"The scrum today is a joke," the ARL Commision chairman declared in an interview with the Daily Telegraph.

Maybe so, but surely they are slightly less of a laughing stock this season than they have been for many years.

The rule change introduced at the start of this season, whereby the attacking team can choose to pack a scrum either 10 metres or 20 metres from the sideline, or in the middle of the field, has encouraged positive, enterprising play.

The tedious tactic of employing a front-rower, or a big winger, to take a settling hit-up after a scrum win has been superseded by backlines lining up deep and unleashing set moves.

True, the actual scrum itself remains a token gesture, and the days when it was a test of strength and technique are long gone.

But it still serves a purpose, in de-cluttering the field and offering playmakers and outside backs room to move, if they opt to chance their arm.

I'd suggest V'landys needs to re-think this one. Scrums are far from perfect, but perhaps they might be better than the alternative.

In saying that, I would add that scrapping scrums is not the only V'landys idea that I find myself querying.

Without wanting to throw stones at the man credited with fearlessly re-launching the 13-man code after the coronavirus crisis, I'd point out that not even Sir Donald Bradman averaged 100.

Indeed, his opinion of scrums is only mildly perplexing compared to the most dubious concept he has publicly discussed - his desire to add a 17^th team to the NRL competition, in all likelihood to be based in Brisbane.

The theory to which V'landys and many others subscribe is that Brisbane has a population base capable of supporting two teams, and Suncorp Stadium should be hosting a match every weekend.

That all sounds reasonable, until you consider the flip side of the argument.

For starters, the South Queensland Crushers are defunct for a reason.

The Crushers were one of four teams introduced in 1995, and in their inaugural season they averaged crowds of 21,029 at Suncorp.

But after finishing 16^th (of 20) and then as back-to-back wooden spooners, their average attendance shrunk to 7003 and there was no place for them in the newly created NRL.

As well as lacklustre on-field performances (13 wins from 51 games), the Crushers faced another fundamental problem.

Whatever locals did not follow the Broncos already had a team to support.

As Phil Lutton wrote recently in the Sydney Morning Herald: "One of the enduring myths of rugby league in Queensland is that everyone south of the far north bleeds gold and maroon. The reality is there are masses of supporters with lifelong allegiances to clubs far and wide."

Fans, in other words, who would need a compelling reason to start cheering for a new entity to which they held no emotional ties.

Building a support base would hinge on fielding a team who are not only competitive, but actually capable of capturing the imagination. And that raises the other dilemma confronting expansionist plans. Where exactly are they going to find the players?

I can't remember a season in which the gulf between the NRL's top-shelf teams and the also-rans has appeared so vast.

The unprecedented impact of the pandemic is perhaps a contributing factor, along with the new "six again" rule, which allows teams to dominate once they have grabbed the early momentum.

Blowout scores are occurring on a weekly basis, and close contests have been few and far between.

It would seem folly to introduce a new club, given that more than half the incumbents are basically making up the numbers.

Increasingly I find myself wondering if the NRL's current format is crying out for a makeover.

What if the NRL's 16 teams were divided into two conferences at the end of each season, the top eight and bottom eight?

Every team would play their conference counterparts twice, then the other eight conference teams once. That's 22 regular-season games.

Wins against first-division teams would count as three competition points, instead of the usual two.

At the end of 22 rounds, the top four teams would play off for the premiership. First versus second, with the winner straight through to the grand final. The loser of that would play the survivor of third versus fourth for the other berth in the title decider.

Meanwhile, the teams placed seventh, eighth, ninth and 10^th would play off for promotion/relegation.

The winner of seventh versus eighth would be safe in division one, the loser would play the winner of ninth versus 10^th for the last spot in the top conference.

In theory, it should ensure more close contests during the season, and potentially extra intrigue around the mid-table promotion-relegation dogfight. It would be a whole new ball game, so to speak. With scrums retained, of course.