Mungoball to re-introduce scrummaging?

[Mog The Almighty]

Probably not, but these are the right sounds being made:

"I want to keep the scrum because it's the fabric of the game, but we've got to improve it.

"We're going to make it more relevant than what it is...because at the moment, it's really just a facade."

- ARLC chairman Peter V'landys.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/scrums ... 56g55.html

That would immediately improve the game of Rugby League immeasurably in my opinion. It's more than a laughable joke at the moment. The forwards may as well stand around and count to 10 or whatever. It's so silly.

[Blackrock Bullet]

I'm sure there would be a lot of resistance now given the implications for body composition etc.

[Demilich]

It would not "improve rugby league". It would make it worse. The move to "6-again" to speed up the game and increase the fatigue factor improved the game - introducing competitive scrums and the worthless farting around and re-sets will detract from that. They already have a "shot clock" in place for a reason - to prevent the time-wasting that occurs around rugby scrums.

It's thoroughly pointless - the percentage of scrums won against the feed will be almost nil, and gaining ascendency in a scrum isn't as advantageous as is in rugby - if you go backwards and end up under pressure, all that is going to occur is that you drop on the ball or are tackled pretty close to the advantage line - so you're adding the worst part of rugby (not the competitive scrum itself, but the sheer amount of time wasted to enable said scrums to be competitive, and the high likelihood of it never being a competitive scrum and just being a penalty anyway), for what results in at best the loss of a single tackle from your count. A quick play the ball and you're on the front foot regardless. And teams aren't going to completely reshape their forward pack to focus on having a competitive scrum - scrums are minimal and pale in relevance compared to having mobile forwards that can get around the park at speed.

They have actually already made scrums far more relevant this year, with allowing them to be taken in the middle of the field - tries from scrums have doubled. The changes they will be adding next year are more likely to be reducing some of the things that lead to a scrum and only allowing designated forwards to pack down (though that in itself is of dubious value and will result in time-wasting and controversy).

[grievous]

[Blackrock Bullet]

It would not "improve rugby league". It would make it worse. The move to "6-again" to speed up the game and increase the fatigue factor improved the game - introducing competitive scrums and the worthless farting around and re-sets will detract from that. They already have a "shot clock" in place for a reason - to prevent the time-wasting that occurs around rugby scrums.

It's thoroughly pointless - the percentage of scrums won against the feed will be almost nil, and gaining ascendency in a scrum isn't as advantageous as is in rugby - if you go backwards and end up under pressure, all that is going to occur is that you drop on the ball or are tackled pretty close to the advantage line - so you're adding the worst part of rugby (not the competitive scrum itself, but the sheer amount of time wasted to enable said scrums to be competitive, and the high likelihood of it never being a competitive scrum and just being a penalty anyway), for what results in at best the loss of a single tackle from your count. A quick play the ball and you're on the front foot regardless. And teams aren't going to completely reshape their forward pack to focus on having a competitive scrum - scrums are minimal and pale in relevance compared to having mobile forwards that can get around the park at speed.

They have actually already made scrums far more relevant this year, with allowing them to be taken in the middle of the field - tries from scrums have doubled. The changes they will be adding next year are more likely to be reducing some of the things that lead to a scrum and only allowing designated forwards to pack down (though that in itself is of dubious value and will result in time-wasting and controversy).

I think it comes back to the fact that it looks silly, that's the reality of it. There are very few other sports that have such a silly looking charade, if any.

If you look at American Football and Rugby League where they both diverged from rugby, RL went far harder on juggly excitement years ago and are left with these kinds of silly things.

[shanky]

A couple of neck injuries, and they’ll drop it again

Crazy idea.

[Mullet 2]

It would not "improve rugby league". It would make it worse. The move to "6-again" to speed up the game and increase the fatigue factor improved the game - introducing competitive scrums and the worthless farting around and re-sets will detract from that. They already have a "shot clock" in place for a reason - to prevent the time-wasting that occurs around rugby scrums.

It's thoroughly pointless - the percentage of scrums won against the feed will be almost nil, and gaining ascendency in a scrum isn't as advantageous as is in rugby - if you go backwards and end up under pressure, all that is going to occur is that you drop on the ball or are tackled pretty close to the advantage line - so you're adding the worst part of rugby (not the competitive scrum itself, but the sheer amount of time wasted to enable said scrums to be competitive, and the high likelihood of it never being a competitive scrum and just being a penalty anyway), for what results in at best the loss of a single tackle from your count. A quick play the ball and you're on the front foot regardless. And teams aren't going to completely reshape their forward pack to focus on having a competitive scrum - scrums are minimal and pale in relevance compared to having mobile forwards that can get around the park at speed.

