The Slow Death of the Rugby League Scrum

[Dunbar]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

I still think players will train to be better at scrummaging which promotes players getting better at scrummaging

Yes, I agree with that.  The bit I am questioning is that we shouldn't promote them getting better at scrummaging in order to save their lives.

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Dunbar said:

Yes, I agree with that.  The bit I am questioning is that we shouldn't promote them getting better at scrummaging in order to save their lives.

Personally I don't think the addition of scrummaging would dramatically improve the game, and its sudden introduction would lead to massively uneven scrummaging (universally dangerous which I can personally attest to) and if reintroduced gradually would lead to a decade of u12s union scrums.

[Dunbar]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

Personally I don't think the addition of scrummaging would dramatically improve the game, and its sudden introduction would lead to massively uneven scrummaging (universally dangerous which I can personally attest to) and if reintroduced gradually would lead to a decade of u12s union scrums.

Personally, I think the current scrum makes the sport a laughing stock and if we remove it I think there is a real danger that the sport will become far too repetitive to attract new fans.

I think introducing a few improvements to the current scrum - like ensuring the teams bind properly and ensure the ball is fed into front row (even if crooked) would massively improve the way the scrum is perceived.  And if that introduces a bit of pushing for a team to defend their head and feed then that would be no bad thing either.  

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

Personally, I think the current scrum makes the sport a laughing stock and if we remove it I think there is a real danger that the sport will become far too repetitive to attract new fans.

I think introducing a few improvements to the current scrum - like ensuring the teams bind properly and ensure the ball is fed into front row (even if crooked) would massively improve the way the scrum is perceived.  And if that introduces a bit of pushing for a team to defend their head and feed then that would be no bad thing either.  

Yeah i agree increasing the binding etc. would look more professional. 

I don't buy the too repetitive point though. No one is going to an RL game for the tactical diversity around scrums and no one has been doing that for 30 years at least

[Dunbar]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

Yeah i agree increasing the binding etc. would look more professional. 

I don't buy the too repetitive point though. No one is going to an RL game for the tactical diversity around scrums and no one has been doing that for 30 years at least

We shouldn't be looking at the people who are going though should we.  In order to grow the sport, we should be looking at those who are not going/watching and asking why.

If we are happy with the level of viewing and participation then great, but if not, maybe the lack of tactical diversity is one of the reasons?

[Damien]

1 hour ago, Lowdesert said:

They weren’t similar at all.  Union was a pushfest and RL was as loose as it’s ever been.

I was about to say this.

League scrums were never like Union scrums and never will be. The games are so inherently different that RL players will never be the size of RU forwards and their training and development will never be for a specialist scrum role. Rugby League players need to be much more rounded athletes. That is before you consider 4 players less in the scrum too. The forces applied even in a competitive League scrum would be considerably less than in Union to the extent that they aren't even comparable.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

We shouldn't be looking at the people who are going though should we.  In order to grow the sport, we should be looking at those who are not going/watching and asking why.

If we are happy with the level of viewing and participation then great, but if not, maybe the lack of tactical diversity is one of the reasons?

I agree thats 100% where we should look at in terms of growing the audience for the sport. But I'd struggle to put scrums in my top 50 reasons why the game doesn't get a bigger audience. I say that as a person with a high level of experience in Union too

[Dunbar]

5 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I agree thats 100% where we should look at in terms of growing the audience for the sport. But I'd struggle to put scrums in my top 50 reasons why the game doesn't get a bigger audience. I say that as a person with a high level of experience in Union too

When I speak with people who enjoy sport and don't watch League, the single biggest complaint is that it is too repetitive. 

Whether we think they would like scrums or not, removing them completely is making the game even more repetitive (in perception at least and that's what matters here).

I genuinely don't care about the League scrum. But I do care about our sports popularity and I think there is a massive risk involved in removing it.

[Damien]

15 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Personally, I think the current scrum makes the sport a laughing stock and if we remove it I think there is a real danger that the sport will become far too repetitive to attract new fans.

I think introducing a few improvements to the current scrum - like ensuring the teams bind properly and ensure the ball is fed into front row (even if crooked) would massively improve the way the scrum is perceived.  And if that introduces a bit of pushing for a team to defend their head and feed then that would be no bad thing either.  

This is what I said a few pages back. There are many improvements that can be made that will lead to considerable improvements that will not result in a throwback to the mess of the 70s and before. 

Frankly I find it laughable that people seriously think that somehow clamping down on what happens in the scrum and making it a little more competitive will somehow turn into RU scrums.

