By Matt
November 19th 2009 @ 2:44am
Loading ...Related coverage
Should rugby become a 13 player a side game?
It is now over 14 years since the IRB flicked the switch on the sport of Rugby Union (August 26th 1995), paving the way for professionalism within the game.
Over this time period, rugby has grown drastically from amateurism into a global sport played by physically impressive athletes and watched by millions on television.
With the professional image of the game in mind, many important changes have also taken place in regards the rules of the game in the previous 14 years.
Some of these changes include:
Tactical Subsitutions
The removal of rucking
Lifting of jumpers in the lineouts
Introducing Red and Yellow cards
Experimental Law Variations
New laws have always been introduced with the ideal of increasing the enjoyment and safety of the sport for participants, with the exception being the ELVs (which appeared more directed at the professional realm of the sport in order to make it more simplistic to referee and to make it a faster spectacle for the viewer).
Many have lamented the failure of the ELVs, for whatever reason, but most fans of rugby were in agreement that the intentions were correct.
The amateur element of rugby has never had major issues with clarity of law, lack of speed in the game or lack of enjoyment from the participants.
The same cannot be said of the professional element.
The voices of discontent seemed to have reached a crescendo over the last 25months (following the 2007 World Cup) to the point where the sport’s entertainment value and safety are being seriously questioned in nations where rugby is very well established.
Player injuries are reaching pandemic levels and the quality of attacking play is generally poor.
Kicking as a first option has also dramatically increased, following Argentina’s successful tactics in the 2007 World Cup, to the point where a large majority of a team’s possession is received in the form of a kick.
Question marks have also been raised over the amount of time taken up in stoppages and in particular scrums. IRB figures have revealed that upwards of 16 per cent (sometimes 20 per cent) of the 80 minutes of test match rugby is spent contesting or resetting a scrum.
Fears have also arisen about the deliberate faking of injuries to force uncontested scrums and about the lack of transparency for referees and fans when it comes to exactly what happens once the ref call “engage”.
The above is the basic breakdown off the problems now facing the 14 year old version of professional rugby.
Some still maintain that there is no issue and that the sport will fix itself, or that it doesn’t need fixing.
But these people are a part of what is becoming a shrinking minority.
So what can be done to improve the above issues?
Personally, I’m more a fan of simple changes, rather than complexity. Complexity is what has lead to a lot of the complaints about officiating of Rugby Union, so I believe adding a bevy of new rules will be a step in the wrong direction.
Some comments have arisen that the field dimensions for pro rugby should be made larger to give balance to the larger/faster player of the modern era.
My proposal would be to simply remove two players from the field. Now many may have made this comment before (mostly it is a tongue in check comment from fans of Rugby League) but not many have given genuine reasons for doing so.
Many have also failed to address how this very simple change could fix most of modern rugby’s biggest growing pains. So here I go …
Scrums would become a 6 man affair and the desire would be to swing the balance in favour of the backs (rather than the 8/7 forward split of now) and running rugby.
Two less players on the field will allow for more space to attack and less defenders to clutter the running lanes (and to slow the breakdown).
Attacking teams would be encouraged to run the ball at thinner defensive lines, rather than kick it away, so good bye ping-pong rugby.
Less players and more running means more player fatigue over the 80 minutes. More tired player’s means more gaps to exploit.
More fatigue and running would also see a reversal in player sizes and bulky gym junkies would struggle to lug around the extra weight.
In steps smaller more agile runners of the Shane Williams, James O’Connor and Corey Jane type who would exploit any mismatches against lumbering monsters and light up crowds with old school Rugby razzle-dazzle.
6 Man scrums would reduce the pressure on props from flankers pushing and would make it easier for referees to see Props (without flankers hindering their view).
This coupled with the lighter weight of props and locks, through increased fitness demands, would lead to less collapses and more technique at scrum time (rather than sheer bulk and impact).
With competitive scrums and lineouts retained, so too would the ‘game for all shapes and sizes’ mentality be retained.
At least two genuine lineout targets would be required, but super tall individuals would need to be more athletic to make up for the loss of two flanker types.
Men like Ali Williams and Victor Matfield would still thrive, but to have two of them in your team might mean you struggle to gain as many turnovers.
What is most likely is that players of the Adam Thomson or Juan Smith build would move into the second row to partner the primary lineout target, while the guy at the back of the Scrum (now the No.6) would fill the ball playing and scavenging role.
The No.6 would need the all round skill of a McCaw, Parisse or George Smith.
Two less players also reduces the major cost in pro rugby, the player wages. This would also mean that the remaining 13 players could be in line to receive even better wages than now, making a pro Union contract even more valuable.
The major hurdle would be convincing rugby fans (and the RFU) that this isn’t some kind of admission that league is a better sport, because 13 man Rugby Union would not be Rugby League.
13 man rugby would be a more dynamic and attacking version of a sport where the contest for possession is still maintained.
The ELVs were rejected on the premise that the game (globally) did not need fixing. The IRB and SANZAR nations have shown willingness to make changes to improve the game.
Will the emergence of failings in the European game now pave the way for a potential revolution in how the game of rugby is played?
Would 13 man rugby cure the ills or is this too much of a change for unionites to stomach?
Get Australia's best Rugby opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(121)
Paley said | November 19th 2009 @ 3:07am | Report comment
The rugby I watch is played 13 a side.
Knives Out said | November 19th 2009 @ 3:58am | Report comment
You literally must bore yourself to sleep everynight.
Paley said | November 19th 2009 @ 4:21am | Report comment
I just thought I would point out that rugby is already played with 13 a side – has been for over 100 years.
PastHisBest said | November 19th 2009 @ 6:06am | Report comment
Yes your deathly boring, tedious, apology for a sport is played with 13 a side. Congrats. Now bugger off and find another bridge.
Paley said | November 19th 2009 @ 8:32am | Report comment
There is no need for you to become abusive. I merely pointed out a fact whch the original author had not taken into account.
PastHisBest said | November 19th 2009 @ 8:48am | Report comment
Hey you picked this fight…don’t chicken out on me now.
netrug said | November 19th 2009 @ 4:22pm | Report comment
Paley,
Rugby is played with 15 a side, league is played with 13.
BN said | November 19th 2009 @ 2:17pm | Report comment
Then why are union fans always looking at ways to make make their game more exciting and entertaining. After all if the sport of Rugby Union so perfect how come there’s almost daily articles on this site where it’s own fans and commentators are questioning its rules and giving suggestions on how to make the game better?
The fight for who has the most exciting form of rugby was over long ago. The Union fans a are still discussing why they got knocked out (especially in Australia and on this site) while the League side of things have moved on to other challenges facing its form of rugby.
And before building a bridge ourselves I suggest you get over the one named Rugby League.
AndyS said | November 19th 2009 @ 2:20pm | Report comment
A better question might be why are Union fans always looking at ways to make make their game more exciting and entertaining, yet at the same time opposed root-and-branch to turning it into League?
CraigB said | November 19th 2009 @ 8:28pm | Report comment
because if we were pleased with a simple game we’d watch rugby league. Union fans question, query and doubt. League fans just eat up whatever drivel is served to them, no matter which rapist is serving it up.
Norm said | November 19th 2009 @ 8:41pm | Report comment
Another rugby union fan making a joke about rape, fast becoming par for the course.
Tight Head Prop said | November 19th 2009 @ 8:49pm | Report comment
BN
I am assuming that you live in Sydney and are talking about the endless bashing of rugby from radio and the news papers.
All the radio host that bash rugby are either ex mungoes’ or work in some capacity for the NRL or channel 9 so there is no real credence there. Fitzsimons has an article to write and tries hard to be controversial, remembering he is the bloke who signed up to play in the world master for Mosman and opted for a paying speaking gig rather than help his team out in the medal play offs.
I personally am happy with the way the game is being played. It’s tough, tactical and it’s Rugby.
We had an international on Monday morning (Aus time) Australia v Ireland, there were two tries a piece scored and it was a good hard bash from both sides. Please BN remind us all of the score in the “four nations” final? Wasn’t it 46-12? Not a lot of defence there BN.
One more thing BN if your “Sport” is such a great product as they like to call it, why don’t they drop the word RUGBY from its title? or is this so they can ride on the coat tails of the real rugby outside of NSW & QLD?
Matt said | November 19th 2009 @ 6:03am | Report comment
So you’re saying you’d watch 13-a-side Rugby then Paley?
