Post by Carnster on Sept 7, 2020 9:26:44 GMT
Leaving my opinion at the door on scrums, I think we're all forgetting the actual reasons why rule changes happen and happen often in our sport.
Rule changes happen because of two factors. Safety and counteracting the efforts of coaches to manipulate the game in their favour. Occasionally, rule changes are brought in to streamline a convoluted rule that slows the progress of the game.
Head injuries, blood bin, increased interchanges, tackling in the air, crusher tackles, tackles below the knee in multi-tackles, and removal of scrums (In SL due to covid). These are examples of rule changes made with player welfare in mind. Zero tackle and six again are examples of changes brought in to counteract stifling of the game through tactics and coaching. Forty-twenty is an example of change designed to reward risk/skill.
I see a lot of people saying that the recent changes are done to speed the game up but if you look at it, it's for a mixture of reasons. Will the removal of scrums be more permanent in SL? Possibly, possibly not. We all know how useless they are and that they provide nothing as a spectacle. Would be interesting to see how they justify bringing them back based on that criteria. The fact that the NRL still has them may be the saving grace for those who want to keep them. It keeps parity between the two main competitions and Internationally and makes sense to retain them.
On the other hand, they provide nothing, look sloppy, and serve no real purpose beyond overly complicating a restart in play.
Rule changes happen because of two factors. Safety and counteracting the efforts of coaches to manipulate the game in their favour. Occasionally, rule changes are brought in to streamline a convoluted rule that slows the progress of the game.
Head injuries, blood bin, increased interchanges, tackling in the air, crusher tackles, tackles below the knee in multi-tackles, and removal of scrums (In SL due to covid). These are examples of rule changes made with player welfare in mind. Zero tackle and six again are examples of changes brought in to counteract stifling of the game through tactics and coaching. Forty-twenty is an example of change designed to reward risk/skill.
I see a lot of people saying that the recent changes are done to speed the game up but if you look at it, it's for a mixture of reasons. Will the removal of scrums be more permanent in SL? Possibly, possibly not. We all know how useless they are and that they provide nothing as a spectacle. Would be interesting to see how they justify bringing them back based on that criteria. The fact that the NRL still has them may be the saving grace for those who want to keep them. It keeps parity between the two main competitions and Internationally and makes sense to retain them.
On the other hand, they provide nothing, look sloppy, and serve no real purpose beyond overly complicating a restart in play.