[unapologetic pedant]

5 hours ago, Damien said:

I was actually having a look about the scrum and came across this article from about 6 years ago. In it Matt Cleary makes some very good points and actually discusses a lot of the points that people have mentioned. I touched on this point in particular earlier:

Now, sure, if there were a contest for the ball in scrums there would be cheating. Scrums were once arcane, nasty bits of kit. Referees would pluck out penalties against both teams. They were “messy”. But rugby league too often wants “clean”. Rugby league wants perfect. Crisp, completed sets. Video referees. Black-and-white. But some of the best things about sport are random, messy, unscripted. And because players may cheat is surely not a reason not to police it.

Rugby league once had scrums to contest possession. And today, without a way to legally get the ball back from one’s opponent save a one-on-one strip, rugby league has a “sameness” about it.

And, for mine, the depowered, ritual scrum is a factor.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2014/aug/07/breaking-the-law-contested-scrums-rugby-league

The problem with this article is that it fails to realise that completely unpredictable scrums only made sense for the unlimited tackles game.

Lottery scrums and limited possession are a deadly combination. It pretty much guarantees a scrum every six tackles.

Requiring teams to only push against the feed, banning striking against the head, is not just the best way to make the thing itself stable.

For a team to turn six tackles into twelve through a scrum they ought to have to do something special, such as push the opposition back a couple of yards.

In RU almost all wins against the feed come from the referee`s whistle and his best guess as to why it keeps collapsing. In their unlimited possession game these calls get lost in the overall randomness, and nobody objects too much. In limited possession RL this would emphatically not be the case. People would object most strongly, and did, as anyone above a certain age knows.

[Damien]

2 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

The problem with this article is that it fails to realise that completely unpredictable scrums only made sense for the unlimited tackles game.

Lottery scrums and limited possession are a deadly combination. It pretty much guarantees a scrum every six tackles.

Requiring teams to only push against the feed, banning striking against the head, is not just the best way to make the thing itself stable.

For a team to turn six tackles into twelve through a scrum they ought to have to do something special, such as push the opposition back a couple of yards.

In RU almost all wins against the feed come from the referee`s whistle and his best guess as to why it keeps collapsing. In their unlimited possession game these calls get lost in the overall randomness, and nobody objects too much. In limited possession RL this would emphatically not be the case. People would object most strongly, and did, as anyone above a certain age knows.

I disagree and I don't think it guarantees a scrum every six tackles at all. We had competitive scrums for 20 or so years after unlimited tackles were abolished and what you describe was not the case.

Teams will still try to score from kicks, will still try to force goal line dropouts. These are pretty fundamental tactics in todays game. It is also pretty hard to kick accurately into touch and get distance, which is why 40/20s are rare, and teams will still look to get as many yards as possible from kicks on the last. They are not going to concede a great deal of territory with a safer kick into touch when even with competitive scrums they have a slim chance of winning. 

[unapologetic pedant]

16 minutes ago, Damien said:

This is what I said a few pages back. There are many improvements that can be made that will lead to considerable improvements that will not result in a throwback to the mess of the 70s and before. 

Frankly I find it laughable that people seriously think that somehow clamping down on what happens in the scrum and making it a little more competitive will somehow turn into RU scrums.

If the RFL use Covid as a pretext to irreversibly dispense with scrums it will be because they`ve fallen into the misapprehension that it`s either the contested mess we used to have or nothing and lack the wit to realise there is another option. They probably also lack the will to rigorously implement it as we`ve seen with the PTB debacle.

If the raison d`etre of the scrum were that it should be an even, unpredictable contest between hookers there would be as much cogent argument for abandoning them in RU as RL. Yet when has anyone in Union ever suggested this?

3 minutes ago, Damien said:

I disagree and I don't think it guarantees a scrum every six tackles at all. We had competitive scrums for 20 or so years after unlimited tackles were abolished and what you describe was not the case.

Teams will still try to score from kicks, will still try to force goal line dropouts. These are pretty fundamental tactics in todays game. It is also pretty hard to kick accurately into touch and get distance, which is why 40/20s are rare, and teams will still look to get as many yards as possible from kicks on the last. They are not going to concede a great deal of territory with a safer kick into touch when even with competitive scrums they have a slim chance of winning. 

If scrums were random the way the game is played would change drastically. All the risk/reward calculations would be different.

It depends how good a chance teams deem they have in the scrum. A repeat set is more valuable than a few yards. In the past when a team were better than 50/50 in the scrums they did routinely bang the ball over the touchline, even sideways after the handover was introduced. The ball was shifted towards the touchline on the penultimate play for the purpose.

