Because some players REFUSING there jabs The game is considering using the play the ball again rather than forming scrums! Rugby Union has more players in the scrums and they are not changing the rules like League are!

the scrums in both games are totally different, in union the form a massive part of the game, in league they are just a restart

I don’t think it’s made much of a difference to be honest, even if the reason behind not having a scrum is just bizarre

I've enjoyed the game more without them

If we are going to have a world cup with scrums then we need to to reintroduce them soon.

Scrums continued in the NRL and the game was not any slower than SL, I prefer them in place with the NRL interpretation, the no scrum 6 again rule in SL is the poorer option for me.

No they are more than that,yes i grant you they are not what they used to be. But not having them and having to wait till the defence is set is slowing the game down to much. Also it means the big players can stay on the field more. Even if you just make 10m from the first scrum play,the props have to sprint back 20m to be onside. It's not the first play from the scrum that is the important one,it's the 2nd or 3rd when the defence is still a bit unorganised.

no they dont as they have already broken and on the way back before the tackle if even attempted, just a restart now as the scrums just break as they are uncontested

I think that the balance they have struck in the NRL about scrums s spot-on,and would like to see it universally applied; they offer an opportunity for attacking play, and I think there certainly should be a limit on how far we should go in attempting to 'speed the game up', The game is fast enough as is, to say the least,

I personally think there is still a place in the modern game for scrums, even if just for the sake of variety. It may not be contested like it used to be or as technical as union, but it still serves a purpose and was sorely missed imo in super league the last couple of seasons.

A scrum will take 6 players from either team (7 if you include the feeder as 90% the person in the back of the scrum will pass it out nowadays as its the safest route for the ball) basically out of the game for that play and allow for a more open flowing play. More space, more gaps, unique set plays more excitement.

If you take away the scrum as was done in SL the last couple seasons and make it just a simple turn over of possesion, you essentially are just left with another standard tackle (most likely a settler drive to set up field position for later plays being the 1st tackle). Whereas if you keep scrums you have the first tackle be a potentially more exciting, open field set play. Allowing for greater play variety as opposed to a dull, old 1st play of the ball.

Of course they have to sprint back,otherwise they are not going to be onside. If a team gets known for breaking early then a smart player will just trap the ball in the 2nd row and take the resulting penalty,i remember Wigan doing just to to us ( saints ) about 3 times in one game as O'loughlin called it.

every team breaks early, the ref even calls it now for them, you dont have to sprint back watch them, its a jog, thats why you wrestle in the tackle to ensure everyone gets back onside...plus a lot of the time its not even the pack who go into the scrum

I've probably watched/been involved with over 1,000 games. I have yet to see a prop sprint after a scrum.

Didn’t miss them one bit. To new fans they just look weird, scrap them I say and let rugby union have 10 men sumo wrestling.

You obviously never watched me when I played for the Bulls then

If any player is forced to isolate as a contact because they have refused their jab, they should only receive the £93 a week SSP. Perhaps this will "encourage" them to get jabbed.

I doubt the knuckledraggers know what chemicals are in the ink that regularly gets inserted into them with their latest tattoo....

exactly, we do at work

I wish we did. I'd happily support any Govt legislation that makes this law.

Absolute fu*king bel*end, their bodies their choice

the clubs choice to pay them if they are unavailable also due to this....

Undoubtedly, but with choice comes consequences.

If a player refuses to get vaxed and misses a game, or even worse a final, all because they have to isolate, then that's on them and they should be punished for it imo.

Players get fined for loads of stuff that has a detrimental impact on their ability to perform i.e being out of condition, turning up under the influence. Heck, Wane even used to go ape when the academy lads didn't have their folders with them. It all falls under having a professional approach. They can choose to forget their folder, eat cr@p or go on a bender before training, it's just the consequences of that will probably mean they won't be at Wigan for long.

But when COVID becomes just another yearly bug, similar to flu (which some scientists are predicting it to be by next winter) then the above logic surely means we have to apply fines to not getting the flu jab, or riding a motorbike, or climbing a ladder. In fact, anything that has the potential to cause enough damage to disrupt your training / peak performance.

Human behaviour is a weird one. The news last week was full of headlines vilifying anyone who hasn't had the jab, and it's effects on a pandemic which has reduced the average lifespan by a few months. Tucked away as a minor story / page filler was a report about the obesity epidemic. 46% of children are overweight by their top year of[i primary[/i school, and 26% are [iclinically obese[/i. The experts say that those children are set for life by their environment and habits during their upbringing. Just let that sink in: That's 26-41% of the entire future population who will live significantly shorter lives and put strain on the health system. And that's ignoring the morality aspect of parental responsibility. Apparently lining the pockets of big pharma is more important though. I'm triple-jabbed BTW.

Bring back scrums!

Which isn't likely to happen for another couple of years, so until then we have to be considerate of the people next to us (or those who's face is in yours) & stop being so Trumpian with the conspiratorial idiocy.

Don't be a pr!ck, get one!

You have to isolate whether you've had a jab or not so does the same logic count for anyone who's had the jab too? For the record there's currently 6 members of my immediate family who currently have Covid and are isolating as a result. All have had both jabs and a booster. The only members who are testing negative who have been in contact are myself and 2 others, none of whom have had the jabs but have had the disease. Go figure.

Does that go for players who don’t have the flu jab and get the flu and miss a game? Seriously, where is the line? Just because it’s COVID doesn’t mean that line should be blurred. Within 18months this will just be another flu strand and we’ll get on with our lives without a second thought. We should be doing this already in my opinion.

I’m all for vaxxing everyone. But that’s everyone who wants it. No company/business should deliberately financially punish their employees more than they normally would if they were off for a cold or stomach bug etc.

Honestly I’d love to see this played out in an employment tribunal or court of law. It would be genuinely intriguing to see on which side the court/tribunal would fall.