Paley said | November 19th 2009 @ 7:25am | Report comment
I watch it a lot.
Firestarter Bob said | November 19th 2009 @ 6:08am | Report comment
I thought rugby was a 15 man game? Then I read it was in the Olympics but it was as 7s. Then I read here the other day that 9s would be good. Someone replied saying that 10s would be better. Today I see that 13 is the magic number. I’m thinking less than 7 is not on the agenda. I look forward to soon reading about rugby 8s, 11s (the football and cricket devotees are looking forward to this story!), 12s and 14s.
sheek said | November 19th 2009 @ 8:45am | Report comment
Just thought I would point out, league has as much right to call itself rugby as union does.
Both codes exhibit characteristics of 19th century rugby as it went through its numerous stages of evolution.
Variations of league’s ‘play the ball’ were every bit as legitimate in mid-19th century rugby as were mauls.
So the superior attitude of some rugby folk that only union can call itself rugby, lacks any substance.
And I’m a union fan first, & league fan second, in case anyone is wondering…..
PastHisBest said | November 19th 2009 @ 8:50am | Report comment
But for the sake of clarity sheek, surely it’s better for league to not call themselves just ‘rugby’. Hell, they bastardised rugby union, so they can make up some other moniker.
Firestarter Bob said | November 19th 2009 @ 8:51am | Report comment
Huh? The play the ball? As if!
When league started they invented the play the ball to fix up rugby.
Or as PastHisBest put it “they bastardised rugby union”.
AC said | November 19th 2009 @ 11:45am | Report comment
Wrong.
Read some of the original descriptions of the “innovations” that rugby league introduced (take a look at http://www.rl1908.com/History/1906.htm)
Back in the late 19th century, rucks didn’t exist in rugby (before the schism). The ref would indicate unplayable or the player would call a “down”. This would mean an (ad hoc) scrum would be set with whoever was near by. In the simplest case it would be a one-on-one play the ball type scenario.
Firestarter Bob said | November 19th 2009 @ 12:39pm | Report comment
We’ll there you go! Spiro what do you think of what Sean Fagan says on that site?
sheek said | November 19th 2009 @ 10:07pm | Report comment
Gee FB,
“When league started they invented the play the ball to fix rugby up”.
You pulled the wrong horse, but hardly dropped stride. It does help if you do some research on your sport.
Like I said, depending on when you drop into rugby during its evolutionary changes in the 1800s, league has as much legitimacy to the title ‘rugby’ as does union.
Siva Samoa said | November 20th 2009 @ 7:31am | Report comment
you been reading too much rugby league history from sean fagan and the mungoesunlimited forum.
rugby is run by the rfu in england and the irb around the globe and it still is.
sheek said | November 20th 2009 @ 2:47pm | Report comment
Siva,
There’s very few people who have delved into the past history & evolution of both rugby union & league, like Sean Fagan has. I would add he’s extremely fair in his analysis.
Of course, remaining ignorant is your right.
I’m not sure what the RFU/IRB have to do with this discussion. Those organisations are run by ‘old farts’, as Will Carling so eloquently put it, who probably don’t know anything outside their little cloistered world.
Siva Samoa said | November 19th 2009 @ 6:32am | Report comment
Not my cup of tea. Rugby is ok the way it is . Its just going through one of those phases . The three big men in the frontrow is the reason why rugby is a different football from AFL and NRL. Its a game for all sizes and heights.
MattRusty said | November 19th 2009 @ 7:14am | Report comment
Yes Matt, the answer is yes. An AFL fan pointed out to me that professionalism era of players going full time has hurt rugby union because everyone is now fit. There are fewer gaps in the defense, so what choice have you got but to play field position. There are 30 players on the field at a time; AFL has 36 on the field at a time, and it’s three times the size! I believe it will go to 13, and league will go to 11-a-side too. The NRL trialed 11-a-side in the Toyota Cup towards the end of the season last year (for games that had no bearing on the finals) and it was open and exciting. Doesn’t matter if it’s right or wrong or goes against the very fabric of why you love the game – you don’t matter – money matters in this day and age, so be prepared for “our” product to be changed so that other supporters can be attracted. They might lose you, but they’ll risk it if you’re replaced by 2 other people.
Bazza said | November 19th 2009 @ 7:20am | Report comment
I’m a true blue rugby man and I think 13 a side is definitely worth thinking about, as is the removal of tactical subsitutions. The exponential increase in the size and fitness of rugby players over the last 20 years has effectively shrunk the size of the field, with the effect that rugby’s traditional running game is now obsolete. Real change is needed, but whatever the merits of such ideas, the almost overwhelming problem is to get the international rugby community to agree on any change on that scale. Now that it has become professional, (with the exception of the idiosyncratic Australian market) rugby is booming across the world and is under virtually no commercial pressure to change. Other than in North America and Australia, rugby has virtually no competition from other full contact ball sports, and is growing exponentially in both traditional rugby countries like Ireland, France and Argentina and in numerous developing rugby countries. And with the inclusion of sevens in the Olympic program, it will soon benefit from unprecedented levels of public funding in countries like Russia, China, USA and many others once the 2013-2016 Olympic cylce kicks in. So if the boom continues, or even accelerates, where is the pressure to change going to come from? The problem Australian rugby has is that for its long term wellbeing it needs to stay joined at the hip to the financial rivers of gold from the international game. It couldn’t afford to risk going it alone with a 13-a-side experiment even if it wanted to (and could somehow get a majority within Australian rugby to agree, which would be hard enough). It is a shame, but such bold ideas will probably never be even tried. So I don’t know where the answer will come from. Very few people in rugby realise it yet, but sevens will change the face of the game post 2016, when it features in the Rio Olympics. How it will ultimately affect 15- a-side rugby is anyone’s guess, but make no mistake, rugby sevens will become an absolutely huge international game in itself. Maybe 15- a-side rugby will go the way of test criket, where the traditional game is being overun by the abreviated form? More likely, it will just continue on largely as it is the IRB will just tinker with the rules at the breakdown to appease the romantics.
mitzter said | November 19th 2009 @ 7:37am | Report comment
I am unsure about the 13s as i think it is just a way of bypassing alot of the problems in the laws (but maybe thats what we need to do).
But I don’t think 7s will ever take over 15s – it’s just not a battle like 15s
Chris said | November 19th 2009 @ 7:21am | Report comment
Very impressive article – and I totally agree. 13 man rugby union would not be “league” (not that there is anything wrong with league, I love them both). It would still be rugby – just faster, more open and more athletic.
Brilliant idea.
Paul J said | November 19th 2009 @ 7:36am | Report comment
“Real change is needed, but whatever the merits of such ideas, the almost overwhelming problem is to get the international rugby community to agree on any change on that scale. ”
I agree with Bazza here.
The size of the international game for Rugby is a double edged sword. Great the game is so big but it makes it much harder to get changes put through. Rugby will always have this problem that the NRL and AFL will never have.
If the NRL one day decided to go 11 a side they’ll change it pretty easily. Much harded for the IRU to change to 13 a side.
13 a side is the way for Rugby to go.
albatross said | November 20th 2009 @ 10:40am | Report comment
Yeah and they could tidy up the ruck by formalising it and having just the tackled player and the tackler stand up after the tackle with the tp errr.. playing the ball with the tackler being allowed to strike for it. Line outs are messy too and so they should have a scrum when the ball goes out.
That and 13 players a side would make the game much more attractive.
Matt said | November 20th 2009 @ 10:48am | Report comment
Realistically though, rucks are more dynamic/attractive than play the ball and lineouts are more dynamic/attactive than a scrum.
It’s really only the amount of kicking versus running that is in Rugby League favourd at the momeny (that’s my opinion on it anyway).
If Union can figure out how to allow more space for teams to attack then it’s a pretty darn attractive game really.
The play is more unpredictable with more total range of skill sets and more opportunity for people of all builds to participate.
The issue is in getting more ‘action’ into the game and less kicking (in general play and at goal) and in removing the grey area at ruck time.
Woody Warambel said | November 19th 2009 @ 7:49am | Report comment
Matt
Having watched a tape of few of the old style RL matches when they had the contested scrums & I couldn’t help but notice how unstable those scrums were.
Do you think would be a problem if RU went to 6 person scrums?
Dean Pantio said | November 19th 2009 @ 8:26am | Report comment
No.
