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 get what you're saying, but it doesn't have to be 30 seconds ( I thought they'd already reduced it to 25?). 15 seconds would be plenty to reorganise and plan a set move, much like a penalty, is the shot clock even needed?
As you say, I can't imagine any tidy way of returning to competitive scrums, so how does 12 random team members loosely touching each other for a couple of seconds look like rugby?
How many scrums are there in a game these days. We already have turnover on the last tackle, would a similar turnover on any infringement normally resulting in a scrum even be noticed?
If someone could find a way to bring back a form of scrum that looked anything like a 'rugby' scrum, I could live with it, but modern RL 'scrums' are just plain embarrassing.

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.

Strangely I was having identical thoughts to those of your own, Slugger. I somehow think that the game wouldn't have been the spectacle it was with ten or so stoppages. I may well be changing my own ideas on this matter.