[alichapman]

I'm not confident that any rule changes will have a meaningful impact. It's thought that it isn't just collisions to the head that cause a problem, but all tackles. This is because your brain gets damaged when it moves around in your skull, and this will happen every time your velocity suddenly changes e.g. when being tackled to the ground. This is also the reason that headguards/scrumcaps aren't effective in cutting down on head injuries.

What can be done to protect the players is limiting the number of contact training sessions they can attend, and also limiting the number of games a season each player is allowed to play.

Another option could be to seriously limit the number of substitutes each team is allowed to make, as this will mean the players will have to be fitter and therefore not as big, and hopefully this will reduce the impact each tackle will have. However Rugby League is also having to deal with head injuries and that game requires a lot more fitness than Rugby Union.

[mr_sturd]

I expect that, like League, Union will lose the contested scrum at some point. That will at least lead to a decrease in the asymmetry in weight between forward and back. A step in the right direction, and nothing really lost in the game since scrums aren't really contested any more.

[notahacker]

I'm not so sure that'll be a good thing for safety (collapsed scrums aside).

It'll eliminate a role for stocky, relatively slow moving 18 stone players specialising in scrum technique, and create more roles for fast, athletic 17 stone players specialised in blasting opponents out the way. It'll also mean the ball's in play for longer, resulting in more impacts overall.

[alichapman]

I agree. I also can't imagine that World Rugby would consider removing one of the two elements of the game that differentiate it from Rugby League (the other one being contested rucks).

As a League fan I'd love it - I don't care what it's called I'd just like more people to play and watch Rugby League.

[smcl]

Yep. They've been tinkering with the scrum ever since I was a kid, but to me it feels like they result in a collapse, a penalty[0] or one side being totally steamrolled 90% of the time. I wish I had stats at hand to back this up, but I feel like even though they're technically "contested" they're rarely actually contested.

If it's not enjoyable for spectators, doesn't really do much for the game and is dangerous then I can see why it could get phased out in the long run.

[0] = or multiple collapses then a penalty

[dmurray]

I don't think this is accurate. The majority of scrums at every level lead either to possession for the team with the put-in, or a penalty in their favour. If the weaker team has the put-in, they can pretty much roll the ball straight back to the number 8 and get it away (possibly not in the rules but completely never policed).

It's exciting when either side gets a shove on and that there's at least the possibility to win one against the head, but I agree the game wouldn't lose that much for anyone but the purists and the front row specialists if we just moved to uncontested scrums.

[crateless]

In theory, the weaker team can "try" to get the ball out the back as fast as possible but in practice, I see penalties for teams getting steamrolled in the scrum quite often which would suggest that the tactic is not entirely effective.

I don't understand much of what goes on in the scrum, but I love watching the battle for dominance over the course of a game. Are there collapsed scrums frequently? Yes. But it is an aspect of the sport that gives a chance for the heavies to shine. The increasing use of mauls on the other hand...

[smcl]

Like I said I don’t have the data, so maybe take 90% with a grain of salt :-) But some 6 Nations games in recent years have been pretty frustrating wrt scrum, and I don’t see it getting any more interesting or safe

[FredPret]

Or, OR: we put players in control of robots, and have the robots smash each other to bits!