Yet another in the rich tradition of thought provoking articles. /sigh
PastHisBest said | November 19th 2009 @ 8:51am | Report comment
Ouch! The sarcasm…
It is thought provoking if you have a brain the size of a pea.
Matt said | November 19th 2009 @ 8:37am | Report comment
Well I’m pleased that others can see some merit in the idea! But it would be quite a big change for many to take.
Personally I grew up watching Super Rugby (being all of 10 years old when I watched Lomu trample Mike Catt in the 95 semi). Growing up there wasn’t much rugby to watch in central NZ other than the Hurricanes (with Hawkes Bay and Manawatu both languishing in Div 2 of the NPC). But guys like Cullen, Umaga, Iremia and Lomu played exciting rugby for the Canes against equally exciting teams (like the Brumbies, Reds, Blues, Highlanders and Crusaders).
But the more time has moved on the more those memories of “exciting” rugby have faded and they are so seldom these days. Many of the people of my generation now see rugby as becoming boring to watch and don’t see it as an entertaining sport, but more an entertaining spectacle (because in NZ there isn’t much that outrates the AB’s).
While the game is certainly growing globally in nations without competition for contact sports the core of the game still rests in nations like NZ, Australia and the UK. And all of these nations have experienced their fair share of boring rugby of late. You’d be a fool to say the game is doing well in these nations compared to the past.
With more and more British pundits starting to question the ‘entertainment’ value of the Premiership and Test matches I think the possibility of fundemental changes is becoming more likely.
The ELV’s were timed badly in that the Premiership was yet to adopt a lot of the Kick and chase tactics last season. But this season it has crept right into the game and many have complained that the entertainment value is down. The pro game is about money and entertainment, that is a fact. It is the showcase of the sport and when it is boring and uninspiring then the stakeholders have to ask why that is and does it need to be fixed.
If they believe that this is just a temporary phase (as some do) then I’m sure it’ll stay status quo. But if the trend continues and games stay defensively orientated with a fear to attack then changes may be needed.
The fact is that the the IRB, thanks to pressure from the RFU, have already allowed experiments in the form of an extra prop replacement to try to prevent the issue of uncontested scrums. The RFU have also recommended experimenting with the use of rolling subs to remove blood injury faking. So they’ve shown an increasing willingness to adapt the laws of the game to make is safer and fairier. Whether that will transpire into making changes for entertainment is another question.
Rugby has had a long history of law changes (like MANY other sports) when the climate at the time required it. I think the time is fast approaching where the IRB must look to evolve the game again to improve the spectacle. How they do that is anyone’s guess and the ELV’s were the first serious attempt.
I just think that 13 per side would be far more simplistic to implement and would offer more benefits. I mean, where is the difficulty in saying “from this time onwards it is 13 per side. Coaches can decide what they want their 6 man forward pack to look like and the coaches and players can decide how the new laws will impact the game”. I can’t see how this would start to confuse fans, like many of the ELV’s did. There’d be no need to have to explain that players cannot pass back into the 22 and kick directly out or that the corner flag used to be out but now isn’t etc. The game would still be fundementally the same except that there would be more space and more requirement on speed/skill rather than collisions/bulk.
Not 100% sure whether the scrums would be ‘cured’ with 2 less men and lighter props. But I do think it would be improved.
sheek said | November 19th 2009 @ 8:48am | Report comment
I wouldn’t reduce the number of players from 15 to 13.
However, I have this disturbing poser – if union can’t solve the problem of the breakdown, then it might have to consider either a play-the-ball or down-type scenario.
PastHisBest said | November 19th 2009 @ 8:54am | Report comment
Less likely, as the contest for the ball is at the heart of the rules of rugby. Tell ‘em they’re dreamin’.
sheek said | November 19th 2009 @ 9:07am | Report comment
Yes, this is the diehards’ mantra.
However, do you continue playing the mantra long after its become obvious continual contest for possession has become mired in numerous continuous infringements totally destroying the ebb & flow of the game?
Union hasn’t reached that point yet, but it’s getting there. So I ask the question again – if union can’t solve the problem of the breakdown, it might have to consider other alternatives, like play the ball, or down rule.
I have suggested in the past, union is attempting to codify every possible eventuality that can occur on the playing field, which is both ridiculous & impractical.
Union needs to look at fewer penalty infringements, not more.
Chop said | November 19th 2009 @ 1:30pm | Report comment
I think the easiest way to clean up the breakdowns in rugby is to limit the amount of people who can join in, that way there would be less sealing the ball off and hopefully a more flowing game.
Rickety Knees said | November 20th 2009 @ 10:20am | Report comment
Bring back rucking
Firestarter Bob said | November 19th 2009 @ 8:56am | Report comment
That wouldn’t be rugby. The beauty of rugby has always been the continuous non-stop contesting of the ball.
sheek said | November 19th 2009 @ 10:21am | Report comment
FB,
So what IS “rugby”?
We haven’t moved far from 1850 in some ways. Even today, you can have a month of arguments about what constitutes ‘real’ rugby.
It’s a bit like religion – we all have the same God, but like to interpret him in our own different ways!
MyGeneration said | November 19th 2009 @ 10:44am | Report comment
There’s only one God? And it’s a him? And the same him?
sheek said | November 19th 2009 @ 2:47pm | Report comment
MG,
I say ‘hi for convenience. For all I know he could be a she could be an it, & all 3 at once…..
sheek said | November 19th 2009 @ 10:15pm | Report comment
FB,
And of course, the continuous non-stop contesting of the ball often being interrupted by the continuous non-stop blowing of the ref’s whistle!!!
PastHisBest said | November 19th 2009 @ 9:18am | Report comment
“So I ask the question again – if union can’t solve the problem of the breakdown, it might have to consider other alternatives, like play the ball, or down rule.”
1. That’s not a question.
2. It won’t consider play the ball as an alternative.
sheek said | November 19th 2009 @ 10:23am | Report comment
PastHisbest,
I understand how you feel about this – no-one likes to have their core beliefs rattled. It can be very unsettling, not to mention upsetting also…..
LT80 said | November 19th 2009 @ 9:27am | Report comment
I think it’s an interesting idea. However, it may not necessarily do anything to reduce the amount of kicking, especially from inside a team’s own half. Yes, the defensive line would be thinner, but many counter-attacking situations (kick returne) are already 3-on-3 or 4-on-4 anyway. Players aren’t running the ball because the cost of getting tackled and possibly turning the ball over deep in their own territory is too great.
I would suggest a more radical solution, which I’d like to see trialled. A team would get a limited number (perhaps 2 or 3) uncontested rucks after taking possession, before play reverts to contested breakdowns.
Yes, it would be a step closer to rugby league, but that should not be the point. It might make the game of rugby union better, which is really all that should matter!
Working Class Rugger said | November 19th 2009 @ 9:55am | Report comment
Why 13 player. 12 would be much better. It effectively moves the game closer to 10s Rugby. Get rid of the flanker’s and fullback. It’s radical but the space created would bring back the style of Rugby we all crave more so the 13 a side. On eliminating the ruck, no, limit the number’s in the ruck. One say 3 from each side not including the tackler or tackled.
AC said | November 19th 2009 @ 1:35pm | Report comment
Numbers at the ruck is an interesting idea.
It would seem easy to police as there would be fewer bodies obstructing the ball.
What to do when someone unintentionally went off their feet though would be contentious. Does it mean someone can take their place or not?
Would the definition of the gate need changing?
The side effect is then more defenders in the line.
Matt said | November 19th 2009 @ 10:02am | Report comment
I don’t think it would remove the kicking 100%, as if players are facing a good fresh defensive line then they’re still better off avoiding the risk. But the chances would greatly improve that there’s more chance of a broken defensive line. And the later into the game it is the more the fatiruge will be affecting players and the more gaps will appear.
I think we want to try and avoid confusing rules like limiting the number of kicks each side can do or allowing a certain amount on uncontested rucks etc. Rugby just needs to allow for more space and less clutter. Sevens rugby is an extreme example, but with less players there is a lot less kicking and more attacking play. Rucks are still contested but they are faster and safer to go into because the attacking team usually has the initiative.
I believe that less players will lead to rucks becoming faster and more infavour of the attacking team, kinda like Sevens.
The other thing to remember is that with less players there would still be the opportunity to attack through a pick and drive type game as there is 2 less forwards to defend the fringes. So the option is still there for variety on attack and to suck in defenders futher throught the increased risk of gaps around the ruck.
