To scrum or not to scrum, that is the question

[Dunbar]

4 hours ago, The Rocket said:

No appetite for getting rid of scrums over here, Parra`s big push and win against the feed yesterday was greeted with much excitement, there has been more tries from scrum plays this year and everyone loves seeing centre on centre  without a second rower standing next to him.

Proceed with the knowledge that scrums aren`t going anywhere over here.

This is my point from earlier in the thread. Unique circumstances are providing a situation that probably wouldn't have come about normally. 

We have one competition excited about developing the sport without scrums (a good proportion of the fans at least) and another excited about what scrums are adding and thinking they could become more competitive. 

I will say again, if we do get to a point (maybe not likely but certainly not inconceivable) that one competition has competitive scrums and one has no scrums, we are working towards two different sports. 

I don't want us as a sport to go anywhere near there and so we should tread carefully. 

[RP London]

4 hours ago, The Rocket said:

No appetite for getting rid of scrums over here, Parra`s big push and win against the feed yesterday was greeted with much excitement, there has been more tries from scrum plays this year and everyone loves seeing centre on centre  without a second rower standing next to him.

Proceed with the knowledge that scrums aren`t going anywhere over here.

How has that happened though, is there a rule tweak that has kept forwards in the scrums etc? Anytime there seems to be a push over here or a chance that the ball could get won against the head the ref blows and resets (which i dont understand). 

If they can get them a bit more competitive with chances of wins against the head (1 a match would be fine!) and forwards stay in the scrum then i'm all for it but they had got to the point of being a bit daft otherwise.

[The Rocket]

5 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

This is my point from earlier in the thread. Unique circumstances are providing a situation that probably wouldn't have come about normally. 

We have one competition excited about developing the sport without scrums (a good proportion of the fans at least) and another excited about what scrums are adding and thinking they could become more competitive. 

I will say again, if we do get to a point (maybe not likely but certainly not inconceivable) that one competition has competitive scrums and one has no scrums, we are working towards two different sports. 

I don't want us as a sport to go anywhere near there and so we should tread carefully. 

You have seen a lot of our games lately whereas I have only seen the highlights reels of yours and therefore hard for me to judge whether had I seen a full SL game whether I would have missed them.

I did think the consensus in the end of that scrum thread was though , they may never be competitive anymore but at least tidy them up. Which I thought wasn`t a bad outcome.

However your initial point , and may I say that you are having a hard time keeping us all focused on, is a subtle and interesting one. It is a form of Rugby League Darwinianism and the divergence of species. Best avoided by more mingling.

Incredible though that Union over here is undergoing the same process as it adopts League rules and attempts to morph into something more like us and develops into a third separate species.

 

[unapologetic pedant]

7 hours ago, The Rocket said:

No appetite for getting rid of scrums over here, Parra`s big push and win against the feed yesterday was greeted with much excitement, there has been more tries from scrum plays this year and everyone loves seeing centre on centre  without a second rower standing next to him.

Proceed with the knowledge that scrums aren`t going anywhere over here.

It wasn`t greeted with excitement by John Morris who seemed astonished that teams were allowed to push in a scrum. He appeared to think something illegal had occurred. This was part of a litany of ludicrous post-game comments, which also included the assertion that a fumbled ball should be called knock-on even if the ball has not travelled forward.

I thought the consensus on the other scrum thread (at least amongst those who want them retained), was that they should be a contest for the quality of possession, not possession itself. With the outside chance that with a big successful push one might be won against the feed.

You can see elsewhere on this thread that some assume that wins against the feed have to actually happen (someone said one a game), for the scrum to be competitive. It can`t be stressed enough that if this were true, there would be as much reason to dispense with the RU scrum as the RL scrum.

We allow one-on-one ball-stealing. If ball steals were rarely if ever to happen, that would not be a good reason for getting rid of the rule. The possibility would still be there. The contest would still be there. The ball-carrier would have to protect the ball. In the same way a pack in a scrum should have to put in some effort to protect their own ball.

[The Rocket]

24 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

It wasn`t greeted with excitement by John Morris who seemed astonished that teams were allowed to push in a scrum. He appeared to think something illegal had occurred.

 

3 hours ago, RP London said:

How has that happened though, is there a rule tweak that has kept forwards in the scrums etc? Anytime there seems to be a push over here or a chance that the ball could get won against the head the ref blows and resets (which i dont understand). 

If they can get them a bit more competitive with chances of wins against the head (1 a match would be fine!) and forwards stay in the scrum then i'm all for it but they had got to the point of being a bit daft otherwise.

