So what exactly is 'running rugby' anyway?

“whilst the rule-changes over the years have certainly impacted on tactics and player behaviour, the essence of the game has changed very little” ????? Tactics and player behaviour, along with the rules are the essence of the game. And they have changed very significantly. A superficial look would see lineouts and scrums and the lack of the League play the ball, and conclude that what they were watching was Union not League. But someone with a deeper understanding of Rugby Union would easily recognise that the game has changed very much. You have a nasty habit of attacking the person with accusations based on your shallow assumptions and personal comments. You would look a lot less ugly if you stopped that.

Thank you for you wonderful contribution MMC2, but it seems you missed the nuance of the conversation (again). Nobody is (stupidly) claiming that the game has not changed at all. Just that: "whilst the rule-changes over the years have certainly impacted on tactics and player behaviour, the essence of the game has changed very little". Whilst a 14-year old today, watching footage of the 74' Lions destroying the Boks, might rightly be a bit flumoxed at the tactical approach and some of the referee decisions, he (or she) will still be able to recognise the game as essentially Rugby Union. ...and take some Valium for that speech-impediment.

What a self indulgent confused thinking ignorant whacker etienne marais is. None of what he says is worth consideration, but I can't help reacting to the ill informed claim that Rugby hasn't changed much. 1 Half backs used to be required to feed the ball in to the centre of the scrum. 2 Hookers used to actually hook ie strike for the ball, as did loose head props. Scrums used to be fairly contested and were a feature of the game. The excitement and spectacle of fairly contested five metre scrums were a feature of Rugby. Now they go with the feed or more likely end in a penalty. 3 Halfs were not allowed to signal to their scrum when they were going to feed the ball. 4 Scrums were not packed as low, and the forwards were required to bind properly and so there were nowhere near as many collapsed scrums. 5 Players wore football jumpers and not Soccer shirts and so the front row was able to bind on the opposition props. 6 Players in the lineout used not be able to prance around and change position and so lineouts were more fairly contested 7 Lifting used not be allowed in lineouts. Although I agree with this change but I am documenting changes. 8 Ruck changes are massive and have significantly changed the nature of the game. 9 Mauls have all but disappeared. Can anyone remember the ball carrier turning, wedges binding over him and a structured maul building. 10 The modern practice of forward passes being tolerated. I notice this also being the practice in League. 11 What happened to the technical knock on. Once again well rid of but a change nonetheless. 12 Sliding defences. Whatever happened to wingers staying on their wing. 13 The way the game is played now it is rare to see phase counts build, and pressure. 14 Playing aimed at securing the penalty in scrums and at the breakdown is the tactic. You see the self congratulations when they get the penalty. How pathetic. 15 Points for tries. I am sick of listing the changes but have not exhausted them by any means.

Thanks for your considered response etienne. I appreciate your points and I too don't wish to fundamentally change the game but you must also remember that 30 years ago you were able to kick the ball to touch from any part of the field. Going back unto the mists of time a try was worth considerably less. Most people if you asked them wouldn't advocate reverting back to those days. Change is difficult and why for example I suggest 10 metre scrum resets. It is an incremental change that will reduce this regular blight on the modern game without eradicating entirely the traditional push-over try. Etienne, I too am a traditionalist at heart but for Rugby to prosper it can't ignore change, with thoughtful dialogue we just might get the balance right

