IRB should tamper with the rugby ball

As well as the modern synthetic ball being a lot easier to kick than the old leather ball, most players nowadays are a lot bigger than the players of the past. Today's backs are bigger and bulkier than the forwards of 60 years ago. This isn't right. I suggest that in addition to returning to the ball of old we return to the player size of old. Only then will there be a decent contest and spectacle.

Well said.

Australia is NOT the center of the universe....Rugby is growing in every other country, and others countries have no problem with promoting or supporting the sport. Until Ozzie get their own national competition where supporters can see their teams play on a regular basis rugby will always suffer in Oz.

And the Tahs...

Go back to a leather ball then. After 5 minutes of wet ground it will weigh a ton, and you won't be able to kick it accurately at all. Might you, the passing will be just like using a medicine ball. Watching games from the 70s is strange, when they are throwing around a wet leather ball. Huge challenge.

Let's play with a brick. Can't kick that and any falcons would be spectacular.

No we just had to put up with the constant moaning about travel, But in all seriousness I agree with you here, stop complaining about the type of ball the colour of the grass etc. Play the game and adapt to the rules.

No we just had all the moaning about Travel in the 90's and early 00's. Sorry couldn't resist. I agree with you Johno stop whinging about the ball and the colour of the grass, adjust your game to suit don't expect a global game to change to suit your own selfish wants.

In that case, lets goo back to the leather ball with no grip, as surely the grip on balls now has changed the game. Apologies but RugyFuture, has been saying through the whole comments section of this article that this would help increase running rugby and therefore marketability of the sport. I should have directed the comment to him. If it ever got to that stage I would agree, however, I really don't know how much now is down to the ball or how much is down to the fact that coaching techniques/players conditioning have improved. And as I said, if you don't want to concede 3 points don't commit a foul, these players are all professionals and have that ability. The problem with the way things are now, is that it encourages teams to concede a penalty to prevent a try, and as far as I am concerned being able to kick penalties from 50m means that there is just that little bit more of an emphasis not to giveaway stupid penalties as a team aren't liking to get a try from 50m so by conceding teh penalty you are really being punished.

De wet Ras once played a match against the franchise now going by the name of the Bulls way back in the early seventies and these guys were 6 points down and all the play was in the opposition half of the field

The rules have changed a considerable amount from 50 years ago. It used to be that you could kick the ball out directly from anywhere, but then Naas Botha came along, it used to be that you could kick the ball dead but then the 95 WC came along it used to be that you could run back into your 22 and kick the ball directly into touch, but then Percy came along. It used to be that tries were worth three points and then they were worth four and now it is five. It used to be that you got two points for a win in any league match anywhere in the world, now you can get 2 for losing. What all these rule changes have brought about is that kicking the ball has become much more difficult and the skill required for kicking it effectively means a lot more hours spent on training. Did the rule changes have anything to do with a dominant SA kicking force aqt the insistence of the Aussies, NZ or whoever else, maybe, but maybe not, but irrespective of those changes the Saffers are again the most tactically astute at kicking the ball. There was a time not to long ago (late '90's and early '00's) that they were not very good at kicking the ball and we never had all this whinging about what the ball should look like and discussions about changing laws and points that should be awarded for dropgoals and penalty kicks. The thing to remember here is that at some stage teams will figure out a way to win with the least ammount of risk, irrespective what the laws are, and the current ball well, will still be kicking the new ball better than the guys that are not so adapt at kicking it currently.

Well you can tamper with a rugby ball all you want, but Australian football wont be tampering with theirs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0Ct1eNANdQ From memory Australian football originally used rugby balls from Englamd but around the 1880s developed their own. Having said that i believe the original rugby balls were more round than oval, so things do and have changed their as well. http://www.sherrin.com.au/history/index.html

I've been saying this for years. I'm sure I even said it here. Some time ago I submitted a chart which I compiled, and which I continue to update, showing how the average number of tries per game and the average number of points per game in the Five/Six Nations had varied over the years since the war. I chose the Five/Six Nations because it is the longest running annual international championship and give that it produced at first 10 games and, since Italy Joined 15 games a season, it gives a reasonable sample of data from which to draw conclusions. I chose 1947 season as the starting point because as well as the hiatus caused by WWII, France had been excluded since 1931. We thus have more than 60 years of annual competition to examine. What the charts show very clearly is that the average number of points per game has steadily increased since the early 1960s. There is virtually no correlation between points scored, or indeed tries scored, and the increases to the value of a try made in 1972 and 1992. Although there are great variations in the number of tries scored year on year, there is very little evidence of a variation against time. There IS a sharp spike in the number of tries scored in the late 1990s but that has steadily come down in recent years.There is no obvious law change to which this could be attributed, apart of course from the earthshaking one which made the game professional in 1995. The following years saw a massive disparity in team strength between the big countries France and England and their impoverished Celtic brethren. This was exacerbated when Italy joined in 2000 and played the part of whipping boys for a few seasons until they gradually got their act together and became competitive. The only conclusion is that the increase in number of points per game is down to more accurate kicking. Improved balls, water resistant, better able to retain their shape, lighter and improved kicking techniques. When Don Clarke kicked six penalties to beat the Lions four tries in 1959 it was a phenomenal kicking performance. Today, if a professional got six attempts at goal in the opposition half (and that was a story in itself in 1959) he would be expected to make all of them. I am normally loath to change the laws of the game as a knee jerk response to a perceived problem. It is usually counter productive and changes the game in ways that were unforeseen and unwanted. But a change in the "kickability" of the ball would be beneficial, I am sure. Especially if it were accompanied by some sort of return to the days before "use it or lose it" so that the forward contest could be made meaningful again. But that's probably a step too far. For now. ;)

