In the discussion surrounding the role of Scrum Masters, Maarten Dalmijn presents a critical perspective on whether they contribute valuable support or merely add unnecessary overhead, particularly in start-up and scale-up environments. Dalmijn shares his personal experience, revealing that he has never favored hiring a separate Scrum Master, fearing that such a role could detract from the team's focus and slow down progress. He emphasizes a desire for Scrum to operate in the background rather than becoming the central focus of the team's efforts. To illustrate his viewpoint, Dalmijn draws an analogy with Ultimate Frisbee, a sport where players act as their own referees. This system fosters a deep understanding of the game's rules among all players and ensures that violations are called by those directly involved. He argues that, similarly, every member of a Scrum team should have a thorough understanding of Scrum principles, making the presence of a dedicated Scrum Master unnecessary. He posits that if Scrum is to be effective, it should not dominate discussions or processes but rather serve as a framework that supports the team's unique working style. Dalmijn further explores two contrasting perspectives on Scrum: one that places it at the forefront of team activities and another that relegates it to the background. He contends that if Scrum is seen as essential, then the team should collectively grasp its principles, rendering a Scrum Master redundant. Conversely, if Scrum is intended to be a flexible framework, it should quickly fade into the background, allowing the team to focus on delivering value rather than getting bogged down in procedural discussions. The article also critiques the notion that Scrum Masters should aim to make themselves redundant, suggesting that this mindset implies an initial need for a separate Scrum Master, which he views as an anti-pattern. While acknowledging that there are scenarios, particularly in larger organizations with significant dysfunction, where a Scrum Master may be beneficial, he questions their effectiveness in driving meaningful change. Dalmijn expresses concern that many Scrum misunderstandings persist despite extensive training and certification efforts, indicating a systemic issue within the Scrum framework itself. Ultimately, Dalmijn argues that the true value of Scrum lies not in strict adherence to its rules but in how it can facilitate a team's discovery of their optimal working methods. He believes that when Scrum becomes the focal point of discussions, it detracts from the primary goal of delivering quality products and services. The article concludes with a call for teams to prioritize their unique processes and values over rigid Scrum practices, suggesting that the framework should support rather than dominate their work.