I've never subscribed to the theory that scrums are pointless, agreed they're not competitive but they're quick and act as a pivot for a set piece or planned moved with reduced numbers spread across the pitch. They're analogous to a free kick at football, they're not competitive but we accept them.

The problem with scrums is because they arent properly ' held ' together they usually break before the ball is released and therefore they arent any benifit to a set move

Absolutely - no rule change required, just proper implementation of the existing rule; it's become SOP in SL in the last couple of seasons to step off the mark to play the ball, probably as a result of another form of cheating - rolling around in the ruck, pretending you can't get to your feet, in an attempt to impede the tackled player from getting a quick play the ball.

The ruck needs tidying up in its entirety - no question.

2 refs?

That would probably help, but we don't have enough of them do we? I don't think this particular area needs 2 refs to be cleaned up though - get up when the tackle is complete, or be penalised; play the ball on the mark, or be penalised. Continue to make infringements in the ruck and receive a team warning, then lose a player for 10 minutes.

SL coaches are like car thieves - every time a rule is implemented, they find a way to break or exploit it; if they are disincentivised to do so by a consistent application of the rules, they'll go back to the drawing board and find another way to cheat.

Easily enough refs, the problem if you have just 1 concentrating on the PTB, the opposition will start creeping offside, but yes you are correct, all we really need is the proper application of the rules

When Buderus was at Leeds, he was incapable of standing at ' marker ' and not leaning on or touching the player playing the ball ,virtually every time he was in that position it was a penalty

They are all fairly reasonable. Personally I like the 7th tackle for the kick out on the full. I think it's a clear and easy rule to follow. A bit like the advantage rule that was introduced. There is no interpretation required. I think the difficulty with a kick going dead in goal is that you could have an awesome kick that stops centimetres on the otherside of the dead ball line. The intention was to stop in goal not kick it dead, but it would be severely punished if you went back to the place the ball was kicked.

But any other rule would need interpretation to decided whether it was a time wasting kick or not. This is a good middleway. It's not an over the top punishment for a kick that just fails to stay in goal.

Other than that I think that it looks increasingly like the NRL are wanting to do away with scrums where ever possible. Possibly because they don't like them, possibly to create a more stark difference between the two codes. Leaving Union with the scrum and making out League to be a more set piece orientated game.


Having said that I can understand why Leeds fans would not like the rule on the ball being kicked dead. It's kinda their thing

We probably dont have enough refs but having watched some Aussi RL over the recent period I feel that 2 refs on the pitch are having a good effect - not always but most of the time.

Perhaps a regular SL ref and a lower leagues ref could work (training/experience would be a benefit too). The play the ball and say, forwards could be improved without recourse to video? Have we tried two refs over here?

I'd like a change to the rules regarding the forming of a scrum to stop the clock.

The players that form the scrum should have to stay there for the play of the ball..

Agree with that. The players that form the scrum in order to stop the clock should have to take part in the scrum when it takes place.
Don't need the silly NRL rule where they have to stay formed though.

Why?
It's a clever rule. By all means stop the clock but if you can't get your correct scrum then you can't have it both ways. You have to make a decision which is the best option. The trouble is the game is getting rather robotic and formulaic. Time for a great deal more openness and positive decision making. That will confuse some but make things interesting .

Mainly because it looks ridiculous to have 1 side with a scrum formed whilst the others stand around, have a chat and get their breath.
Just make sure the players that initially form the scrum in order to stop the clock are the ones who have to take part in the scrum. Then they've either got to pack the scrum with the faster players who got there first or wait for the props etc to get back.

Exhibit A: Australia's try at the end of the first half in the RLWC Opener......Slater skinned Sam Burgess who wasn't packed down, but was instead standing in a centre defensive position. The Aussies saw this weakness as they packed down and played to it. It was a skilfully constructed play....
Don't see why we need to continually change the rules of a game we consider the greatest

Agreed with the first bit. Especially if we made the scrum pack down and stay packed it'd open the game up a bit more. I'm slowly coming around to thinking reintroducing competitive scrums might be a good idea.

As for changing the rules, I agree to a large extent. We tinker far too often with rules and interpretations whereas often if we just gave it some time it'd work itself out. Although I don't see it as a negative to look at the rules every few years or so.

But you would still have that. The only team you are punishing are the ones trying to get the clock stopped and rushing to form the scrum. The other team could still saunter up, have a chat, catch their breath and then set up their scrum to best take advantage of the other teams pack.

For instance, team A is behind, team B have head and feed. Team A rush to form the scrum to stop the clock, team B don’t they are in the lead, they want to waste time. Team A then have to from a scrum with the first players to get there and are left with a prop having to defend the line. Team B spot this and run a set play with a the FB going past him. Team A in this instance have been punished for rushing to form the scrum and get the clock stopped and get the play started quickly, Team B benefit from wasting time and catching their breath.

Silly rule. Either quick taps or not. What if your 11 yards away? Is that now somehow fine?

bit irrelevant really.

bit silly, expect to see lots of players simply trying to get a touch to knock it over the line, or get a hand to it when it is clearly out.
probably makes a bit more sense

Poor rule imo. Should be at the refs discretion and a good referee will know when it is in an inappropriate time to have that discussion.

