Australia's James O'Connor, left is tackled at the Hong Kong Rugby Sevens (AP Photo/Kin Cheung)
What if rugby could maintain its dynamic, multi-dimensional and multi-skilled character (as opposed to the simple one-dimensional nature of league), be more “entertaining”, and silence the critics who call it boring?
What if the very best of running rugby was played throughout the whole game, every game, and all without changing the current laws.
There may be a simple way.
I’m not talking about rugby 7s or 10s (which may not satisfy the 15-aside rugby fan in the same way). I’m talking about rugby 12s.
What if they reduced the amount of players to 12, by having no lose forwards – no. 6, 7, and 8?
I am a fan of the 15 aside game, even the games with no tries, although I prefer ball in hand running rugby and many tries. I caught the rugby bug a long time ago. And I’m not about to change codes.
However, Rugby 12s is worth a thought for the following reasons:
1. It’s main advantage would be that it would more often reward teams who attempted to play running rugby with the ball in hand. This is simply due to the fact that tries would come more easily with less players on the field. Expect teams to chance their arm and be rewarded much more.
2. There would be less kicking in general play. This is because teams would attempt to run with the ball in hand more, and also prevent the opposition from having the chance to do this. This is why kicking is rare in rugby 7s.
3. The scrum would rarely collapse. This is because the front row would no longer have the weight of pressure on them. Expect less injuries. Expect happier mums!
4. Rucks would become less messy and easier to interpret by the referee. This is because less players would be committed. Expect less penalties at the break-down.
5. With 12 players (as opposed to 7 or 10), you should keep the traditionalists somewhat happy. And with a more “entertaining” brand of rugby, you might attract new fans. Perhaps many league fans would even lose their main reason for disliking rugby.
6. With more fans and more “entertainment”, you attract the broadcasters and sponsors’. Expect a national domestic comp on FTA TV (even without the Wallabies).
Finally, it should be noted that this would not be the first time rugby has reduced its amount of players on the field per team. Perhaps it is time to evolve again.
While on the surface it seems that this would never come about, money talks.
Would we be surprised if someone with lots of money saw its potential and attempted to set it up? Think Kerry Packer and limited over cricket.
This is potentially controversial, of course, but what do people think?
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- 10s rugby, 7s rugby, Rugby Union, wallabies
August 17th 2009 @ 7:33am
sheek said | August 17th 2009 @ 7:33am | Report comment
No.
I’ve come to the conclusion the product is good. The problem is with interpretation of the laws. It’s not the number of players on the field, nor might it be with many of the laws themselves.
It’s the referees, & the power brokers (IRB) who insist they police the law stringently at international level.
Shute Shield is played under the same laws as Internationals. First XV is played under mostly the same laws as Internationals. These games are generally free-flowing affairs, & highly entertaining.
Yet why are Internationals awash with penalties, & so stop-start, when presumedly they are better quality players with presumedly better knowledge of the laws, & better technique to handle the laws?
I can only assume the difference is with the referees, & their interpretation. Maybe at International level, referees are succumbed by pressure of the occasion???
No, the game’s fine. It’s the people officiating & regulating who are the problem. IMHO!
August 17th 2009 @ 7:58am
Yikes said | August 17th 2009 @ 7:58am | Report comment
Well, sheek – Shute Shield and schoolboys are NOT played under the same Laws as the current internationals. Domestically in Australia were are playing the full ELVs until 31st December.
So… the conclusion you have come to may be right, but it’s based on false premises!
In fact if anything it is the reverse – rather than your heaping blame on the refs, I heap it on the players – at international levels the players know how to cheat. There is too much at stake for them NOT to cheat. This isn’t as true at a lower level.
I like the idea of rugby 12s, or even (gasp) 13 per side. Players are too fit, fast and skillful for defences to be penetrated with 15 players.
