Wasn't it four tackles then a contested scrum, rather than a handover?

I can't remember what the game was like under 4 tackles . I do remember most people thought the 4 tackle rule was a failure. A school of thought wanted 8 tackles obviously we arrived at 6 tackles .
A lot of players at the time did not want the existing rules of unlimited tackles changing . They claimed it would halt attacking rugby,
A team working its way up the field and gaining good field position would be forced to either kick the ball or turn the ball over.
Unfortunately for me I am of an age when I watched the game as a young lad it was unlimited tackles.
Ball possession was vital, so if team knocked on it was a proper scrum, with both sets of forwards pushing and the hookers striking for the ball.
The hooking berth was vital as it as your main chance of regaining the ball. Some teams had hookers who weren't much good in the loose,but were excellent in winning the ball in the scrum. So teams carried some of these hookers.

Apart from coming extremely close on numerous occasions.

Since it's the off-season, what would people's thoughts be on bringing proper scrums back?

I used to be dead set against it but I've changed my mind a bit over the last few years to the point where I'm 50/50 on it.

Having seen defences become so good both here and in Australia, would having proper scrums lead to bigger, less mobile forwards and so free up some space in defences?
Also, since you get a chance at gaining possession from a scrum, would it lead to teams taking more chances in attack?

The RU experience suggests that the full time athletes are too big and powerful to make scrummaging viable. They collapsed too often and too dangerously. So they were cleaned up, and now take about 5 minutes per scrum. And that's with flank forwards to stabilise them and reduce wheeling.

No thanks from me.

I could never fathom how refs decided/penalised feeding when 100% of scrums were fed.

Not for me either why take 5 mins to restart a game when you can achieve the same result in 30 seconds.

The priorities need to change - more focus is needed on attacking structures and plays. It appears to me coaches are more focused on conceding less rather than scoring more than the opposition. The point of franchising was to remove relegation so teams could play in a more expansive way. If you have coaches who cannot coach attack e.g. McDermott then you have problems with removing the sterility of play at some sides

I agree. Not sure how you impose such a change in priority though?

It has to come from the top - they have to employ coaches who want to play a style of attacking rugby that appeals to the customers. Winning isn't everything its important but the way in which you play is also important. Leeds won the CC but for many it was a hollow victory because of the style of the play.

That has to come from clubs though. It's hard for the RFL to influence that. We could think about RU-esque bonus points for tries scored, but I'm not sure that would work in a sport where 5-6 tries plus for the winners are already a pretty common occurrence.

I work in HE, and I got chatting to a guy from the uni RL team in the gym the other week. The RFL are investing in the sport in universities, which seems a good move (given that 51% of 18 year olds go to uni now - don't get into the rights and wrongs of that, I haven't got time...).

I keep wondering whether the RFL could ringfence some of the new TV money for an elite academy system, and then run a draft system for its products, keeping them off the salary cap, for 5 years or so after they "graduate". A funded scholarship scheme for universities to take the top 100 or so 17-18 year olds. A stronger university game, draft system. Egalitarian distribution of talent, and more freedom for clubs to pay the elite seniors within the cap. Unis would snap your hand off.

Naturally I highlight the pros, there would be cons of course.

From the top I meant the CEO of the clubs not uncle Nigel.

Perhaps you could have regional academies run by the RFL where all players under age of 18 are developed. Qualified coaches could concentrate on developing their skill sets rather than the priorities some clubs appear to have. At that point you could have a draft system where the bottom side gets first pick or sells the pick.

I guess the reality is that whatever else happens, the sport has to drive revenues up to a point where the salary cap can be increased without creating massive top to bottom disparities. Otherwise we will continue to struggle to keep the best players we develop.

Would agree with centralised academy's, would never agree with draft systems. It is the most stupidest concept ever is draft systems. Works in NFL due to the vast amounts of money earned, and the huge differences between teams which limits a favouring to one team. But in our game, we have to think about the players themselves too, who have a bigger burning desire than just the money, and have ambitions to play for a certain team.

On scrums I agree that's the danger however I don't see scrums going the same way as in Union as the rest of the game is so different and requires players to have the mobility and skills not necessary for Union props, hookers and second rowers.

As for whether coaches prioritise attack, from what I know, they most certainly do. The vast majority of training on the field is on attacking structures and shapes.