Set plays from scrums would also be quite exciting as there’d be no flanker to cover the inside channels when the halfback fades away on a set play from the No.8 (now No.6).
It might not be the best timing, as I’ve already tried to suggest one pretty revolutionary change. But there should be a simultaneous change to the points scoring system in Rugby. The points for tries and conversions have changes a lot in Rugby’s history. 3 Points for a penalty has been around for a while however and it’s probably time we revised it’s value.
As it stands 3 points (60% the value of a try) is too great of an opportunity to pass up for most teams. But if you reduced the value of a penalty to 2 then at 40% the value of a try you’d see more teams plug it for touch and have a go. After all a penalty is guaranteed territory and 80% chance of possession (from the lineout) which is what all teams crave for points.
slacky said | November 19th 2009 @ 10:38am | Report comment
Great, so pleased someone agrees with me. It is too crowded and it is very difficult for a player to create space. The game is slowed down by players trying to find gaps when there is not enough room to make space.
No flankers would open up the game no risk. Look at League and the space the players have to make breaks.
Besides anything to get rid of Richie McCaw.
Would love to see a trial game and I am sure the result would speak for itself.
MyGeneration said | November 19th 2009 @ 10:46am | Report comment
“…anything to get rid of Richie McCaw.”
Like it.
Matt said | November 19th 2009 @ 10:58am | Report comment
Just out of interest, what would be your choice of a Wallaby (or other team) forward pack if it were a 13 man game?
Working Class Rugger said | November 19th 2009 @ 12:49pm | Report comment
Pretty much the same as now but move both Palu and Elsom into the 2nd row (on the weekend they were our most reliable jumper’s) and Pocock to number 8.
ohtani's jacket said | November 19th 2009 @ 1:05pm | Report comment
Everytime I log on to this website I wonder, “do Australians really understand rugby?”
It was the Aussies who were at the forefront of modernising rugby defence. Now that your side can’t attack anymore you want to meddle with over a hundred years of history to get some kind of weak running game back into the sport?
AC said | November 19th 2009 @ 2:47pm | Report comment
Hang on mate, your countrymen invented the 7 man, diamond scrum! Did they not understand the game then? From what I’ve heard it was a fairly stable platform but was poo-pooed by the rugby establishment in England, and outlawed.
Why not meddle with the game’s history? Laws in society are added and demoted/removed continually depending on the changes in thinking and composition within it. In democratic countries it’s usually to try to make the best society for all. Why not meddle to make the game the best it can be?
ohtani's jacket said | November 19th 2009 @ 3:04pm | Report comment
The more you meddle with the laws, the worse the game becomes. Hence why New Zealand and Australia have struggled switching between the old laws and the ELVS so many times.
All sports go through low scoring phases. Rugby is not a special case. In the early 90s, NBA basketball shifted towards a low scoring, ground and pound halfcourt game that was the complete opposite of the fastbreak, LA Lakers showtime style of the 80s. The NBA tried numerous rule changes to increase scoring and raise the tempo of the game, but what it always came back to wasn’t a case that the athletes were better in the 90s but that fundamentals were on the decline. The ground and pound NBA sides didn’t have a lot of guys who could score, so they had no choice but to play physical defence and try to bash their way inside. If you want better rugby players, you have to develop them in school and at club level, just like NBA players need to be developed in highschool and college.
The NBA’s solution was to look abroad for overseas talent with fundamentals. Rugby has done that to a lesser extent with coaching infrastructure and player migration, but what the NBA didn’t do is reduce the game to four on four. No major sport has ever reduced the number of players to make up for an imbalance in scoring. Getting rid of the flankers is an old idea and a ridiculous one considering a large number of the greatest rugby players of all-time have been flankers. Getting rid of one of the best positions on the field is insane.
Dan said | November 20th 2009 @ 1:29pm | Report comment
The thing is OJ, is that in over a 100 years of Rugby, the game has steadily changed to the point where it is almost unrecognisable from it’s original form. To suggest that change represents “a lack of understanding of the game” is conservative drivel and represents a lack of imagination. American Football is a game built on continuous steady change over 100 years (originally being a form of Rugby) and has evolved into a sport that enjoys more fanatical support in the United States (which, lets not forget has a population of over 300 million people) than soccer does in Europe (albeit without the mass violence that seems to pop its ugly head from time to time). Change, when well researched, practiced and implemented, is healthy for a sport. Adding jumping in line outs made them less of a lottery and more interesting. Making “tries” themselves worth points was a change that I’m sure few people would now argue was a mistake. When a game is producing precisely what it needs to be, then you can argue that calls for change are misplaced. With Rugby this is emphatically not the case. Rugby has serious issues at the breakdown and the scrum that are too open to interpretation and 3 points remains too great a reward for a number of infringements given that it is demonstrable that another referee may not even rule it worthy of a penalty at all… in this sense the “free kick” option that the ELVs allowed made a lot more sense. It allowed the game to keep moving while not awarding points for every innocuous indiscretion at the breakdown or scrum. This is not to say that all offences in these areas are unworthy of points, but I would say that a fair enough proportion of them are definitely down to pedantic refereeing. To be clear, I’m not arguing that reducing the number of players is a good idea. I’m simply contending that your claim that “the more you change a sport the worse it gets”.
PastHisBest said | November 20th 2009 @ 2:45pm | Report comment
“American Football is a game built on continuous steady change over 100 years”
And look where this has got them. Not a great example Dan.
“a sport that enjoys more fanatical support in the United States (which, lets not forget has a population of over 300 million people) than soccer does in Europe”
Absolute bullshit. Where did you get this drivel? Oh that’s right you’ve made it up.
“Adding jumping in line outs made them less of a lottery and more interesting.”
Subjective nonsense.
“and 3 points remains too great a reward for a number of infringements given”
And any less is too little of a deterrent to stop negative play…
Dan said | November 20th 2009 @ 4:59pm | Report comment
“And look where this has got them. Not a great example Dan.”
Yes, look where it has got them. The Super Bowl remains a more widely watched event than the Rugby World Cup final, despite the latter being much more international.
“Absolute bullshit. Where did you get this drivel? Oh that’s right you’ve made it up.”
Ok, I don’t have the figures and perhaps “more” was excessive. But the ratings, massive attendances (GreenBay Packers have a waiting list for season tickets that is several years long) at both the college and NFL level would indicate an extremely fanatical and devoted supporter base. Last time I checked there were no University soccer teams in Europe that got 80,000 people to their matches on a regular basis. Obviously that’s also a culural thing, but again, it does indicate the level of support American Football enjoys.
On line outs – the majority of rugby fans agree with me I would argue given that the rule was never repealed.
“And any less is too little of a deterrent to stop negative play…”
Subjective nonesense. Scrum penalties on the 50 metre line that are often at best 50/50 calls do not deserve 3 points. In the 22 I agree there needs to be a price, but with some of the penalties given all one can do is shake their head. Just look at the controversy over the handling of the scrum in the Italy V NZ game.
ohtani's jacket said | November 21st 2009 @ 12:57am | Report comment
All sports have changed from their original form, I’ll agree with that. The problem is that even if law changes are “well researched, practiced and implemented,” it doesn’t mean that they’re met in a positive spirit. As soon as you change any law in rugby, it’s exploited and usually in a cynical fashion. Really, the only change I can think of that can’t be manipulated in some way is a change in scoring. Everything else is fair game. If you reduced the number of players, teams would rush to adapt defensively. A new set of problems would arise and you’d be back to square one at the expense of the 15 man game.
Dan said | November 21st 2009 @ 11:18pm | Report comment
That seems to be a very good argument for reducing a penalty to 2 points.
PastHisBest said | November 19th 2009 @ 1:22pm | Report comment
Exactly. There’s a good reason why RL players look like superstars playing their sport and duds playing ours.
Matt said | November 19th 2009 @ 1:33pm | Report comment
Ah OJ, I’m from and live in New Zealand.
You’re comment suggests that the laws of the game haven’t changed in the last 100 years. The truth is that the original rules for Rugby were hardly about a flowing running and passing spectacle. More a slugfest aimed at kicking goals.
As the last 100 years have passed by there has been a consistent move towards more handling of the ball (especially since professionalism kicked in from 1996). That’s until the last couple of years where defense and kicking have been the best winning tactics for teams to use.
So changing the game to improve the spectacle in the form of a “weak running” game is surely as much in spirit of the game as it is to leave it as it is.
