Anyone missing scrums?

[DavidM]

38 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

In relation to your wider point about defences deeming it an advantage to concede 6-again early in the count. Refs are instructed to deem it a professional foul, and use the sin-bin accordingly.

No that’s incorrect as they don’t , there’d be half a dozen sin bins a game . Andrew Voss said in comms recently the sin bin is for either three 6 agains in quick succession , or three then a binning as it was utilised in that game 

[Bostik Bailey]

26 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Only in League do people assume "contested" has to mean a contest for possession, in which scrums have to go against the feed to justify their existence. RU demonstrates that the scrum can be seen largely as a contest for the quality of possession. 

Well go and watch Union then. The RL scrum has been dying a slow death, to resurrect it now will lead to players (and refs)  not being certain of the rules and more ‘gamesmanship’ trying to milk a penalty. If that is what you want you know which sport will give it to you. 
 

the scrum is just a way to restart the game after a mistake by a team, why should we reward the mistake by giving the team a fair chance to get the ball back (or give the opposition poor quality ball).

[Dunbar]

42 minutes ago, Bostik Bailey said:

Well go and watch Union then. The RL scrum has been dying a slow death, to resurrect it now will lead to players (and refs)  not being certain of the rules and more ‘gamesmanship’ trying to milk a penalty. If that is what you want you know which sport will give it to you. 
 

the scrum is just a way to restart the game after a mistake by a team, why should we reward the mistake by giving the team a fair chance to get the ball back (or give the opposition poor quality ball).

It isn't right or wrong to state a preference on whether the sport should have the laws of the scrum enforced... and certainly people should be allowed to state this preference without being told to go and watch another sport.

[unapologetic pedant]

2 hours ago, DavidM said:

No that’s incorrect as they don’t , there’d be half a dozen sin bins a game . Andrew Voss said in comms recently the sin bin is for either three 6 agains in quick succession , or three then a binning as it was utilised in that game 

What constitutes a professional foul, and thus warrants use of the sin-bin, is a value judgement for the ref. It doesn`t have to be cumulative. One offence can be deemed sufficiently cynical.

There was a good example towards the end of Souths/Wests with Tommy Talau`s leg-pull at the back of the ruck.

[unapologetic pedant]

2 hours ago, Bostik Bailey said:

the scrum is just a way to restart the game after a mistake by a team, why should we reward the mistake by giving the team a fair chance to get the ball back (or give the opposition poor quality ball).

Because, amongst other reasons, the alternative is the even poorer quality ball that comes from a slow-motion handover. That is, if by "quality of ball" we mean "quality of attacking opportunity".

[mrfranco]

15 hours ago, Dunbar said:

It isn't right or wrong to state a preference on whether the sport should have the laws of the scrum enforced... and certainly people should be allowed to state this preference without being told to go and watch another sport.

While I would agree that the "go away and watch something else" line comes off a little unnecessarily aggressive, I gave Bostik's post a like because I agree with the rest of it.

If you were creating a new sport from scratch, it doesn't make sense on paper to give the team that dropped the ball or put it out an undeserved chance to win it back. And in practice I think there's been a point in every SL/CC game I've watched this year when I thought, "wow, I definitely don't miss the scrums" (and the shot clock for the replacement handover this season). So as far as I'm concerned no scrums wins both on paper and in practice.

[Damien]

8 minutes ago, mrfranco said:

If you were creating a new sport from scratch, it doesn't make sense on paper to give the team that dropped the ball or put it out an undeserved chance to win it back.

Plenty of sports have this though. Anyone has a chance to get the ball in a football throw-in or RU scrum or lineout.  Same in sports like GAA. This contestless NFL style game where one team has a go then the other is a view far more prevalent in RL than other sports, and it is a fairly recent view too at that.

[redjonn]

I don't mind scrums in the game... at least its better than a parade of 10 year sprints all the time in some games...