They have actually already made scrums far more relevant this year, with allowing them to be taken in the middle of the field - tries from scrums have doubled. The changes they will be adding next year are more likely to be reducing some of the things that lead to a scrum and only allowing designated forwards to pack down (though that in itself is of dubious value and will result in time-wasting and controversy).

Wrong sort

[Thomas]

I understand what they are doing. They want to stop scrums being packed with little backs while the big units take the hit up off the scrum. I just don't think they need to tinker with it.

Do they want a game that matches the speed of touch football or do they want to slow it down?

[Jerome Manning]

How would you make the scrum relevant?

The reason it's mickey mouse now, as pointed out by Delmich, is that a weak scrum means you just waste 1 tackle and everything is back to normal. Players are just responding to incentives.

[shanky]

I understand what they are doing. They want to stop scrums being packed with little backs while the big units take the hit up off the scrum. I just don't think they need to tinker with it.

Do they want a game that matches the speed of touch football or do they want to slow it down?

The idea is that with forwards tied up for a minute, there's more room and space for these mythical 'little men' to work their footballing magic.

[Thomas]

I understand what they are doing. They want to stop scrums being packed with little backs while the big units take the hit up off the scrum. I just don't think they need to tinker with it.

Do they want a game that matches the speed of touch football or do they want to slow it down?

The idea is that with forwards tied up for a minute, there's more room and space for these mythical 'little men' to work their footballing magic.

Oh I understand. But what they've been doing lately is packing the scrum with the little men and letting the big props run free in the centres. Are they going to make sure the forwards all pack into the scrum?

[Ali's Choice]

Strange thread, pushing in scrums has never been against the rules in Rugby League. Teams just don't do it.

[shanky]

I understand what they are doing. They want to stop scrums being packed with little backs while the big units take the hit up off the scrum. I just don't think they need to tinker with it.

Do they want a game that matches the speed of touch football or do they want to slow it down?

The idea is that with forwards tied up for a minute, there's more room and space for these mythical 'little men' to work their footballing magic.

Oh I understand. But what they've been doing lately is packing the scrum with the little men and letting the big props run free in the centres. Are they going to make sure the forwards all pack into the scrum?

Yeah, new ruling this season. The refs have to ensure that there at least 4 forwards (I think?) in the scrum

never saw it penalised though

[MungoMan]

Strange thread, pushing in scrums has never been against the rules in Rugby League. Teams just don't do it.

True. Consequently, if the NRL were to decide in favour of competitive scrums, that decision could be given effect by minimal changes to the existing laws.

Section 12 law 6 sets out a halfback's duties at the put-in. That could be amended so as to oblige the halfback put the ball in at right angles to the touch line at the centre point of the tunnel.

Doing so would give both hookers the opportunity to strike for the ball and give both packs a reason to push, viz. to defend a clean strike by a team's hooker or regain the ball by pushing the other pack off it, as the case may be.

[Flyin Ryan]

Strange thread, pushing in scrums has never been against the rules in Rugby League. Teams just don't do it.

To carry this point further for people that understand the game more than I, if a team makes their scrum all the small guys, what's stopping the opposition from smashing that scrum every time with bigger guys?

[Ali's Choice]

Strange thread, pushing in scrums has never been against the rules in Rugby League. Teams just don't do it.

To carry this point further for people that understand the game more than I, if a team makes their scrum all the small guys, what's stopping the opposition from smashing that scrum every time with bigger guys?

Nothing. Occasionally when a team is behind and really desperate you'll see them contesting a scrum late in a match. They could do this every scrum if they wanted.

[Sensible Stephen]

Strange thread, pushing in scrums has never been against the rules in Rugby League. Teams just don't do it.

To carry this point further for people that understand the game more than I, if a team makes their scrum all the small guys, what's stopping the opposition from smashing that scrum every time with bigger guys?

The halfback basically rolls the ball under the second rowers (locks) feet. So even if you push their scrum back a few meters, its unlikely you'll get the ball.

[shanky]

Occasionally, when this happens and they win one 'against the head', it makes the highlight reels for the entire week afterwards and all the talking heads go on and on and on about how they totally need to re-introduce 'proper' scrums

then it goes quiet again...

As Demilich says, there is little real tactical advantage in winning the scrum in league. It's a novelty play, like laterals in NFL

[grievous]

In rugby forwards are built for positions in the scrum. A league scrum just looks like a double ended VW beetle.
Just take the tap from knock ons, the main facade Mr Valandys is that you want to hang onto the scrum. Your fans dont give a shit.

[Mog The Almighty]

Do they want a game that matches the speed of touch football or do they want to slow it down?

Who cares?

Ice Hockey is one of the fastest games in the world, does that make it the best? Maybe according to some people. Basketball sees heaps of "goals" being scored, does that make it the best? Not necessarily.

Point being these yard-sticks made to measure both codes, "speed it up", "more tries!" are brainless bullshit invented and parroted by marketing heads in suites who are probably not even fans of any type of rugby.

