The Slow Death of the Rugby League Scrum

[unapologetic pedant]

1 hour ago, Man of Kent said:

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. 

How are we defining "foregone conclusion"? How many RU scrums are won against the feed, other than via a penalty. If we even regard the award of a scrum penalty as a "win".

[Man of Kent]

1 minute ago, unapologetic pedant said:

How are we defining "foregone conclusion"? How many RU scrums are won against the feed, other than via a penalty. If we even regard the award of a scrum penalty as a "win".

Come on, dude.

RU scrums aren’t an automatic pop-in, pop-out, and off we go. Pushing makes them a genuine contest and an inferior scrummaging pack is a liability. Just ask Eddie Jones.

[unapologetic pedant]

9 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Come on, dude.

RU scrums aren’t an automatic pop-in, pop-out, and off we go. Pushing makes them a genuine contest and an inferior scrummaging pack is a liability. Just ask Eddie Jones.

Throughout this thread the following is what I`ve advocated for the RL scrum.

Front rows bind correctly, parallel to the goal-line. Non-feeding team banned from striking, restricted to pushing. Half feeds his hooker whose foot must make contact with the ball to be regarded as in play. Ball channelled out. Non-feeding pack push, with the ultimate aim of driving the opposition off the ball, but more likely to cause varying degrees of disruption to the quality of their possession.

This would not be "pop-in, pop-out, and off we go" and as you say "pushing makes them a genuine contest". And it strikes the right balance for limited tackles RL, where to win a repeat set or regain possession after committing an error, a team would have to achieve something that was difficult.

Your "just bin `em" is a counsel of despair. Understandable given what we have, and what we used to have, but judged by some criteria could just as easily be applied to the RU scrum.

[Man of Kent]

9 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Throughout this thread the following is what I`ve advocated for the RL scrum.

Front rows bind correctly, parallel to the goal-line. Non-feeding team banned from striking, restricted to pushing. Half feeds his hooker whose foot must make contact with the ball to be regarded as in play. Ball channelled out. Non-feeding pack push, with the ultimate aim of driving the opposition off the ball, but more likely to cause varying degrees of disruption to the quality of their possession.

This would not be "pop-in, pop-out, and off we go" and as you say "pushing makes them a genuine contest". And it strikes the right balance for limited tackles RL, where to win a repeat set or regain possession after committing an error, a team would have to achieve something that was difficult.

Your "just bin `em" is a counsel of despair. Understandable given what we have, and what we used to have, but judged by some criteria could just as easily be applied to the RU scrum.

A full-on six-man heave with a ‘heel’ from the hooker is a lovely thought ‘n’ all but it’s no more than a counsel of a fantasist.

My ‘counsel of despair’ as you call it is borne out of the realisation that we aren’t going back to scrums you suggest - even if they are in the law book (which I don’t believe they are, cf. feeding the hooker). Just bin ‘em.

[Blind side johnny]

40 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Your "just bin `em" is a counsel of despair. Understandable given what we have, and what we used to have, but judged by some criteria could just as easily be applied to the RU scrum.

I would guess that many on here are old enough to remember this when the RFL decided to clamp down on scrum infringements. Hookers were sent to the bin willy nilly for about six weeks then everything just seemed to come to a halt and we reverted to the usual untidy mess. It would seem from that experience that simply penalising infringements doesn't necessarily produce the required results.

[unapologetic pedant]

11 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

A full-on six-man heave with a ‘heel’ from the hooker is a lovely thought ‘n’ all but it’s no more than a counsel of a fantasist.

My ‘counsel of despair’ as you call it is borne out of the realisation that we aren’t going back to scrums you suggest - even if they are in the law book (which I don’t believe they are, cf. feeding the hooker). Just bin ‘em.

If we adopted the scrum rules I, and a few others, have advocated, we wouldn`t be going back as your allusion to the "law book" illustrates. These rules have never been in the book. And in practice scrums have always been either uncontested or a crass contest.

I don`t understand why you won`t objectively assess what`s being put forward since it`s very similar to the RU scrum which you do seem to recognise the value of. You just want rid, period. I suppose if the scrum nihilism is due to a lack of faith in our administrators to manage the process, I can`t but sympathise. But that does not mean it isn`t possible with wit and will.