[Dunbar]

5 minutes ago, mrfranco said:

While I would agree that the "go away and watch something else" line comes off a little unnecessarily aggressive, I gave Bostik's post a like because I agree with the rest of it.

If you were creating a new sport from scratch, it doesn't make sense on paper to give the team that dropped the ball or put it out an undeserved chance to win it back. And in practice I think there's been a point in every SL/CC game I've watched this year when I thought, "wow, I definitely don't miss the scrums" (and the shot clock for the replacement handover this season). So as far as I'm concerned no scrums wins both on paper and in practice.

This is where the philosophy of Rugby League and Rugby Union have diverged.  We used to have a contest for possession at every play the ball and every scrum.  There was an advantage to one side or the other but the opportunity to win possession was there.  That has now all but disappeared and now in Rugby League possession changes hands on an error, a kick after a completed set or through a very infrequent contest for possession (such as a one on one steal).

In Union, the contest is still there - in theory at least, if not in practice.  The scrum, lineout and ruck are invariably won by the feeding team team, the throwing team or the team holding possession already but in theory possession can change hands - or if not change hands (as Unapolegetic Pedant says) the quality of the possession can be disrupted.

And this leads us to a very key difference between the two sports - much more than the number of players on the pitch or scoring etc.

Rugby Union is a sport where you need to secure possession and then execute that possession.

Rugby League is a sport where the quality of the execution is paramount - whether that be passing moves, offloads or kicks etc.

I like this difference as I much prefer the parts of Rugby League where the teams are executing play rather than wining possession. 

But, I am very concerned about the perception of Rugby League in the wider sporting public.  I have a fear that the game is seen as too simple and much of the tactical parts of the sport go unnamed or unnoticed.

Hell, there are even people on these boards, who are Rugby League fans through and through, who try and tell us that all Rugby League is these days is just bash and barge despite people like Trent Robinson explaining the massive amount of tactical awareness and nous that goes into every play.  If we can't see it, how can people who are less familiar.

I think it boils down to this.  From a personal perspective I am not bothered if there are scrums or not but for the good of the sport I would want them back at I think the sport is perceived better with them... and if we do bring them back then we owe it to ourselves to at least make them less embarrassing.

[mrfranco]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

Plenty of sports have this though. Anyone has a chance to get the ball in a football throw-in or RU scrum or lineout.  Same in sports like GAA. This contestless NFL style game where one team has a go then the other is a view far more prevalent in RL than other sports, and it is a fairly recent view too at that.

Yeah but the thing is RL has evolved so far away from that - the original PTB was supposed to be like a mini-scrum, but it's definitely not that now, it's an uncontested way to get the ball back in play.

For me there's very little to be gained by bringing the scums back - the game this year is better without them in my view.
 

(All that said, pretty sure they will be back - SL and/or the RFL said so before the start of the season, they will be there for the World Cup and SL pretty much copies whatever rules the NRL introduces a year or two later anyway... although hopefully not the 2-point "field goal"...)

 

[mrfranco]

2 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

This is where the philosophy of Rugby League and Rugby Union have diverged.  We used to have a contest for possession at every play the ball and every scrum.  There was an advantage to one side or the other but the opportunity to win possession was there.  That has now all but disappeared and now in Rugby League possession changes hands on an error, a kick after a completed set or through a very infrequent contest for possession (such as a one on one steal).

In Union, the contest is still there - in theory at least, if not in practice.  The scrum, lineout and ruck are invariably won by the feeding team team, the throwing team or the team holding possession already but in theory possession can change hands - or if not change hands (as Unapolegetic Pedant says) the quality of the possession can be disrupted.

And this leads us to a very key difference between the two sports - much more than the number of players on the pitch or scoring etc.

Rugby Union is a sport where you need to secure possession and then execute that possession.

Rugby League is a sport where the quality of the execution is paramount - whether that be passing moves, offloads or kicks etc.

I like this difference as I much prefer the parts of Rugby League where the teams are executing play rather than wining possession. 