[Blind side johnny]

3 hours ago, Dunbar said:

Sorry, but I find the argument that we cannot try and introduce a more competitive scrum into Rugby League because it will inevitably become like the Union scrum and therefore be potentially life threatening to the players utterly bizarre.

Then we disagree. "Proper" scrums consisting of seriously honed athletes would simply be begging for an accident to happen. I see this as neither sensible nor responsible.

There is clearly a need for changing or improving these restarts and for finding some better form of competition for the ball but I can't see this to be found by looking backwards to what is becoming an archaic practice. I take no interest in nor follow RU but I do believe that they have been facing similar problems of their own in attempting to retain scrummaging whilst controlling its inherent dangers.

[ELBOWSEYE]

3 hours ago, Dunbar said:

 

I very much doubt that a competitive League scrum would evolve to that of Union as its value to the team is simply not the same.

I played league in competetive scrums and union ( when serving a ban) and the biggest difference was the stability the flankers gave thr scrum, without them it would have followed a league scrum in appearance. 

[Damien]

1 hour ago, unapologetic pedant said:

If the RFL use Covid as a pretext to irreversibly dispense with scrums it will be because they`ve fallen into the misapprehension that it`s either the contested mess we used to have or nothing and lack the wit to realise there is another option. They probably also lack the will to rigorously implement it as we`ve seen with the PTB debacle.

If the raison d`etre of the scrum were that it should be an even, unpredictable contest between hookers there would be as much cogent argument for abandoning them in RU as RL. Yet when has anyone in Union ever suggested this?

If scrums were random the way the game is played would change drastically. All the risk/reward calculations would be different.

It depends how good a chance teams deem they have in the scrum. A repeat set is more valuable than a few yards. In the past when a team were better than 50/50 in the scrums they did routinely bang the ball over the touchline, even sideways after the handover was introduced. The ball was shifted towards the touchline on the penultimate play for the purpose.

I certainly agree with your first paragraph  and not many are arguing for a return to the scrums of the 70s. What people have said they want to see certainly will not lead to what you are suggesting. A more competitive scrum where forwards are properly bound does not equate to some sort of 50/50 random toss of the coin. Neither in the days of players retreating 10 yards behind the play the ball are teams going to boot it straight over the side on the 30m line and potentially be defending a set of 6 close to their line and repeat sets from goaline dropouts. My formative RL years were the dying days of the competitive RL scrum and I genuinely never remember thinking to do that as a player. They were an age away from the truly competitive days but players were still bound, still pushed and you were still penalised for blatent feeding. You had a slim chance of winning a scrum against the head but it was certainly possible. I would be in favour of returning to something more akin to that.

For some reason people that want rid of the scrum are arguing for its removal by saying the alternative of a more competitive scrum is some sort of doomsday scrums of the 70s/RU mess. Most people who want scrums to stay do not want that either. What they want are some basic rules to be followed, which will create more space for the backs by keeping players in the scrum and introduce a little more competition for the ball by at least feeding in the middle tunnel. 

Some people like the 40/20 because it adds some unpredictably and rewards risk taking. It could easily be argued that the kicking team should not be guaranteed possession just because they have booted the ball onto touch. It is a fudge and a rule change to address the criticisms the game faces that it is repetitive, criticisms caused by successive rule changes designed to eliminate much of the competition for the ball. Yet I'm certain some of those same people who favour the 40/20 want the scrum scrapped, when a few improvements to the scrum can create the same and arguably be fairer than a 40/20, and are using arguments that could easily apply to that too.

[Dunbar]

41 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

Then we disagree. "Proper" scrums consisting of seriously honed athletes would simply be begging for an accident to happen. I see this as neither sensible nor responsible.

There is clearly a need for changing or improving these restarts and for finding some better form of competition for the ball but I can't see this to be found by looking backwards to what is becoming an archaic practice. I take no interest in nor follow RU but I do believe that they have been facing similar problems of their own in attempting to retain scrummaging whilst controlling its inherent dangers.

There is far more danger (in both codes of rugby) in the tackle than in the scrum.

This story tells the circumstances of 12 players who have died while playing Rugby Union in the last decade. Where there was an injury to blame, they were all caused by head trauma... either tackles or head clashes. None were due to a scrum related injury. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/stories-men-women-children-killed-15199636.amp

Look, this is horrible and I hesitate a little to post it because I don't want to be sensationalist but the bottom line is if health and safety were a consideration we simply wouldn't play Rugby at all.

