Steve Borthwick handed fresh injury concern ahead of Six Nations

First, the point would be you wouldn't have a share of those penalities if you didn't choose good scrummers right.

So having incentive to scrummaging well gives more space in the field through having less mobile players.

This balance is what we always strive to come back to being the focus of any law change right.

So to bring that back to some of the points in this article, if changing the current 'offense' structure of scrums, to say not penalizing a team that's doing their utmost to hold up the scrum (allowing play to continue even if they did finally succumb to collapsing or w/e for example), how are we going to stop that from creating a situation were a coach can prioritize the open play abilities of their tight five, sacrificing pure scrummaging, because they won't be overly punished by having a weak scrum?

But to get back on topic, yes, that balance is too skewed, the prevalence has been too much/frequent.

At the highest level, with the best referees and most capable props, it can play out appealingly well. As you go down the levels, the coaching of tactics seems to remain high, but the ability of the players to adapt and hold their scrum up against that guy boring, or the skill of the ref in determining what the cause was and which of those two to penalize, quickly degrades the quality of the contest and spectacle imo (thank good european rugby left that phase behind!)

Personally I have some very drastic changes in mind for the game that easily remedy this prpblem (as they do for all circumstances), but the scope of them is too great to bring into this context (some I have brought in were applicable), and without them I can only resolve to come up with lots of 'finicky' like those here. It is easy to understand why there is reluctance in their uptake.

I also think it is very folly of WR to try and create this 'perfect' picture of simple laws that can be used to cover all aspects of the game, like 'a game to be played on your feet' etc, and not accept it needs lots of little unique laws like these. I'd be really happy to create some arbitrary advantage for the scrum victors (similar angle to yours), like if you can make your scrum go forward, that resets the offside line from being the ball to the back foot etc, so as to create a way where your scrum wins a foot be "5 meters back" from the scrum becomes 7, or not being able to advance forward past the offisde line (attack gets a free run at you somehow, or devide the field into segments and require certain numbers to remain in the other sgements (like the 30m circle/fielders behind square requirements in cricket). If you're defending and you go forward then not just is your 9 still allowed to harras the opposition but the backline can move up from the 5m line to the scrum line or something.

Make it a real mini game, take your solutions and making them all circumstantial. Having differences between quick ball or ball held in longer, being able to go forward, or being pushed backwards, even to where the scrum stops and the ref puts his arm out in your favour. Think of like a quick tap scenario, but where theres no tap. If the defending team collapses the scrum in honest attempt (even allow the attacking side to collapse it after gong forward) the ball can be picked up (by say the eight) who can run forward without being allowed to be tackled until he's past the back of the scrum for example. It's like a little mini picture of where the defence is scrambling back onside after a quick tap was taken.

The purpose/intent (of any such gimmick) is that it's going to be so much harder to stop his momentum, and subsequent tempo, that it's a really good advantage for having such a powerful scrum. No change of play to a lineout or blowing of the whistle needed.

To me there are some other issues not being able to take advantage of both a good scrum and a good counter attack. The ABs when that Argy game without a scrum for 60 minutes because they were happy to counter attack, or something throw ball around or play normally, every 'advantage' the were rewarded.

You should be able to use both tools imo, so I honestly would be looking to exchange the scrums use from knockons to something more reliable.

A dozen (successfully completed) scrums a game is a good number to aim for?

He is just showing the new need for what you suggest, some good analysis into the result of all the previous decades changes to scrums.

The trick is about enabling it to work that way. Being able to opt for a penalty (as is suggested being removed as an option) instead of capitalizing on your scrum dominance acheivers neither of those two things.

So straight away, as a analyst we can see that you would appreciate the suggestions in this article once you saw it played out, even if you can't picture their worth/value now.

Rugby is a balanced game, meant for all shapes and sizes.

Yep, I think you would certainly love them!

But speeding them up further is not the answer (no one has suggested it as a solution so not sure why were talking abuot?) to anything, no, it is about player safety now. Results will be made by increasing their success rate. And you make a very good point that it is all about balance anyway.

It won't be rugby at that point DP, so nobody will be watching rugby! A sobering thought everyone at WR should keep in mind.

Well maybe more than a couple of questions, just to be clear. What exactly did this penalty stop you from doing the the first time that you want to try again? What was this offence that stopped you doing it? Then ask yourself how often would this occur in the game. Now, thinking about the regularity of it and compare it to how it was/would be used throughout the rest of the game (in cases other than the example you gave/didn't give for some unknown reason).

What sort of balance did you find?

Now, we don't want to complicate things further by bringing into the discussion points Bull raised like 'entirety' or 'replaced with a ruck', so instead I'll agree that if we use this article as a trigger to expanding our opinions/thoughts, why not allow a scrum to be reset if that is what they(you) want? Stopping the clock for it greatly removes the need to stop 5 minutes of scrum feeds happening. Fixing the law interpretations (not incorrectly rewarding the dominant team) and reducing the amount of offences that result in a penalty would greatly reduce the amount of repeat scrums in the first place. And now that refs a card happy, when a penalty offence is committed it's going to be far more likely it results in the loss of a player, then the loss of scrums completely and instead having a 15 on 13 advantage for the scrum dominant team to then run their opposition ragged. So why not take the scrum again (maybe you've already asked yourself that question by now)?

It will kind be like a Power Play in Hockey. Your outlook here is kind of going to depend on your understanding of what removing repeat scrums was put in place for, but I'm happy the need for it is gone in a new world order. As I've said on every discussion on this topic, scrums are great, it is just what they result in that hasn't been. Remove the real problem and scrum all you like. The All Blacks will love zapping that energy out of teams.

Dmac needed a season in the hot seat, and time to grow his game.

The Ireland match was at the end of the year- so he’s had plenty of time to grow- and Razor’s patience (while not his first option) was rewarded with his performance.

That performance needs to be his bench mark going forward. Dmac can’t regress back to what he was like at the beginning of e season.

Those two players have developed, both were extremely effective against Ireland, hopefully they keep it up.

Acknowledging that is only fair.

How much of a scrum twisting has to do with the forces being misalligned (due to how scrums are formed)?

DMac had one of his two outstanding test starts of the 10 tests he started to go along with two terrible tests (Argentina 1 and Australia 1) and 6 hot & cold tests.

Serious depth, and mostly young.