A new three-code star for Wallabies?

[Tony Manx]

You can't get the sort of rugby your talking about back because it's primarily a result of amateurism - the skill, tactics and fitness were all poor in comparison to today.

If that is genuinely the sort of stuff you want to watch then go and watch schoolboy rugby - it's practically the same.

Whilst I would love to go the way of SimonG with less bulk, no defence lined up in a line, a game where all shapes and sizes have a part to play....that is history and one thing you cannot do is go back. Pro rugby is where we are and where we are going to which is based solely on how to make your team better and give it an advantage. There is no way that you can go back unless as Rats says, you go and watch schoolboy rugby and, four quenelle, even then there are now some huge buggers!!!

 

[big ginger 8]

You can't get the sort of rugby your talking about back because it's primarily a result of amateurism - the skill, tactics and fitness were all poor in comparison to today.

If that is genuinely the sort of stuff you want to watch then go and watch schoolboy rugby - it's practically the same.

I don't know about a lack of tactics and fitness at schoolboy level. Especially over here. A lot of schools have an almost semi-pro set up.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Rugby is still a game for all shapes and sizes... the only thing that's changed is that standards of professionalism - which mean that today's players actually reach their athletic potential instead of drinking it onto their bellies.

 

[goodNumber10]

Wayne smith on the modern game: http://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/feat...h-about-the-all-blacks-australia-and-england/

Smith says that the current All Blacks play with a freedom that his generation never had: "It's all about accuracy in terms of catching, passing, and putting players into space. It's a different, refreshing attitude – and it has altered from my playing days for New Zealand. When I played there was a real fear of losing, so we often won ugly, whereas this team plays so hard and fast that it takes it beyond other teams."

He acknowledges that to play that way it is important to have footballers in every position, including the front five of the pack.

"In the past props never used to talk about the result, only what happened at the scrums. These days the All Black props don't just want to play in scrums, they want to be part of the result – and they work harder than virtually every player on the pitch to achieve it."

 

[RoosTah]

What I'd ideally want is a return to a less bulk dominated game and more open running Rugby. I know it's utopia but I watched the Barbarians-NZ game in its entirety a few weeks ago and the difference between then and now is astounding. Also watched the '99 semi France-NZ a while back. Two of the greatest games ever because of running Rugby. Whats on show today is not the same sport. I'd like Rugby back.

Since that isn't gonna happen (and France in particular have adopted the "stodgy" foreign game), my ideal scenario would be Rugby league without the six tackle rule...so the best of both codes.

You actually sound an awful lot like an Australian NRL fan. My League-only following mates always complain about how bogged down the game gets in set-pieces, but whilst I see where you are coming from the rule changes you suggest would undermine what large swathes of the Rugby fraternity around the world (and in Australia too) actually love about the game; the contest for possession and the variation in body types.

In a sense the way a lot of people are toward rugby here is a little like the attitude we have to soccer. For both sports, fans of League or Australian Football will often tell you they'd be great if they got rid of certain aspects of the game (in the case of soccer a lot of AFL fans suggest eliminating the offside rule and even getting rid of the goalie so as to reduce the number of 0-0 and 1-1 draws). The problem is that such changes would only be to appease the casual fan and would fundamentally undermine the DNA of the game.

On Rugby, I would never want to get rid of scrums, line-outs or limit the number of rucks per possession, as all of those changes would remove Rugby's central identifying characteristic: the constant contest for possession. I love Rugby League, but for different reasons... it's an intensely gladiatorial sport (as anyone who watched the last State of Origin match will attest), built on precision attacking play, strong kicking, and body rattling collisions. But it's not about the "contest" for the possession as much as it is about the ability to contain the opposition's use of the ball through clever kicking and smart and aggressive defence, whilst maximising your own use of the ball by dominating the collisions, moving the ball quickly and employing as many attacking tricks you can (on that note League play-makers are generally more adept than their union counterparts at setting up tries with attacking kicks as their is more reward if you generally have to put in a kick anyway).

 

[smartcooky]

If there is one thing Australian rugby does not need, it's outside backs, and expensive ones at that. I said months ago that their desire to sign superstars is a waste, when compared to putting the money into grassroots or even a domestic league (this was before the new tournament was announced). He is 27, so you can get six years from him, give or take. Now if he was a prop, go for it, but how many good outside backs are there, more than there are props. Unless they get their wishes of scrapping the scrums, their backline will never see full potential.

100%. They should spending money on buying/developing some front rowers that can foot it at the top level

 

[Jaguares]

I love Rugby - set-piece is an integral part of it.

