Holding the ball in at the scrum is a smart tactic and we should never have stopped the loose-forward from being allowed to do it.

If the opposition can be kept 'honest' (i.e. bound-in in the forwards and onside in the backs), we may see more expansive play from the scrum. It would give the scrum a 'modern purpose'. (I'm not one of those who wishes to return to the mess we used to have with so-called 'competitive' scrums and which rugby union are now finding a royal pain in the backside).

One of the criticisms I hear levelled at RL is that it can sometimes be a bit one-dimensional. Having handovers instead of scrums would make it even more so. The scrum having a modern purpose helps to counter this.

I'd be tempted to ramp up the potential benefit of chancing your arm from a scrum a bit further by having a think about other ways of creating space for the backs. For example, does a scrum pack have to consist of only six players?

It's a legitimate tactic but if refs are going to penalise it they should penalise it consistently.



That aside, once again Silverwood showed why he shouldn't be given the very big games. The holding down was horrendous at times. Eventually he'd tell them to move, a couple of seconds later they'd do so and time and again no penalties were forthcoming. Awful. Thaler or, at a push, Bentham should get the CC final if it is to be a proper spectacle.

Shame Silverwood didn't apply the rules properly when Charnley clearly knocked on just seconds after the penalty, just before he scored.

Should have been a scrum to Rovers.

It wasn't a clear knock on in real time. It was only clear on slow motion, high definition replays.



Criticism of Silverwood in that game should be directed towards his allowing Wigan to hold down. That's the kind of thing that annoys me as a fan because that's a ref not applying the rules properly and allowing a team to slow the game down.



Getting an incredibly difficult, tight, 50-50 call wrong is purely a mistake, and an understandable one.

I agree that invention is a good thing, but, we should be wary of over complicating scrums by giving them so many dimensions that officials will be forced to consider a variety of possible scrum infringements.



Look at the state of RU where some games descend into scrum fests that last for minutes on end and the likes of Brian Moore eulogise over technicalities that any non international front rower can't spot without HD slow motion replays



Be careful what you wish for

Feeding the ball directly between a prop's feet or into the second row at a scrum is against the rules and, by definition, cheating. Every team does it but it is NEVER penalised.



So is cheating only cheating when it is penalised?



What are your thoughts?

Scrums in RL are already a farce and penalties could be given at EVERY scrum that is "formed".

If it's within the rules, which it clearly is, then good on Wigan (or anyone else) for profiting from keeping the ball in.



Having said that, the scrum is an absolute joke.

The rules weren't changed, but "Feeding" as an offence was done away with a long time, by virtue of guidance given on "interpretation" of the scrum rules, hence it is no longer penalised.



No such guidance on binding at a scrum has been given.

Guidance or none, feeding the scrum is braking the rules, i.e. cheating, you can't move the goal posts to suit your agenda.

The change in the rules was making it that the loose forward could not trap the ball.

Holding the ball in the scrum was in the rules prior 1895 AKAIK.

I haven't. I agree with you.



The interpretations are in place as a result of the coaches advisory meetings! It's the clubs that drive these things.



Fed up of seeing players place the ball on the ground, then use it to lever themselves from the floor. It's a penalty, but when do you ever see it given?

Bit of a cheap penalty I think. Although if it stops the HB from being offside in EVERY scrum then I am for teams doing this.