Some sports questions i have

1 - Why do they use oval balls?

2 - What is the point of a scrum in league?

3 - Why are most sports teams made up of an odd number of players?

1. don't know

2. so the men can get close to each other

3. so it won't be even?

1. Better for passing with the hands.

2. To reset play without the forwards in the defensive line.

3. Can't answer for every sport but;
Football - cos there's the odd man out (the keeper)
Rugby - because you need an odd number of guys for the scrum to form properly.
Cricket - Because you need the extra batting man to make it 10 wickets for each side. Plus 11 players is the perfect amount to make it hard to cover the whole field at any one time.



gc.

1 - Makes sense.

2 - Seems silly. Do they ever contest the ball in a league scrum?

3 - makes very little sense. The keeper is only the odd man out cos you say he is. Rugby - you can still put an odd number of people in the scrum with an even number on the field, your cricket reason may make sense with the fielding bit but your 10 wickets reason is rubbish. Theres no reason it has to be 10 wickets when 9 or 11 would also work.

agree..

Heh I was wrong about the scrum anyhow. Definitely even numbers in the scrum.

Well tbh there's probably no genuine reason for it at all. I'd say it's more coincidence than anything else, which would make any kind of analysis very difficult.



gc.

And it's not silly at all. Gives the odd opportunity for set piece plays with half the defensive line in play. If you give up a scrum inside your own 20 you're at real risk of conceding a try.

Yes, they do contest them- just not all the time like in rugby.



gc.

For the cricket there is no real documented reason as to why there is 11 players. It just is ... no reason needed.

Why dont they just drop the number of players in a league team to 12 or 11? Give extra space on the field and create a faster more attacking game. And scratch the scrum.

And the 40-20 rule too. That seems a bit wack to me.

How is the League scrum "silly" and the 40-20 rule "wack"? It's league ffs, they made it as simple as possible

Agree that scrums in league are ridiculous. If the whole point is indeed to get the forwards out of the way and give room for set pieces, then why not just have them all stand off to one side for a bit? If you knock the ball on, then all your forwards have to go stand to one side, and the other team gets to tap off and go... What's the point of going through the farce everytime of getting down for a pointless group hug?

what a stupid fucken suggestion "ok boys off to the side with you" if you contest a scrum you can still get the ball back and there is always a chance of a fuckup.

Totally. If they put a bit of effort in and contested like in rugby it would be way better.

And the 40-20 rule is just wierd. It seems like the type of rule youd put in place for a primary school playground game of something.

Exactly.

They used to push in league scrums, hence why they are there, just cause they don't now is no reason to change it.

Then why dont they contest it? Seems like a good way to get the ball back.

People who have no idea about league should never be allowed to comment on it.

The inclusion of the scrum in league has been discussed many times by the governing bodies in league. They have decided (because they know the game) that it should be kept because it brings an extra element of variation to the game. Changing it to some kind of absurd situation where the forwards are standing off to one side is utterly absurd and unnecessary.

The 40/20 rule is probably the best rule in league today. It rewards brilliance and can turn a game on its head.

Seriously, go watch the Super snore-teen if you want to complain about weird rules.



gc.

But how often does it actually happen? There's a chance they could mess it up anyway by touching the ball and dropping it too

A proper contested scrum happens like what, 1% of the time if that? Hardly a benefit worth keeping an otherwise pointless and farcical act for.

The 40/20 is fucken sweet.

Do you find other territorial games hard to understand as well? Sometimes in rugby they kick the ball out on purpose even thought they're not gonna get the ball back!

They do contest them!

The reason scrums are such an integral part of Rugby Union is that it's an element which brings different bodies and strengths into play more so than Rugby League. With lineouts and strong scrums Union allows for more 'niche' athletes on the field. League, generally, the palyers are more closely aligned in their skill sets. Big, fast, strong in the tackle etc. This has taken then stong out of the scrum, but it doesn't mean they don't contest it.

The governing bodies have decided no to penalise crooked feeds, because they just want the scrum to be another (different kind of) restart in the game.

It's pretty simple really.

Rugby sucks. League is better.



gc.

What extra variation? The freeing up of the backs?



Kicking a 40-20 is probably luck more often than not.
All im saying about it is that it seems like its an out of place rule. Like what youd find is Kiwisport or something.

Personally I think they contest the scrums way more than that. They might not have a big impact and push like the Union scrums do, but they hookers are always contesting- they're bending their necks and legs into all sorts of positions to try and rake it back.

Sure, the result might mean they only get 1% of tight heads, but that doesn't mean they're not trying.



gc.

