Ever since the contested scrum disappeared from rugby league, we’ve had an awfully big (and frankly, quite ugly) elephant in the room.
These days the back in rugby league has become a show-gun, with forwards unable to do much because not much is given to them to do.
To use a political analogy, backs have increasingly begun appealing to anyone watching with their relative monopoly on progressing the ball down the field, promoting a liberal use of the ball.
They take risks and in the process make change, even if forwards may not approve. And this only increases as these changes are promoted, leading to more changes becoming necessary as forwards push against their disadvantage, leading to more change as backs get used to certain freedoms.
If you accepted this, you’d have to say forward play as it stands fits into the ‘conservative’ category. Not reactionary by any means, but there will always be forwards, but the question is: if the backs get more freedoms (and thus more ball if they can earn it with their razzle dazzle) what do the forwards get?
I’d say they get the conservative niche because unless the game becomes truly like touch footy, there will always be a certain number of tackles in the set which the backs won’t be able to use effectively.
But by reducing them to this, you also reduce them to something analogised to that old (fogie) backbencher, who had prominence once, but quite clearly no more. And this creates a kind of ‘conservative’ complacency, where forwards just accept this, because that’s what they’re paid for.
Now obviously you’ll get exceptions who have talent and all-round athletic ability, who will make a mockery of this conservatism. But unless every forward in every team ever bcomes like this the overarching culture will go some ways towards resembling this.
Also I think it pertinent to mention that some of the old forward positions have obviously evolved into something like half-forward positions. Hookers particularly. But also second rowers and centres-who-become-second-rowers.
I would personally be in favour of a return to a contested scrum, to allow some of the conservatism to drain away. And I say some, because naturally forwards will never pass, run and kick like most top-line backs. But this would but the onus on forwards who just want to charge/barge the ball forward.
It’s quite an interesting irony, that part of the major reforms of the laws in the time of setting limited tackles was about reducing the bash and barge has with further reforms of the scrum laws led to bash and barge (but this time only for the forwards). The contested scrum requires more from forwards than this. But if you’re not happy about doing some back-tracking. Some solutions would be appreciated as always.
But don’t tell me forwards are there predominantly as defenders as a back is often in a better position to actually defend when it really matters.
I could admonish the lack of creativity etc like Phil Gould has done many times, but I just want to say one final thing. This season, young as it is, I have already noticed that forwards are getting quite good at off-loading, and this has been happening for a few years, but off-loading while it is a helpful half-way house to actual creativity is in some ways more conservative an option.
For me this also makes it in some ways even more lacking in courage than a hit-up, which doesn’t require so much intellectual courage but pretty much every other form of courage. But an off-load is something like what back-benchers do. It’s not really saying or doing anything that can hurt you.
But it is a somewhat sneaky (and maybe ironic as it quite often seems to be half-hearted) way of deferring to the mission of the backs, but without taking much responsibility for the outcome.
Jaredsbro
Roar Guru
But without a contest at the scrum what is the point of having forwards. This article wasn't really about the need for a scrum (tho I personally believe a contest is needed) but about the need (or not) for forwards in this modern era. At the moment forwards are generally used as big backs, and are expected to play more or less like backs. But for me this is merely a half-way house because the backs are perceived as the ones bringing in the moolah/ pandering to the entertainment dollar, the forwards are just forgiven of there not-quite-equal-athleticism. If the forwards were allowed to play a more specialised role, maybe we'd get something like American Football (which I personally would prefer than the scum that we have at the moment [that is a scrum which just brings together all the tough nuts, so the ponies can run circles around them]). American Football however is probably too specialised to keep what has been consistently Rugby League's identity over the one hundred and seven years the code has existed. But at least the 'forwards' in the American game are needed for the 'backs' to get their job done. But then again Rugby League needs to learn quickly or forward physical types are going to be playing Rugby Union or Australian Football. Bottom line: Rugby League is too enamoured with the forward-as-mule and the back-as-showpony and if it continues Rugby League will lose its major competitive edge over its oval ball rivals: the fact that all backs are crucial (not just helpful) in scoring. And this was quite possibly the greatest thing Rugby League learned off Rugby Union. Lesson wasted unfortunately! End result, Rugby League's heading towards an all-in-one contest, much like Soccer I'd predict...where the best way of beating your opponent if you don't have the required fleetfooted skills teams will have to resort to violence to get back that other contest which was lost by the dismantling of the scrum!!!