But, I am very concerned about the perception of Rugby League in the wider sporting public.  I have a fear that the game is seen as too simple and much of the tactical parts of the sport go unnamed or unnoticed.

Hell, there are even people on these boards, who are Rugby League fans through and through, who try and tell us that all Rugby League is these days is just bash and barge despite people like Trent Robinson explaining the massive amount of tactical awareness and nous that goes into every play.  If we can't see it, how can people who are less familiar.

I think it boils down to this.  From a personal perspective I am not bothered if there are scrums or not but for the good of the sport I would want them back at I think the sport is perceived better with them... and if we do bring them back then we owe it to ourselves to at least make them less embarrassing.

I can get on board with pretty much all you say there... except I think RL scrums are probably beyond rescue and that embarrassing element definitely does us no favours with any newcomers.

[Damien]

10 minutes ago, mrfranco said:

Yeah but the thing is RL has evolved so far away from that - the original PTB was supposed to be like a mini-scrum, but it's definitely not that now, it's an uncontested way to get the ball back in play.

For me there's very little to be gained by bringing the scums back - the game this year is better without them in my view.
 

(All that said, pretty sure they will be back - SL and/or the RFL said so before the start of the season, they will be there for the World Cup and SL pretty much copies whatever rules the NRL introduces a year or two later anyway... although hopefully not the 2-point "field goal"...)

 

This is quite different to the point of yours that I replied to. Other sports do exactly what you don't want in RL and it is the norm. If anything RL is on the outer when it comes to this way of thinking.

Also for much of the games history the play the ball was contested and you could strike for the ball. I'd actually like this to return too.

This uncontested RL that some preach is a recent divergence in the history of Rugby League and has been far from the norm.

[redjonn]

30 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

......

But, I am very concerned about the perception of Rugby League in the wider sporting public.  I have a fear that the game is seen as too simple and much of the tactical parts of the sport go unnamed or unnoticed.

Hell, there are even people on these boards, who are Rugby League fans through and through, who try and tell us that all Rugby League is these days is just bash and barge despite people like Trent Robinson explaining the massive amount of tactical awareness and nous that goes into every play.  If we can't see it, how can people who are less familiar.

I think it boils down to this.  From a personal perspective I am not bothered if there are scrums or not but for the good of the sport I would want them back at I think the sport is perceived better with them... and if we do bring them back then we owe it to ourselves to at least make them less embarrassing.

on your But points...

Yes whilst I agree the game is reasonably tactically complex most of the watching audience, including myself, are mainly watching in and around where the ball is. Plus most are watching from the side of the pitch at the stadium or certainly from the side on the TV.   So even if aware most of us would not be able to see the various activity going into the plays.

So whilst I agree with your general point its what the audience can see that determines the entertainment value of the game.

 

[mrfranco]

5 minutes ago, Damien said:

This is quite different to the point of yours that I replied to. Other sports do exactly what you don't want in RL and it is the norm. If anything RL is on the outer when it comes to this way of thinking.

Also for much of the games history the play the ball was contested and you could strike for the ball. I'd actually like this to return too.

This uncontested RL that some preach is a recent divergence in the history of Rugby League and has been far from the norm.

Yep, I can totally see what you are saying - two different arguments but I think both valid.

The most important thing is the practical point of view. Any changes we introduce have to be to the modern game as it is. I wouldn't want to bring back the mess of 80s/90s scrums and as I say I don't think the modern "pretend" scrum does us any favours with any potential new fans either. I'm not convinced we could tinker with the rules/enforcement of scrums enough to make them really work. And from a practical point of view, as I say, I think SL this year has been better without them.

And to quickly respond to the point about contest for the ball at restarts:

1. In (association) football, a throw-in is contested, yes. But so are free kicks. So are goal kicks. This is because, essentially, the ball is always there to be won in football, all the time - every pass, every dribble, every throw-in (as soon as the ball is live).