Having scrums is absurd an unnecessary. Removing them saves time = more proper rugby league. Scrums take a LOT of time from the clock, often at important times. And fuck "variation", this isn't a musical for god's sake. How about we enforce a compulsory Irish Jig after a line break too for added variation?

Soccer is the most popular game in the world and how much variation is in that? It's the same fucking thing for 90 minutes.

Yeah, and that makes perfect sense. You kick the ball out, the other team gets possesion. Seems silly to kick it out a certain way and you get it back, way up in opposition territory.

If they contested all the time then it would end up like rugby. A snorefest. The whole point of league is that it is a faster alternative and removing 5 mins of setting, restarting, setting and then resetting a damn scrum helps to do that!

Yes there are still tightheads in scrums but generally the thought process is that properly binding and pushing in a scrum is outweighed by the defensive benefit of a loose bind to ensure a quick break to rejoin the defensive line.

You know that if you kick the ball out (assuming it bounces) from any kick off or drop-out, that you regain posession in League right?

Oh wait. You probably don't.



gc.

Your mumma was silly by not using a condom.

Who gives a shit if they're trying?!

The fact is, try as they might, they CAN'T successfully contest a scrum 99% of the time, because as you say, crooked feeds are encouraged through the rules. So the authorities say it's "just another restart"? That's exactly my point! If it's just supposed to be a restart, and the rules are set so that anything OTHER than a pure re-start is incredibly unlikely, then exactly how the restart is performed is utterly arbitrary.

Debating what's "absurd and unnecessary" in sports is a little absurd and unnecessary itself. Sports are what they are and their little eccentricities in the rules are a part of what makes that.

Seriously, why stop there, there are a million weird and unnecessary rules in a lot of sports. You could have a field day with cricket...

If they want to encourage faster play, why dont they flag the time-heavy scrums, and drop one or two players from the 13 players a side they have now?

I feel like you're trying to prove my point for me?!

If they're trying to save time (which I WHOLE-HEARTEDLY support, compared to snorefest rugby), then why are we bothering with the scrum at all? It STILL takes up too much time in league when the outcome is supposed to be a re-start, which could take 5 seconds?

Nope. Didnt know that. But thats a pretty silly rule too.

Nobody said the contest had to be fair? Just because it's difficult to get it back, doesn't mean it's not a contest. It IS a contest.

And considering just how many tight heads there are in Union it's a farce in that game too.



gc.

Pechora, it would actually take more time to get everyone off the pitch and back again for the next play-the-ball, than to just huddle them up into a scrum on the pitch at the point of the infringement.. think about it.

Name three arbitrary rules of cricket then.

99 to 1 isn't a contest. It's a fucking lottery

Why don't you shut up?

Because though you obviously disagree, the scrum is still a contest in League. It allows for creative set piece play (blind side moves, players off the back of the scrum)... This is the variation I referred to above. So try not to be patronising with your Irish jig nonsense.

Suggesting that you just have 6 players stand there and watch for an alloted time while you try and create a set piece is a lot more difficult to impliment. I can't believe anyone would even suggest that, when there is something already in place that works just fine....... The srum!

Wahey!



gc.

They don't have to go off the pitch do they. They could just stand off to one side wherever the ref tells them to. And then they're not allowed to move until the attack has moved past their line etc. It would be way faster than a scrum. The worst ever is when a scrum gets reset in league, which still does happen (certainly more than successfully contested scrums do )

Yeah but cricket is better than league. That's not fair.



gc.

How many scrums would you say are successfully contested? I would estimate 1%.

I could save you time and just say: half the LBW caveats.

I agree :> I was disputing the claim that this is a problem of sport in general. Some sports are clearly superior to others in this regard..

Just saying - that rule has been in league as long as I've known the game, so the 40/20 rule is not out of place at all. You just sound like a typical rugby jock who might watch one or two games of league a year with no understanding of the game.



gc.

Your cure sounds messier than the disease.

How are ANY of those arbitrary !?

No idea, but that's irrelevant IMO.



gc.

I didn't say any different. I said "sportS" not "sport".

Well guess how long it took me to come up with it: about 1.5 seconds. I'm quite sure with some proper thought, someone could come up with a better solution for a different kind of restart which doesn't eat so much of the clock away...

The ball pitches outside the line but moves in to hit the pads in line. Not out because it pitched outside the line. How is that NOT arbitrary?

How much league do you guys watch?

They stop the clock for the scrums once the players are in place.



gc.

There is a rule in place which allows the ref to stop the clock when forming the scrum so the eating the clock away line doesn't work bud.

How is it irrelevant?