Look I don`t want to get sidetracked from the original thread here, as it was interesting enough in itself, but you are both right and the same happens here which really frustrates me as well, A pushover happens and the ref pulls it up, once that surprise element is gone it ain`t gonna happen again.

As far as tweaks go , they are pretty strict with binding and breaking early.

And I understand what you mean about `1 a match`, you`re not necessarily suggesting a yardstick but rather it`s great to know that they can and still do occasionally happen. It gives the scrum a bit of meaning still.

[RP London]

19 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

 

Look I don`t want to get sidetracked from the original thread here, as it was interesting enough in itself, but you are both right and the same happens here which really frustrates me as well, A pushover happens and the ref pulls it up, once that surprise element is gone it ain`t gonna happen again.

As far as tweaks go , they are pretty strict with binding and breaking early.

And I understand what you mean about `1 a match`, you`re not necessarily suggesting a yardstick but rather it`s great to know that they can and still do occasionally happen. It gives the scrum a bit of meaning still.

my bit about the rule tweak was because you mentioned centre running at centre where as here the centres seem to pack down allowing the second rowers (or props) to just take one up again.. would be great to work out how to tie the bigger boys in.. a good shove every so often would probably do it.. if you think you stand a chance of being shoved off the ball if you obviously have the lighter pack then teams will start to not pull the big lads out.. at the moment there is no risk to this. 

i know you can push but the refs just dont seem to like it which is annoying... i've seen hookers strike for it and get told off which is daft 

[The Rocket]

10 minutes ago, RP London said:

my bit about the rule tweak was because you mentioned centre running at centre where as here the centres seem to pack down allowing the second rowers (or props) to just take one up again..

Definitely not happening over here, I think because a lot of teams fancy that their centre one-on-one can beat his man and even in defence sticking a second rower out there may make you even more vulnerable.

P.S. I hate defensive centres, give me an aggresive attacking centre any day.

[RP London]

32 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

Definitely not happening over here, I think because a lot of teams fancy that their centre one-on-one can beat his man and even in defence sticking a second rower out there may make you even more vulnerable.

P.S. I hate defensive centres, give me an aggresive attacking centre any day.

Totally agree re defensive v attacking centres.. 

thats an interesting point on the first bit.. scrums are effective if the coach is prepared to use is as an attacking weapon... perhaps it shows up poor coaching more that we dont use them properly... a good 7-6-centre play should be able to out manoeuvre a second row and prop combination in midfield with an open field around them, keep players bound properly and perhaps we would see it more??

I would like to keep scrums if we could as they are a point back to history and I do think the game could get a bit 1 dimensional if it is just a play the ball re start but they need to be much better than they were pre covid break. 

edit.. i would add i havent felt they have been missed as yet or that the game is 1 dimensional as yet but i wonder if that is because they were so bad before it was basically a play the ball anwyay. 

[dkw]

Ive spoken to 2 people today about the weekends games on Sky, when I asked them both what they thought about there being no scrums both were surprised to realise they hadn't even noticed. I think that is very telling.

[The Rocket]

5 minutes ago, dkw said:

Ive spoken to 2 people today about the weekends games on Sky, when I asked them both what they thought about there being no scrums both were surprised to realise they hadn't even noticed. I think that is very telling.

Think about this. Often in life we take things for granted, especially if we see them all the time, maybe a bit of an annoying workmate, whatever , but if they leave then after a while you realise you miss them. Gone is forever. We must think carefully about getting rid of the scrum, we may well find in six months or two years that we really miss it. Even for that bit of novelty.

[unapologetic pedant]

1 hour ago, The Rocket said:

 

Look I don`t want to get sidetracked from the original thread here, as it was interesting enough in itself, but you are both right and the same happens here which really frustrates me as well, A pushover happens and the ref pulls it up, once that surprise element is gone it ain`t gonna happen again.

As far as tweaks go , they are pretty strict with binding and breaking early.

And I understand what you mean about `1 a match`, you`re not necessarily suggesting a yardstick but rather it`s great to know that they can and still do occasionally happen. It gives the scrum a bit of meaning still.

Thinking that any scrums have to be won against the feed to justify their existence is the problem. It always was. All the cheating that used to be ignored was against the feed. Refs would put the heat on the half-back over angled feeds, meantime the opposition pack were breaking every rule with impunity. This was because we started with the premise that wins against the feed were inherently good, however they happened, so not binding was tolerated to bring them about.

Back in the day most wins against the feed were secured in scrums that weren`t scrums. When a team are permitted to not bind in the name of striking against the head, the result is a shambolic heap of bodies, not a scrum.