Paul, my apologies then for my previous comment. However, if you check, you will notice that I did not actually “resort to petty criticism”. In fact, I did not criticise in any form at all; I was simply employing humour (sarcasm, if you want). Apologies, nevertheless. Sincerely. As for your objection of my using rugby as a metaphor for war, the subject of sport as proxy for war is well researched and I would be quite willing to share some titles with you if you are genuinely interested. The post-modernist tendency to deny the existence of base human instinct, though politically palatable and expedient, is divorced from reality. Ever watch an All Black test? Noticed that thing that they do just before kick-off? It is called the Haka. It is a war cry. Symbolism yes, but that was exactly my point. Then, I’m sorry that you take umbrage at my chess metaphor, but if you have played chess, and rugby at either half-back position, you should get it. I can expand the concept for you with some analogies, but I suspect you were just being deliberately devious. Paul, as for the substantive points in your earlier comment (and my apologies, again, for my earlier glib reply), my view is simply that there is not much structurally wrong with the game. And this is a view shared by many (but obviously not all, and perhaps not even a majority...maybe the moderators can set up a cleverly phrased poll to get a verdict) of users of this forum. It is correct to note that (on average) there is less space and time available than perhaps twenty years ago. It is also true that this is partly due to the more uniform athletic capabilities of players in the professional era. But it is not correct to conclude that this has dramatically changed the nature and form of the game. Special players (so-called game-breakers) are still able to manufacture time and space, oftentimes spectacularly so. These “special” players are special by virtue of their ability to develop and forge a physical skill-set that allows them to exploit the very constraints that you object against (space, etc.). Once a year I take some time out and watch a selection of classical games (oldest I have on archive is the ’57 New Zealand tour to Australia); whilst the rule-changes over the years have certainly impacted on tactics and player behaviour, the essence of the game has changed very little. Even in the fifties and sixties you would often see loose-forwards and sometimes even locks, hover just outside the fringes of set phases, in close defence. I recall an image of Colin “Pinetree” Meads stationed with hands on knees, between his two halfbacks, just waiting for the opposing flanker to come around the corner for a slaughter. Old “Pinetree”, in spite of his “enforcer” status, was a clever one too (even at wing). No, the game has not changed much. If you had been watching rugby thirty years ago, you are still watching basically the same game today. Your appeal for a different style with more space is not wrong...or right. It is an aesthetic assertion. But like all aesthetic judgments it is based on personal likes, dislikes, and opinion. Your appeal is an appeal to change the status quo. In my view you have not made a compelling enough case for wanting to change what currently works well.

That's all good if you're the Barbarians but ultimately winning is the most important thing, if you can do it with tries galore then that's the cherry on the cake.

Almost an entire sentence in CAPS. Wow, that's very impressive, very convincing argument. Ok, I admit defeat, you win.

Randwick in the 80s and 90s early 2000s had running rugby down pat. It was fantastic rugby that was entrenched in a club that did produce a ton of wallabies, sadly no longer exists.

Yeah fields should be wider

You're a bit of A LEGEND IN YOUR OWN PLAYLUNCH BOX, AREN'T YOU. You seem to want to own Rugby and dictate to other people what they should value and follow. It is clear that you have never packed into a scrum and I wouldn't think ever set foot on a Rugby field. I am sure that YOU are impressed with your arguing abilities, but basically you have no idea.

"I would prefer running with the ball in hand to constitute 80% of the game." But there is already a game like that for you; it is called Rugby League. The game that I watch has always been played like it currently is; with the wide variation in tactics and strategy that has always been characteristic of Rugby Union. This is exactly what makes the game such a thing of beauty (for me and many others). You want to change the status quo; I say don't change my game, just change your channel (to League). "Scrums and lineouts are primarily to win possession" Again, you are confusing the two codes. In Union the scrums and lineouts have always been the foundation of the game and central to building a cohesive attack strategy, hence the reference to these facets as "attack platforms". Relegating lineouts to your secondary status is just one small step from making the lineout obsolete. It is League that you prefer, and should be watching. "And believe you me, nothing infuriates forwards more than halfs and five eights kicking hard fought possession away." No, I'll not to believe this patent untruth. In fact, forwards quite often breathe a sigh of relief when a good tactical kick establishes space and time for re-establishing tactical advantage. Empirically your statement is nonsense; watch Matfield and Alberts congratulate and cheer Steyn after his 44 metre line kick (after Alberts fought very hard to turn possession). However, I agree with you; in League, this would be a no-no. I'll not comment much on your deficient synopsis of the inherent attack-defence contradiction, save to remind you (as I did in a previous comment) that your central hypothesis, of the flat pass, falls flat (so to speak) when empirically examined. Go watch the footage. Watch it in slow-motion and learn. If you need more footage for your educational purposes, I am happy to oblige. Also, just a thought, but might you not get better value for your reading time over at this link: http://www.theroar.com.au/category/rugby-league/

