RFL law changes for Super League restart

[koli]

I'd consider making the forwards hold in a contained position for say 20 secs or so after the ball is tapped.

No need to bind or push just down on one knee front row,second row,loose fwd.

If you want something contested

take the line of scrimmage from American football.

 

[Dunbar]

There are hundreds of tackles a game in Rugby League where the players come in close physical contact.

I find the idea of removing the scrums to stop the potential spread of the virus between the players to be a strange one given the nature of the game.

[paulwalker71]

26 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

There are hundreds of tackles a game in Rugby League where the players come in close physical contact.

I find the idea of removing the scrums to stop the potential spread of the virus between the players to be a strange one given the nature of the game.

It's window dressing isn't it? It seems like it's being done to make it seem like the RFL is 'doing something'..

As people have said, there is FAR more close contact with the constant 'wrestling' that has crept into our game than ever happens with the modern-day farce that passes for 'scrummaging'

[dkw]

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

No. I prefer the Glee option.

They dance Single Ladies.

Needs to be a call out dance off like the old breakdance movies. OOh, you got served Liam.

[dkw]

9 minutes ago, paulwalker71 said:

It's window dressing isn't it? It seems like it's being done to make it seem like the RFL is 'doing something'..

As people have said, there is FAR more close contact with the constant 'wrestling' that has crept into our game than ever happens with the modern-day farce that passes for 'scrummaging'

I was wondering if its something to do with the vacinity of peoples mouths in the scrum, something that isnt happening at every tackle? But its more likely just something that can be highlighted as making an effort. 

I`m not upset at all at the removal of the scrum though, I think its a natural progression of the game anyway as its pretty much only there because its always been there, it has no impact on a game at all.

[DavidM]

You can still some get really good scrum moves that lead to great tries . Personally I’d miss the scrum for all its ridiculous idiosyncrasies nowadays . In fact I’d go back to the future and make the halfback put it in straight and have the packs contesting for the ball . It should be a contest and became a joke when it became an orchestrated hugfest . The odd occasion you see a team shove is a joy to watch .... until the ref is so shocked he penalises them or orders a reset until they do it right ( ie just lean on them until they throw it through the loose forwards legs )

[mrfranco]

4 hours ago, Dunbar said:

There are hundreds of tackles a game in Rugby League where the players come in close physical contact.

I find the idea of removing the scrums to stop the potential spread of the virus between the players to be a strange one given the nature of the game.

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

 

[Dunbar]

4 minutes ago, mrfranco said:

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

 

Fist of all, let me say experts are experts for a reason and we should absolutely follow their advice.

But purely for my own understanding, I would like to know how the number of 132 instances of close contact in every scrum is derived. 

[dkw]

15 minutes ago, DavidM said:

You can still some get really good scrum moves that lead to great tries . Personally I’d miss the scrum for all its ridiculous idiosyncrasies nowadays . In fact I’d go back to the future and make the halfback put it in straight and have the packs contesting for the ball . It should be a contest and became a joke when it became an orchestrated hugfest . The odd occasion you see a team shove is a joy to watch .... until the ref is so shocked he penalises them or orders a reset until they do it right ( ie just lean on them until they throw it through the loose forwards legs )

Those moves are very very rare now, it's got to a point where forwards stand out of the scrum and wingers feed it. That shows how teams use it now. 

[DavidM]

2 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Fist of all, let me say experts are experts for a reason and we should absolutely follow their advice.

But purely for my own understanding, I would like to know how the number of 132 instances of close contact in every scrum is derived. 

Try celebrations are still allowed and rugby league equals close contact for 80 minutes so I’m not sure on that  that medical advice tbh . You get an ok to play the game on so you just play the game 

[mrfranco]

2 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Fist of all, let me say experts are experts for a reason and we should absolutely follow their advice.

But purely for my own understanding, I would like to know how the number of 132 instances of close contact in every scrum is derived. 

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

[DavidM]

6 minutes ago, dkw said:

Those moves are very very rare now, it's got to a point where forwards stand out of the scrum and wingers feed it. That shows how teams use it now. 

Oh you can see them with the fullback chiming in to give the overlap . That’s well prepared in training , I like that among so much that’s structured and samey . Of course we’re talking near the line on a set play , I get your point that many are a travesty of what they’re meant to be 

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, mrfranco said:

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

I would argue the warm up drills and grappling practice in the dressing room before the game represent more close contact than a scrum.

On a wider note, the only way we can bring our sport back safely is to ensure to the very best of our abilities that no one taking the field has the virus (as they have in Australia) rather than amend the laws of the game.

[TheReaper]

5 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Fist of all, let me say experts are experts for a reason and we should absolutely follow their advice.

