An idea to abolish the farce that is the modern day scrum

[TigersFan4Life]

I'm sure I'm not alone in my hatred of the scrum. It annoys me to no end when the referees spend 30 seconds asking the players to pack in properly and then when they're finally set the ball goes backwards between the second rowers legs and out the back of the scrum.

IMO the NRL should just bite the bullet and do away with the scrum. The alternative is pretty simple, as far as I can see. When the ball is kicked into touch but not a 40/20 the defending team receives the ball from wherever it went out. They restart play with a tap ten metres in from the sideline but for the first tackle only the seven backs are allowed to touch the ball and only the seven backs from the defending team are allowed to tackle. The six forwards from each team must stay out of the play back from the ruck and can only come back into play after the first tackle is complete. In addition the defending team must stand back TWENTY metres for the first tackle.

This would achieve two things. It would discourage teams from simply kicking the ball into touch and it would encourage attacking, adventurous play on that first tackle after the ball has been kicked into touch.

On another matter, I believe that when the ball is kicked out of the in-goal area and over the dead ball line the attacking team should restart play from the 30 metre line.

 

[Tiger_Al]

fool…

 

[T-REXX]

i think piss the scrum off all together

its a cuddle and pointless

 

[Yossarian]

Yeah I don't see this happening… What you propose is not as simple as you make it out.

Scrums can be annoying when they repack them but I don't think they are a huge problem.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Have the ball fed to the hookers, and any team who has the feed and fails to do so loses the possession.

 

[TigersFan4Life]

fool…

What type of response is that? Are you going to offer a single reason for responding like that?

 

[TigersFan4Life]

i think p**s the scrum off all together

its a cuddle and pointless

Um, that's what I was proposing? :question:

 

[TigersFan4Life]

Yeah I don't see this happening… What you propose is not as simple as you make it out.

Scrums can be annoying when they repack them but I don't think they are a huge problem.

Put yourself in the shoes of someone who has never watched a game of league before but is interested in becoming a fan. If they were sitting and watching a game, whenever a scrum took place they would be completely bemused about its purpose. They might not be a huge problem but they are moronic (in their current form) and unnecessary and they needlessly slow the game down.

 

[Yossarian]

Yeah I don't see this happening… What you propose is not as simple as you make it out.

Scrums can be annoying when they repack them but I don't think they are a huge problem.

Put yourself in the shoes of someone who has never watched a game of league before but is interested in becoming a fan. If they were sitting and watching a game, whenever a scrum took place they would be completely bemused about its purpose. They might not be a huge problem but they are moronic (in their current form) and unnecessary and they needlessly slow the game down.

First of all you can't just change rules because newcomers might be bemused. What about 40/20s? Obstruction? It's not a good enough reason to make a major change like that.

Besides having the players take a break every now and then is not necessarily a bad thing and I can't remember watching an NRL game and thinking there were too many scrums.

 

[Tiger_Al]

fool…

What type of response is that? Are you going to offer a single reason for responding like that?

Your idea is that the forwards cannot make tackles on the first tackle… where are they meant to go???

You may as well have them centralised in the scrum, the scrum isn't perfect nobody is saying it is... but especially as a tigers fan I love getting a scrum with the feed because the tigers are the best team in the comp at exploiting the added space by have the forwards tied up in a centralised area... so I just cannot fathom why a tigers fan would want any changes to scrum rule as we are the best at exploiting it.

 

[Bismark]

I think the scrum needs to stay. It takes the forwards out of the play, but also brings the fullback into the defensive line, leaving an opportunity for a kick/chase (alla us vs bulldogs and robertson's try vs city).

The scrum is a farce, but its part of the historical part of the game. If there was no scrums, what would you call the forwards?

 

[Beavis]

I have a novel idea, why not have contested scrums again, instead of the crap they offer up now, feed the ball into the tunnel, let the rakes have a go at it.

 

[Juro]

Just think, if we didn't have the scrum, where would Farah have punched that NQ hooker last year?

 

[AndTheKungFoSing]

I think the scrum needs to stay. It takes the forwards out of the play, but also brings the fullback into the defensive line, leaving an opportunity for a kick/chase (alla us vs bulldogs and robertson's try vs city).

That's its purpose… but because scrums are no longer contested teams are putting backs into the scrums to get some of the backrowers running it at smaller backs...

As suggested previously... just allow the scrum to be contested again by having the ball fed to the rake and not the friggin second row.

 

[gallagher]

Just think, if we didn't have the scrum, where would Farah have punched that NQ hooker last year?

Great point!!!. Everyone knew that a fight was gonna happen in that scrum, the excitment was unreal. I'd like the scrum to continue as is. Were seeing more and more set plays from the taking six blokes out of the equation and having the defending forward in the line. I dont even care that they arnt contested, I dont think that a team that has dropped the ball or conceded a 40/20 deserve a 50/50 crack at getting the ball.

As for the OP, that seems a bit confusing for me.