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
If you took away two forwards,you could have a scrum that would be less destructive if it collapsed. Remember the name Farrar who became a paraplegic with a collapsed scrum.Never again,never agin.It would open up the field further.it is a Warren Ryan idea in fact. I can't see where you come up with more forward time with the ball. I watch regularly the Sharks as a case in point,,and if Gallen,Smith,De Gois,Toupu,Morris ,Fifita dont; handle the ball as much if not more than the backs,then I must be watching farnarkling. In many cases they are the ones who do the dirty hard yakka,offload to a fast running back coming through the centre,or loitering the backline to send the defence reeling giving backs open space. Sorry forwards these days are far more athletic and have more ball skills in the main than they did 30 years ago. Put it down to full time professionalism.. The code as a game is not perfect we all know that,but few fans I know give a rats about how a scrum is formed.They don't pay their hard earned for technicalities.Matter of fact other codes in some peoples'views have strange "unnecessary" aspects,behinds and lifting in lineouts for example.it does not detract from the total entertainment value of the codes. Less razzle dazzle!!!!!! Are you kidding.Two words to whet one's appetite: Manly Warriors.Cut and paste and as my dear old dad used to say"read ,mark learn and inwardly digest". The day people come to an NRL match partially to see a competitive scrum,you know the game has lost the plot.
Go warriors
Guest
Mark I take it you have never played a game or RL before. If you think there is no contest in the tackle then you have got no Idea. I would love to see you trying to tackle Fui fui moi moi steaming on to it at full speed and then wrestling him to the ground turning him on his back. If you think that is easy then again you have no idea. All NRL teams have proffesional wrestling coaches teaching all the wrestling techniques. Tell your Irish mate the reason they only have 6 tackles to score is that in league you have to score tries to win. You cant just rely on referees to award penalties for reasons nobody knows and you cant just kick the ball out on the full because you are tired or just too scared of getting smashed.
JottingsOnRugby.com
Roar Pro
@ Ian Whitchurch. Oh dear. The scrum, the lineout, the kicking for goal are rugby football, and indeed amongst the original founding and principal features of 200 years of rugby football. Running with the ball, passing the ball, these are later additions that are mere flourishes, adjuncts. outcomes and consequences from playing rugby football - they don't result unless you have domniated and won in the scrum, in the rucks, in the mauls &/or in the lineout. You are imagining (wrongly) that rugby is handball. Even RL is not won by ball passing, but by the tackle wrestle game. Passing the ball may seem how games are won, but it is merely to have taken advantage of having dominated the ruck battle.
Jaredsbro
Roar Guru
But yet American Football the oldest to branch off the Rugby Football Family tree has something closely resembling a scrum, stylised for sure, but with the same role as the actual scrum as it would evolve in the Rugby Football Union and then the Rugby Football League. And guess what, it serves more than a restart fashion too...it is a means to slowing the forward momentum down and creating opportunities to gaining the ball back...it's just the way that the ball is regained changes between Rugby Union and American Football. ;)
Jaredsbro
Roar Guru
All I'm railing against really is the (ab)use of the scrum as some kind of re-boot for the ball which has gone dead. At the moment taking away two forwards wouldn't help if you still had a scrum (and I doubt it would ever help as 13 works better than all other numbers of players). If it was more than this, forwards would have more ball-time in a sense. But as you mention that would require taking a risk (and a high prob of) on resets and knock-ons etc. And so for you that doesn't sound worth it, how would you increase the number of forward-time with ball...because as things are going currently the way forwards are used now if they were to get more ball there would be less time for the pure razzle dazzle?
Jaredsbro
Roar Guru
But then you get American Football. Which has probably too much specialisation and the everyman can no longer play. This is the problem with changing the fundamental identity of the code. And it's yet to be resolved. Being totally honest the backs never had a problem in this game...if they were talented enough (even when there was the 5m rule and contested scrums etc). But the forward situation un-sorted-out is in some ways defeating the purpose of forwards. But of course you could just reduce forwards to half-forwards like in American Football...but that game needed to radically reform its identity for a long time before it came up with the forward pass. Rygby league's identity shouldn't be in such crisis at this point!
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
Jaredsbro. I am not sure whether your response is directed to me. If it was,you in fact did not fully understand my views. Let me just suggest you are way off the mark,if you state I rail against the dog's breakfast that is the scrum.My approach is ,it is an evil necessity to restart viz a viz a knock on,or kick into touch.It unclutters the field for a very short space of time.I prefer it to when the code tried to introduce "proper"scrums.It was a dog's breakfastThat is why they got rid of the idea. If you want to do anything drastic,reduce the number of forwards by two. A game of only backs!!!! Mr Gallen.J Smith,C Smith,P Civenocea,Whatmough,Kite,Hindmarsh,Creagh,Matulino,Burgess(and I could name many more), all apparently spend their days bashing into one another,with no creativity would disagree and that is just the tip of the iceberg. I feel the need for forwards to be creative,not the Martin Lang types. BTW some people actually like the collisions of the colossuses.Whether we like it or not,forwards have a very big impact on the games todayTthey set the platformjust as they have done since Dall M laced on a boot. I had the privilege of viewing some of Beetson's offloads,with defenders hanging off him,to set up his outside backs.Poetry in motion.Beetson hated the lack of scrum contest,but still reckoned it was the best game on the planet. The forwards are the workers,the backs are the finishers.Else we would have forwards looking like beanpoles. Yes I accept the game for what it is, warts and all and ,no code is without structural and rule criticism.It is not perfect,but for me ,my family and mates( after years being involved in another code) it now ,provides a great entertainment outlet. The same entertainment outlet that is being taken up by a growing number of participants ,viewers and specatators here and in other countries. Call it a simple game if you wish,but sometimes simplicity has its beauty to the beholder.Technicalities a beauty for others.That is why in some places the code is affectionately called Open Rugby.I only want to see a penalty blow for illegal play or rule infringements not for pedantics.