I still don't understand why you post on a rugby forum when you hate such a huge amount about the game!

Understand him, please. He's a football supporter with a little interest in rugby

 

[SimonG]

I love Rugby - set-piece is an integral part of it.

I still don't understand why you post on a rugby forum when you hate such a huge amount about the game!

I don't mind set piece so long as there's plenty of running Rugby...which is not the case now.

You actually sound an awful lot like an Australian NRL fan. My League-only following mates always complain about how bogged down the game gets in set-pieces, but whilst I see where you are coming from the rule changes you suggest would undermine what large swathes of the Rugby fraternity around the world (and in Australia too) actually love about the game; the contest for possession and the variation in body types.

On Rugby, I would never want to get rid of scrums, line-outs or limit the number of rucks per possession, as all of those changes would remove Rugby's central identifying characteristic: the constant contest for possession. I love Rugby League, but for different reasons... it's an intensely gladiatorial sport (as anyone who watched the last State of Origin match will attest), built on precision attacking play, strong kicking, and body rattling collisions. But it's not about the "contest" for the possession as much as it is about the ability to contain the opposition's use of the ball through clever kicking and smart and aggressive defence, whilst maximising your own use of the ball by dominating the collisions, moving the ball quickly and employing as many attacking tricks you can (on that note League play-makers are generally more adept than their union counterparts at setting up tries with attacking kicks as their is more reward if you generally have to put in a kick anyway).

What I said was, Rugby league without the six tackle rule, thus retaining Union's tackle rule. For me that's the best of both codes..creative running Rugby and constant contest for possession. The six tackle rule puts me off league...too stop start, no proper flow, and it's often headless running into challenges knowing that you keep possession. That would all be removed with contested tackles. Running in Union has far more flow to it...Ideally I'd have 80 minutes of that. Plus with the requirement to be able to run for 80 minutes players would have less bulk.

Now when you mention people being against Rule changes...these are minority sports we are talking about. Plus the very things I'd advocate in changing (removal of set pieces, removal of six tackle rule), are what fans of each code dislike about the other. I can't think of another case where two codes of a sport exist. A unified code, as it was, and eradicating the worst aspects of both would only lead to the sport becoming bigger.

 

[ratsapprentice]

A unified code, as it was, and eradicating the worst aspects of both would only lead to the sport becoming bigger.

And you really think fans of either code want to compromise something that they love for a unified sport to be "bigger".
What sort of retarded logic are you implementing here....?

I quite like watching skillful goals in football - but I dislike the intervening dross... all 85 minutes of it.
As a result I don't watch or follow football.
What I don't do is go onto a football forum and complain about how dull the game is, and how it would be better if there were no dives and 10 goals per game.

If you really dislike such fundamental parts of the sport I'd suggest that you don't like the sport at all.

...so please:

 

[SimonG]

That it would become bigger is not the incentive...its only the result of removing the chaff from each code. It's forward thinking. The game is evolving, thus the code(s), particulaly Union, must evolve with it to maintain what makes it what it is. Bigger, bulkier players for example means the field is that bit more congested, less gaps. The basketball hoop will not remain at its current height as males get taller.

If the sport (Union) was fundamentally the same then yeah no concerns, but it ain't. Regards football, the fundamentals are the same as it will always be a skill based game, the one change is technology being implemented to enhance officiating which I advocate. If the game suddenly became bogged down and stodgy then I'd want to see something happen.

Watching the attacking play at the RLWC was a real eye opener...realised what I'd been missing from Union. The issue was the tackle count. That the two codes couldn't combine is a shame as it would only make the sport stronger and more eye catching.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Brad Thorn

 

[RoosTah]

What I said was, Rugby league without the six tackle rule, thus retaining Union's tackle rule. For me that's the best of both codes..creative running Rugby and constant contest for possession. The six tackle rule puts me off league...too stop start, no proper flow, and it's often headless running into challenges knowing that you keep possession. That would all be removed with contested tackles. Running in Union has far more flow to it...Ideally I'd have 80 minutes of that. Plus with the requirement to be able to run for 80 minutes players would have less bulk.

Now when you mention people being against Rule changes...these are minority sports we are talking about. Plus the very things I'd advocate in changing (removal of set pieces, removal of six tackle rule), are what fans of each code dislike about the other. I can't think of another case where two codes of a sport exist. A unified code, as it was, and eradicating the worst aspects of both would only lead to the sport becoming bigger.

