to draw a line just like the NRL should have done years ago with Melbourne, now it seems too late for them to bring in any restrictions on there wrestle as every club in the league is at that level.

Laws.

I was captain of a team and had to check with the ref what my options were when there was an infringement at the lineout. I got some dirty looks from the life long Union boys

I do agree with the player welfare statement though Homme V.
We are not playing basketball. There is a limit to how fast the play should go if we want to see big impacts and players staying fit.
7s is fun to watch but it isn't the main game because it lacks the structure and intensity. That's what speeding the game up does.

contested scrums for me but it wont happen
The union scrum has also become farce rarely won against the feed today

Union scrums, you put it in you get it out but they tend to spend hours on training packing down correctly. It's hardly kick and clap these days with the introduction of RL coaches and the odd player thrown on to the mix. The main advantage from a player point of view is that it appeals to all shapes and sizes.

I get what you are saying about the practicing of scrums or any other play in Union but what I can’t understand when I watch it is the amount of time that goes by on the clock before they get to the feed and other areas on the field, would love to know the amount of time that the ball is in actual play in an average game of Union.

Union has improved no doubt but still way to many rules for me and far to much emphasis on set plays. Scrums can go for me, hardly noticed they’d gone if I’m honest, thought I would.

The games definitely improved Vasty and I have seen quite a few games over the past 10 seasons or so. I also agree that the time setting scrums needs to be quicker.
The biggest disappointment for me is the quality of centre play they have totally lost the ability to draw a man and seem more intent on taking the tackle..

Scrums to stay, for me.

There seems to be two schools of thought: contested scrums or no scrums at all.

Those who yearn for contested scrums must have forgotten what they were actually like. A succession of collapses and messes and penalties. They brought in the differential penalty to stop teams getting points from a scrum infringement, or else teams spent most of the game kicking for goal.

Those who want no scrums haven't considered the "live" version. In place of scrums, we have four blokes milling around, watching the stop-clock, taking deep breaths. It just about works on TV because different camera angles and replays break it up, because the TV people know that watching four blokes take a rest for thirty seconds isn't good viewing. Live, it will look boring and weird and not speed anything up.

So, four blokes standing around and watching a clock, or twelve blokes packing down, creating a different attacking opportunity and actually looking like rugby? I know which I'd choose.

Scrums.

I don't disagree. It's a case of deciding the least-worst option.

At the moment, there seems to be an agreement that the markers can stand away from the play the ball for the full duration of the stop-clock and that they won't be penalised and the attacking team won't play the ball until everyone is ready. If the stop-clock was removed and teams penalised for messing around and delaying, it would probably solve the issue, but then you have the issue of player-welfare when playing the whole game at breakneck speed.

I know the NRL are looking at keeping scrums because they are part of the game's heritage, and that is sort of where I am. I agree they are a bit of a farce, but they feel like the least-worst option. Better than messy scrums and probably better for the players than playing the whole thing at the fastest pace throughout. At least they allow for a break that looks like something is going on.

None of the options are great, in reality, so I get where the no-scrum lobby is coming from.

My only concern is related to injuries caused by fatigue. Already a fast game, this makes it even faster. Overall, the Scrum as it was, was pointless. Perhaps we allow teams limited numbers of brief time outs or a slightly longer rest period where there would have been a scrum?

After watching the Grand Final, I've changed my mind on scrums.

All the way through relentless action, at no point did I think, "it just needs some badly-formed scrums to make the game complete". And at one point, when the ball went into touch and I'd forgotten there were no scrums, I remember thinking that this is where non-rugby people think the game is a bit of a joke.

So, I'm now with the no-scrum lobby.