Its a commonly held misconception that pushing in scrums is not allowed, it just that teams haven't done it for years as it delays the second row and Lock from getting free to defend or take part in a set play.
Its also not the first time this season that the Warriors have pushed in the scrum, although AFAIK it is first time they have done it on the opposition feed and pushed them of the ball.
However, even if it does not work every time, they have served notice that they will try it now and then, and the mere possibility that they might try it will have the effect of making other teams wary of it, hopefully leading to their scrum second rowers and lock staying bound properly. This will delay their entry into the defensive line by a few moments, giving more time to execute in the back-line with less defenders cluttering the inside channels. If the Warriors' scrum detects opposing second rowers loosening their bind in getting ready to split off, then the shove will be on.
This seems to be the prevailing wisdom among the expert comments people in the game. Last night, Gordon Tallis (on Matty Johns RL show) said that he felt teams would be more inclined to try more elaborate set plays if the scrums both pushed and the backs had less inside defenders to deal with just after the ball came out.
It seems the NRL are endorsing the move
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/league/10267419/Warriors-spark-debate-on-pushing-in-scrums
"The ploy received a mixed response, with some commentators believing it was illegal in the modern game, but an NRL spokesman said the interpretation of the rule used in the premiership still permitted teams to push in scrums."
"The rule is that 'It is permissible for forwards to push once a scrum has been correctly formed but if it moves appreciable distance to disadvantage of any one team before the ball is put in then the referee shall order the scrum to be reformed in its original position', the spokesman said
"However, the practical application which is used by NRL referees is that both sides need to be bound and the ball put in and they can push."
Because the ball is rarely placed in the middle, hookers no longer hook for the ball and forward packs rarely push.
However, many were pleased to see the return of the tactic, with Fairfax columnist and Channel Nine commentator Phil Gould tweeting: "@NZWarriors wonderful .. Don't know why it doesn't happen more often .. Scrums should be a contest or get rid of them".
Warriors coach Andrew McFadden said the pushover try was something the team had worked on to seize upon at the right opportunity."
. . . . .
http://m.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl-p...988035584?nk=ac91c6b78596b4566313e558c6ee72a3
A contestable scrum is great for the spectacle and adds a different element to the predictability of the set play that has become standard fare at scrum time.
Hell, if scrums are won against the feed a couple more times this season, the lock might even keep his head in until the ball is out, rather than scooting off to the side to boost the defensive side’s odds of holding at bay the inevitable set play.
After all, isn’t the attacking side getting a big enough advantage already by being allowed to feed the scrum straight into “the tunnel†formed between its second rower and its lock?
It seems tha majority of NRL pundit also support the tactic, with Ben Iken saying that the game needs more contest for possession. A few seem to think there is an injury risk, but honestly, with the front rows packing almost standing upright (as compared with a Union scrum) I can't see any more risk than there is in a standing tackle with a bunch of tacklers pushing the ball carrier backwards.