2.  To bring it back to RL, the modern game has very much taken that "you have a go, we have a go" style, you could say much like grid iron or basketball. I think to change that now would be a monumental change to the game and for it to really make sense you would have to do things like allow ball-stealing for any number of tacklers, allow striking at the PTB, make the scrum a real contest. I love RL for its combination of physicality and what skilled players can do with a ball to make breaks happen, and make tries happen. I don't really want to see either "pretend" modern scrums or endless time taken up with collapses and 80s-style messes.

[BrisbaneRhino]

Assuming contested scrums never come back, the scrum's only value is a chance to properly get the forwards out of the way for a play.  Even if not 'contested' I'd like to see breaking early from a scrum a sin bin offence. That might sound a bit OTT, but the problem is that forwards just touch the scrum before haring off to interfere with the play. Keep them out, just for one play, and we might see decent scrum moves come back into vogue.

Someone raised the 80s as being more enjoyable. I've rewatched a fair few games from the 80s, and some are very entertaining and some are awful to watch.  One thing they all have in common though is defences that a modern SL team would tear apart with absolute ease (never mind NRL), and some skills like passing over distance were generally horrible. 

[unapologetic pedant]

12 hours ago, mrfranco said:

Yeah but the thing is RL has evolved so far away from that - the original PTB was supposed to be like a mini-scrum, but it's definitely not that now, it's an uncontested way to get the ball back in play.

The whole tackle and ruck process in RL is a contest for the quality of ball. The scrum could be the same, if there were the will to make it happen.

Philosophically some have never adjusted to the move from contests for possession to contests for the quality of possession. There`s a congruity between calls to jettison scrums, and calls to end "wrestling" or other action that slows down ruck speed.

12 hours ago, mrfranco said:

except I think RL scrums are probably beyond rescue and that embarrassing element definitely does us no favours with any newcomers.

Dubious penalties and repeated collapses are no less embarrassing for RU scrums.

The reason for invoking the comparison is that RU don`t let such problems convince them to give up and abandon the idea of scrums. Not least because they would have to devise a replacement. 

This thought should be uppermost in our considerations. It`s easy to identify the shortcomings of the RL scrum, and equally tempting to say "just get rid". But the pros and cons of the scrum can only be evaluated against the pros and cons of replacing them with a dilatory, laboured PTB. (rollball in the UK)

[sentoffagain2]

Contested scrums did become a shambles and slowed the game down.However the Half Backs and Threequarters did have more space to construct moves.The lean on we had before the Pandemic were a joke although it did gather the forwards together in a confined space leaving a bit more room to play.I would prefer all forwards to pack down properly with the Hooker in the side not putting the ball in allowed to strike for the ball with the foot farthest away from the put in.Of course he would only get the ball if the #### Half putting the ball in slipped up and put it in near the middle.However it would mean that the forwards packed down in a reasonable fashion.A good pack and Hooker could even up games for the underdogs giving them more possesion and a better chance.I think the new ball stealing rules have replaced that element and players good at stealing the ball give their team a chance.I would however go back to ball stealing only when one on one tackles are made only.

[Marauder]

On 17/04/2021 at 18:31, Rowan said:

Maybe I am writing this out of frustration - or maybe I am just getting old - but I find the game I have followed for a lifetime has actually disappeared and the name Rugby League has been hi-jacked for something that has been dreamed up on the back of a post-it note. 

The idea that scrums won't come back - even though they still have them in Australia, France, New Zealand and I presume PNG - is another nail in the coffin for spectators who can't get excited spending 80-odd minutes watching two lines of  super-fit gymnasts bashing into each other until something gives. Or somebody kicks. Or even more likely -somebody gets injured.

I agree that scrums are currently nothing more than a way of restarting the game but they do at least give the robotic, over-coached players space to repeat their sets or whatever they have been told to do.

Tackles are more like muggings; the play-the-ball (or is that the ruck? - is a shambles; even the names of the players are redundant - how can you have a scrum-half with no scrums, a prop with nothing to prop or a hooker with nothing to hook; as for a loose-forward (surely there are no such things as forwards).