The original version of the game had 20 players, changed to 15 in 1877. The original game also has no points awarded for a try and 4 points for a goal from a mark. Scrum formations were also open and it’s no small secret that NZ used the now infamous 2-3-2 formation until it was banned. The game has always evolved to make it better, so what not continue over 100 years of history and again look to improve it.
Here’s an interesting quote from 1995, as Rugby sat on the dawn of professionism:
“Thirteen-man rugby league has shown itself to be a faster, more open game of better athletes than the other code. Rugby union is trying to negotiate its own escape from amateurism, with some officials admitting that the game is too slow, the laws too convoluted to attract a larger TV following”. – Ian Thomsen, The New York Times, October 28, 1995
The question still remains, why did Rugby go professional in the first place? Was it to create a game that was faster, more open and with better athletes? Was it because some officials thought the game to be too slow and convoluted? Was it because they wanted to attract a larget TV following?
And wouldn’t a move to 13 men be an answer to all of those above questions?
ohtani's jacket said | November 19th 2009 @ 2:15pm | Report comment
All right Matt, I apologise for calling you an Australian.
Rugby had no choice but to go professional, otherwise there would’ve been the same split that occurred in tennis and cricket. Over time, the amateur and professional games would’ve moulded together but as it were the game turned professional on the back of a highly successful World Cup — a World Cup that was threatened up until the eleventh hour by a mass exodus of players. It really had nothing to do with what was happening on the pitch.
The issues rugby is facing now are largely due to coaching. Rucking won’t return any time soon (if ever) and coaches simply have to adapt. The latest defensive strategy is a two man defensive system where one guy makes the tackle and the support player immediately stands over the tackled player and fetches the ball. South Africa are extremely good at this and Australia have begun employing it too. The tackled player won’t release the ball in this situation and it’s a guaranteed turnover in the eyes of the ref. 9/10 this will kill the attacking team’s possession, so coaches need to figure out how they can beat this type of defence.
The answer, I believe, is to not have your backs act as flank forwards. In the old days, before the pick and go was in vogue, if a forward took the ball into contact and looked like he was in danger of being isolated, the entire pack would drive behind him and push the whole thing up 20 or 30 yards, unleashing the backs. Nowdays, everyone is so enamoured with the midfield line break that they end up being swarmed by the cover defence. The All Blacks prior to breaking up in 2007 were extremely good at punching a hole in the opposition defence and using short passes to put someone through but nobody’s really playing like that at the moment. Hence, there was that big moment in broken play on the weekend where Elsom was off charging down the field on his lonesome and you just knew it was a deadend.
Rugby has evolved to the point where sides are looking to shutdown first phase ball not watch opposition backlines swing it wide. Even backs contest the rucks far more than they ever did. Winning a penalty is the goal of every defensive line and is pretty much like a quarterback sack. Attacking sides aren’t very smart with their options and don’t support the ball carrier enough. There may be less space on the field than before, but in that case you forgo swinging it arbitrarily wide.
The All Blacks are looking like a far more comfortable side now that they’ve put a bit of a territory game into their attack. In a sense, they’re going back to their roots and I thought Ireland should have done the same thing on the weekend but they caught the expansive bug too.
Siva Samoa said | November 20th 2009 @ 7:47am | Report comment
rugby didn’t go professional because rugby league had better athletes. rugby went professional because it was heading towards that road and the irb and national unions couldn’t do anything about it. who said league had better atletes ? the currents rules were first change in 1992.
sheek said | November 20th 2009 @ 10:31am | Report comment
In Australia, generally speaking, league has better athletes than union, & more of them. Of course, Australia (apart from PNG) is the only country where league tends to get the better quality athletes. Everywhere else, union wins out.
But that doesn’t solve the short to medium term problem for Australia.
Justin said | November 20th 2009 @ 10:38am | Report comment
Sheek – whats this better athlete based on? Without League bashing you are talking about a sport which has 16 teams or something therefore plenty of ordinary footballers compared to 4 pro Union teams. Now in league it may look like they have all these dynamic players but its essentially the best players busting through very average footballers. Let alone all the extra space they have on the field.
The higher level you play at the more conservative the game becomes because of the evenness of the athletes and the difficulties in breaking down defence etc.
sheek said | November 20th 2009 @ 2:49pm | Report comment
Okay, I accept the term ‘athlete’ can be rubbery.
Chop said | November 19th 2009 @ 1:46pm | Report comment
‘The question still remains, why did Rugby go professional in the first place? Was it to create a game that was faster, more open and with better athletes? Was it because some officials thought the game to be too slow and convoluted? Was it because they wanted to attract a larget TV following?’
Rugby went professional at the same time Pay TV decided it wanted rugby as a product on TV and tried to poach players from the Rugby Unions by setting up their own competition (Super 10’s). The by-product or professionalism was fast, higher, stronger players, the rules hadn’t kept up with the improvement in athleticism of the players.
It was the opposite to the Rugby League Superleague war which occurred at the same time, Kerry Packer and Rupert Murdoch were both trying to get content for their Pay TV channels.
Brett McKay said | November 19th 2009 @ 2:11pm | Report comment
What would be the simpler change for rugby union, dropping two players (as is often suggested, sometimes seriously like this piece, other times less so, like most days of the week on The Roar, unfortunately), or doing something less radical like moving the sidelines a few metres east and west??
Why don’t we consider slight field width increases to solve the problems listed here??
ohtani's jacket said | November 19th 2009 @ 2:24pm | Report comment
We shouldn’t consider it because some sides are capable of playing welll with 15 men and the existiing field dimensions. On the weekend, I watched Japan absolutely dominate Canada in all facets of the game — from huge hits and turnover ball to winning a tightehead five metres out and mauling their way over the line from a lineout. They won the battles in the tight and had plenty of up tempo counterattack from loose ball or broken play.
The game can still be played well, there’s just no guarantee that every game you watch is going to be a classic or full of outstanding rugby.
Brett McKay said | November 19th 2009 @ 2:34pm | Report comment
OJ, I actually agree with you, I just thought this was a simpler option than changing one of the very fabrics of rugby union. Even still, people view games differently anyway – I’ve quite enjoyed all the Wallabies’ Spring Tour Tests so far, but there’s been plenty on this forum suggesting some or all games have been duds.
And I’ve seen some brilliant and pretty ordinary 13-a-side games too, just for the record…
Vented Relief said | November 19th 2009 @ 2:42pm | Report comment
I also think that its simply an infrastructure problem. Most stadiums do not have the room to expand and those that do are not considered “great” stadiums because of the distance of the crowd to the play. If I am right in thinking you wold be suggesting an increase of about 5m then I think this is too much for the infrastructure to handle. Even the suburban rugby pitch I play on could not handle an increase in size due to a road on one side and the clubhouse on the other – it’s all rather tight and there is barely room for the spectators to stand behind the yellow tape.
Brett McKay said | November 19th 2009 @ 2:54pm | Report comment
VR, there’s some stadiums/stadia/stadii that certainly couldn’t handle it, no doubt (eg, the stadium in Tokyo with the astroturf in-goals!!), but in reality even a 5m increase is only 2.5m each side. Most major grounds (admittedly) have at least that distance between the sideline and the lines outside which the camera and sound operators move. And then comes all the eletronic/scrolling signage, and then somewhere beyond that the stadium starts.
I really don’t think any drastic changes are needed, truth be told. Even a simple move like the return of rucking, or the ‘hands’ ELV, or even limiting the number of players allowed in the ruck as Chop suggested, all of these would be better and easier than dropping the flankers…
Darwin hammer said | November 19th 2009 @ 3:20pm | Report comment
Well Brett – you’d elimate England from being a W/Cup host … whether that’s good or bad is another story … they’re planning on using football grounds to increase numbers … which they have previously – and these ground are too small already
Dan said | November 20th 2009 @ 1:45pm | Report comment
England as a World Cup host? Playing games at soccer stadiums? I just don’t see it personally… Most English people I meet who are not rugby fans are so obsessed with the whole class divide thing in Rugby (“it’s a public school boys game” etc) that I just don’t see how it could really expand. What is really being done to make the game more open to the public? In Australia our players come from public and private schools equally (we call our government schools public in Australia), so this helps ease the whole class thing… though it was never as pronounced here anyway in all honesty.