Your entire arguement is premised on the fact that the scrum is a genuine contest which adds something to the game, and therefore isn't an arbitrary re-start (despite your own concession that the authorities of the game themselves have admitted it's just a restart). So if the outcome is ALWAYS the same, then you're clearly wrong, and it adds nothing through being a contest. The extent to which you have a point is directly proportional to how much of a 'contest' it really is, so yes, the percentage is supremely relevant

Leg stump rule is not arbitrary dude. It was introduced deliberately to stop negative play. It's an excellent rule.

The shot/no shot rule outside off is rather arbitrary though IMO.



gc.

Yes it does, because the ref only stops the clock when people are deliberately dragging on, or when it's getting toward the end of the game. The vast majority of scrums do not have the clock stopped.

I watch a tonne of league, and no, they don't always stop the clock.

LOL @ some of the retardation in this thread.

I have a solution to your guys sports questions: Try actually watching sport. A little bit of common sense helps as well.

WRONG.


Would you like to try again?

exactly..

Just because i dont know all the rules doesnt mean i dont understand the game. I understand it perfectly well.

It just seems to me that league wants to be a fast exciting game, but is stuck with some strange rules that are probably mostly there due to tradition than functionality.

I think if you kept it simple, removed the scrum and the 40-20 and dropout rules, and turned it into a non-stop 12-a-side smashfest, that would be way better.

The clock is stopped once one of the teams is formed up for the scrum. That's the rule. The ref always blows his whistle when that happens and signals time off.

I would seriously have to question that "tonne of league" if you don't know such simple things about the game.

That's fair enough actually.

The shot/no shot was going to be my next one.

Don't mix up the terms 'fair' and 'genuine'. As I said above, just because it's difficult to rake the ball in a league scrum, doesn't mean it's impossible. It is still a contest, albeit a one sided one. The outcome is not 'always' the same, and the 1% is only your assumption. The authorities have kept this contest because they deem it to be a good elemental restart to their game. There is no point spending time coming up with a solution for a problem that doesn't exist.



gc.

That's not arbitrary either. It's to stop people just padding away every dangerous looking delivery? It negates a lot of the bowler's edge, and it's freaking boring to watch. FUNCTION. Scrums are only not arbitrary if they are contested successfully a reasonable percentage of the time, which they're not.

Your comments would suggest otherwise.

No they wouldnt.

Misunderstood what he was talking about...

The actual time from foul to time-off is what I'm talking about. That's way too much for the function of a "restart".

Fuck it let's just televise bullrush.



gc.

Fucking right we should.

But it's only a "contest" in the strictest and least practical interpretation of the word. For all realistic purposes, it is *not* a contest, and is an arbirary rendition of the 'restart'.

There IS a problem: it takes up too much time.

Given this problem, there is a point replacing the current arbitrary formation to one that gives us more time of actual league.

Why the fuck would you get rid of the 40/20 you idiot? It makes the game more exciting.

The FUNCTION of the scrum in league has already been explained to you, you just happen to disagree with it.

Now you're going on about the amount of time it takes away from the clock from the foul to the scrum being played? WTF? What about the amount of time taken away by kicking for touch from a penalty? Or from a dropout? Or from kicking off after having a try scored against you?

And if the time being taken up is what this all about, what about the MASSIVE amount of time taken up by scrums in Union when tightheads are won about the same percentage of the time?

Come on dude...

The function of the scrum is to restart the game after a knock-on etc. The MANNER in which that function is served is arbitrary. All that matters is that the game is restarted.

If the scrums were equally contestable, then the MANNER would be functional too - it would provide more excitement about who was going to get the ball, like there is in rugby.



I hate rugby, and don't watch it. So I have no idea.

2 things here:

The shot/no shot rule I only think is arbitrary from the 'shot' perspective I suppose. I agree that you shouldn't be able to kick anything way, you should always be forced to play a shot. However, why does a batsman playing a shot get immunity from his judgemental error in missing the ball coming in from outside off?

Do you think that scrums are really a genuine contest in rugby too? Unless one team is hugely superior to the others (think ABs v Ivory Coast or some such), then there are hardly ever tight heads as well. A feed into the scrum is supposed to be a distinct advantage, due to an indiscretion on behalf of the other team. In both forms of the game.



gc.

And btw, while I agree the scrum is lame, I disagree with snowy about the 40-20. The 40-20 rule just provides one more attacking option, it's excellent, I don't think it's attempted often enough.

While we're on that subject, why don't league players try more often to kick the ball along the the ground and out, from a kickoff? I didn't even know that you got the ball back if it bounces out until I started playing the first Stacey Jones playstation game, because it basically never happens I can't see how it's THAT hard to do, such that nobody even tries it.

Hang on, you can't have your cake and eat it too buddy.

