I’ve never really warmed to rugby league. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy the intensity of State of Origin and I can appreciate the skill, toughness and athleticism of its players. I just don’t find the game particularly stimulating.
I think it’s the repetitious nature of the sets of six that makes the game a little too predictable for my liking.
One thing I’ve always envied about rugby league, though, is the interchange rule. Allowing a steady influx of fresh players lifts the overall standard of play, minimizes injury, and adds another tactical element to the game.
Rugby is speeding up and defences are continually improving. Having more reserves and a more open substitution policy seems a logical step for the game to take.
I would like to see squads increase their substitution allocations from the current seven to ten players. I would also like no limits on interchange when points are scored, so when kicks at goal are being taken, players can move on and off the field with no impact to the flow of the match.
Players could also be introduced at other times in the match, provided these breaks in play are not overly time-consuming.
From an injury management perspective, larger match day squads also allows player load to be managed in real time.
Knowing that a player can be removed from the field will also change training methods: explosive power and speed can be emphasised over aerobic capacity. Next time you watch a match, notice how nearly all the moments that make you jump out of your seat involve explosive actions.
When players are being asked to run 8-10 kilometres a match, it becomes increasingly difficult to produce these moments.
Easier substitutions could also reduce overuse injuries.
Many people suspect that it’s the contact element of rugby that leads to injury. While collusions do produce injuries, it’s overuse injuries that account for the greatest number of missed matches.
My own knee injury began as nothing but a dull and infrequent ache. A constant training load worsened the injury until the point that my knee could not cope with even the slightest training volume.
I can rattle off dozens of players who have similar histories.
“Rotation” has become somewhat of a buzzword in professional sports these days. Many players think of rotation as a euphemism for being dropped, but the reality is that it’s here to stay. What I’m suggesting is that we introduce rotation on Saturday rather than Monday.
I hear it’s been suggested that rugby alter its points system.
Under the proposed changes, conversions would be worth 3 points and penalties 2. For a number of years, I’ve thought this would be a worthwhile alteration and nothing has changed to alter my view.
Swapping the allocation of points between conversions and penalties strikes a good balance.
It rewards attacking, try scoring teams, whilst still offering a competitive advantage to teams with prolific goal kickers. The change would encourage attack as a first priority and it would negate the effectiveness of teams who deliberately slow the pace of a game.
The current interpretation of the breakdown is allowing negative teams to remain competitive. By placing a premium on try scoring, teams will be forced to score tries.
bennalong
Guest
Sheek It stopped being a free country years ago. There are more and more rules in life and they're just as suppressive and nonsensical as the rules on the breakdown and scrums. But we just bend over and .....take it!
bennalong
Guest
Couldn't agree more jezez and Justin The breakdown causes all the problems in union, and defies the basic concepts that once ruled the game, 'no hands in the ruck' and 'no player on the ground stays near the ball or attempts to play it'! Simple.......................but not any more. Bodies everywhere! Bloody chaos........ so a ref can make arbitrary calls to ping either side at well! Rucking, now possible with plastic studs of approved design, would not come close as dangerous play to the bizarre concept of 'cleaning out' where a player may shoulder charge some unsuspecting mug without the ball standing off the ruck ! Again, totally against the spirit of rugby when I played it and in my opinion against the spirit of rugby now.
Bakkies
Guest
Rugby is variable because it is a sport and there are a variety of different styles. The only nation playing the entertainment angle is Australia and is the only country really whinging about the laws because teams don't play the style that 'entertains' them. This is surely a reason why John O'Neill will never get a roar's shot at being on the IRB or RWC board. Why should the IRB change the game just to keep Australian whingers happy.
Bakkies
Guest
The problem with the elvs in the ARC was that the ball was in rucks far too long and teams wouldn't counter attack as the risk of getting isolated was high. The corner post being in the field of play was also implemented
WQ
Guest
No Titus thats not true. The ball is always available for contest in Rugby Union as long as you abide by the rules. The rules very clearly stop any contest for the ball in Rugby League.
Brian
Guest
Thanks for the lecture
The Bush
Roar Guru
Yeah, that's a real story...
west
Guest
IMO I just think rugby season is far to long..... period, Long gone are the days of men having day jobs and rugby just the winter season its now a 12 month occupation yea sure they have a few weeks off over xmas but thats it then for a NZ player theres the ITM cup the super 15 and for the lucky few to represent there country's in Tri Nations and Bledisloe and a few test up north or a few test with visiting nations by that stage its oct or nov then once thats done. Puts a lot of pressure on bodys look at injury lists these days ridiculous.