What you want is an exciting, close competition and a stage set for heroics. Rugby Leage scrums do not provide that.

[wamberal]

At the moment the highest level of the game is kind of uninteresting, unless you care who wins. Not much variety in it. I loved loig back in the good old, bad old days, lots of different stuff happened in the average game. Some of it was legal. Some of it was lethal. Hookers were the stars!!!! Freddie Jones !!!! Noel Kelly!!! How good were they???

[Pat the Ex Mat]

Strange thread, pushing in scrums has never been against the rules in Rugby League. Teams just don't do it.

To carry this point further for people that understand the game more than I, if a team makes their scrum all the small guys, what's stopping the opposition from smashing that scrum every time with bigger guys?

The halfback basically rolls the ball under the second rowers (locks) feet. So even if you push their scrum back a few meters, its unlikely you'll get the ball.

To be fair, Union has no high ground in this respect...

[shanky]

Do they want a game that matches the speed of touch football or do they want to slow it down?

Who cares?

Ice Hockey is one of the fastest games in the world, does that make it the best? Maybe according to some people. Basketball sees heaps of "goals" being scored, does that make it the best? Not necessarily.

Point being these yard-sticks made to measure both codes, "speed it up", "more tries!" are brainless bullshit invented and parroted by marketing heads in suites who are probably not even fans of any type of rugby.

What you want is an exciting, close competition and a stage set for heroics. Rugby Leage scrums do not provide that.

IMO, the existential problem for League is that they've stripped many of the features out of it, and distilled it down to 'big hits' plus some other stuff.

When 'big hits' become outlawed inside 10 years, then they'll have some serious problems.

Sure, they've got the wood on us now, but you wait...the worm will turn.

[Thomas]

Do they want a game that matches the speed of touch football or do they want to slow it down?

Who cares?

Ice Hockey is one of the fastest games in the world, does that make it the best? Maybe according to some people. Basketball sees heaps of "goals" being scored, does that make it the best? Not necessarily.

Point being these yard-sticks made to measure both codes, "speed it up", "more tries!" are brainless bullshit invented and parroted by marketing heads in suites who are probably not even fans of any type of rugby.

What you want is an exciting, close competition and a stage set for heroics. Rugby Leage scrums do not provide that.

You seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying.

I'm saying the NRL appears to be confused. I don't give a shit if the game is fast or slow.

[SFBB]

Just make all the forwards go stand on the touch line for 15 seconds and take a quick tap. Its only purpose is to tie up the forwards in a tight bit of space to allow attacking opportunity and a restart after an error, so stop the charade and make it that.

No idea why sports administrators try to create technical rule/law changes in the hope it'll have a desired outcome, when they could just implement what they want as a direct action.

[grievous]

Strange thread, pushing in scrums has never been against the rules in Rugby League. Teams just don't do it.

To carry this point further for people that understand the game more than I, if a team makes their scrum all the small guys, what's stopping the opposition from smashing that scrum every time with bigger guys?

The halfback basically rolls the ball under the second rowers (locks) feet. So even if you push their scrum back a few meters, its unlikely you'll get the ball.

To be fair, Union has no high ground in this respect...

Hes wrong anyway, ball hardly enters the league scrum, it doesnt have to you dont get penalised for crooked feeds

[Jerome Manning]

Yeah, new ruling this season. The refs have to ensure that there at least 4 forwards (I think?) in the scrum

never saw it penalised though

How could you possibly enforce that though? Just name your props as wingers, and your wingers as props.

Josh Papalii could be named at full back while never being in the position of full back.

[Zakar]

Strange thread, pushing in scrums has never been against the rules in Rugby League. Teams just don't do it.

To carry this point further for people that understand the game more than I, if a team makes their scrum all the small guys, what's stopping the opposition from smashing that scrum every time with bigger guys?

The halfback basically rolls the ball under the second rowers (locks) feet. So even if you push their scrum back a few meters, its unlikely you'll get the ball.

To be fair, Union has no high ground in this respect...

Compared to league?

[Jerome Manning]

At the moment the highest level of the game is kind of uninteresting, unless you care who wins. Not much variety in it. I loved loig back in the good old, bad old days, lots of different stuff happened in the average game. Some of it was legal. Some of it was lethal. Hookers were the stars!!!! Freddie Jones !!!! Noel Kelly!!! How good were they???

The big advantage league has is that you're not likely to get a crap, unwatchable game. Some union games are unwatchable.

The price league pays for that is that they don't have the one off brilliant games union occasionally provides (2000 Sydney Bledisloe, 2013 NZ v SA in Jbourg ect).

[Jerome Manning]

..

[DragsterDriver]

Heaviest players in the side must join the scrum- surely it’s that simple?

