Comments on: Nine-a-side rugby, a game for boofy blokes

By: Paley

Paley — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:11:14 +0000

I’ve been to several 9 a side rugby tournaments. It’s a decent enough reduced version of the full game.

By: Ian Whitchurch

Ian Whitchurch — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 05:36:04 +0000

Actually, the best part of this is the whole ‘get rid of the goals altogether’.

Rugby where tries win games. Radical, but it just might work.

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 04:05:59 +0000

Good idea Bruce. In Febraury each year Palm Beach Currumbin Alleygators(Gold Coast) run a 10s competition each year and it is a huge success as it allows for tries to be scored and players to chance their hand and show their true skills.
They use mainly 15 a side rules but the changes you put in would make players have to play more than be conservative.

By: Andrew Logan

Andrew Logan — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 03:55:58 +0000

I have to agree with the concensus – Tens is the short form of choice, and the big boys love it. Penalty kicks are extremely rare, and conversions are drops so only about half go over….ergo tries become the scoring method of choice.

Because of the space using the big field, teams are pretty reluctant to give the ball away by kicking, because running back against 4 or 5 defenders is a pretty attractive option for anyone who has some pace.

Get down to Bondi Tens at Woollahra Oval #2 in Feb 2010 and check it out – you’ll be amazed how close it ends up being to your proposal.

By: AndyS

AndyS — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 03:40:35 +0000

I’d've said that the proposed modifications aren’t minor, but nor would they be necessary. Tens uses a full size field and the extra space achieves pretty much all the opening of play you could want. Why shrink the field then come up with a whole bunch of ways to overcome the natural response to space being cramped? Just don’t cramp it in the first place and allow players to play to the same laws they are used to.

By: Bruce Ross

Bruce Ross — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 02:16:03 +0000

sam, if you believe that the total elimination of goals, penalty goals and field goals as well as allowing marks to be claimed anywhere on the field plus the virtual elimination of kicking out on the full within your own 22 are “(extremely) minor tweaks to the rules”, then you and I have very different perceptions.

Would you still regard them as “(extremely) minor” if they were introduced into the 15-a-side game? They are certainly much more drastic than what was encompassed in the ELV proposals.

I also have absolutely no doubt that narrowing the field by 40% would produce a very different dynamic than what currently applies under the Tens rules.

By: sam a

sam a — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 01:47:03 +0000

Bruce, I’ve played a fair bit of 10′s, and besides changing the field dimensions and some (extremely) minor tweaks to the rules (your proposed lineouts, marks etc) what you have written here is a proposal for 10′s rugby with one man less. As a front rower, with two other front rowers alongside me in every 10′s game, I can confirm that it’s OK for the big men.

By: Dean Pantio

Dean Pantio — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:48:54 +0000

“What I want to propose is a shortened form of the game designed for knockout carnivals which would retain most of the elements that make rugby so distinctive. There would be strong emphasis on physical engagement and the scoring of tries.”

Welcome to 10s rugby.

“The regulations I am proposing for 9-a-side probably bias the game towards the tight forwards.”

Then you aren’t interested in the scoring of tries by any means a spectator would find interesting.

By: Bruce Ross

Bruce Ross — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:31:39 +0000

Pablo

As I understand it, most 10-a-side tournaments follow fairly closely the Laws used for Sevens games, while some others basically adhere to those applying to 15-a-side. Distinctive features of what I propose include:

1. Narrowing the field in the same proportion as the reduction in the number of players so that the structure and dynamics of play are similar to that of the full game.

2. Having tries as the only method of scoring.

3. Provisions to virtually ensure that 5-player contested scrums are maintained throughout the match.

4. Allowing marks to be claimed anywhere on the field of play.

5. Dispensing with the advantage gained from kicking out on the full from a team’s own 22.

6. Speeding up the game by requiring the ball to be thrown quickly into lineouts.

Because of the vast open spaces on the field Sevens rugby is only really suited to fast backs and loose forwards. The same applies to some extent to the Tens variation. The regulations I am proposing for 9-a-side probably bias the game towards the tight forwards. Because of this, as I pointed out, Nines and Sevens can be viewed as complementing each other in terms of the type of players and supporters they would appeal to.

In terms of style of play I anticipate that a Nines game would have much more in common with the full version of the game than a Tens game.

By: Bay35Pablo

Bay35Pablo — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:32:57 +0000

Isn’t this what they have with 10 a side? Like Hong Kong tens, Cobar 10s, etc?