But defence has become easier to coach and train players as it's almost scientific, whereas attack isn't (unless you're Wigan).

If Leeds prioritise attacking how come our structures and options are so bad?

Defence becomes easier if the attack doesn't pose the threats it should. Whenever I see England/GB play Australia we always seem to struggle with simple decoy runners and two men plays? Look how many times Wigan are able to create overlaps out wide through very structured attack that should be easy to defend against.

So you are saying no change in the make up of the top sides as they will simply mop up the best talent through a centralised system. I n fact it could be even worse with a certain team taking youngsters they don't need to prevent other sides getting them

No, that wasn't what I said. I said I did not agree with a draft system, and that it was the stupidest of concepts, and that players should have a choice in where they go. If that happens to be a top club, then so be it, but playing for a poorly run club at the bottom of the league each year is no way to develop talent.

For me, as a player of both League and Union I can see why each code has the scrums it does. In Union a large portion of the team is there to win scrums. At amateur level some players only play to have scrums, the rest of the games passes them by pretty much.

In league, the scrums allow the forwards who are doing all the work to get a breather. As good as the athletes in our game are, I wouldn't be expecting the likes of Peacock and Graham to do 30+ tackles and 20+ carries as well as contesting scrums. I couldn't play league if I had to take part in contested scrums. I wouldn't have the energy. They work in Union, I don't think they'd work in League. Far too much energy wasted

If you take your point to its logical conclusion there is no way for the lower clubs to progress - they need to be able to attract better young players. In Lancashire all the top youngsters will want to go to either Wigan or Saints and in Yorkshire Leeds how do you ever even up the competition? The rich get richer and the poor get poorer? You end up with a competition with only 3/4 realistic winners a bit like the PL where the rest are you trying to avoid relegation.

You do what the likes of Sheffield and Wakefield have done and start looking at players from other regions. We have had a good number of juniors and young players go to either team, and whilst the talent is not so condensed it is still there.

That happens anyway. I seem to recall one year a while back Warrington had something like 30 kids on their Academy programme, having basically mopped up anyone in the surrounding area with a bit of ability.

You're always going to get kids who want to go play for a particular club because they have some sort of attachment to it - it's the nearest, it's the one they supported as a kid, it's the one a member of their family already plays for etc. Not every junior in the country wants to go and play for Wigan, Saints or Leeds for example, and those clubs aren't going to want every junior that is available to them.

It depends what type of attack you've gone for. It also depends on other factors such as the players at your disposal, your teams momentum and where you start and how you end your sets. Attack isn't just something you can practice in isolation and you'll suddenly start scoring tries. It's dependent on a lot of the other parts of your game working.

As for Leeds, they've gone for an attacking approach of trying to isolate specific defenders and beat them either with short passes or footwork. Wigan have gone for a far more structured 3rd man approach on virtually every single play. It's a play that is effective but can be neutralised when defences adapt, as they did to the Saints version of it a few years back. It's also a play that worked better when combined with a player like Tomkins on the end of it to add some unpredictability.
Our attack, in my opinion, suffers not from a lack of attacking players or practice but from our forwards inability to wear down a defence and to provide sufficient support runs.

They may not want every youngster but they will want the best and herein lies the problem - the lesser clubs are always getting the lesser youngsters and we have a catch 22. It is no surprise that only 3 clubs have won the GF since 2005 compare that to the NRL where 6 teams have won it. More worrying is that only 6 teams have ever got to the final in 16 years. Somehow we need to strengthen the quality of more teams.

Fair points - the second man play with decoy runners does seem to open up most defences - still works today yet its a move that has been used for years.

If you look at teams like Melbourne who perfected the in and out play with Smith, Cronk and Slater these moves work if they can be executed with precision. A great attacking play is almost undefendable if properly executed.

The problem with Leeds is they don't have the skill level nor the speed to execute these plays - hence why they struggle to score inside the opponents 20. They depend on attacking from deep and individual one on one wins, this is easily nullified as we have seen in recent years.

True. In the amateur game as you go down the levels the error counts increase and winning scrums becomes critical as there are so many. If you can't hold your own ball then effectively your opposition can make as many mistakes as they want and still get the ball back. Our club first team has tons of pace and mobility, defends well but has a tiny front row in an area where they usually grow them the size of tractors. Having midgets in the forwards in the Wescountry is like having a 3 inch c*** in a porn film.