Kettykat wrote:
Not missed them at all in their current format ,having said that they’ve been a joke and a source of ridicule for some time now ,what is the point of an uncontested scrum , poor way to restart the game IMO ,may as well just hand ball over for a tap play . Now contested scrums ,now your talking ,but as with everything else in this world it’s been dumbed down to the point of irrelevance , but hey ho whatever format the RL go with I’ll just be happy to see some rugby .
I agree.
Nobody wants us to end up with the monstrosities you get in Union but they need to be relevant.
It’s not even difficult. There is only one rule that really matters in my opinion and that is that the ball is fed into the middle of the scrum that is set and not the S/R. it’s that more than anything else that allows the scrum to be contested at some level.
I don’t really care if the scrum is a bit crooked or the ball is promoted slightly to the FR of the scrum half’s choice.
For me I expect and want the team feeding the scrum to get possession 90% of the time, the last thing I want is teams forcing scrums to get possession back, nightmare. I think what we want or at least I do is that 10% of jeopardy, that outside chance in a tight game, that almighty shove in the dying moments that pays off.
I don’t want scrums like you get in Union but if they come back they need to have some validity. A bit like the 40/20, it’s only got an outside chance but occasionally it pays off. The 40/20 works because it’s more difficult than it looks and if done really badly it backfire in a big way, hence it’s used sparingly. Scrums should be similar imho.