RU inherited the same idea that scrums are contests for possession. I must have seen a handful of RU scrum wins against the feed in decades (don`t count penalties against the feed, that isn`t a clean contest). RU do not regard this as a reason for getting rid of them. They`ve just adjusted their definition of the contest.

The Eels yesterday deserved to get the ball because they pushed the Sharks off it. More to the point, the Sharks deserved to lose possession because their pack put no effort in to retain it. That`s how it should be. If the ref had reset, it would have been a gross injustice.

[unapologetic pedant]

12 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

Think about this. Often in life we take things for granted, especially if we see them all the time, maybe a bit of an annoying workmate, whatever , but if they leave then after a while you realise you miss them. Gone is forever. We must think carefully about getting rid of the scrum, we may well find in six months or two years that we really miss it. Even for that bit of novelty.

I agree. Furthermore, when any rule change has been made in RL that results in more ball-in-play time or appears to "open the game up" or speed it up, there`s initially a favourable reaction. Then, after we`ve got used to it, we start noticing that some of the variety has gone. That the patterns of play are increasingly the same. That faster doesn`t necessarily mean better.

This happened with the extension from 5 to 10m offside line. At first some people were bowled over by the extra space, quicker tempo, higher scores, saying the games were some of the best they`d ever seen. Didn`t last. They became accustomed to the change, then started moaning about homogeneity. Apropos of this, it`s still early days for six-again.

[The Rocket]

11 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

The Eels yesterday deserved to get the ball because they pushed the Sharks off it. More to the point, the Sharks deserved to lose possession because their pack put no effort in to retain it. That`s how it should be. If the ref had reset, it would have been a gross injustice.

And this is probably why most people who wanted scrums retained just want them to be tidy especially and I agree that any chance of a win against the feed is negligible in a properly set scrum.

However, like arm wrestling, a past time I am sure that you are well familiar with UP, a well disguised feint followed by an almighty shove should still be considered an legitimate way of winning the contest.

[unapologetic pedant]

12 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

And this is probably why most people who wanted scrums retained just want them to be tidy especially and I agree that any chance of a win against the feed is negligible in a properly set scrum.

However, like arm wrestling, a past time I am sure that you are well familiar with UP, a well disguised feint followed by an almighty shove should still be considered an legitimate way of winning the contest.

Surprisingly, I`m not au fait with arm-wrestling. And I fear I`d need more than a "well-disguised feint" to contend with a horny-handed, tractor-driving son of the NSW country soil. Maybe some of those skilful manoeuvres RL hookers were wont to employ.

[Whippet13]

Making scrum's more competitive would be a bad idea for a long list of reasons, including:

1 - Most scrums are for a knock-on, why should the offending team have a chance to get the ball back? This has always puzzled me. 

2 - A decent chance to get the ball back will increase players kicking for touch, that will slow the game down.

3 - It will drive the development of RU-style "pusher" forwards, I can just hear them shouting "heave", no thanks.

4 - A competitive scrum increases injury risk.

The NRL will be reluctant to get rid of scrums as it's a British idea, but I think it'll come if the SL experiment continues to be a success and if V'Landys says he wants it.

[Liverpool Rover]

I would want scrums brought back as they are a feature of rugby and do create space for the team that wins possession to attack the defence. All that happens is that teams have to wait for the defence to get set and then they just take a one up because with a fully set defensive line there is no space.

If they are brought back then they should be enforced properly with scrums being bound properly and everyone in their correct positions so no nonsense like having three quarters packing down.

[Futtocks]

While I am still in favour of (tidied-up and properly enforced) scrums, I must say I noticed their absence a lot less than I thought I would. Early days, though, as we've only had one complete round since lockdown.

[DavidM]

3 hours ago, Whippet13 said:

Making scrum's more competitive would be a bad idea for a long list of reasons, including:

1 - Most scrums are for a knock-on, why should the offending team have a chance to get the ball back? This has always puzzled me. 

2 - A decent chance to get the ball back will increase players kicking for touch, that will slow the game down.

3 - It will drive the development of RU-style "pusher" forwards, I can just hear them shouting "heave", no thanks.

4 - A competitive scrum increases injury risk.

The NRL will be reluctant to get rid of scrums as it's a British idea, but I think it'll come if the SL experiment continues to be a success and if V'Landys says he wants it.