If you hate rugby and don't watch it, how do you know that it's exciting who might get the ball from a rugby scrum? Simple answer, it isn't. It is a lot more contested yes, but the outcome is the same, the team feeding the ball gets it back 99% of the time.

Like we said, scrums are still contested in league, what will usually happen though is that it is all in the hooking rather than the push.

Percentages. League is a territory game so most of the time you're better off playing for long kicks and defending your territory as best you can. They really only try the kickoff/restart thing when their backs are against the wall with very little time to play.



gc.

Oh really? I must've watched one game in the last 10 years but I was just under that impression. I remember watching a lot when I was young, and there would be a lot of ground gained/lost in scrums? Sometimes people would push right forward and gain like 10 metres or more? Maybe times have changed.

Irrelevant to the point here anyway. If all you're saying now is that it's the same in rugby, then my answer is simply that scrums are lame in Rugby too

Because is you watch a team line up to receive the ball from a kick off, they make it so that it is *extremely* difficult to do that. That's why it hardly happens and when it does happen, it's usually because the receiving team fucked up. It's the same with a drop out. An extension to that is when restarting play on the 20 after the ball has gone dead, you can also elect to drop out instead and if it goes out from that, you can get the ball back. Some teams attempt this but most teams also defend against it with their wingers and fullback back.

But even then they don't really? I've probably seen it attempted like once ever? I see the short kick-off a lot more, which makes far less sense to me.

The point is, though, that scrums have several functions in both codes. They're a part of the fabric of both games and niether needs to change that really. Certainly not because you and Snowy think they're 'lame'.



gc.

With the honing of forwards coaching, these days scrum techniques tend to be very even. Generally only in a game where one sides forwards are being well dominated do we see the opposition get tightheads.

Hmm... that's an interesting point actually.

I think the reality is that it is pretty hard to do actually. It still has to go 10m, and it has to bounce. With the unpredictable ball and ability to defend the line on the ground, I just think it's too hard to justify having a crack all the time.



gc.

They are an outdated part of the game. There are far better and easier ways to achieve what the scrum does.

You're clearly clueless. Nothing you have said in this thread makes any sense whatsoever.



gc.

I don't watch too many games live, but on the TV it usually shows like 1 person on either side up front? It really doesn't look like it should be hard for a professional sportsman to kick it around them and out...

One of the basics of league is how to form up to receive the ball from kick off and the way they do it is to make it extremely hard to acheive this.

Next time you go to a game Yak, check out how they line up. It's not random, it's calculated to lesson the odds of the ball going out.

Three up front on the 40. Two on the outsides on the 30. Three on the 20 and 5 in, on or around the ingoal.

How many people are actually ready near the sidelines though? Most of the team are back near the 10 yard line, some near the in-goal.. There has to be like only 1 or 2 people covering the other 40 metres on either side?

Yeah, so try to kick it out at about 38m ?

The ones up front @ the 40 aren't going to have a shit show of stopping you, and the 30m guys won't really have a clue most of the time either. You're allowed to bounce it inside the 40 and have it go out, outside the 40 right?

Pffft. Whatever.

You realise you're trying to get an oval ball to go out at exactly 38m right? Are you rrrrrreally thinking this plan through?



gc.

Like this...




Forgive the crudeness but you can see how it is to defend against the ball going out. The first three are to protect against a short kick off and those behind have plenty of time to react if the ball is kicked towards the sideline.

Well anywhere around 35m - 39m would do most times?

We expect precision from sportsmen all the time, why not here? It's not that far from the centre to the sideline is it? Is it really that hard to aim a firm low kick?

ps. I plan to get into coaching league to kids soon so I've been studying up on teaching the basics of league.

Not likely as you have 2 players within 10m of each other defending that patch of sideline. They'd have to be asleep to not see the kicker lining it up either. It's pretty hard to be subtle about it. Like I said earlier, you generally only see it happen when the defending side fuck up.

Actually, why not just try a really fast low kick torward the end of the 10 metre line?

That way there's a good chance it'll funky bounce and go out, and you also get decent position if they do get it, and there's a chance of a knock-on too.

We expect precision in predictable elements dude. When it comes to an oval ball we expect a bit of risk management, if the ball doesn't go your way there's noone really to blame.



gc.

Kicking it low and along the ground is a genuine tactic and is used quite a bit. The Warriors used it to great effect in the play off game against Melbourne last year. Aiming for such a low percentage play as the one you describe would get coached out of most kids at a young age though. A lot of things can go wrong with that play, ie: All it takes is the opposition to come forward and take the ball before it gets to the 10 and tey automatically have a penalty!