Lee when did I say to encourage teams to run? Or when did I say limit the way to attack. You can still play a forwards dominated rolling maul game if you want. That is not a running game. You can still kick the ball with my changes , just the reward is diminshed slightly. I am saying bring the dynamics of the ball BACK to way it was when most of the laws were enacted. So lets say science improves the ball so it can be place kicked 100 metres? And you can punt the ball 100 metres accuratley, you still would say yes lets allow those improvements? Wouldnt that change the game?

Now everyone is professional and can spend hours training and getting paid for it though…should we limit the number of hours spent training so everyone is on an even keel? It amazes me that people always want to change things to prevent kicking when the aspects that are encouraging more kicking, is negative play. If a 60m penalty costs you the game THEN DO NOT concede a penalty – don’t lay all over the ball to slow it down, don’t handle the ball in the ruck. The other team is in complete control of how much the big kicker is brought into the game. If you want 2 teams playing the EXACT same way, then seriously watch league. League is all about teams playing the same attacking rugby(by the way, the majority of tries in league come from kicks(normally up and under crss fields)), union is about teams playing different styles to match their strengths. Changing the ball to ‘encourage’ teams to run is effectively saying,”I dont give a **** what your strengths are, you have to play this way”. And I cant understand how any rugby union fan can say that that doesn’t fly in the face of the entire ethos of rugby union.

Now everyone is professional and can spend hours training and getting paid for it though...should we limit the number of hours spent training so everyone is on an even keel? It amazes me that people always want to change things to prevent kicking when the aspects that are encouraging more kicking, is negative play. If a 60m penalty costs you the game THEN DO NOT concede a penalty - don't lay all over the ball to slow it down, don't handle the ball in the ruck. The other team is in complete control of how much the big kicker is brought into the game. If you want 2 teams playing the EXACT same way, then seriously watch league. League is all about teams playing the same attacking rugby(by the way, the majority of tries in league come from kicks(normally up and under crss fields)), union is about teams playing different styles to match their strengths. Changing the ball to 'encourage' teams to run is effectively saying,"I dont give a **** what your strengths are, you have to play this way". And I cant understand how any rugby union fan can say that that doesn't fly in the face of the entire ethos of rugby union.

Don Clarke was the only one who kicked over 50 metres, now virtually everyone does. Also the success rate from out wide or over 50 metres is far higher due to the bigger sweet spot. I say wind back the clock and make the ball less aerodynamic and reduce the sweet spot.

Don Clarke was kicking them from over 50m in the 1950s with a leather ball. Stephen Larkham kicked a drop-goal from what was almost 50m in 1999 to win the semi for Aus in the WC. Steyn booted the ball 60m in Hamilton last year and has since then in a few others games. Occassionally great players come along that surpass the skill levels of previous players - is this a reason to change the game at all? No. This article, coupled withe Spiros(the scrums need to be fixed) one, simply sound like ready made excuses, that I would guarentee would not have been written if the Wallabies got 2 penalty tries from scrums and if Giteau could boot the ball 60m. As well as that, rugby will NEVER achieve the level of football(soccer) in the world for a number of reasons, teh chief one being the same reason why American Football, Ice Hockey, League won't be - it is too physical for a large percentage of teh population/the mothers who ultimately decide which sports practise little Jimmy goes to. Yes the game is growing in areas eg the states, eastern europe but it will never rival football and I say that as a rugby fanatic. What is the point in allienate a huge percentage of the existing fan base by changing laws to fight a non-existent battle? "saffas are increasingly acting like northys" - is this an insult? Because where I stand, if "acting like a northy" means being happy with how the game is, playing to a set of rules that can be used in different ways that appeal to your own sides strengths, and accepting that sometimes you will get a strong-attack try fest and others you will get a strong defense kick fest, and learning to appreciate both - then call me a "northy" all you want, I would rather be in that boat than in the "we lost, lets change the rules/equipment" camp.

Do away with the drop goal all together. It's an admission that "we can't get passed the opposition, so let's go for an easy option"

They were saying during the Maori game that Luke Mcalister was knocking them over from 60m in practice. Not sure if he'll make the ABs though.