Like most other sports, the game has gone statistics mad (just listen to Sky commentaries!) and rarely is there a mention of guile and wit - even a decent pass is greeted as though it's a gift from heaven.

Sorry if I have upset everybody under 30 but I liked things the way they were before the Lindsey/Murdoch revolution.

Agree and the decent passed, LOL We get one every other game and they cream it to death, could you imagine what they'd be like with the crop of loose-forwards back in the 80's alone.

 

[Rowan]

Don't wish to labour the point but I remember whenever we as the press gang went into the dressing rooms for after-match quotes from the players (whatever happened to that access by the way - oh yes, Super League happened) one of the first questions we got asked by the likes of Brian Noble, Phil McKenzie, Keith Elwell, Kevin Beardmore etc was: Did I win the scrum count?

OK, so the game has changed and I go along with that but I still think there is something missing (and not just the punch-ups) from the modern game. but then that is probably an age thing and rose-tinted specs.

[unapologetic pedant]

On 18/04/2021 at 01:35, unapologetic pedant said:

In RL, even in the current circumstances, it`s surprising the feeding team never try to push against a passive opposition, since any momentum would make it very hard to break quickly.

This is precisely what the Panthers did today for Dylan Edwards` try off the scrum - pushed with the feed.

The Knights didn`t even pack, let alone put any effort in. And they paid the price. Their "forwards" were shoved backwards and tied in, which opened up space for the Panthers to score.

All a lot more interesting to watch than a slow-motion handover.

[Dunbar]

1 minute ago, unapologetic pedant said:

This is precisely what the Panthers did today for Dylan Edwards` try off the scrum - pushed with the feed.

The Knights didn`t even pack, let alone put any effort in. And they paid the price. Their "forwards" were shoved backwards and tied in, which opened up space for the Panthers to score.

All a lot more interesting to watch than a slow-motion handover.

It was very clever from the Panthers.

Edwards was packing down as the left second row and Yeo at loose forward.

Yeo picked up the ball as the Pathers push on the right side of the scrum and so Edwards backed up on the inside of Yeo with a route to the lime.

It is things like this what will force teams to take the scrum more seriously and defend the push.  I think it will be very good for the game.

[Jean de Bordeaux]

Quote

There is no reason scrums have to be the embarrassment they’ve become , it was pure neglect from all involved . They were allowed to disintegrate . Have scrums with forwards in and binding properly , hell even pushing ,  and the ball fed properly in the middle with hookers striking for the ball in a contest . They’re a good attacking opportunity...

I agree totally

[Rupert Prince]

Scrums were ok before the pandemic.  They have them in NRL.

No reason not to bring them back. It's a way to bring the ball back into play, but creates space.  It's just the same in RU, except they sweat a lot.  And the scrum half still feeds his own side.

[Trojan]

On 17/04/2021 at 08:40, Old Frightful said:

I'd agree if they could be properly contested as it frees up the rest of the field for the backs to do their stuff.

But I can't see it happening anytime soon. The farcical scrums we used to have is the only stick any critics of our otherwise wonderful sport can use to beat us with.

 

 

IF

[Barley Mow]

1 hour ago, unapologetic pedant said:

This is precisely what the Panthers did today for Dylan Edwards` try off the scrum - pushed with the feed.

The Knights didn`t even pack, let alone put any effort in. And they paid the price. Their "forwards" were shoved backwards and tied in, which opened up space for the Panthers to score.

All a lot more interesting to watch than a slow-motion handover.

I just noticed this in the highlights. Another NRL team (or it may have been Penrith again) also used a cleverly worked move last week, holding the ball in the scrum for longer than usual to start if off. It brings another dimension to to the game.

As I've said somewhere above, as long as it is the forwards in the scrum and they're binding properly, even without trying things like this all (or even any) of the time, scrums are a good way to make space for backs to play and entertain and to give an advantage to the feeding team.