Scrums: the one major remaining problem. Usually solved by a fairly randomly awarded (and occasionally grossly unfair) penalty.MrPlum wrote: 1. The way the two scrums engage is tightly controlled. Yet the actual 'put-in' is not. Whatever happened to "Not straight?!" Doesn't this render scrums a little pointless? I haven't heard of one being won against the head for a long time.
2. Line-outs, likewise, are more predictable. Allowing players to lift gives an unfair advantage. What was the reason for allowing it?
The problem with making scrums less competitive is that it makes the game too close to rugby league... then what do you do with the extra forwards? Reduce the team size to 13? There is still a big advantage to be gained by controlling your own scrum and/or legitimately spoiling the opposition's possession. There may not be as many scrums against the head (most hookers don't compete), but there is still the occasional 'not straight' penalty awarded - again pretty random, and just to keep the scrum halves relatively honest, I think!
Line-outs were a nightmare that desperately needed to be dealt with, slowing the game down with constant infringements. The worst infringement was lifting, so what did they do? Make it legal - perfect answer! Line-outs should be balanced in favour of the team throwing in, and now they are, but it is still possible to turn them round.
One of the most influential differences is in rucks and mauls, you often see 8-9-10+ phase rugby, very fluent and exciting.
A real expert will probably tell you different!
OMG pharvey, are you on steroids, or just holding back for bets? 