Oh, and I overlooked earlier that you said "dude". Dear oh dear. Might come back to that.

[Big Picture]

12 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Throughout this thread the following is what I`ve advocated for the RL scrum.

Front rows bind correctly, parallel to the goal-line. Non-feeding team banned from striking, restricted to pushing. Half feeds his hooker whose foot must make contact with the ball to be regarded as in play. Ball channelled out. Non-feeding pack push, with the ultimate aim of driving the opposition off the ball, but more likely to cause varying degrees of disruption to the quality of their possession.

This would not be "pop-in, pop-out, and off we go" and as you say "pushing makes them a genuine contest". And it strikes the right balance for limited tackles RL, where to win a repeat set or regain possession after committing an error, a team would have to achieve something that was difficult.

Your "just bin `em" is a counsel of despair. Understandable given what we have, and what we used to have, but judged by some criteria could just as easily be applied to the RU scrum.

If the forwards bind, crouch and engage correctly neither hooker will be striking for the ball because of the angle of their bodies to the ground.  The only way a scrum will be won then is by pushing as in RU which is what I'd like to see in our game.

[Man of Kent]

3 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

I don`t understand why you won`t objectively assess what`s being put forward since it`s very similar to the RU scrum which you do seem to recognise the value of. You just want rid, period. I suppose if the scrum nihilism is due to a lack of faith in our administrators to manage the process, I can`t but sympathise. But that does not mean it isn`t possible with wit and will.

 

I think we should leave scrums to rugby union.

The more that we’re ‘rugby without the boring bits’ to attract new fans the better. 

Scrums cheapen rugby league to the newcomer as looks like we’re sort-of imitating union but in a perfunctory, purposeless, inferior way. Get rid.

[SSoutherner]

On 13/07/2020 at 19:17, 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. 

Absolutely

My daughter played U15 girls rugby union which used to be 13 aside with no flankers - to make the scrum stable and safe they had to amend the laws to ensure 2nd row binding was around the hip rather than between the legs of the props to "hold them in".

When they played a team from Hampshire (who due to the vagueries of RU had changed their mini's rules several years before other counties and so even the girls who had played with the boys had no experience of scrums AT ALL) the scrums had to go uncontested after the 2nd one as in both scrums the opposition prop was injured as their front row splintered apart with no flanker to hold thenm in and poor binding

 

[SSoutherner]

8 hours ago, Big Picture said:

If the forwards bind, crouch and engage correctly neither hooker will be striking for the ball because of the angle of their bodies to the ground.  The only way a scrum will be won then is by pushing as in RU which is what I'd like to see in our game.

As i said before - if you went to "contested hook no shove" then you would have a more upright front row, with the other fwds just bound enough to control a hooked ball - that would ensure no early break of bind which give more space ot the backs and give a modicum of contest which would increase  "excitement"

If a hooker spotted the oppo's loose fwds were not binding paying attention on their put in the obvious tactic is to try and kick the ball fwd (easier than a hook against the head) chances are it would ping off a leg and be bobbling around making it harder for oppos half to deal with maybe leading to a Knockon

[Damien]

5 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

I think we should leave scrums to rugby union.

The more that we’re ‘rugby without the boring bits’ to attract new fans the better. 

Scrums cheapen rugby league to the newcomer as looks like we’re sort-of imitating union but in a perfunctory, purposeless, inferior way. Get rid.

The funny thing is some people find the repetitive 5 drives and a kick, with little variation or contest for possession, the boring bits.

[Man of Kent]

4 minutes ago, Damien said:

The funny thing is some people find the repetitive 5 drives and a kick, with little variation or contest for possession, the boring bits.

Swing low, sweet chariot!

[Blind side johnny]

13 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

 

I think we should leave scrums to rugby union.

The more that we’re ‘rugby without the boring bits’ to attract new fans the better. 

Scrums cheapen rugby league to the newcomer as looks like we’re sort-of imitating union but in a perfunctory, purposeless, inferior way. Get rid.

I broadly agree. However, as others have pointed out, the original purpose of the scrum was to challenge for possession. With the impending implementation of the "six again" rule we are in danger of reverting to the unlimited tackles scenario, which I personally believe would be unwelcome.