I don’t think any of those reasons are very strong at all . I am a fan of the scrum , not the farce we have , but a properly contested scrum which I’m convinced we can have if we have the will . I doubt there is anymore and we are seeing the beginning of the end of the scrum . I for one think that’s a shame , they should be an intrinsic part of the game but have been so abused over time by officialdom and teams that no one is crying many tears for them unfortunately . I still think it’s a prime attacking opportunity if you choose to use it 

[The Rocket]

20 hours ago, RP London said:

Totally agree re defensive v attacking centres.

Who was your favourite attacking centre? I was a big fan off Mark Gasnier,  with his stutter, step , then acceleration, Terry Hill even though he played for Manly, use to just terrorise his opposite number, I can remember him scoring a try against the Broncos at Brooky once where he ran about 40 metres the last 10 of which he was holding off a Bronco who was trying to drive him into touch. Martin Gleeson was a player I only saw in Test Matches but I remember him seeming to break the line at will with his evasiveness, was a great centre as well. There`s been a few.

[Wholly Trinity]

Effectively, we've got a game-wide scientific experiment going on to decide the future of scrums. A decision needs to be made at the end of the season (across the sport) to decide what form (if any) scrums should take in the future.

I am now firmly in the 'scrap the scrum' camp after initially being reluctant to write off such a fundamental and historic part of the game, risking increased repetitiveness. We'll see what happens. At the moment, I've not missed them.

It would be good to banish them as it would mean finally cutting the apron strings to mother RU. They would find it more difficult to justify banning the game in various countries by asserting it's the same sport. It's the same except only 13 players, no line-outs, no rucks/mauls, no scrums, no flankers, no props, no hookers, no 2nd rowers no locks...

It would give us the chance to rename positions to reflect their modern role. My suggestions:

1. Full back
2. (Right) wing (3/4)
3. (Right) centre (3/4)
4. (Left) centre (3/4)
5. (Left) wing (3/4)
6. (Right) Half(back) or stand-off half or running half or 5/8
7. (Left) Half(back) or centre-half
8. (Right) Middle (forward)
9. Pivot
10. (Left) Middle (forward)
11. (Right) Wide (forward)
12. (Left) Wide (forward)
13. Loose (forward) or 3rd middle (forward)

You could then also make distinctions between tactical positional differences between teams. Do they play with a left and right half or a running half and a centre half? Do they have a loose forward or a 3rd middle?

Other suggestions welcome

 

 

 

[RP London]

7 hours ago, The Rocket said:

Who was your favourite attacking centre? I was a big fan Mark Gasnier,  with his stutter, step , then acceleration, Terry Hill even though he played for Manly, you to just terrorise his opposite number, I can remember him scoring a try against the Broncos at Brooky once where he ran about 40 metres the last 10 of which he was holding off a Bronco who was trying to drive him into touch. Martin Gleeson was a player I only saw in Test Matches but I remember him seeming to break the line at will with his evasiveness, was a great centre as well. There`s been a few.

Good question.. Gasnier was a great player, and just because of the time I was watching an stage of life etc l always enjoyed watching Jamie Lyon. Gleeson was a good player too but always had a soft spot for Keith Senior in that era (not sure you would classify as an attacking centre as such but he could be quite devastating as a big lad with good hands and a fair turn of pace)

[DavidM]

Steve Renouf in his pomp was just something else  , and I’m a huge  Gasnier fan . In fact I can’t think of a better pairing that Gasnier - Cooper . Talk about all bases covered 

[Dunbar]

Slightly before my time but I really enjoy watching clips of Steve Rogers play.

From those I have seen in the flesh, Gene Miles was a perfect wingers centre while over here Garry Schofield and Paul Newlove were both fantastic. 

[unapologetic pedant]

The subject of good centres is sufficiently off-topic to justify mentioning Kevin Iro. He was one of my favourites. Not a great passing centre, but then he often didn`t need his winger, could just go for the line and take multiple defenders over with him.

Ulterior motive for the mention is in connection with the now-locked thread on Polynesian names being hard to spell and pronounce.

When the Iro brothers first played for Wigan, our media bods pronounced the name with an I sound, so we all followed suit. Watching the Lions` tour of NZ in 1990, the local commentators said Ero. This is 3 letters, 2 syllables. Not exactly a tongue-twister. One simple question to the players at the outset from our media would have sufficed. Just a sense that making an effort to get it right was an integral part of their job.

[The Rocket]

Great names there and great memories, every name mentioned have a distinct memory of,  big shiny headed Senior bursting through the line in those night time tests in England (early in the morning over here) Renouf running like the devil was after him, I can still picture everyone of them. I think no.4 is my favourite position on the field.