The game of rugby has changed so much over the years. The game I played and the rules I played under in the 1960s only now resemble something like the modern game.
No longer do we play “coming ready or not” and plough as a formation of eight into the opposition when setting a scrum. No longer do we scrape, kick, or trample all over the player on the ground ensuring that he leaves with several marks down his back.
We now play a hybrid game of gridiron, rugby league and old school rugby with most of the mongrel removed.
The fifteen-man game is now one of 23 players yet media still persist by inferring that those players who are there for impact, to be inserted at the coach’s choosing, are somehow lesser players because they did not run on to the field at the start of the game.
These ‘bench players’ – as they persist in calling them – are an intricate part of the modern game and should not be made to feel that they are lesser players.
The impact players that join the play throughout the game are just as important as the run-on player. The inference that implies he is a lesser player than the man who starts the game because he joins the team after it has started should be treated with more respect by culling the words ‘bench player’ from the vocabulary.
In the coaches game plan each player has a specific job to do at a specific time and as seen in the All Black versus Wales game, 11 June 2016. It was the impact players that decided and provided the large win for the All Blacks. I watched number 23 run on with glowing pride.
Let us therefore all call them for what they are, ‘impact players’ and remove the stigma, differentiation and inferred second string run-on replacement that the ‘bench’ word implies.
Jock M
Guest
Dan, In 1996 law changes had not made a significant difference to the game as it was. The recycling has produced a pretty boring predictable spectacle and overweight players who could never have the flair of those from years gone by. The heirachy I believe have deliberately altered the laws for television viewing but even this has been a failure-. Even the modern crowds are vocally lacklustre- due mainly to the predictability. I think that you should listen closely to Clarke and I and take a more critical look at the modern game.
Squirrel
Guest
Now it is a 23 man game they should extend the game to 90 minutes. I wish it was a 15 man game still where you saw true courage and grit.
ClarkeG
Guest
Dan the turnover has always been an important part of the game. It was called a ruck. It is only as recently as 2009 that a player who has got his hands on the ball has been allowed to continue handling the ball even thought the ruck has formed. Jock does have a point regards the contest for the ball. The ruck in its truest sense has pretty much being removed from the game - occasionally you will see another team bind and drive the other team off the ball - this is now commonly refered to as a counter ruck. What he says about the defending team retiring to the defensive line is in fact true. If you think what he says is rubbish then consider the trial laws that are soon to take place in the NZ NPC (Mitre 10 Cup).It is hoped that these trials will in fact encourage more defenders to go to the ruck to contest the ball.
ClarkeG
Guest
The "impact players" are no more impact than those that started the game. Surely each team hopes that each player that is used in the game makes an impact. Why not just call them replacements or substitutes because that is what they are. That's what they are called in the law book.
Riccardo
Guest
Cleaning out is still a massive part of the contest at the break down though Jock. It's still a vital contest. Continuity and recycled possession has opened up the game by creating more opportunities for running rugby which is surely more exciting and promotes the game to a bigger audience. The game has surely changed and largely driven by professionalism and the television dollar but the contact and contest remain. What staggers me is the pace it is played at now, especially at Test level and I would argue the skills remit is significantly higher now. As for your argument about rugby being dumbed down to league, the All Blacks and Boks clashes over the last few years at Ellis Park, or the Athletic Park Test against the Wallabies in 1996 (my favourite) or 2000 in Sydney, a few examples, are in a different stratosphere to league which becomes stagnant by comparison. I watched some rugby in the 70's and 80's and have seen footage of Test beforehand. While I would agree that some of the laws then (rucking is a good example) would dissuade some of the cynisism we see on the wrong side of the ruck for example, the reality is that, for me anyway, today's game, for all it faults, remains superior.
Jock M
Guest
Dan, Thank you for your reply. I don't believe that you can call what we have today a true contest . The tackled player merely goes to ground and plays the ball back towards his team mates. The opposition forwards have been policed out of the contest and mostly retire to the backline or stand and watch as the attacking side maintains possession and attacks once more/ hence the high number of phases- as many as 18! If there was a serious contest players would not go to ground with the ball unless brought down quickly and nor would they continually run at the opposition. I suggest that you watch your next game with my comments in mind.
Aucklandlaurie
Guest
Yes, the role of the All Black reserve is just as important as the run on players. In the 81st minute the other night reserve Hooker Harris scored a try after receiving the ball from reserve tighthead prop Faumuina, who in turn received it from reserve loosehead prop Crockett. In an attack down the blindside.
DanFan
Guest
What rubbish. And this whole topic is hilarious. NZ teams have been using a squad mentality for years and for good measure the rugby they play has plenty of 'slick and verve'. And as for contest for the ball, now everyone in the team is expected to be able to do it. The 'turnover' is the most important part of the game now. You have obviously been watching something far different to me.
Jock M
Guest
Yes- the game now bares little resemblance to Rugby as it was - it is a game of brutish proportion - gone is the slick and verve of the past . Those in charge have robbed the game of its contest for the ball and with it spontaneity and creativity and space. We have a game that has lost its very soul and more closely resembles League and not Rugby as it once was . Maybe our only hope is for those who are in charge to make more law changes and turn Rugby into an unquestionable copy of League. Then perhaps out of the ashes the true game of Rugby will emerge.
Michael Warren
Roar Guru
Riccardo. Me too ! Plus Conrad, Richie, 'Lamu and all those who gave us so much. James. As the Sevens game is starting to come of age with players and show, - Teams will only get better - for the better! :)
Michael Warren
Roar Guru
Hey Shop. The rake marks down my back at the time and having to suffer because the replacements had run out was not funny. The treatment for the modern player is by comparison, embarrassing!
Michael Warren
Roar Guru
To be utterly pedantic and picky Harry, some come off chairs! It is the reference and word "Bench" that I am finding objectionable and the differential inference between players I am taking exception to. It is the overall Team who wins games, not individuals because they were on the field first. :) for support.
sully
Roar Rookie
To be fair not many teams have the fire power New Zealand have France have great impact players but only in the forwards most teams probably have 3/4 players that can cause an impact, pick up the tempo grind them more with bigger bashers And all this the coach gets to choose to suit his style that's why we love the game
Riccardo
Guest
Onya Michael. This is the age of the 23 man game. While there is no getting away from the fact they are essentially replacements the men on the pine are now part of an arsenal. A good coach can use the bench as a weapon. Hansen the other day was talking about taking of Conrad Smith and injecting Sonny Bill against Australia in the RWC Final. Conrad was a little miffed but Hansen was looking for a point of difference when Australia were climbing back into the game. Sonny sent Nonu away for what was a crucial try. I miss Ma'a...
Shop
Guest
It is truly a 23 man side these days. I always think nostalgically about the 15 a side game when a replacement was exactly that, used only if an injury occurred. It was a better test of stamina and I think more enjoyable to watch but there won't be any going back now.
Harry Jones
Expert
Good one, MW. Some reserves are "impact" players held back because they are the margin of victory or are 3-position players or are "closers" in mindset: Beauden BBB Barrett is the perfect example. Some are second string, pure and simple. Will they try to make an impact. Sure. But they're bench players, and they often make no real impact except to try to keep the status quo. Still important.