mrfranco

It's due to time spent in Scandinavia (and Canada) when I was a much younger man!!

Personally, I don't see that scrums as we currently have them add anything much to the game - a chance for a small rest is about it. Therefore I don't think we will miss them as the rest of this season plays out - but let's judge that as we watch the season and at the end of it. There's a big but coming though... BUT, we all know that as far as rule changes go the English game these days tends to just fall into line with whatever the NRL does, and no-one seems keener on that than Robert Elstone. So, even if we play out this season and decide it was a positive change, unless the movers and shakers in the NRL see it and decide to adopt the change as well, I think we'll be back to 'as you were' on scrums come next season.

But you understand why though, right? Cos if you grow up in a UK RL community the two sports are known as "rugby" and "union" (if not something more derogatory). From our perspective it's really shocking when you hear Aussies and others referring to union as just "rugby", because we are all interested in proper rugby and don't think that other sport where it's all about waiting for a scrum to collapse so you can kick a penalty and lots of booting the ball into touch really deserves to be called rugby at all. (And yes, I can understand your POV and the points above about brand awareness to get new people to watch the right game and not get put off our sport by watching a different one, I just wanted to make sure you get why we call it just "rugby" over here.)

Anyone know why the TRL site tells me I have one free article left to read but still won't let me read this? It offers the option to log in but that is only for premium accounts - is this article premium only? And also to Angelic Cynic - is it the bloke in the Saudi article?

I can well understand the doubts about this project, much more so than Ottawa or TWP, but we've got to let the RFL officials do their job on that and only have the club approved to join the league when it's got all its ducks in a row. I'm nervous for its chances of succeeding in a tough marketplace, but if they pass the due diligence they should be allowed in and I will wish them well. Listening to the podcast, it sounds like it will be more of a New Jersey club than a NYC one. Not only will they be playing in NJ, sounds like they will be based there. The 4 development officers will be working there. They will be focusing on trying to engage the local communities in NJ, rather than NYC. It sounds like the plan is: get the kids playing in schools, get the players to visit schools and run training camps, etc. Then get the kids to drag their folks along to an NYC game and try and give them all a game-day experience that makes the whole family want to come back. And target the local communities close to the stadium in NJ for marketing to come to games too. All very positive, and sensible. The New York name is used because, obviously, it's so much more attractive from a marketing point of view, especially internationally. SO they use the NY name to attract more people to come over and watch a game, and to flog more merchandise - and to attract players too - but it sounds to me like on the ground the club will actually be focusing its efforts more locally in New Jersey. And that's a good thing.

Namely?

Of course, but they managed to pull an English team out of the hat!

No French team?

Ha, thanks yes - was just a little joke about all the lines in the pitch... Guess it needed a bit more context!!

Is that Lamport??

Unless it's a typo for 12 (12 men).... I guess it's the fact that it's 11 close contacts for each of the 12 men. OK, how much contact do the two back rows have with each other, so perhaps it should be somewhere less than 132, but you can still see it's a lot of close contacts you can do away with at a stroke without impacting on the game too much, so I think it makes sense

My initial response was something similar, but after reading the following lines in the Guardian article on this, I think it's just a sensible move. "Medical experts displayed evidence suggesting removing scrums would considerably reduce the threat of exposure and transmission of Covid-19, with the hearing informed that if a one-on-one tackle constitutes one occurrence of close contact, a single scrum represents 132 instances. With 12 scrums per game on average in Super League this season, that results in more than 1,500 occasions of close contact in every fixture." When you put that together with the close proximity of faces in every scrum and the fact that the modern RL scrum is pretty much a chocolate fireguard anyway, it strikes me as a good move. -- Article: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/jun/11/rugby-league-scrums-may-be-scrapped-over-risk-of-spreading-coronavirus

Is he going to be correct about them losing the 2104 final though? I wonder who it will be against?

Yep, this. I was about to post something very similar.

Yes exactly, everybody has something to play for. Good chance for French and Welsh players to show what they can do against England too...