PastHisBest said | November 20th 2009 @ 2:58pm | Report comment
“England as a World Cup host? Playing games at soccer stadiums? I just don’t see it personally…”
Don’t see what Dan? That England couldn’t host a world cup? They have and are going to. That they can’t play rugby games a soccer stadiums? They have and will do again.
Dan said | November 20th 2009 @ 5:01pm | Report comment
PHB, I know they are, but the simple fact is that with the entrenched cultural divide between soccer and rugby the growth into that particular market will remain painfully limited until the sport itself changes its structure in the old country.
Working Class Rugger said | November 19th 2009 @ 3:20pm | Report comment
Widening the pitch has been discussed rather in depth previously. The facts are this. We may be in yet another cycle, if so then eventually the game will open up. However, Rugby player’s are stronger, fitter, bigger and far more drilled in the fundamentals in preventing points such as tries. The main concern here is this may not be a cycle at all and that professionalism has created athlete’s far in excess of what Rugby now requires in its current format. Like it or not Rugby is now in the entertainment business and has to keep up with the times, thus meaning it must evolve to further its entertainment value.
The mpore palatable option for many die hards would be to simply widen the pitch, I would support that. But I also would like to see the game move toward 10s Rugby, a faster more open format that still has all the same elements the game still has today.
Brett McKay said | November 19th 2009 @ 3:33pm | Report comment
again guys, I don’t disagree with either of you, and I don’t really think there’s any need for drastic changes. Was just merely offering a less radical option…
netrug said | November 19th 2009 @ 4:29pm | Report comment
A six man scrum would destroy the Rugby scrum concept. it would become a can of worms as is the league scrum.
When league changed to a six man pack, they actually did away with props. Rugby second rows beame the front row and the flankers became the second row. League second rowers just nod their heads in a scum so they can breakaway as soon as possible. All power, drive, strength ans the unit of a Rugby scrum contest will disappear.
Do Rugby followers want a league type scrum in their game? Because that is what wii happen with a six man pack.
AndyS said | November 19th 2009 @ 4:43pm | Report comment
I would personally be opposed to any reduction, but if it were to happen I’d propose not being prescriptive about which two players were removed – make it a tactical choice. If one team wants to pack 8 men and the other 6, so be it.
But I’m not sure any such could be termed a “simple change”; it would fundamentally affect the shape of the game. For mine, the most likely outcome would be a premium on defense, with teams a) trying as hard as possible to dislodge the ball in the tackle, b) focusing on slowing the recycle and c) committing as few players as possible and backing their defense. Very good chance it would come to resemble League without the six-tackle rule, so perhaps then interesting to compare with the following extract from Sean Fagan’s RL1908 site:
“In the late 1950s, the game was beset with dummy-half running and a coaching mentality that decreed possession was king. Unlimited-tackle football encouraged players to avoid risks and wear down the opposition….Bill Buckley, spoke out against the prevailing culture of negative play: “The craze for possession of the ball at all costs has resulted in vital laws of our game being ignored.” He implored coaches to open up the game, but they failed to respond to his pleas. So Buckley, in conjunction with like-minded officials in England, ignored them and launched a series of reforms to the playing laws, culminating in the introduction of the six-tackle rule in 1971.”
Nick said | November 19th 2009 @ 6:44pm | Report comment
Hi guys im from south africa and i have also thought about how to free up space on the rugby field. the problem is as many of you have pointed out is the fact that players are professional now and breaking the line nowdays is a lot harder. my solution is simple take away the 2 locks and a wing. replace the locks with the 2 flankers, lineouts would not be destroyed because many flanks get lifted in the modern game anyway. removing one wing would force the fullback to act as both a covering wing and fullback, he would have to be extremely fit but this would allow the attacking team more space to attack, would also give him a bit more room to counter attack. i dont really know what rugby league is but ive heard it has 13 players, soccer has 11, why not make rugby have 12. what do you think???
Midfielder said | November 19th 2009 @ 8:46pm | Report comment
Think about reducing the player numbers to 11…. 3 forwards for scrums, 6 backs and a full back…
My reason is the mauls would be smaller for fear of getting caught out wide.
PastHisBest said | November 20th 2009 @ 3:01pm | Report comment
Actually why don’t we reduce to 7, 3 man scrums and 7 minutes a half….wait, that’s right…
BaconExplosion said | November 19th 2009 @ 9:30pm | Report comment
The average player’s body shape would need to change significantly if numbers were dropped to 13 a side. All of a sudden ball security becomes a huge problem (it’s already difficult enough now for teams to secure their own ball with 2 flankers). Forget about having a couple of 130kg props in your team, ditto with a couple of 6′6′ locks as they are just too slow around the park. I believe the standard body shape for forwards would have to be players of say Rocky Elsom’s size and outside backs would need to be bigger & stronger than they are now as they would become acting loose forwards whenever a backline move breaks down. Apart from the playmakers, the distinction between forwards & backs would be a lot less significant. i.e. 7’s rugby, rugby league.
Also, there is no way 6 man scrums would resemble anything like the current 8 man scrums. While the flankers may not provide a lot of shove in the scrum, they do help keep the props hips tight and hold the scrum together. Without flankers I could see scrums becoming messy at best, or at worse a league style tea party for forwards.
Personally I don’t think there is much wrong with the way the game is now…..just bring back rucking and penalise the teams who consistently and deliberately dive off their feet to kill the ball at every ruck (we all know who they are) and you will have gone a long way to solving the game’s problems. The fact that we don’t see many line breaks anymore I think is just down to players having poor basic skills. The Larkham era wallabies played entertaining rugby with line breaks aplenty and the rules were virtually the same back then.
While its good that ideas are being thrown around, I don’t think this is the way to go.
westy said | November 20th 2009 @ 12:55am | Report comment
Rugby union is the 15 man game. Rugby league is the 13 man game. Whether you like both of them as i do or only one you must not misunderstand the different natures of the respective games.
There is an overwhelming commonality in basic core skills. that is all.
. In this regard U/6 to u/12 junior rugby league is a superior vehicle to introduce those basic skills in a simpler game especially for those new to body contact sport. Mini and mod junior rugby league were introduced well before their rugby union counterparts. Walltag is a direct steal from Austag. As one old bloke put to me only rugby union could make a game of touch complicated. He has got a point. I saw wallatag game cancelled because they did not have enough tags!
What sets rugby union apart is its 8 man scrummaging its mauling rucking and lineouts and with 15 players the different attacking and defensive lines.
Be under no illusion rugby union can never reduce the number of players to 13 it would be to close to an a admission rugby league might have got something right. . That will never happen.
Secondly it would fundamentally alter the nature of the game.
Both games have their respective merits. you want to watch a 13 man game watch rugby league . You want to watch traditional 15 man game watch rugby union.
You simply need to appreciate they are different games that combine common skills into distinctly different patterns.
Watching a rugby league scrum is like inviting the ladies over for a quick cuppa before they get back to work yet it would be very dangerous for a rugby union back not to appreciate a rugby league draw and pass backline movement that puts inglis into a break at full flight.
By the way one way to send some rugby union supporters to the NRL is to keep yellow carding palu for a truly great rugby union tackle
The problem in rugby union is the referees. It is a game of technical rules where I believe a referee more than in any other sport can determine the style and pattern of a game. Referees in all games make mistakes which may determine who wins or loses but a rugby union referee actually has a potent impact on the way a game of rugby union is actually played.
Siva Samoa said | November 20th 2009 @ 8:07am | Report comment
nobody on this thread suggest rugby league introduce touch rugby and mini rugby and that rugby union stole it from rugby league. but we all know where you stand westy/russ 13. i played mini rugby in new zealand in the 70’s as a kid and also know that touch rugby was in samoa long before that. rugby backlines have been using draw and pass backline movement back in the 70’s, 80’s, 90’s . If you lived in NZ and watch NPC rugby in that era you would have heard of Bruce Roberson, Stu Wilson, Joe Stanley, John Schuster, Warwick Taylor, Steve Pokere, Eroni Clarke, Arthur Stone and many more who were better than Greg Inglis. Why do you think rugby league wanted to sign rugby backs back then ?
Norm said | November 20th 2009 @ 12:51pm | Report comment
I can see that apart from eating the only other reason you would open your mouth is to change your feet.
PastHisBest said | November 20th 2009 @ 3:04pm | Report comment
Exactly what do you disagree with in Siva’s post Norm?