It's an interesting idea, but the problem you'd have is that it would represent a step back for League.

League introduced the "play the ball" because rucks were such a mess and slowed everything down too much, and at first teams would just hold possession until they knocked on (so effective the union tackle rule), or the ball was stripped from them in the tackle. But then the St George Dragons perfected their possession techniques and won 11 straight premierships on the back of game-plan that played it safe and rarely turned over the ball. Finally, enough was enough and they changed the rules to limit the number of possessions. Then in the 1980s more changes came, as the game tried to rid itself of unpopular kicking duels by eliminating pushing in the scrums (thereby removing the incentive to kick for territory whilst tackles remained). But then people lamented that the art of tactical kicking was dying, so they instituted the 40-20 rule. In the 1990s the Broncos had a guy named Alfie Langer who was very good at stealing the ball. What he'd do was have two guys hold the player up and he'd then come in and steal the ball. People complained that it was ruining the tackle area again, so they changed the rule so that you could only steal the ball if the tackle was one on one.

There's a lot more to it all, but the underlying motivation for each change has been to minimise the stoppages and clean up the tackle area so the ball is in play longer. So in attempting to unify the games, you'd effectively be asking League to undo 50 years of what they see as significant progress away from the systems that they thought spoiled the game as a spectacle. For Union, you'd be asking them to eliminate critical aspects of the game that a number of powerful rugby nations (like South Africa and England) largely define themselves on (the set piece).

As for their being no other sports in this situation, that's not entirely true. I'd argue that Australian Football and Gaelic Football are similar enough to be unified as well (indeed the are each year in the circus known as "International Rules"), and then of course there is Canadian Football, which is a variation of American Football with slightly different rules, dimensions and player numbers.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Basketball/Netball
Baseball/Cricket/Rounders
Motoracing
Long jump/Triple jump
Hammer/Discus
Cycling

There are loads of sports that you could feasibly "unify" to create "bigger" sports... but you don't because each sport has evolved to fill a certain niche.
NFL/CFL/AFL/RU/RL/Soccer are all football codes afterall - why not unify them? How big would that be!

 

[SimonG]

It's an interesting idea, but the problem you'd have is that it would represent a step back for League.

League introduced the "play the ball" because rucks were such a mess and slowed everything down too much, and at first teams would just hold possession until they knocked on (so effective the union tackle rule), or the ball was stripped from them in the tackle.

There's a lot more to it all, but the underlying motivation for each change has been to minimise the stoppages and clean up the tackle area so the ball is in play longer. So in attempting to unify the games, you'd effectively be asking League to undo 50 years of what they see as significant progress away from the systems that they thought spoiled the game as a spectacle. For Union, you'd be asking them to eliminate critical aspects of the game that a number of powerful rugby nations (like South Africa and England) largely define themselves on (the set piece).

As for their being no other sports in this situation, that's not entirely true. I'd argue that Australian Football and Gaelic Football are similar enough to be unified as well (indeed the are each year in the circus known as "International Rules"), and then of course there is Canadian Football, which is a variation of American Football with slightly different rules, dimensions and player numbers.

Why didn't they just "clean up" the rucks as opposed to creating a new "tackle" rule? So there wasn't any six tackle run when the two codes split...league had what I'm endorsing now except the ruck was messy? There are so many flaws in that change in league it's endless. Stop start, uncontested, lack of flow, teams in straight lines across the field as opposed to diagonal, headless running into tackles...only yesterday i watched the end of the 2002 Super League final, the Saint Helen's player in trying to run down the clock fell on the ground in anticipation of a Bradford tackle (which didn't happen as the Bradford player just stood off him). The six tackle rule just eats up the clock. The drowning fish manoever as the tackled player is held down is constant. League has it over Union with its emphasis on running with the ball throughout, Union has it over league with the contested tackle.

Aussie rules use an oval ball, play in an oval field, have three goals, call marks, ball released in the tackle, play three periods (or is it four?)...in other words nothing like Gaelic.

And rats has missed the point, again, becoming "bigger" is not the incentive, it's only the result.

 

[RoosTah]

Why didn't they just "clean up" the rucks as opposed to creating a new "tackle" rule? So there wasn't any six tackle run when the two codes split...league had what I'm endorsing now except the ruck was messy? There are so many flaws in that change in league it's endless. Stop start, uncontested, lack of flow, teams in straight lines across the field as opposed to diagonal, headless running into tackles...only yesterday i watched the end of the 2002 Super League final, the Saint Helen's player in trying to run down the clock fell on the ground in anticipation of a Bradford tackle (which didn't happen as the Bradford player just stood off him). The six tackle rule just eats up the clock. The drowning fish manoever as the tackled player is held down is constant. League has it over Union with its emphasis on running with the ball throughout, Union has it over league with the contested tackle.