In other words changing or eradicating the scrums might well be a good idea but only within a review of its broader implications. We don't want to be altering the rules every verse end do we - that wouldn't be the RL way, at all.

[Dunbar]

Maybe someone has been reading this thread but NRL.com have weighed in to the debate and have a poll here....

https://www.nrl.com/news/2020/07/21/for--against-scrums---do-we-still-need-them/

Pretty much the same debate as on here. Everyone agrees the scrum is a farce and one argues to fix it and one to bin it.

At the time of posting, the poll is in favour of keeping the scrum (59% to 41%).

[unapologetic pedant]

6 hours ago, Dunbar said:

Maybe someone has been reading this thread but NRL.com have weighed in to the debate and have a poll here....

https://www.nrl.com/news/2020/07/21/for--against-scrums---do-we-still-need-them/

Pretty much the same debate as on here. Everyone agrees the scrum is a farce and one argues to fix it and one to bin it.

At the time of posting, the poll is in favour of keeping the scrum (59% to 41%).

From this article, Wally Lewis - "They have it still in RU that the team feeding the ball has the first strike at it". I think most posters on this thread have agreed with this argument for RL.

Not sure whether this is actually specified for the scrum in the RU rulebook or just the natural consequence of its construction.

It would have to be legislated for in the League scrum, and is the central starting point, along with correct binding, if we`re to have any chance of restoring contested scrums, without also bringing back the mess.

[Robin Evans]

I haven't read this entire thread. I've harped on for ages about seeing a bit more "competition" in the scrum.

I think I may be in a small minority.

[Kayakman]

12 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

From this article, Wally Lewis - "They have it still in RU that the team feeding the ball has the first strike at it". I think most posters on this thread have agreed with this argument for RL.

Not sure whether this is actually specified for the scrum in the RU rulebook or just the natural consequence of its construction.

It would have to be legislated for in the League scrum, and is the central starting point, along with correct binding, if we`re to have any chance of restoring contested scrums, without also bringing back the mess.

Of course the feeding teams hooker is closer due to the binding of the props....just modify the rule to a 1 m snap shove...that way the feeding team usually wins ball but the opposition can have a go at it...I've seen it work many times. 

The game moves along quickly also.

That would clean up most things and bring a competitive scrum back into the game.

[Scubby]

Misread the thread title then disappointed it hadn't kicked off! Turns out it said ScRum

[unapologetic pedant]

43 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

Of course the feeding teams hooker is closer due to the binding of the props....just modify the rule to a 1 m snap shove...that way the feeding team usually wins ball but the opposition can have a go at it...I've seen it work many times. 

The game moves along quickly also.

That would clean up most things and bring a competitive scrum back into the game.

The feeding team`s hooker should be closer, but that depends on the front rows binding correctly. Check out some footage from yesteryear and you will see that often that did not happen. Sometimes front rows made no attempt to bind at all, never mind correctly.

There was also the problem of hookers reaching so far forward that they stopped the ball going anywhere. This would lead to our version of the Union repeated collapse. Half releases ball, ball travels an inch, touches hookers foot, comes straight back to half, ref makes them do it again. This happens three times, then happens a fourth, this time ref either penalises or plays on. Much the same as the Union - collapse, collapse, collapse, fourth time - penalise or play on.

[Kayakman]

5 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

The feeding team`s hooker should be closer, but that depends on the front rows binding correctly. Check out some footage from yesteryear and you will see that often that did not happen. Sometimes front rows made no attempt to bind at all, never mind correctly.

There was also the problem of hookers reaching so far forward that they stopped the ball going anywhere. This would lead to our version of the Union repeated collapse. Half releases ball, ball travels an inch, touches hookers foot, comes straight back to half, ref makes them do it again. This happens three times, then happens a fourth, this time ref either penalises or plays on. Much the same as the Union - collapse, collapse, collapse, fourth time - penalise or play on.

Front rows don't bind correctly...one warning...then automatic penalty...they know the game.

If it is only a 1m snap shove the props can easily clean up the ball after it comes from the hookers foot.  The props don't need to be concerned about the collapse since it is only a 1 m shove....this is the rule in schoolboys over here and the sole purpose was to stop any collapsed scrums...it works wonderfully and solves the problem full stop.