[unapologetic pedant]

9 hours ago, Damien said:

I certainly agree with your first paragraph  and not many are arguing for a return to the scrums of the 70s. What people have said they want to see certainly will not lead to what you are suggesting. A more competitive scrum where forwards are properly bound does not equate to some sort of 50/50 random toss of the coin. Neither in the days of players retreating 10 yards behind the play the ball are teams going to boot it straight over the side on the 30m line and potentially be defending a set of 6 close to their line and repeat sets from goaline dropouts. My formative RL years were the dying days of the competitive RL scrum and I genuinely never remember thinking to do that as a player. They were an age away from the truly competitive days but players were still bound, still pushed and you were still penalised for blatent feeding. You had a slim chance of winning a scrum against the head but it was certainly possible. I would be in favour of returning to something more akin to that.

For some reason people that want rid of the scrum are arguing for its removal by saying the alternative of a more competitive scrum is some sort of doomsday scrums of the 70s/RU mess. Most people who want scrums to stay do not want that either. What they want are some basic rules to be followed, which will create more space for the backs by keeping players in the scrum and introduce a little more competition for the ball by at least feeding in the middle tunnel. 

Some people like the 40/20 because it adds some unpredictably and rewards risk taking. It could easily be argued that the kicking team should not be guaranteed possession just because they have booted the ball onto touch. It is a fudge and a rule change to address the criticisms the game faces that it is repetitive, criticisms caused by successive rule changes designed to eliminate much of the competition for the ball. Yet I'm certain some of those same people who favour the 40/20 want the scrum scrapped, when a few improvements to the scrum can create the same and arguably be fairer than a 40/20, and are using arguments that could easily apply to that too.

Our positions seem to be broadly similar apart from differing predictions of the effect of unpredictable scrums on the tactics teams will employ.

My first season was 1980/81, and standard practice on sixth-tackle was - defending winger dropped back to deter a longer kick, team in possession made sure they were near the touchline after 5 tackles, then hammered a low-trajectory kick for a gain of about 10 to 15m. And such a kick produced a desultory round of applause which was just a hangover of the values of unlimited tackles days.

This was also with a 5m offside line where yardage was harder to make. If you take where typically a team will now be on tackle 6, which is roughly half-way, I would say that an extra 10 to 15m with a 50/50 chance of regaining possession is the best option. So would it be a 50/50 chance? I saw many a game where, largely through feeding penalties, it would have been a lot better than 50/50.

If scrum contests make sense it will logically follow that one team will be better at winning them than the other, and this is the team who will ensure there`s a scrum at the end of most sets, and totally dominate possession. I wouldn`t mind this if they were packing correctly and only pushing the opposition off the ball. But that is not what used to happen. The push was more in the direction of the touchline than the opposition goal-line.

I`m generally happy with the game as it is now, but I have some sympathy with those who cite the late-80s/early-90s as good to watch. Worth remembering that this was the period when referees stopped consistently enforcing the feeding rule with the effect that the logic of limited possession was able to flourish.

 

[unapologetic pedant]

6 hours ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

I played league in competetive scrums and union ( when serving a ban) and the biggest difference was the stability the flankers gave thr scrum, without them it would have followed a league scrum in appearance. 

In the Auckland RL livestream game last weekend the ref made both front rows pack and bind correctly, and didn`t allow the feed until they had done so in all but one scrum. When this happens the current RL scrum is visually better than the mess of yesteryear, more horizontal and parallel to the goal-line, not skewing towards the touchline. It can be perfectly stable without flankers.

One of the teams even attempted a bit of push. Which of course prompted their opposition at the next scrum to feed at an even wider angle. 

And the RU flankers don`t stop all the collapses.

[HarrogateKnights]

Before the lockdown in 2020 in Super League (according to stats on Super league website) we have had 4 40/20s across all 12 teams with 4 teams on 1 each. When you compare this with attacking kicks in general play the comparisons are outstanding in the same period there have been 719 attacking kicks across Super League, with Warrington top of this list strangely Hull KR are 2nd, more obvious is that Toronto are bottom. Drop goals wise we have 6 so far not surprisingly Hull FC top that list with 3.

Without becoming too American about it with stats etc it seems that space is there towards end of sets after the 40 metre line, as kicks are happening and usually unless time is pressing you wouldn't kick until at least 4th tackle with DGs coming when the kicker is ready and only tactical play (to get 2/3 scores ahead). Also what that stats don't tell you is how many of the kicks were completed, in a sense that their teammate caught the ball or how many it was their tactic to get 5 drives and kick. 

Scrums in league although coaches will try to take advantage of the opportunity with less attackers realistically unless you have a special play the first set will be halted. Are 40/20s not being encouraged as too much risk? You could easily launch it back to the kicker stood on 35 meters to kick a 40/20 as a tactic but getting it wrong isn't the best and doesn't encourage them. Could the scrum be replaced with penalty options either a tap or kick to touch with a tap to follow?

