Really?

Where have you been the last 15 years?

Sorry. That was incredibly naive.

how long have you been following RL

the ARL and RFL had different rules back in the 80s/90s and they had to sit down and agree on the rules for ashes series before hand.

This doesn´t go far enough. Make the scrums a contest and then move them back ten.
I think the scrums need to be made competitive or got rid of altogether. At times I think it would be quicker to just hand the ball over and take a tap.

indeed.

scrums now are just another way of restarting the game but at the same time taking 12 players out of the game if you just hand the ball over all that will happen is another 5 drives and another kick.

Which would be a lot quicker than setting up and having a scrum. More rugby for the spectator.

by taking 12 players out of play does that not leave more room for the better players to exploit?

So as I said, make the scrums competitive.

not much point answering that other than to say you want competitive scrums and id like to see open rugby

Let's create some space for the backs. Just handing over the ball would render the whole experience very one-dimensional. With three-quarters becoming essentially wide forwards in the last 5 years (wingers as first-hit-up forwards, centres and second-rows interchangeable tackling machines), we need to create some openings for the exciting crowd-pleasing backs who we no longer have. For all his other faults, I want to see players like Kevin Penny in a team, so that in space the adrenalin can flow like it used to when Sullivan or Offiah got the ball. There seems to be no place for the likes of Penny in the modern game, as wingers are there to be pile-drivers - often bigger than some forwards.

Separating the lines by nearly 30 metres at a scrum, with the pack taken out of the picture, would give plenty of space for the return of speed, evasion and backs moves which didn't require simply backing up line-breaks due to missed tackles.

Can't come fast enough if it happens, in my opinion.

The opportunity to attack at a scrum is there, it is even better when the referee polices the scrum correctly, there is no point attacking the line to find the defending forwards have left the scrum before the ball

I have seen burrow or mcguire attack the line of backs with differing levels of success over the years and a well placed attacking kick from the base of the scrum to a winger is another good option - the element of surprise helps!

however coaches tend to play safety first and see a first tackle play as too risky, the hit up is far more popular as has been said

The combination of the 5m gap to the defensive line and the fact that the defending team can enter that space once the ball is behind the feet of the second row players has left the attacking teams with such little room for developing expansive moves from the scrum.

I'm not sure that the extra 5m is necessary, but what is needed is to change the rule about when the defending team can move up. If it's changed to waiting until the ball is in the hands of the LF or SH there's a bit more advantage to the attacking team at the scrum whilst still making them work for most of the distance they want to gain from the scrum.

There was some debate over on the Hull board and the question of contested scrums was raised, here's my response:



That was then countered by "We'll have a penalty-fest and the game will never get going". My response to that was:

maybe we can have continual re-setting of scrums and the ref shouting out engage,

Absolutely agree. If things aren't changed it won't be long before every player is over 6ft and over 16st.

We get them everytime the refs decide to enforce the rules at the beginning of a season, unfortunately the refs give in before the players and the season continues with some things overlooked and some penalised

The intention of moving the defensive line back 10 metres from the play the ball was to give teams more space to attack but safety first one up rugby became the norm and it will be the same again if this is introduced. I agree that if scrums were policed properly and couldn't break up until the ball has cleared then there would be enough opportunity for the team in possession to attack.

Please refer to my post above yours, re: the real reason the Aussies wanted to be shut of competitive scrums.

agreed,keep the 2rowers & loose forwards in the scrum until the S.Off as off loaded the ball or has attacked the line.

If Sheens wants more space to attack from a scrum then why not simply have his backline stand deeper?

And I thought that he was some sort of super coach...?

do you know a union fan in australia was watching a S14 game. the game was having a scrum being re-set time and again. in the time it took to finish the scrum he switched between channels and saw a RL game complete a set of 6

the reason why RL has prospered is it has taken the s**t bits of union and eliminated them.

Or, that Aussies are simply crap at scrummaging, whether in RL or RU

only in response to the league bit, i dont care about union.

It dosn't matter whether the players are 5 metres or 10 metres from a scrum, most coaches and players are too thick to take advantage of the obvious opportunities available!!!

And NO!!! I'm not going to explain what they are.

However it is not difficult to work them out.