Norm said | November 20th 2009 @ 4:25pm | Report comment
-” If you lived in NZ and watch NPC rugby in that era you would have heard of Bruce Roberson, Stu Wilson, Joe Stanley, John Schuster, Warwick Taylor, Steve Pokere, Eroni Clarke, Arthur Stone and many more who were better than Greg Inglis.”…this absurdly hypothetical & subjective opinion being enumerated as fact.
sheek said | November 20th 2009 @ 2:55pm | Report comment
Siva,
I’ve seen all the players you mentioned first-hand myself. None of them are better than Inglis. They might be as good, but not better. Besides, it’s very difficult to judge players in different sports.
That said, Inglis does things ‘off the cuff’ I never saw the others do. Kiwi union players are generally very technically proficient, but you don’t associate ‘left field’ action with those kind of players.
You are so determined to defend union you are letting your bias show……….
PastHisBest said | November 20th 2009 @ 3:09pm | Report comment
Sheek, anyone can look a genius with 2 less players on the field…
“Kiwi union players are generally very technically proficient, but you don’t associate ‘left field’ action with those kind of players.”
You are kidding right? Spencer, Umaga, Cullen, Lomu ring a bell? Frank Bunce used to say that even he didn’t know what Walter Little was going to do half the time and he played over 100 games with Little.
Just because you don’t make an association doesn’t make it so.
sheek said | November 20th 2009 @ 7:43pm | Report comment
PHB,
Siva didn’t mention Spencer, Umaga, Cullen, Jomu, Bunce or Little. So i was only responding to the players he mentioned.
However, in respect to the players you mention – yes, Spencer & Cullen were magical players who did things out of the ordinary; Little & Umaga maybe 50/50; while Bunce & Lomu were just tough bastards who through, or over, people!
So….. Touche………. !
However, I may concede it’s perhaps easier for a good back to look brilliant in a 13 aside game rather than a 15 aside game. Need to think this one through a bit more…..
Siva Samoa said | November 23rd 2009 @ 8:21pm | Report comment
i haven’t seen inglis play rugby yet . he’s a good league player though .i didn’t mention cullen, umaga and co because i was only mentioning an era in the 70’s, 80s and early 90’s. I watched many NPC games back then where many backlines with stars i’ve mention above ran the lines that you now see in the nrl, state of origin or from the kangaroos backs.
Cattledog said | November 20th 2009 @ 3:37am | Report comment
Interesting post, Matt. Had a quick scan and don’t think anyone has suggested instead of dropping the flankers, what about dropping the no. 8 and a centre? I think that way the dynamics will remain, but the gaps will widen. I’m still convinced, however, that a simple points change to make conversions 3 (8 point converted try) and penalty and field goals 2 would see a huge difference in the way the game is played.
Anyway, a good post to get people thinking outside the square.
prowling panther said | November 20th 2009 @ 8:15am | Report comment
twill never be supported by australian rugby fans. i find most to hate league with a passion for god knows what reason
PastHisBest said | November 20th 2009 @ 3:10pm | Report comment
Because it’s as dull as dishwater.
TommyM said | November 20th 2009 @ 8:19am | Report comment
If teams kick less and run more there there will be more exciting rugby, yes? Even with today’s superior defenses, if teams continue to run the ball eventually they will break the line.
The slowing of the ball in the ruck is a problem that may require some innovative soultions. Outside of bring back rucking, I’m not sure what they are.
BUT- Perpetual kicking (and the resulting lack of attacking rugby) could be very easily fixed without such radical ideas as changing player numbers (or making the pitch bigger- which although a good idea would be impossible to implement given existing grandstands). Here it is………………..
Make kicks markable anywhere in a team’s own half.
So, Du Preez puts yet another high ball up from just outside his 22. Hard chase from Habana and co. AAC takes it 5 metres out from his 22. Mark. Habana and all other players nearby must retire 10m from where he marked it and are thus unable to tackle him as he immediately runs past them and counterattacks, spinning the ball wideto the other backs who run it.
Tackle before retreating 10? Free kick- defensive line must get back ANOTHER 10m before playing. Quick tap. Continued attack. Fast paced, attacking rugby where booting the ball in the air and chasing it hard (especially with large numbers who will then all be offside in the event of a mark) becomes much less attractive, and getting in behind defenses is suddenly much easier in the event teams do resort to constant kicking.
PastHisBest said | November 20th 2009 @ 3:12pm | Report comment
“Make kicks markable anywhere in a team’s own half.”
Genius. I suggest TommyM for PM. However I suggest anywhere on the field.
AndyS said | November 20th 2009 @ 3:38pm | Report comment
The only problem I would have with that is that it would pretty much mean the end of all kicking, fullstop, and I think that is overkill. I have no problem with contested up-and-unders and box-kicks, just the aimless uncontested ones. For mine, it would be better if an uncontested catch allowed (up until touched by an opposition player) a kick out on the full for territory and even retention of the line-out feed if the kick went indirectly to touch. That way the high kick would still be an option, but there MUST be a chase.
Failing that, marks anywhere in the half would probably be adequate – you can kick aimlessly, but if you do it will cost you territory if the ball is long or possession if the ball lands in your own half. Either way, your team would be back on defense.
Matt said | November 20th 2009 @ 9:03am | Report comment
I had thought about other alternative options for helping to solve the listed issues.
1. Make the field bigger. Problem = MANY of the modern stadiums would then be too small. Plenty already are (mostly soccer grounds) so the problem of a lack of width is increased (like the San Siro stadium last weekend where pitch width is only 68m).
2. Introduce marks from inside your own half (or similar alternative). Problem = Doesn’t add an incentive to attack, just reduces the benefit of kicking. Teams will still struggle to find space in the defense.
If you are trapped just outside your own 22 what can you do if you can’t pass back to kick out and can’t kick up the field without a mark being taken?
The only option would be to prevent (legally or otherwise) the catcher from taking a clean mark. Currently you don’t actually see Habana/Pieterson or Ndungane taking many of Du Preez or Steyn’s high kicks. All they aim to do is challange the ball enough to allow disputable possession (and they do achieve that) so a clean mark would be very hard to achieve. This would lead to more dangerous contests for the high ball, in order for marks to be prevented.
I think there needs to be more encouragement to attack, not discouragement to kick. You want to let players see an opportunity, not FORCE their hand.
TommyM said | November 20th 2009 @ 9:25am | Report comment
Don’t understand you logic there Matt. If a team has a disincentive to kick, what options are there?
1. Run
2. Umm….
i.e A disincentive to kick = an incentive to run = incentive to attack
A player is still permitted to chase any kick that goes through and contest it legally as they currently do, but the ramifications for failing to prevent a mark are more dire, so the kick becomes a less attractive option.
Matt said | November 20th 2009 @ 10:33am | Report comment
Well the reason that teams are kicking so much now is because it is so difficult and dangerous to run it.
If you put in place more rules to put teams off kicking then you’ve just made kicking less attractive but haven’t really made running attractive.
Team will be forced to run it from their own territory but there will still be a tough defensive line and the high chance of penalties and turnovers in your own red zone. So you’ve really only left teams a few options:
1. Kick high/long and prevent a mark being taken (by jumping for the ball without aiming to REALLY catch it)
2. Take a risk playing with width, but most likely ending in a turnover or penalty (with lots of shots at goal).
3. Play a conservative ball in hand game to reduce the chance of penalties, most likey using mauls and pick and go play.
So the game would probably be slower than it already is with even less chancing of the arm and more stodgy play.
So you need to instead give the teams an incentive to run by allowing more space. You need the return on investment (so to speak) for running to be larger compared to the risk of a turnover.
So you need to creat an incentive to run, not a disincentive to kick.
Interesting the Stuart Barnes has now added his 5c to the topic of boring rugby and then need to again look at law changes. This is at the same time that Shane Williams has come out in saying that he hates the current kicking culture and wants a return to running rugby.
How long can it be before the collective player associations and the Unions copping flak over playing styles force the hand of the IRB into another set of law variations.
Westy, I don’t think the number of players per side dictates the difference between Union and League. It is the nature of the gameplay, in things like Rucking, Mauling, Lineouts and Scrums that make the difference. Rugby in essence is still the same type of sport whether it’s 7’s, 10’s, 13’s or 15’s. The elements of the sport are the same, just different blends of rugby’s components (a contact sport with a constant contest for possession).
Cattledog, I had thought about dropping the No.8 but then you run into issues clearing the scrum and locking the second row together. Other than that it would be ok though. The fact is that, at present, there are more forwards on the field than backs. This in essence hints at the balance of the game being in favour of set pieces and forward play.