The whole idea of bringing in the tap after a successful 40/20 was to speed up play and give reward to the attacking team. Under the current guise of other scrum restarts, yes the ball is handed back but 35 seconds to form a scrum means the defending team can easily setup and defend

A tap or kick to touch and tap after infringement could easily open rewards for the attacking team. As to the ones saying that it will speed up the game too much, the team can only play to its slowest player if more missed tackles due to being tired there are likely to be more tries which is ultimately what most league viewers want to see. 

[Damien]

Just watching the Wales v Western Samoa 1995 World Cup again. Back then even the scrums were several magnitudes better than what we have now. Players tightly bound until the ball is out, feeding to your side but nothing like today and a little pushing. I wouldn't say competitive but obviously more so than today hence the pushing to stop a team trying to win the ball against the head. I would be delighted to get back to something similar today, which really shouldn't be too difficult to do. They certainly weren't messy, didn't result in countless penalties and weren't a blight on the game either.

[Dunbar]

7 hours ago, Damien said:

Just watching the Wales v Western Samoa 1995 World Cup again. Back then even the scrums were several magnitudes better than what we have now. Players tightly bound until the ball is out, feeding to your side but nothing like today and a little pushing. I wouldn't say competitive but obviously more so than today hence the pushing to stop a team trying to win the ball against the head. I would be delighted to get back to something similar today, which really shouldn't be too difficult to do. They certainly weren't messy, didn't result in countless penalties and weren't a blight on the game either.

Completely agree.  All we need is to return to something that isn't so embarrassing.

And there is a collective blame for letting it get to this point.

Players push the boundaries with the laws and just want 'win' possession.

The ref's let them push and push the boundaries

The games administrators turned a blind eye.

And us fans said the scrum doesn't matter so let's not worry about them.

 But they are a laughing stock and we need to face facts that it makes our sport look stupid.

[unapologetic pedant]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

Completely agree.  All we need is to return to something that isn't so embarrassing.

And there is a collective blame for letting it get to this point.

Players push the boundaries with the laws and just want 'win' possession.

The ref's let them push and push the boundaries

The games administrators turned a blind eye.

And us fans said the scrum doesn't matter so let's not worry about them.

 But they are a laughing stock and we need to face facts that it makes our sport look stupid.

Fans are not blameless. When I first started watching I stood at home games with a group who bellowed "Feeding" at every away team put-in. This translated as "Give our team the ball. We don`t care about the shambles, don`t care whether it makes sense, don`t care whether it`s fair, just give our team the ball". 

Nobody ever wanted to examine the basics of the scrum, how it could be stabilised in itself and the rules devised to fit with the limited possession game. Hence refs and administrators deemed it the least fraught option to just let it wither.

[Man of Kent]

18 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

In the Auckland RL livestream game last weekend the ref made both front rows pack and bind correctly, and didn`t allow the feed until they had done so in all but one scrum.

The one below?  

To be honest the scrums here are doing little more than giving the forwards a rest.

There’s some benefit in that for the players - they aren’t professionals and could do with a breather - but as a viewer I couldn’t honestly say that the spectacle is enhanced by a pernickety ref making sure the scrum is bound properly, particularly when the outcome is a foregone conclusion.

Just bin ‘em.

 

[unapologetic pedant]

6 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

The one below?  

To be honest the scrums here are doing little more than giving the forwards a rest.

There’s some benefit in that for the players - they aren’t professionals and could do with a breather - but as a viewer I couldn’t honestly say that the spectacle is enhanced by a pernickety ref making sure the scrum is bound properly, particularly when the outcome is a foregone conclusion.

Just bin ‘em.

 

I mentioned the scrums in this game as a contrast to both the Andrew Voss picture posted earlier in the thread and the mess of the past. Admittedly it was only the different appearance that struck me, not the substance.

Why "pernickety"? This is the problem now. When so many scrum rules are not enforced it can be seen as "pernickety" when any are.

And again it`s a fair question that if scrums being foregone conclusions (by which I assume you mean that we know which team will get possession) means they`re pointless, why are no RU fans urging "just bin `em".

 

[Man of Kent]

8 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Why "pernickety"? This is the problem now. When so many scrum rules are not enforced it can be seen as "pernickety" when any are.

And again it`s a fair question that if scrums being foregone conclusions (by which I assume you mean that we know which team will get possession) means they`re pointless, why are no RU fans urging "just bin `em".

 

Pernickety packing may have the unintended consequence of players trying to use it to take more of a breather, which is what we’re trying to get away from in terms of fatigue.

RU scrums aren’t a foregone conclusion. Just ask Eddie Jones.