Tacksharp
Guest
I can understand why people like League - it's exciting, but I agree with Rathbone. For me, the difference between rugby and league is like the difference between chess and checkers. Rugby has the running of league but it also has the strategic/power element of the forwards. League is rugby without forwards. League is 1-dimensional, like checkers. Rugby has power, speed and strategy, like chess. It's 3-dimensional.
soapit
Guest
maybe go post in campo's article then (where what you are saying may be relevant).
KSI
Guest
League has 2 point penalty goals. 4 for try 2 for conversion and pen goal 1 for field goal.
Mark Roth
Guest
League has two key differences that make kicking for touch a better option than kicking for goal: Firstly, one point field goals (penalties are and have been two for a very long time) were a deliberate decision of the powers that be to make tries the sole focus of scoring. Whatever one's feelings about that, it pretty much worked. Secondly, league teams have pretty much guaranteed possession for a full set of six, especially close to the goal line where a handover won't be a punishment. Union teams do not have that luxury, even when their ruck is winning every breakdown. Unless the IRB deliberately decides to make goals worth less and enforces liberal doses of the sin bin, one or two point penalties will lead to more infringing overall. Amateurs in South Africa might want to play for "fun" tries in that experiment they're having. Cynical professional coaches will still take two points and try again when they receive the kick from halfway.
Nathan of Perth
Guest
"Anything that causes a penalty to be currently awarded results in a sin bin for ten minutes, or until a try is scored by the fouled side." Ice Hockey power-plays? Wouldn't mind it as long as no one calls them powerplays! Over-used term... But yes, if you're looking to kill the spectacle by denying tries through cynical acts, by all means sit on the sideline until you figure out what a bad idea it is.
Mark Roth
Guest
The goal of a rugby team should, as I understand things, be to score points to win the game. There are several ways to score points as I understand things. I have seen teams try to grind their way forward for a try over multiple phases and loved it. I have seen those efforts end with a penalty and been disappointed. I have seen those efforts end with a turnover and I have seen those efforts end in tries. That is rugby. I have also often thought, especially when a team is clearly getting nowhere moving the ball parallel to the try line, why not just pass it back a few yards and attempt a drop goal. I think everyone wants to see rugby played with fewer penalties and without teams playing to get a penalty. I personally have no problem if teams want to score goals instead of tries or use the mistakes of their opponents to take free shots at the goal. Honestly, if they abolished tries tomorrow and found a winner based on numbers of goals kicked, I would still watch the game without any lesser appreciation.
AndyS
Guest
Half with you there. If the problem is perceived as cynical penalties, then they should be 30 seconds to place or dropkick for 1 point and a restart with the offended team remaining in possession. Make it a waste of time to concede as it doesn't remove the pressure. If it is not about the points and simply that the penalty is a tedious break in the flow of the game, maybe they should remove the option of a kick for points altogether. Get a penalty, it is a set piece rather than a kick and all back to halfway. Get the ball back in play on attack.
google
Guest
Agree with Nomis, if the peanlty is only 2 points then I would rather infringe than concede a try simple, Tries should be less than a penalty so as to discourage foul play completely. We should rather look at only allowing a shot at goal if the infringment is in the Red zone, ie in the opposition 22, but then you will get more penalties overall because of lack of consequences... Alas the only way to reduce penalties is to improve discipline so, like they are doing now, refs need to be strict and consistent. if referees apply the letter of the law players will learn fast. Its not the rules that are the problem, its proffesionalism has brought out a dirtier player.
Titus
Guest
But there isn't a continuous contest for possession because it is constantly being stopped by the referee, it is probably the least continuous of all the codes. You either need to open up the contest by allowing more contest(eg from anyone lying on the ground) or to enforce greater penalty and therefore disinsentive for fouling/slowing down the play in the breakdown.
Gerry @ YourLawnAndGarden
Guest
That's ocker for league!
AndyS
Guest
It is always the law of unintended consequences though RD, isn't it? No repacks and only free kicks, we'd have the Eddie Jones front row model all around the world. The worst that happens if you are crap at scrum time is a free-kick...totally worth it for the added mobility around the ground.
warren
Guest
What parts - the interchange? Big deal. It is not this article particularly that I have an issue with but the others including Campo's yesterday. Lets bag RL to prove a point that RU is not a boring game. Sorry guys but you can say as much as you like about RL it simply outdoes RU for entertainment value - period. This is not RL fault that RU is failing to entertain their fans but the fault of RU administrators who can not get it right. Again fix RU do not bag RL because it takes the initiatives to improve its own sport. Furthermore go to the RL section of this web page and you would rarely see a bad word spoken about RU. Yet the opposite happens here in the RU section. Smacks of jealousy for a sport that gets out there makes it happen on the field. I am sick of it and it is about time that RU commentators leave RL alone and start working on exclusively on the problems with RU.