People, like me originally, look at the idea of dropping two flankers as being the death rattle for players like McCaw, Pocock and Elsom. But if rucks, scrums and lineouts are still around then you’ll need Props, Locks and Flankers. The current No.8/No.6 style of player would probably replace one of the two current aerial locks while the No.7 would probably move to the back of the scrum.
AndyS said | November 20th 2009 @ 3:03pm | Report comment
“So you need to creat an incentive to run, not a disincentive to kick” – I’d've said it’s the same thing….if you don’t want to kick, what are your other options? You can’t just stand there.
Interesting one I heard floated, but haven’t really had time to think through – at the breakdown defensive penalties = full arm penalty (i.e. loss of points/territory), attacking penalties = free kick (i.e loss of possession), idea being that it would place a premium on being in possession of the ball.
katzilla said | November 20th 2009 @ 5:05pm | Report comment
Just have a definitive length of time that a player with the ball may hold onto it after Hitting the ground.
3 seconds should be enough. That should encourage people to throw the ball wide without fear of penalties within their own half. If they are truely isolated enough then the true poachers can hold their ground for that 3 seconds to gain a ‘Short Arm’ penalty. If this will just encourage the pick and go high retention rate ala the Wallabies at the begining of this decade then make it only applicable down the 15 metre sections on the side of the field.
This will encourage teams to play down this channel, meaning defenses will be also required to plug these channels to stop momentum, thereby opening up the other side of the field.
Fixes the whole grey area of ‘Holding on’ Penalties that are sometimes rediculously inconsistent.
sheek said | November 20th 2009 @ 7:55pm | Report comment
There are some very narky people on this site. Having to defend the honour of union brings out the worst in its fans. There’s nothing more disturbing than confronting & discovering things you have accepted all your life might not be the gospel truth, is disconcerting to say the least.
There are two types of rugby, one played with 13 players (called league), the other 15 players (called union). Anyone having trouble accepting this may need therapy. Both codes have a legitimate claim to the generic name rugby.
Both rugby codes – league & union – have characteristics of 1800s rugby in their current format. Indeed, the jury’s still out, but it might be frightening to consider some elements of league are closer to 1800s rugby, than union (Heaven forbid!). Anyone having trouble accepting this may need therapy.
Perhaps I shouldn’t mention at this point, that the William Webb Ellis story is a fabulous fantasy with barely a thread of truth to sustain it. Oops, sorry………………..
ohtani's jacket said | November 21st 2009 @ 1:01am | Report comment
Here’s a narky comment — why must we continually hear this drivel about league being better than rugby in Australia? That has no bearing whatsoever on rugby.
Siva Samoa said | November 21st 2009 @ 5:33am | Report comment
sheek, you really do need that therapy now mate. there’s only one rugby that started by the william webb ellis story then in some pub in northern england some rugby clubs broke way and eventually started a new sport call rugby league.
the irb had already had control of rugby before the breakaway and still does to this day.
Firestarter Bob said | November 21st 2009 @ 6:29am | Report comment
Rubbish. You are referring to a sports body within a sport, Sheek is referring to the sport itself.
Siva Samoa said | November 23rd 2009 @ 8:36pm | Report comment
rugby never left. the first rugby international test match was played by scotland and englad in 1871 and they still played to this day. it wasn’t between the kangaroos or great britain.
katzilla said | November 21st 2009 @ 1:06pm | Report comment
‘Perhaps I shouldn’t mention at this point, that the William Webb Ellis story is a fabulous fantasy with barely a thread of truth to sustain it. Oops, sorry………………..’
Fabulous Fantasy didn’t stop the religious fanatics from defending their faith.
Why should it stop the sporting fanatics?
Regardless if the story is true or not its a base from which rugby originated.
‘but it might be frightening to consider some elements of league are closer to 1800s rugby, than union (Heaven forbid!). Anyone having trouble accepting this may need therapy.’
True or not doesn’t mean people that don’t agree with you in this matter require therapy.
sheek said | November 21st 2009 @ 10:06pm | Report comment
Katzilla,
I want to clarify I don’t have any problem with people disagreeing with me. But I am concerned people support positions that may have no truth in fact, but are passed on from generation to generation as such. That’s why I say keep an open mind.
My point is being missed. There are untruths being uttered in the defence of union over league. Many union fans might not want to know that league might actually be closer to the original than union. I say ‘might’.
But in any case, I agree with you that ultimately it doesn’t matter, as long as what you love gets your rocks off.
Furthermore, enjoy the WWE fantasy, as long as you don’t start subscribing it as fact. Which unfortunately, some people do.
I love the Robin Hood legend for example. Although I understand that no single person of that origin existed, but that he is a composite of many fables & legends. But I still enjoy Robin Hood all the same.
OJ,
Funnily enough, we are probably closer than you imagine in our thinking, but merely expressing ourselves differently.
sheek said | November 21st 2009 @ 5:25am | Report comment
OJ,
That’s silly simply because there’s as much traffic comment going the other way.
Union fans will tell you their game is better than league. Aussie rules fans will tell you their game is best. Soccer fans will tell you their game is best of all. Everybody (diehard fans) thinks their particular code/sport is the best & we all have to live with it.
Your comment is just another example of what I’m trying to point out – too many union fans have a closed mind when it comes to the history of rugby. Accepting certain things as unshakeable truths when that might not be the case at all.
Have an open mind….. have an open mind….. have an open mind.
ohtani's jacket said | November 21st 2009 @ 6:47pm | Report comment
It doesn’t matter whether people think league or rugby are better. It’s irrelevant to a discussion about how to make rugby better on a world wide scale. It only matters in Australia and therefore it is redundant to the majority of us. Most of the suggestions about how to fix rugby in Australia don’t apply to other countries and therefore will never be adopted by the IRB. If rugby were a purely domestic sport in Australia, it could learn something from league. Unfortunately, it has to follow the IRB and they don’t appear to be taking Australian rugby’s plight into account.
Rugby Fan said | November 22nd 2009 @ 8:52am | Report comment
What rubbish. There already is a 13 a side game. You do not have to watch rugby. Millions like it as it is.
westy said | November 23rd 2009 @ 9:30pm | Report comment
Siva Tonga the only problem you have is that you cannot accept that the history of rugby in Australia is not the same as overseas.. i have no problem in accepting what you say in NZ etc. However you seem to have a problem in accepting the equally valid experience of others in Australia. In Australia it was rugby league that forged organised junior mini and mod league. Rugby union in Australia hstorically reacts at the junior level rather than act as a pathfinder.
Touch football in Europe and HZ as you say is linked to rugby . In Australia touch was always played by both codes however organised touch competitions were considered to close to rugby league in Australia. Approaches by organised touch football in private schools were rejected because of this alleged link. this is the reality of the Australian experience .
As you say it does not mean it is the reality of rugby elsewhere.
Siva Samoa said | November 24th 2009 @ 8:39am | Report comment
i know the history of australian rugby and a bit of australian rugby league history. but comparing the two codes sports junior development in the past or who did touch rugby is not my thing russ 13. you haven’t mention that 80% of all NSWRU grade players enlisted for the first world war and that the QRU did not re-form until 1929. we all know that the gps schools have rejected many sports in the past due to a already busy programme durning the year but don’t suggest that the vichy goverment in france was also running the gps schools.
Siva Samoa said | November 24th 2009 @ 9:25am | Report comment
this is what i was talking about and david campese wrote on this article that the skill level in rugby was alot better back then than it is now. the focus of the game has moved from running , passing to kicking and more kicking. greg inglis skills now reminds me of tim horan, mark ella and jason little of yesterday.
What I see is not encouraging. And before people criticise me for saying that, maybe they should look at a few of the games from our 1984 Grand Slam tour to see how we used to do it.
We worked hard and prided ourselves on our skills – the basics like catching, passing, running straight and communicating.
As a result of getting that right, the style we played was not only exciting but effective.
While Matt Giteau had to try to kick a field goal just before halftime in the 9-8 loss to Scotland, we used to back ourselves to score a try.
After coming from a Crusaders side that prided themselves on their skills, coach Robbie Deans must start to wonder what these guys are all about.
Our skills used to be the best in the world, and even rugby league looked at how we did things.
But now it has changed around.
http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/11/19/are-13-men-the-answer-to-rugbys-professional-growing-pains/