But purely for my own understanding, I would like to know how the number of 132 instances of close contact in every scrum is derived. 

I'm guessing it's something like that each of 12 players is in close contact with 11 other players, 12 x 11 = 132. I don't think that's quite right since you'd be counting each players "contact" both ways, but maybe it counts the halfback?

1st player in contact with 12 players = 12

2nd player in contact with 11 other players (since we counted him with the first player already) = 11

etc, etc

12 + 11 + 10 + 9 + 8 + 7 + 6 + 5 + 4 + 3 + 1 = 75 

Not quite there but it is a high number I suppose.

I agree with others, if it's "safe" to tackle/pin/wrestle then it's "safe" to scrum. The virus could still transmit at any incidence of contact.

 

"Looking like we're doing something", without evidence of it being effective, has led to a lot of stupid decision over the last few months. Closing parks etc. 

[Dunbar]

1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

I assume it would be the 12 combinations of contact each of the other 11 forwards would have.

Well that means the figure is invalid. How much contact do players packing into the second row have with each other... never mind those packing at loose forward.  I accept that the scrum is a contact point but let's use realistic data based on how the game is played.

[DavidM]

Surely non of these players should be playing with the virus anyway with all the protocols in place 

[DoubleD]

7 hours ago, DavidM said:

Agreed . I don’t like the third man in tackle in this situation . JWH is a third man tackle merchant 

He learnt the art from his countryman Isaac Luke

[Damien]

34 minutes ago, mrfranco said:

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

 

Seem to be some very selective figures in use there.

The vast majority of tackles are nothing like one on one. A typical tackle would be made by 3 people and would also obviously involve the tackled player and an acting half and there are hundreds of tackles in a game.

A scrum would only involve 6 players in close contact, not really much different than an average tackle.

I'm not sure if those medical experts actually know much about the game and how it is played.

[DoubleD]

39 minutes ago, DavidM said:

You can still some get really good scrum moves that lead to great tries . Personally I’d miss the scrum for all its ridiculous idiosyncrasies nowadays . In fact I’d go back to the future and make the halfback put it in straight and have the packs contesting for the ball . It should be a contest and became a joke when it became an orchestrated hugfest . The odd occasion you see a team shove is a joy to watch .... until the ref is so shocked he penalises them or orders a reset until they do it right ( ie just lean on them until they throw it through the loose forwards legs )

Fully agree David............I like scrum plays and coaches working new set pieces off them. I also like teams that do a surprise push to try and win possession. I don't mind if the number of instances that end up with a scrum decrease but I'd like them to still play a part

[DoubleD]

Based upon the impact of 6 again down under, I can see some of the less mobile teams suffering most - the likes of Toronto, Hull and Catalans in my view.

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Close Enough, I'd guess more players are close for longer at a scrum for not really a necessary benefit. 

I'd think logically that it doesnt really negate the risk because players will obviously still tackle but if it mitigates it little for little cost...

The amount of close contact Rugby League players have with each other pre, during and post game is enormous.  If we think that scrapping the scrum will have any effect then we are deluded and we shouldn't even be thinking about restarting the sport.

[Liverpool Rover]

Scrums do give space for the team in possession to attack the defensive line so I wouldn’t mind them being brought back next year, only this time have it enforced that forwards are in the scrum and no half backs or wingers like you can get now.

[Damien]

9 minutes ago, DoubleD said:

Based upon the impact of 6 again down under, I can see some of the less mobile teams suffering most - the likes of Toronto, Hull and Catalans in my view.

And that is why I'm against rule changes of this nature mid season. A game of Rugby League is hugely influenced by rules and interpretations and its not fair on teams that have recruited for the season based on a set of rules, and a type of game, to then have this changed mid season for no good reason.

[DoubleD]

3 minutes ago, Damien said:

And that is why I'm against rule changes of this nature mid season. A game of Rugby League is hugely influenced by rules and interpretations and its not fair on teams that have recruited for the season based on a set of rules, and a type of game, to then have this changed mid season for no good reason.

So I don't mind if relegation is abandonned..............however I do agree with your sentiments generally

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

Seem to be some very selective figures in use there.

The vast majority of tackles are nothing like one on one. A typical tackle would be made by 3 people and would also obviously involve the tackled player and an acting half and there are hundreds of tackles in a game.

A scrum would only involve 6 players in close contact, not really much different than an average tackle.

I'm not sure if those medical experts actually know much about the game and how it is played.

I don't know if I was imagining it but in the first two rounds of NRL since restarting I've seen a lot less "head to head niggle", both in the tackle and on the floor. In some tackles its looked like players were actively avoiding eachothers heads. Like I say I don't know if that true, or even if it is true whether its new guidelines or just subconsciously doing it.