Jump to content

Anyone miss scrums in the GF?


Recommended Posts

If scrums return,they have to be meaningful.

Bringing 12 players loosely together,for a winger to put the ball in,a scrum half to pick it up at the back and pass it to a prop at first receiver,whilst the pack breaks up with the ball in the 'scrum' and the back line moving up before the ball leaves the 'group of loosely gathered together players',is not a scrum,its a farce.

By the way,why are water carriers constantly on the pitch,giving instructions to players but not actually handing out any water. Again,just looks cheap and unprofessional.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Definitely think the reasoning given this season was a bit of a convenient lie so that we could see what the game looks like without them. I don't miss them at all. 

Yes for scrums. I also like the NRL rule allowing scrums to take place 10m, 20m or halfway in. There have been a lot of tries from scrums this year.

Anyone miss offloads , chips over , grubbers through and line breaks in the GF ? 😉

Posted Images

3 minutes ago, cookey said:

By the way,why are water carriers constantly on the pitch,giving instructions to players but not actually handing out any water. Again,just looks cheap and unprofessional.

That is one thing they need getting rid of . In the NRL I basically know all the trainers because I see them that often ... from kick off someone is literally running on 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I missed them, I think the game is poorer for not having them. 

I have really enjoyed this season, so I am loathe to focus on a negative, but for the first time, I do feel that I can see what some of the naysayers say about RL, that it is repetitive and a little like British Bulldog. 

The Grand Final was utterly absorbing, but there were large parts of the game where it was not far off 5 drives and a floated kick to the corner. This wasn't such an issue in a game like the GF which was being played at such a high standard and had huge stakes on the line, but I miss some of the variety.

If every game, or even a large proportion of games were like the Grand Final, I'd agree with you that it is at risk of becoming repetitive, but they not all like that. Only this season, under the same rules, in our other show piece event, the Challenge Cup Final, we had what I thought was the best final for many years. I think, just like the Grand Final, it was a classic, but for very different reasons.

The only game I can think of that was like this years Grand Final was the Wigan V Manly game and that didn't have the dramatic finish

  • Like 1

100% League 0% Union

Just because I don't know doesn't mean I don't understand

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Cumbrian Fanatic said:

If every game, or even a large proportion of games were like the Grand Final, I'd agree with you that it is at risk of becoming repetitive, but they not all like that. Only this season, under the same rules, in our other show piece event, the Challenge Cup Final, we had what I thought was the best final for many years. I think, just like the Grand Final, it was a classic, but for very different reasons.

The only game I can think of that was like this years Grand Final was the Wigan V Manly game and that didn't have the dramatic finish

Yes, the GF was an extreme example, but the British Bulldog repetitive point was about the game in general even where we see tries. It is very back and forward and repetitive, just at times with more clinical finishing. 

As I say I am still enjoying it very much, and the Cup Final was actually a much better game than the Grand Final, but we need to be careful when removing variety from the game. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Yes, the GF was an extreme example, but the British Bulldog repetitive point was about the game in general even where we see tries. It is very back and forward and repetitive, just at times with more clinical finishing. 

As I say I am still enjoying it very much, and the Cup Final was actually a much better game than the Grand Final, but we need to be careful when removing variety from the game. 

I completely agree with this. What we have done with Rugby League over the years through design (and to some degree through necessity this year) is to distill it down to the core elements that we enjoy.

This is not to say the game is simple - far from it, it is extremely complex when understood - but to the uninitiated it does look simple.

We have to accept that the variety of a line out or a scrum allows the casual viewer to see who is winning possession etc and they allow people to see the 'small battles' that may be less obvious in a game of League. We may consider these elements unnecessary and getting in the way of 'real rugby' but we run a real risk here of assuming that what we like is what everyone will like

For my own enjoyment of Rugby League I am ok if I never see a scrum again. For the benefit of the sport I would say keep them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dunbar said:

I completely agree with this. What we have done with Rugby League over the years through design (and to some degree through necessity this year) is to distill it down to the core elements that we enjoy.

This is not to say the game is simple - far from it, it is extremely complex when understood - but to the uninitiated it does look simple.

We have to accept that the variety of a line out or a scrum allows the casual viewer to see who is winning possession etc and they allow people to see the 'small battles' that may be less obvious in a game of League. We may consider these elements unnecessary and getting in the way of 'real rugby' but we run a real risk here of assuming that what we like is what everyone will like

For my own enjoyment of Rugby League I am ok if I never see a scrum again. For the benefit of the sport I would say keep them.

I think one of the biggest mistakes we have made is the 7 tackle rule. I think this leads to many sets finishing within the opposition Red zone which leads to 6 solid plays and a floated kick which often gives good results. 

I think going back to 6 tackles meaning yardage is harder to achieve would take us back to a bit more creativity to break defences, but we have doubled down by giving cheap 7 tackle-sets starting on the 20m line. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Godzilla said:

This may be because teams have realised they can slow the game down by standing offside for 30 seconds at every hand over while the clock runs down, very exciting...

