Rules, interprations and how they have changed.

[cpwigan]

Chris, honestly real scrums at a pro level are a nightmare, both hookers block the tunnel and the ball never gets put in as it bounces back and the referee just penalises scrum after scrum. Also back in the day, if you completed your set of 6 tackles well it might have been less then :doz: you got to feed the scrum too.

[ChrisA]

cpwigan posted:
Chris, honestly real scrums at a pro level are a nightmare, both hookers block the tunnel and the ball never gets put in as it bounces back and the referee just penalises scrum after scrum. Also back in the day, if you completed your set of 6 tackles well it might have been less then :doz: you got to feed the scrum too.

They are a nightmare because the officials at Red Hall decided to let the rules go, and allow teams to take the piss.

[robjoenz]

cpwigan posted:
I think sin binning a player for 5 minutes hurts that team more than purely conceding a penalty. There are teams that once in front will conceded penalties as opposed to tries.

The ref would need to give a penalty before a sin-binning anyway.

For example teams lying offside, take them back 12 yards to get your 10 yards.

Very often refs do this, although it is more common in NL1. The only exception is Colin Morris who takes the players back ten metres then moves forward before the ball is played with the defensive line.

When refs do this though they often get stick for players standing in front of them. It happened against Salford once or twice, they were back ten metres but it didn't appear so because some were in front of the ref. On another occasion the TJ took the defensive line of a scrum back just 7 or so metres.

[cpwigan]

Chris I'm going back 60's, 70's even in Aus. Nothing to do with Red hall, sorry

Rob, I would alter sin binning so that it did not require a penalty to be mandatory. Just sin bin and play on.

Interesting discussion though. Far better than the real one that Cummins and co have I bet

[Doveoverdave]

Personally I think that the scrums we have now are the best we have ever had. When both hookers and both number 8's could strike at the ball they were an absolute joke and the ball often just bounced back to the scrum half , who was still "side on " to the scrum. Loads of pens as well.

No it is far better to re-start the game with our no contest scrums.

[willie c]

the old scrums where better because hooking was a skill the fastest hooker won the ball the scrums we have now where brought in to speed up the game for tv

[Wizard_Millward]

Wern't they brought in to avoid serious injury to players involved in the scrum?

[willie c]

not really scrums can still collapse now it was to speed up the scrum so they are not have to pack down 2 or 3 times