But they at least won't have to stay formed like in the NRL. That's the silly bit in my opinion.

As for punishing the ones trying to get the clock stopped, I don't see it as a punishment, more a trade-off. Either get your forwards back quickly to stop the clock, or get your scrum set the way you want it at the cost of time off the clock.

Not every advantage should be given to the team that is behind in the last few minutes.

Its not necessarily the punishment part of it, it’s the fact it actively encourages a team which is leading to take as long as they want to form the scrum.

There are two outcomes from what you are proposing either A) it takes a longer time to form a scrum, more time is wasted or B) a team who is wasting time, is given an advantage for wasting time. Im not sure why we would want either of those things to happen

I don't see how it would encourage teams to waste more time or how it would take longer to form a scrum than currently


It doesn't affect anything the team who are in the lead would do, it affects the team who are behind. It stops them from using backs to form a scrum and stop the clock, then those players not taking part in the scrum. If you want to stop the clock your team should be ready to play.

You have answered your own question with the 2nd part, it will stop backs rushing to form a scrum to stop the clock. Ergo it would take longer to form the scrum (certainly in game time if not actual time)

And by definition of forming the scrum even with the backs that team is ‘ready to play’ it is the other team we are waiting for. The team whose choice is either waste time by walking slowly to the scrum or form the scrum in response to the team rushing to do it to stop the clock. If Team B (from the example above) accede to a ‘quick’ scrum, they are actively giving up an advantage of either dead time or the chance to line up and plan a specific play, in the rules as they are now they don’t control the ‘dead time’ and nor do they get to plan a play against a scrum which is formed not as a defensive ploy but as simply a time efficient one.

Not necessarily. They still have the option to form the scrum, just they have to be in it. They have a choice, stopping the clock or having the scrum set as they want it. I don't see why they should get the advantage of both.

Yes forming the scrum with the backs means they are ready to play. But. Then breaking up that scrum to replace the players within it means they aren't ready to play. Again, they have a choice. To play the scrum with the players that formed it and thereby stop the clock, or form another (presumably more beneficial scrum) without the clock stopped.

It works quite well in the NRL (the silly staying bound together element aside).

because the other team dont want the clock stopped. Why should they get three advantages of creating dead time, forming the scrum how they want, and head and feed. All that has happened is the ball has gone out of play. Why are we giving so many advantages to a team who is just trying to waste time?

it doesnt work at all because there isnt any positive outcome from it. The only effects it can have is either wasting more game time as dead time or punishing a team for wanting to stop the clock. Why do we want that? what benefit is there to either fairness of the game or the game as a spectacle in seeing less play while the big lads jog back in or seeing one team punished for rushing to restart the game and another rewarded for slowing it down?

There aren't 3 advantages Smokey. The head and feed is irrelevant and could be to either side, I have no idea why you brought the head and feed into it.
They don't get to "create" dead time. It's the same amount of dead time as has been for every scrum throughout the game. If the ref thinks one side is unduly slow he can stop the clock himself anyway.
They don't get an advantage by packing down how they want, both sides have that option.


Yet it doesn't seem to waste more time in the NRL, not from the games I've seen anyway.
It doesn't punish a team in the slightest, in the same way as making a team having its players onside before restarting a play doesn't punish the team.
As for fairness, why are we rewarding a team for being behind on the scoreboard in the last few minutes? Where's the fairness to the team that are ahead on the scoreboard?
It's not about "punishing" a team, it's about removing what is an unfair advantage to one team.
It's very simple, if you want the clock stopping you should be ready to play. If you're not then expect the clock to continue.

No it isn’t the same time, if it were then there would be no need for either rules because every scrum would take the same amount of time regardless, but we know that isn’t the case. They do create ‘dead time’ they are creating ‘dead time’ because they haven’t formed the scrum. They are delaying the game. In the instances we are discussing one team HAS formed a scrum and is ready to go, one team HASN’T formed a scrum and isn’t ready to go. I want to see fast paced action, for me the team which is actually forming the scrum is the one doing the right thing, if I wanted to see minutes of play missed and the game delayed while we watched a scrum being set up I can watch union.

It does punish the team. It means a side which is trying to get the game restarted quickly is disadvantaged in the scrum, whilst the other team can waste time, recover AND set the scrum how they want.
We aren’t rewarding them for being behind on the scoreboard. We are rewarding them for forming the scrum. Just like we would reward a quick tap with 10 metres where you cant be tackled.
But what you seem to be forgetting is that as ready as those players are to play, they cant play. They HAVE to wait for the other team to form the scrum. You are removing any reason to form a quick scrum. You are putting the advantage to the team who forms the scrum 2nd, with actually no negative consequences to forming the scrum 2nd

Whats the benefit you are seeing here. What will it change to improve the game? That we will see fewer quick scrums? Is this a good thing? Why do we want this at all? Surely more action, more quick scrums would be better?