Eddie Jones identifies the biggest issue facing rugby

There are 8 reserves. Allow only four to be used as substitutes. Exception: A player leaves the field injured as a result of illegal play resulting in red or yellow card. If all 4 subs are used the injured player can be replaced by one of the remaining 4 unused 'reserved' players.

Not 5 metres... But make the half / receiver part of the ruck or maul, the same way there is a receiver in the lineout or scrum; and make and then the defensive lines have to stay behind the receiver. On attack their is always a clear cut half, in defense there is nearly always a player that 'binds' to the ruck with their hand. That player would be considered the receiver.

Oh yes I get it! But I always find it very Seinfeldian, the casualness of the put down and the lack of an actual point. I can hear the voice of Newman lecturing Jerry on it ;)

Oh, I was very serious!: https://laws.worldrugby.org/?language=EN :silly: :laughing:

I never know if someone is joking when they make that comment ...

It's because it has no rules. It has laws....

You need eight subs as rugby is so specialised with positions. You can’t go back to just one prop on the bench ffs. And you need one lock and one back rower and one half back and two outside backs and a No 2.. Eddie isn’t really thinking properly When he is objecting to eight subs. You don’t want uncontested scrums.

I know there are a variety of views and opinions on this subject. As an occasional watcher of elite rugby, over the years, the stoppages have started to annoy me more and more. The AFL is in the same boat as well. They keep changing the rules to fix it, and it seems to be getting worse. The rugby purist won't find an issue with it, but I think it's a real issue for the casual or non-aligned sports fan. Having said that, it's equally important that Rugby retains its point of difference to League, so there is a fine balance between reducing such stoppages and losing the character of Rugby.

yep except itd be worse without having the 2 markers that league employs.

Excellent comment John, absolutely true. 5m back if you are 10m out from the ruck would solve this, but would be a nightmare to enforce.

I guess we all have different peeves. I don't find the stoppages in themselves particularly annoying (apart from 4 scrum resets, which we all seem to agree is a blight ...). I see it as part of the ebb and flow of a game. Non-stop action like 20/20 cricket and 7s rugby has me tuning out very quickly. The general complexity of the rules and (I think, resulting) inconsistency of decisions I do find annoying. The obvious answer is I don't understand the rules well enough, but then you have to ask why a basically intelligent person who has played and watched rugby for 40 years is so often unable to understand why a decision was made or why something else wasn't taken into account. I can't think of another sport where that's the case. Have little real understanding of soccer, basketball and American football but I can watch those and comprehend the decisions far more easily than I can with rugby. Rugby's complexity is of course one of the reasons we love it, but I don't think that has to translate to being confusing.

Enforce the current law. Take the defence back 5m and you what you encourage is not more expansive play but more one-out runs off the ruck to gain territory and get the defence moving back, making the game look more and more like unlimited tackle league.

Soccer is the one football code that has this right. Australian football, rugby league & rugby union have all dropped in quality due to excessive subs/interchange. Fatigue & endurance should be a natural part of a sporting contest.

Too true, during lockdown I have rewatched a dozen tests and it is obvious the UK international teams use injuries when under pressure, have a cabinet meeting prior to their every throw in, penalties and kick offs maximum time and much endevour to milk penalties. The refs appear to have become imune to these tatics. The Wallabies and All Blacks just want to play the game faster than the UK teams will allow. It seems 80 plus minutes is beyond them. Eddie I believe your team is the very worst for these tatics therefor you come across to be just bleating.

Part of the slow game problem is that defences now stunt offences. It is obvious that referees are trying to speed up the game by limiting offside calls. The rule is abused as a result especially late in the game. Would it not be better if the offside line was 5 metres back behind the hindmost point of any player in the tackle or on their feet over the ball ?

Timing is clearly right for some changes - hide it under the guise of the virus if they wish, but get it done

He obviously read yours! :laughing:

Great idea Eddie You should write an article for the ROAR on this :)

Hear hear - the game is too slow. If an injury occurs (excluding loss of consciousnesss) the player should be treated by the team's physio without a stoppage or leave the field for a minimum of 5 minutes (using a replacement) .

Totally 100 % agree !! In it's current format it is a game that has little to no universal appeal. It will attract and appeal only to giants. No wonder parents are refusing to allow their children to play. All the stoppages make it not only a game dominated exclusively by power at the expense of speed, agility and fitness it is also a lot less entertaining a spectacle as a result. Times change and the rules and administration must adapt. Wake up World Rugby !!