p.Tah
Guest
Then all we need to do is remove the tackle and we have touch football :)
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Neither the scrum, nor the lineout, not the kick for goal have anything to do with picking up the ball and running with it and passing the ball by hand. None of these three things should have anything to do with rugby football.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Jaredsbro, Go ahead. Play on an island, man on man, one on one, against good forwards, and watch them make line breaks as well as create meters as they are tackled. By dominating the line of scrimmage, you force the defense to concentrate numbers onto the line, compressing it vertically or horizontally, and thereby creating space to attack into. By dominating the line of scrimage, you force the defense to concentrate numbers onto the line, creating loose men elsewhere on the field. Removing scrums, just like removing lineouts, was one of the best moves rugby league made. If we can get rid of goalikicking as well, it will be near on perfect.
Jaredsbro
Roar Guru
Yeah just proves my point this whole fiasco seems to suggest the game lacks intellectual courage when it comes to issues with regard to identity. I'm not sure what kind of game Rugby League wants to be anymore :P
Jaredsbro
Roar Guru
So if you played Rugby Union you'd know what a game for specialists it is? You'd possibly also know that people like seeing the big guys playing creatively. As you mentioned above this happens in Rugby League and in fact some players have nigh on singlehandedly re-invented the forward position they played. So why is Rugby League's paying public so different that they want to keep the forward in his back-benching place? I doubt it's because they're simpler folk with simpler desires/expectations is it? No it's because people like you have accepted the dross when it comes to the scrum. People like you rail against what they call a dog's breakfast but yet you insist on eating the dog for breakfast! Why is it alright that you can have a game of only backs, when clearly forwards cannot excel...at best they can punch above their weight (as it were) And yet they can't all be backs because you feel the need of ramming big guys into each other...sounding more and more like American Football, and with it a fate even more specialised than you'll get in Rugby Union.
Nathan of Perth
Guest
The distinction is assuredly crucial.
Pete75
Guest
"Well for starters Pete75, Paddy Backpacker said the rules were shyt, he said nothing of the game being shyt" Oh. Thanks for clarifying that....
Nathan of Perth
Guest
"like knowing something should happen here" is how that should read, sigh. Restructured the sentence but forgot that wee detail when I did.
Patrick Angel
Roar Guru
Either contest it, or make it "no splitting till (either seconds, or the next tackle maybe)" and making it a 5 pointer. Barring that, scrap the bloody things.
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
Thanks Mark what a heart warming and friendly post. Not every one of your offerings i happen to agree with,and in fact I could suggest your responsive content is annoying,but I won't as a matter of civility.I have been on the receiving end of one your posts,when you wanted me banned from the board.Free speech anyone. Funny I am far from the only person to suggest such a thing re tackles.You have obviously do not see tacklers trying to dislodge the ball,a one on one strip,,stripping discretely when more than one tackler involved,tackling to soften up,tackling to get the player over the sideline,shoulder charges.Possession the name of the game.. Well Mark having played union for 6 years ,I happen to agree there are many people who like scrums and their technicalities.There are more than a few people on this planet,who want the scrum to be set and get on with the game,as in rugby league.Horses for courses.I prefer the latter. Settle down, all I stated scrums in rugby league being reset is boring,what they do in the other code is their business. Have a nice day and I will certainly keep my head in the sand,safer than a scrum. Of course my game is shyt,so apparently do 37,500 NZedders who rolled up to Eden Park. BTW glad you mentioned your Paddy mate,rugby league seems to be doing Ok in Ireland from a small base.The iuck of the Irish ,begorrah.
Nathan of Perth
Guest
"Sometimes I think rugby league has changed too much too often even for its own good. It needs to return scrums as a meaningful contest, or get rid of them, & adopt the American football line of scrimmage." Agree with the thought, the league scrum just has that kind of vestigal feel to it, like not knowing something should happen here to replace the Union scrum but not being quite sure what fits the nature of the league game best.
Mark
Guest
Well for starters Pete75, Paddy Backpacker said the rules were shyt, he said nothing of the game being shyt and his opinion is one of many. Try watching the Super Rugby again, scrum resets are not tolerated anymore and I do believe Rugby is far more popular all over the world. Must be because our specialists game has players for a particular purpose. -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.