20-13 rugby? Here's a better way to open up the game!

Moving the offside line back 5m could open the ruck and game up significantly. But the only issue with it is that it could also enhance the dependence on defence that has become all too apparent. Defenders may not commit to the ruck as readily insted choosing to stay back and defend. It would need to be trialled. Perhaps in the Shute Shield to see what happens. Eliminating some of the needless kicking would be next. A good strategic kick is great to watch but kicking for the sake of it is just woeful. Anyway. People who like Rugby or both RU and RL like them becaise they are very similar yet very different. Not identical which is what I think Eddie would like to see. 20-13 or 20-12 is a ridiculous idea.

I think that this change would encourage more participation at the ruck/maul as it will enable defenders to get closer to the attack. And because you have to enter through the gate, it's unlikely that players would find themselves offside very often - and remember it's only a few metres to join the ruck. The suggestion by others that you will finish up with attack behind the ruck doesn't make sense. All defenders in the ruck can defend players looking to attack close in, making this option less attractive. This will encourage the ball to be moved a bit wider...there might be forwards hitting the ball up in midfield but there will be more room to go wide as well.

Problem with moving the offisde line 5m back is managing it. Without totally killing counter rucking, players would have to be allowed in front of the 5m line if they were going to be joining the ruck. But what if the ball comes out before they join? They would be offside. Contesting a ruck would be a risky descision to make. So instead of contesting rucks, they would become a RL play the ball far too often. I know currently teams wil regularly not contest rucks, but I think this law change would kill contested breakdowns off totally.

I wouldnt call Jones an inovative coach by any means.

Horrific idea. Nothing more needs to be said

what a dumb idea, this from guys who brought in 80-80 rugby for lighter players, saying it would be as popular as the original form....FAIL!!!!!

I was wondering when someone was going to start a thread on this stupid idea. I just hadn't found time to start one myself. As people say, what's with 7s or 10s if you want a faster "version" of rugby? What Eddie suggests is not rugby, it's something else. It's like suggesting attracting people to test cricket via ODI, or ODI via 20/20. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with rugby. It's all about tweaking the rules. And this from the bloke who just decried all the ELVs? Do the different parts of his brain co-oordinate, or do they take turns controlling the voice box? Dilip Kumar supporting the idea gives it less credibility. It sounds like an administrator trying to sound like he's doing something, anything .... Fix the ruck, speed up the game, make it more attractive for non ex-rugby players. League has many fans who have never played because of its tribalism and simplicity. Rugby's only problem is its complexity. The aim is to make it more flowing and less finicky without killing what makes it special. Eddie and Dilip's "idea" is killing the game to "save" it. Those is cricket fear in 20 years time it will be all 20/20. Will that still be the sport of cricket? Or just a bastardised version that proved more popular?

Fine Jim then play rugby league with a 5 metre rule

Moving the defensive line doesn't open the game up. RL going to 10m was a big mistake. It just promotes one out charges....

Without wishing to start one of those never ending rugby union v rugby league monologues MACAVITY has a valid point. I look forward with great enthusiasm to the Tri nations and I see little point in denying that I will get my 20/13 rush watching rugby league's State of Origin. Different and exciting games and each with great skills . This is not a motherhood statement just fact. You know I hate the bullshit otherwise the figures do not add up. Many of us have and do watch and enjoy both maybe always with a preference but in my case always with respect for a commonality of skill. Does Eddie ever realise how stupid this looks

Just play Rugby League. a ready made, much better & more exciting game - and luckily we have the best domestic (either code) rugby comp in the world here already! you know it makes sense.

I agree that 20/13 or 20/12 rugby just seems very freakish and wrong to me. If they really wanted to open up the field for attack more, they should trial a game of 14's or something. If "making space" is the real issue here, how hard is it to expand the width of the field? Soccer uses a field that is often 73.15m wide, so it shouldn't be an issue to go from 70 to 75m wide.

Pothole..I think you just proved Katipo's point.

Katipo "managing the change resistant stakeholders in the rugby world is all about communication and influencing skills. 10 of 13 elvs were adopted yet the perception is that the elv’s were rejected? The reality is that 10 elv’s were agreed and the egos of the change resistant agents managed so they thought they actually won. It’s all about perception." The ELVs started with 33 proposed changes or variations as per the Stellenbosch trials. In the final analysis, 10 of them were adopted. Of these, 6 or 7 were minor changes to bring into Law things that were either already happening in the game or were never in dispute because they were so minor e.g. corner flag, assistant ref, etc. The critical ones adopted were the 5m line, and the 22 rule. Collapsing the maul, numbers in lineout, free kick sanctions were all dropped. The modification to the law about the breakdown where the player bringing the ball in can now keep his hands on it was, to my knowledge, not actually trialled in the ELVs. How significant this tweak will be remains to be seen. So in reality 2 or maybe 3 ELVs that have some impact on the game have been brought into Law. One could argue that those who see this as part of a much bigger change had their egos managed too, so they actually thought they had really won. I suppose it's all about perception - isn't it?

I do not think moving the offside line back a few metres is a good idea to open the game up. What I think would happen is that the easiest way to take advantage of this rule would be to do close forward runs around the ruck where there is no defence. To stop tihs would require a "zone" around the ruck where defenders are allowed to be up level at the hindmost feet. This would just force the forwards to set up outside this zone, attracting offside penalties and the like. TL;DR: I disagree.

or Tens Nick?? Of all Eddie Jones' stupid ideas, and there's been a few (sunlgasses on the flight to South Africa?!?), this is at the head of the queue...

My thoughts exactly, Nick.

So... shorter game, less players on field, still rucks, mauls, lineouts etc but more running - hasn't Eddie heard of sevens?

hey dead centre, yes I think moving the defensive off side line at breakdowns back is a common sense extension of the 10 elvs that have been accepted globally. I would like to see the defending half back stay behind the last set of feet at the scrum (to stop him disrupting fairly won attacking ball). That's a pet hate. onside, managing the change resistant stakeholders in the rugby world is all about communication and influencing skills. 10 of 13 elvs were adopted yet the perception is that the elv's were rejected? The reality is that 10 elv's were agreed and the egos of the change resistant agents managed so they thought they actually won. It's all about perception. Rugby has always sort improvement to its rules. That is not a new thing. Almost every year for the last 100 years there have been changes to the rule book. Consensus seems to be more difficult to reach these days though and the irb has probably learned a thing or two during the elv process: be less inclusive, be more dictatorial, just make the changes quickly and move on without drawing unnecessary attention to change (like in the amateur days when there were not enough staff to stuff around with endless trials and meetings). What can the aru do to bring new spectators to rugby? Well most spectators are ex-players. So the long term answer, the strategic plan if you like, should be to grow player participation numbers at all levels and geographies. Also, play to existing strengths eg how huge would the irb sevens tournament be if it was played in Sydney? And ask international teams to play mid week games to raise the profile in potential growth areas (these would also generate revenue)... couldn't the French or Italians squeeze in mid week games against nsw country or victoria? They bring big enough squads..

People are always coming up with gimmicks, but it never solves the root problem. Sure, have 20/13 rugby as a promotional gimmick, but it's not a cure or substitute for the real thing - 80/15 rugby. 80/15 rugby has its problems, so let's concentrate on that.