[Zakar]

Pushing in scrums, lineouts, rucks a couple of extra players and they'll be on to it!

[Jerome Manning]

Heaviest players in the side must join the scrum- surely it’s that simple?

You'll get disputes on the field and the ref is expected to resolve that?

"No, you are the fatty - get in the scrum!"

[eldanielfire]

I don't get this league obsession with fast, more jiggly plays = more entertaining. I find League repetitive and tedious. Don't get me wrong there can be good league games and bad Union games, but I and more fans than appreciated love a good Scrum or Maul contest. There's usually a great reaction in stadiums from fans to a successful maul/scrum heave ho, so why is rugby in some circles appearing to be trying to reduce this aspect?

However somehow it has got the reputation of somehow "unless you are running it, it is bad" mentality when I find the artificial aspects of League (the tackle count, the poor scrums, the lack of contest for the ball in tackles etc) embarrassingly unentertaining and forced pointless rules that take away from the sport, they may as well half the pitch length. Half a league game appears to be near pointless tackles over and over again but it's got this weird rep as supposed to be entertaining for it.

I'm not slagging of League here, it's just my own Union tinted glasses view of why I can't get into League. Also why I don't understand why in some rugby circles people seem to think that the way to go. Especially when half a League game is an artificially enforced, non-contest.

[MungoMan]

Strange thread, pushing in scrums has never been against the rules in Rugby League. Teams just don't do it.

To carry this point further for people that understand the game more than I, if a team makes their scrum all the small guys, what's stopping the opposition from smashing that scrum every time with bigger guys?

The halfback basically rolls the ball under the second rowers (locks) feet. So even if you push their scrum back a few meters, its unlikely you'll get the ball.

To be fair, Union has no high ground in this respect...

Compared to league?

Not cf. league as it is played now, no. But in comparison to league as it was played with contested scrums, certainly.

In well-officiated league scrums the ball was rolled down the centre of the tunnel and the job of hookers was to strike for it. It was not a league hooker's job to contribute to a leg / back drive intended to disrupt the opposition pack. That was rarely practicable since hookers swung suspended from their props.

[DragsterDriver]

Heaviest players in the side must join the scrum- surely it’s that simple?

You'll get disputes on the field and the ref is expected to resolve that?

"No, you are the fatty - get in the scrum!"

Weigh them beforehand!

[Mog The Almighty]

Do they want a game that matches the speed of touch football or do they want to slow it down?

Who cares?

Ice Hockey is one of the fastest games in the world, does that make it the best? Maybe according to some people. Basketball sees heaps of "goals" being scored, does that make it the best? Not necessarily.

Point being these yard-sticks made to measure both codes, "speed it up", "more tries!" are brainless bullshit invented and parroted by marketing heads in suites who are probably not even fans of any type of rugby.

What you want is an exciting, close competition and a stage set for heroics. Rugby Leage scrums do not provide that.

IMO, the existential problem for League is that they've stripped many of the features out of it, and distilled it down to 'big hits' plus some other stuff.

When 'big hits' become outlawed inside 10 years, then they'll have some serious problems.

Sure, they've got the wood on us now, but you wait...the worm will turn.

That's a very Australian perspective, a very NSW/QLD one at that ... they've got the "wood" on us really? League is a little or unknown sideshow virtually everywhere outside of two Australian states and a handful of Welsh villages. Almost literally, virtually the entire world prefers rugby apart from a handful of bogans in a place where it still plays second-fiddle to the national football code, which is AFL.

Regarding the other stuff, I hope they get to keep their "big hits" and their "biff". This wrapping everyone in cotton-wool is getting ridiculous. If you want to be an MMA-fighter or a rugby player or a boxer or a racing car driver or whatever else, all the power to you. Let people do what they want with their own life. I think the laws and rules should be that every player is thoroughly educated on the risks involved, and the concussion protocols in place now seem sensible. Now just let them play.

[Hellraiser]

At the moment the highest level of the game is kind of uninteresting, unless you care who wins. Not much variety in it. I loved loig back in the good old, bad old days, lots of different stuff happened in the average game. Some of it was legal. Some of it was lethal. Hookers were the stars!!!! Freddie Jones !!!! Noel Kelly!!! How good were they???

The big advantage league has is that you're not likely to get a crap, unwatchable game. Some union games are unwatchable.

The price league pays for that is that they don't have the one off brilliant games union occasionally provides (2000 Sydney Bledisloe, 2013 NZ v SA in Jbourg ect).

Speak for yourself. Watching League is like watching paint dry.

[Hellraiser]

League is a little or unknown sideshow virtually everywhere outside of two Australian states and a handful of Welsh villages

[MungoMan]

League is a little or unknown sideshow virtually everywhere outside of two Australian states and a handful of Welsh villages

Welsh village like Leeds, Hull, Wigan, Bradford and so on.