August 17th 2009 @ 9:56pm
TommyM said | August 17th 2009 @ 9:56pm | Report comment
I think you’ve hit the nail with your last comment there- having recently watched # Nations, ANZ cup, Currie Cup and Shute Shield back to back, the difference is tsaggering. Seemingly, the lower the grade, the higher the skill level and the more the tries scored. But of course it is not the skill level that alters- Wallabies and All Blacks don’t suddenly hjave better skills when they play at club level- it is that the opposition defence is greatly inferior to International level. This is where the game has changed. Brilliant defenses drive a conservative game plan and force errors. 12 or 13 a side is an interesting idea- or as someone else suugested- make the field a bit wider!!
August 17th 2009 @ 8:06am
tifosi said | August 17th 2009 @ 8:06am | Report comment
Ive always thought that when When rugby, football, league, American football were being created, the number of players selected on a team was relative to the fitness of such players.
Nowadays with super fit athletes i really dont think sports need so many players on a team. However, as such codes are set in stone, the chances of any changes would be close to zero.
August 17th 2009 @ 9:13am
sheek said | August 17th 2009 @ 9:13am | Report comment
Yikes,
You’re probably right, ….. I’m delirious. In any case, round up the usual suspects!!!
I can’t get my head around 12 players….. too much change.
You know, it’s like driving on a relatively straight highway. You only need to make minor adjustments to stay in the middle of the road. Over-correction, & you end up in the bush.
Yes, you’re right….. blame the players….. they’re the usual suspects!
August 17th 2009 @ 9:18am
Mungehead said | August 17th 2009 @ 9:18am | Report comment
No. With no loose forwards the ball would pop out of the back of the scrum immediately. Attempts to fix this would quickly degenerate it into a league “scrum”. Ugh.
In short, the scrum is the soul of rugby and you can’t screw with it, you can only throw the whole game away.
Why not take a back out? Keep halfback, first and second five and the wings, but chuck centre. There are so many cut-out passes these days that we’d hardly miss him. You have to admit it would open up the game.
August 17th 2009 @ 9:24am
Virgil said | August 17th 2009 @ 9:24am | Report comment
I’d like to see the front row buggered off. They bring too much ugly to the game…..
August 17th 2009 @ 9:26am
Virgil said | August 17th 2009 @ 9:26am | Report comment
Or would this see a regression in the ugliness of locks as they would have to pack into each other?
I think we would need a research grant and the release of a white paper before we make a decision on this….
August 17th 2009 @ 11:01am
slacky said | August 17th 2009 @ 11:01am | Report comment
Getting enough space has always been my biggest gripe. The lack of space makes the whole game a grind and there is not enough room for a player to create the razzle dazzle we know most first grade players are capable of doing.
Getting enough room is easy, pull out the flankers…. sorry fellas but I reckon you guys are the ones who close the game down to a walk. Sorry Phil, George, Ritchie and co but talented though you are, the game suffers because you guys are too good at closing it down.
Dropping off the flankers would make it a better spectacle. Keep the no 8 as the scrum, lineout and maul still should be an important part of the physical contest.
I reckon 13 players instead of 12. Hate to admit it as I have stopped watching league due to some players actions BUT they have the right numbers in the wrong code. Boring, predictable and hardly spectacular but they have the right numbers.
Bring back the ELV’s, make it a 13 man game and you won’t have a ground bid enough to take the crowd!
August 17th 2009 @ 11:06am
Rickety Knees said | August 17th 2009 @ 11:06am | Report comment
This would go against “Rugby a game for people of all sizes” and would devolve into a game like Rugby League, where just about every player with the exception perhaps of props are, on average, all about the same size as each other.
Reduce all kicks for goal to one point and watch teams go for tries.
August 17th 2009 @ 11:11am
Peter K said | August 17th 2009 @ 11:11am | Report comment
sheek – Believe it or not IMO you are sort of right re the refs. They are at fault because they give the benefit of the doubt to the players. The players at that level are far better at cheating and cynical about it. The law actually provides for yellow cards for cyncial fouls. If they were stringent re the laws there would be far far more yellows.
The game is appalling because refs maintain their INTL rating as they get marked penalise technicalities to show they know their laws and let cyncial cheats stops tries time and again. They should give a verbal warning re the technicalities that do not affect the game and yellow cards for the cheats. That would open up the game IMO.