Post by redunderthebed on Jun 11, 2020 10:08:33 GMT
The RFL are considering rule changes including getting rid of scrums to reduce contact and therefore likely chance of transmission. I can see the logic in it as a temporary measure but I wonder what it will mean for the long term future of scrums. If they are stopped it is hard to see anyone arguing it would be beneficial to return to barely bound scrums with feeding the ball into the 2nd row I still have mixed views on the ‘6 again’ for holding rule
I can’t see much ‘logic’ regarding player safety/Coronavirus and think they are just using that as an excuse to trial getting rid of scrums. Seems like a good opportunity for such a trial so I’m fine with that.
Rule changes are fine mid interupted season if you don't have relegation.
If it brought us nearer to having the same rules world wide it would be briiliant, using it as an experiment for a completely different game is patent nonsense. It says to everyone this season is for making a bit of money and regarded as irrelevant.
Of course it could just be black ops for getting what they really want to change in the sport.
I was told that the reason we kept scrums was the Aussies liked it as it took so many forwards out of the move and allowed the backs more room: yeah. Please do not poke holes in that answer as you'll suffer keyboard stress. There's so many.
Why I asked was that I was doing my ref training: when you looked at the laws of the game, there is no comparison to what you see on the pitch. We were told what to do and it wasn't scrums as legislated for (for instance, that Saints scrum move in the final which led to a try was an offence).
Scrums are probably on the way out anyway. In Union they end up as penalties. In League, they're a joke.
Apart from the facts that the government is useless at crisis and only interested in dosh it also shows that starting up again is probably far more risky and hazardous than either Downing Street or Derek Beaumont would have us believe.