News: New move on scrums

[ManlyBacker]

<p>NRL footy could become an even greater spectacle if a proposal is adopted at today's NRL coaches' conference.</p>
<p />


<a href="http://www.silvertails.net/news/4521-new-move-on-scrums.html">Read the full article</a>

 

[Mcatmos]

Agreed, more attacking flair could only be good for the game out of scrums. Especially considering the scrum in the modern game is merely to keep the big boppers out of the play

 

[OneEyedEagle]

I don't know what they are waiting for, should have been implemented ages ago.

 

[DSM5]

Sheens supports it because he has Marshall at 5/8th and he needs more room to 'weave' his 'magic'.  Closely marked and he goes nowhere.  Leave the scrums alone, they're doing fine.  Let's talk about throwing the ball forward perhaps (that's irony for you dumbells out there). 

 

[Chip and Chase]

Agreed, more attacking flair could only be good for the game out of scrums. Especially considering the scrum in the modern game is merely to keep the big boppers out of the play

Not any more, how many times do you see a backrower camped at 5/8 during a scrum these days.....happens quite a bit. This proposal will get them back in the scrums where they belong. This would be a good rule change for us, as Snake's speed would be invaluable in a reduced numbers defensive line and with room to move. He is the type of player who would really shine in some well thought out scrum moves against a deeper defence.

 

[Dan]

just leave the ****ing game alone

 

[Chip and Chase]

If everyone had that attitude we'd still be playing a 5m defensive line and unlimited tackles. Wouldn't that be riveting footy.

 

[Dan]

mmm so lets bring in the forward pass, and lines of scrimmage.

There becomes a point when you tweak with something so much it just breaks.

I would prefer to see us fix the things that are broken before we start to add new and exciting features.

Lets get our release cycles right.

NRL 2010 should be a service pack not and application pack

 

[Chip and Chase]

Adjusting the offside rule from scrums is hardly comparable to allowing forward passes. Were you against the introduction of the 40/20 rule ? or the introduction of the defused bomb rule ?

I agree that there are some things that need to be fixed with some of the existing rules, however in most cases you'll find there is a adequate rule there it's just that they decide not to police it.

 

[Canteen Worker]

I want them to work at the decoy rule concerning obstruction. As it currently stands, if a defender makes a bad read and goes for a defender who doesn't have the ball and then touches him, they call it obstruction (even if the decoy doesn't impede him in any way.  If the defender is stupid and doesn't touch the decoy they tend to let him go.

It should be changed to penalise those that deliberately impede defenders and punish those that make bad reads and defensive decisions. We want more tries and to reward those that can fool defenders.