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.

I’d already come to that conclusion, let them go they belong to a different era.

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 am in the scrap the scrum camp, for reasons I've given before, but this is clearly from a spectator perspective. These changes are all a bonus to the fans on the terraces, but perhaps we need to ask the opinion of the people who are directly affected, the players and the coaches. Is this level of intensity sustainable? What will be the longer term effect of the changes once the coaches have had chance to analyse the changes and adopt their tactics? The differences are not just from no scrums, the 6 again rule has also had a big effect. I guess someone could analyse and compare with the NRL where they kept scrums but had 6 again. I hope the Aussies can be persuaded that scrums have had their day. We'll have to bring them back if they keep them, especially with the World Cup coming up. It would be a big gamble to go a season without scrums then enter a world cup with them. It could pay off though, but I don't think the RFL are brave enough to make the leap. Is there any high level meeting to discuss the rules for next season? Interesting stats from the SL website Quote: "The first three weekends of action in August saw an average ball-in-play time of 63 minutes and 20 seconds - a ten-minute rise on early season numbers (53 minutes and 12 seconds), and 11 minutes up on 2019. That figure has dropped a little and is now at an average of 56 minutes and 57 seconds post-lockdown. However, it is still higher than what we saw pre-lockdown in 2020 and in 2019, in which the average was 52 minutes and 4 seconds. '" Quote: "There have been 61 games since Super League’s return with an average of 708 tackles per match. That figure is down slightly from the early rounds of post-lockdown Super League but well up on the pre-lockdown average of 658 and the 652 average in 2019. '" Some similar stats and interesting quotes from the St Helens Star Most interestingly 'since 2010', suggesting the game has gone backwards since then and this is maybe a return to better days? I was suprised to read that there was an average of 12 scrums per game, I would have guessed at half that. I may have to do some research during the off-season on TrinityTV. This is not so far away from the other code, which seems to be always having scrums, but I guess they take longer and many are reset. 10 years old and from Oz, but: www.greenandgoldrugby.com/scrum- ... tatistics/

I am in the scrap the scrum camp, for reasons I've given before, but this is clearly from a spectator perspective. These changes are all a bonus to the fans on the terraces, but perhaps we need to ask the opinion of the people who are directly affected, the players and the coaches. Is this level of intensity sustainable? What will be the longer term effect of the changes once the coaches have had chance to analyse the changes and adopt their tactics? The differences are not just from no scrums, the 6 again rule has also had a big effect. I guess someone could analyse and compare with the NRL where they kept scrums but had 6 again. I hope the Aussies can be persuaded that scrums have had their day. We'll have to bring them back if they keep them, especially with the World Cup coming up. It would be a big gamble to go a season without scrums then enter a world cup with them. It could pay off though, but I don't think the RFL are brave enough to make the leap. Is there any high level meeting to discuss the rules for next season? Interesting stats from the SL website Quote: "The first three weekends of action in August saw an average ball-in-play time of 63 minutes and 20 seconds - a ten-minute rise on early season numbers (53 minutes and 12 seconds), and 11 minutes up on 2019. That figure has dropped a little and is now at an average of 56 minutes and 57 seconds post-lockdown. However, it is still higher than what we saw pre-lockdown in 2020 and in 2019, in which the average was 52 minutes and 4 seconds. '" Quote: "There have been 61 games since Super League’s return with an average of 708 tackles per match. That figure is down slightly from the early rounds of post-lockdown Super League but well up on the pre-lockdown average of 658 and the 652 average in 2019. '" Some similar stats and interesting quotes from the St Helens Star Most interestingly 'since 2010', suggesting the game has gone backwards since then and this is maybe a return to better days? I was suprised to read that there was an average of 12 scrums per game, I would have guessed at half that. I may have to do some research during the off-season on TrinityTV. This is not so far away from the other code, which seems to be always having scrums, but I guess they take longer and many are reset. 10 years old and from Oz, but: www.greenandgoldrugby.com/scrum- ... tatistics/

I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again. Scrums, passing and aspects of tackling are the only similarities now between the two codes.

Clearly passing and tackling stay but scrums can go for me. In a stroke that truly separates the two codes. They are now about as similar as Aussie rules, Gailic football or the NFL. Slight exaggeration don’t take literally.

Drop the word Rugby and just call the sport League and we’ve finally done it.

I get the fatigue issue but a simple way around that is to enforce the 10 meter rule. It’s impact that causes the problem imo, this wouldn’t reduce the energy loss but would reduce the physicality, which is the issue to me.

Drop the scrums.
The GF was the blueprint for what our game could and should be like - fast, ferocious, intense, skilful, full of commitment and emotion. I can’t imagine that anyone noticed the lack of scrums and if they did I’d be surprised if they thought the game would have been better with them. International laws have to be brought in to line though. It’s ridiculous that the game has different rules for NRL, SL and international games. It would be even more farcical if the NRL had scrums and we didn’t.
Reservations about 6 again - it’s a bit too subjective for me. If we keep it - and I think it’s good in principle - I think there should be some consistency in the consequences. At the moment, like a penalty, there’s the world of difference between 6 again called on the 1st tackle and it being called on the 5th tackle. How about a ‘2 more’ rule so the set is extended by 2 tackles irrespective of when the infringement took place? Refs would need to be good at counting and communicating the tackle count but it would reduce the impact of subjective calls (not knocking refs here - it’s a bloody difficult call to make)

I would go with just referring to it always as 'RL'. With a full title of RL Football.
I've always thought 'rugby league' sound terrible with a northern accent.

Now Matt Dawson is moaning about the other code.... https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/55120613

Now Matt Dawson is moaning about the other code.... https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/55120613

We're back to "speed of the game" being the one and only criteria. If we take it to the ultimate it'll just become a game of who can run the fastest and who can tackle the hardest, which, to a point, it has already become. The proper contested scrum added another dimension to the game and allowed a set piece that took the forwards out of the game and concentrated on the attacking skills of the half pack pair and the threequarter line up for a period. It brought about additional skill requirements of the loose forward, hooker, props and scrum halves which have become redundant in today's game. The game can only sustain so many change s before it becomes a different game altogether.
So, I'm all for proper contested scrums with strict discipline from the referee and a "shot clock" of 20 seconds.

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