Etiene. I make considered suggestions that directly relate to clear issues as regularly discussed on this panel and you resort to petty criticism without supplying one single argument against these reforms. Rugby does not need Dinosaurs Etiene that think for example that rugby is "war expressed on a grass chessboard." You may not be aware that the IRB approved the use of artificial turf pitches several years ago and if chess is how you relate to the game I suggest you find another Metaphor or another game because to paraphrase Bob Dylan "Your old road is rapidly aging, Etiene, the times they are a changing, get out of the new way if you can't lend a hand."

Rob too true - its the game where the ball transfer is from the player's hands instead of his boot......

That comment was directed at Link and the game plan, not doubting the players one little bit.

Well therein lies the difference. I would prefer running with the ball in hand to constitute 80% of the game. Just compare the two tests against the French. Which game was good and which was crap. If you prefer watching kicking then it is you who should consider watching other codes. I couldn't imagine that you have ever played Rugby from what you have expressed. By the fixed facets of the game I expect you mean the set piece. Scrums and lineouts are primarily to win possession for the backs to perform their magic. And believe you me, nothing infuriates forwards more than halfs and five eights kicking hard fought possession away. Sending the ball all the way to the wingers stretches the defensive backline. After doing this for a while weaknesses start to appear and can can be probed. An attacking player must be moving at pace when they receive the ball to have any real impact against anything other than an ordinary defence. If the forwards can constantly hit the breakdown and retain possession then the phase count builds. This puts pressure on the defence and exerts dominance. This is exciting and entertaining. Flat passes to forwards and inside backs just takes play closer to the centre of the field and nullifies the opportunity to stretch the defense that I have just outlined. Once upon a time a back who kicked twice without finding touch would be told not to kick again, or even be replaced. I find that a better standard of Running Rugby can often be seen at club level. Also by the way you see considerably less scrum collapses in club Rugby. I wonder why. Could it be that they focus more on how Rugby should be played. It doesn't matter what people write in books, even past greats. It is what works. Finally Rugby crowds are down and this is no doubt to the lack of Running Rugby along with the disgraces that now replace scrums.

Actually Brett, I was being a bit tongue in cheek. To be honest, I'm not sure what running rugby is myself. Nor do I think it has to be done ALL the game. Just often enough for it to be memorable. I remember bits of Ella magic from 30 years ago, or Campese magic from 20-25 years ago, or Larkham/Roff magic from 10-15 years ago. They only had to do one or two memorable things in a match, or every several matches, for it to live on in the memory. Much of sport, like life, is mundane, & there's nothing essentially wrong with that. It's the occasional bursts of magic that make life & sport, memorable, & worthwhile.

"It is not enough to just pass it out the backline, but the players need to be moving at speed before they get the ball. To achieve this you have to forget all about this garbage of flat passing." Obviously Mark Ella's book "Running Rugby" is no longer read, since a significant component of what he advocated was flat passing.

"lack of intestinal fortitude"??? Whatever else the game may have demonstrated, that was not it. If anything, the first test was a concern in that area, because the way the French played in Brisbane, our intestinal fortitude was never really tested. But in this game it was, and we did reasonably well. If we hadn't, Les Bleus would have won by a couple of tries.

Then you don't know much about White, and you are forming your assessment of him from one or two games. "Sure in the wet you need to play like that but in good conditions no but his teams still do." I am at a loss as to why you set yourself up with comments like this, straight after a Ewen-coached team has done exactly that, in good conditions! And no, I am not pointing the finger at Ewen - he probably did the best he could with what he had - but I am pointing the finger at you!

One of the points I was trying to make is that some of our referees must shoulder a large share of the blame as well. I know they are like sitting ducks to take pot shots at but I've lost count of the number of potentially great games ruined by an officious little man in the middle acting like a frustrated magistrate. League worked it out ages ago. Good referees means good games.