That's bout the scrums, my comment was around the set restarts following PTB interference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think one of the biggest mistakes we have made is the 7 tackle rule. I think this leads to many sets finishing within the opposition Red zone which leads to 6 solid plays and a floated kick which often gives good results. 

I think going back to 6 tackles meaning yardage is harder to achieve would take us back to a bit more creativity to break defences, but we have doubled down by giving cheap 7 tackle-sets starting on the 20m line. 

 

Although the idea was to try to make the kick more accurate and not land within the in goal area as a mad free for all.. or just kicking long... perhaps this hasnt worked but would be interested to know how many 7 tackle sets per match we get on average. i doubt it is that many.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, RP London said:

Although the idea was to try to make the kick more accurate and not land within the in goal area as a mad free for all.. or just kicking long... perhaps this hasnt worked but would be interested to know how many 7 tackle sets per match we get on average. i doubt it is that many.

Coupled with the zero tackle on a turnover from an error I think it may be more than we think. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Coupled with the zero tackle on a turnover from an error I think it may be more than we think. 

does that one still exist?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Yes, your first tackle when you gather the ball is zero. 

cheers thought that had gone.. thought it was at the same time as the experimental free tackle.. but must be mistaken.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree re scrums and water carriers.

To be honest I havent missed scrums too much. However they should be restored if supported proerly by the officials , players and coaches. It does add potential variety to a game which some outsiders could view as one dimensional and attritional.

The point about better management of the water carriers is a really good one.

In recent years I have taken non RL people to big games ( WCC 2017 Wigan v Cronulla; GF 2019 Saints v Salford) and eventhough they were generally impressed with the game overall, they were staggered , and dismayed at the 'involvement' of the water carriers. Perhaps because I am used to their involvment, it was interesting to see another point of view.

Clean up the scrums, limit the water carriers to being water carriers  

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, dkw said:

I dont miss them in the slightest, but if they bring them back i hope its only for the ball going into touch and not for knock ons.

i'd go the other way to be honest.. knock ons and forward passes.. puts a bit more pressure on.. kicks i dont see getting you the potential attacking play.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Until the time comes when the NRL decides it wants rid of scrums, scrums have to stay as an integral feature of the sport in the Northern Hemisphere. The reality is that the NRL is the main player in RL worldwide, their administrators seem to do a decent job, and if the NRL says keep the scrum, think it should only have forwards in it, and you can choose to take it at different points across the field, then that is good enough for me.

I understand they (scrums) are not to everyone's taste but how you can claim to be a global sport when you effectively have at least two if not three rule books (UK, NRL, International) perplexes me slightly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Tonka said:

I didn't miss them at all.

Get rid.  If don't ever have to hear a Union fan say the scrums in League are a joke again, count me in.

They have their own mega scrum problems......

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Tonka said:

If don't ever have to hear a Union fan say the scrums in League are a joke again

That's because when they one you can have a conversation on the phone or go to the bar or toilet and it won't have finished till you return.

But you're spot on what's to miss.

The point about Oz being the main players is debatable but they are influential and they've been talking about getting rid of them for decades so it was odd that they were left behind when the call needed making.

 

"They are what we thought they were." Danny Green

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pie tries said:

They have their own mega scrum problems......

Yes, they have gone too far in making it almost a ceremonial sacrilege event rather than just a functional part of the game, but that is just part of them keeping forwards as the most important part of their game. We have taken a more sensible approach IMHO of using it as a means of restarting the game quickly, and I think that should continue, maybe with minor tweaks. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Dave T said:

I think one of the biggest mistakes we have made is the 7 tackle rule. I think this leads to many sets finishing within the opposition Red zone which leads to 6 solid plays and a floated kick which often gives good results. 

I think going back to 6 tackles meaning yardage is harder to achieve would take us back to a bit more creativity to break defences, but we have doubled down by giving cheap 7 tackle-sets starting on the 20m line. 

 

I would like us to keep this rule but tweak it slightly. Attacking kicks from inside the attacking 20m that go dead can be 6 tackle sets. Kicks from outside that zone that go dead to be 7 tackle restarts.

I think it stops punishing teams harshly for attacking kicks, and punishes the negative tactic that the long kick dead used to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/12/2020 at 09:55, DavidM said:

I’d have them . I like the NRL idea of just nominated forwards in scrums . The scrum to me wasn’t the problem , it was the total lack of respect for  , and disintegration of  them so they became a joke . Personally I don’t like the endless turnover , its very ‘ samey ‘ . The scrum is variety and can , and should be , an attacking opportunity for coaches and teams . And it should be a contest for possession , more of which is a good thing 

At the same time we could perhaps consider having the forwards wear jerseys numbered  8 to 13, half backs 6 & 7 etc. and give newcomers to our game a sporting chance at working out what position each player is playing and what they are meant to do.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

At the same time we could perhaps consider having the forwards wear jerseys numbered  8 to 13, half backs 6 & 7 etc. and give newcomers to our game a sporting chance at working out what position each player is playing and what they are meant to do.

I'd go back to this too... how many people walk around with squad name and numbers on their back in RL... football maybe but its not really caught on in RL.. back to 1-17 IMHO

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...