Rugby League needs another contest for the ball - but are scrums the answer?

I have recently been trawling through some old Rugby League footage and watching it reminded me of something that we use to have but dont any more - Scrums. Back in those days you kick it out or knock on and it was a scrum - and the scrum was a contest for the ball. I was thinking - thats what we need some other options where the team without the ball has a chance of winning it back. It might also inspire teams to put some different kinds of football players back on the field rather than your stock standard 6 foot 4, 105kg athlete.

Back when league first separated from Union it decided to abolish the line out and instead stick to scrums as they were at the time an even contest but Imagine now if Rugby League bought back the line out, then we would see the re-emergence of tall lighter players, ie football players with necks.

Then it occurred to me what would happen if we did bring back the scrum. Back in the 70s teams didn't mind if you lost the ball as you always had a chance of getting it back with a scrum. So Scrums were a lose gathering of players where anything goes and scrum penalties were a lottery judged solely by the ref . Now a days the sport is professional with much more money, players and clubs would demand that the scrums are fair and the rules clearly defined. So in other words you couldn't just get the ref to feed the scrum, while it would make it an even contest it would still be very hard to judge who collapsed the scrum or made some other infringement.

This of course means your left with something like a rugby scrum, where there is a defined start and finish. But bear in mind that these take about a minute to sort out each time (this includes the obligatory 50 seconds for the team to talk tactics while a front rower lies on the ground feigning injury), and the result nine times out of ten favours the team feeding the scrum. So in other words for the 10 or so scrums we would get a game we would have the same result as we have now but the ball would be circulating around 1/8th time less than it is now.

We have been lulled into a false sense of security that the game is even and interesting by the salary cap (with one notable exception). Just because each team has a chance of winning doesn't mean we shouldn't make changes to make it more interesting. At present the teams that win do so by dominating possession. This leads to forms of play that are less risky - ie constant dummy half running or passing one of the ruck to a running forward.

If a team does score they get the ball back from the kick off. Or if they trap a team in goal they get the ball back - if a team dominates possession they win. Over the last few weeks that's exactly what has happened to the tigers. The refs of course try to even this up through equaliser penalties (just watch how many times those 50/50 calls go to a side that has just conceded a couple of trys).

The game has changed in the professional era so that coaches support low risk high percentage plays. As a result some of the more interesting parts of the game have all but disappeared - what for instance happen to the chip and chase. Coaches don't encourage it any more because if you don't regather the ball you have given it away in good field position to the opposition. We need another contest for the ball to add more variety to the game and give teams who are on the back foot the chance to win the ball back.

Scrums aren't the answer but what is? AFL has the ball up and Rugby Union has the line out. Why not combine the two - have the hooker throw the ball backwards over his head to a group of 5 forwards kneeling in a pyramid shape with the lock standing on top ready to dive for the ball wherever it goes.

Or how about run under a limbo bar to collect the ball, this would encourage short people to participate in the game meaning each team would have to carry at least one Ommpa Lumpa in the defensive line or two in Canterburys case as you would have to count Brett Kimorley.