Aussie rules use an oval ball, play in an oval field, have three goals, call marks, ball released in the tackle, play three periods (or is it four?)...in other words nothing like Gaelic.

I understand that initially they did try to clean up the ruck, but it was too hard to officiate, so they decided it was better just to scrap it in favour of a play the ball. And yes, there was not six tackle rule originally.

As to the second part of what you say, that's entirely a matter of perspective and it's one I can assure you almost every League fan would disagree with. Do me a favour and get a game of league and union side by side and tell me which recycles the ball quicker, a ruck or a play the ball. Apart from an uncontested ruck, the play the ball wins every time. So in what sense is it any more stop start than a ruck? Both involve the tackled player hitting the deck and then attempting to release the ball to another player, it's just that in League you're not allowed to interfere with the process.

As to your complaint that players will try and play the ball slowly in the final minutes of a close game to eat up the clock, well they do the same thing in Union by just bashing it up with pick and goes so that they've got enough players near each ruck to protect possession. Heck, I've seen three games this season where the Waratahs have done just that and it ****** me off just as much. Now, let me emphasise that I prefer rucking to play the balls, but I don't think the argument that the play the ball slows or stops the game has any legs in how it actually plays out.

Lastly, AFL is played in 4 quarters and has 2 goals in effect; one actual goal worth 6 points and a concessional "behind" goal for kicks that miss the actual goal within a slightly smaller margin of it. But fair enough, I don't really know too much about Gaelic Football, only that we play some mickey mouse half-half game with you guys so the AFL can pretend it has an international season. But the CFL and NFL is a pretty good comparison all the same.

 

[ratsapprentice]

And rats has missed the point, again, becoming "bigger" is not the incentive, it's only the result.

That's the justification you are using for unifying the codes though... more people will like it therefore it must be better.

You are completely failing to accept that for most people the things you describe subjectively as "the worst aspects" of each code, are in their opinions "the best aspects".

 

[Tony Manx]

Been for a little walk along the entire coastline of France and just got back to find this thread is still going around in circles..........!!

 

[SimonG]

I understand that initially they did try to clean up the ruck, but it was too hard to officiate, so they decided it was better just to scrap it in favour of a play the ball. And yes, there was not six tackle rule originally.

As to the second part of what you say, that's entirely a matter of perspective and it's one I can assure you almost every League fan would disagree with. Do me a favour and get a game of league and union side by side and tell me which recycles the ball quicker, a ruck or a play the ball. Apart from an uncontested ruck, the play the ball wins every time. So in what sense is it any more stop start than a ruck? Both involve the tackled player hitting the deck and then attempting to release the ball to another player, it's just that in League you're not allowed to interfere with the process.

As to your complaint that players will try and play the ball slowly in the final minutes of a close game to eat up the clock, well they do the same thing in Union by just bashing it up with pick and goes so that they've got enough players near each ruck to protect possession. Heck, I've seen three games this season where the Waratahs have done just that and it ****** me off just as much. Now, let me emphasise that I prefer rucking to play the balls, but I don't think the argument that the play the ball slows or stops the game has any legs in how it actually plays out.

Lastly, AFL is played in 4 quarters and has 2 goals in effect; one actual goal worth 6 points and a concessional "behind" goal for kicks that miss the actual goal within a slightly smaller margin of it. But fair enough, I don't really know too much about Gaelic Football, only that we play some mickey mouse half-half game with you guys so the AFL can pretend it has an international season. But the CFL and NFL is a pretty good comparison all the same.

Right having read about the schism (should have done it a lot sooner)...introducing the play the ball rule in 1907 was the error. They recognised it was an error when they scrapped the four tackle rule as it was too stop start and disjointed...so they made it a little less so by making it six tackles. Farce. From what I can see they made changes for changes sake just to differentiate their code from that of the backward amateurs in Union. I haven't seen enough footage of Union pre 1970s to know how messy the ruck was...but there is no doubt in my mind that it is by far the superior method of tackling than the play the ball rule for the reasons ive mentioned. Having read the protocol of play the ball most of the players dont bother doing it right..heel the ball back but for most it doesn't touch their boot. This stop start process occurs over 650 times per game on average apparently.

...just in league your not allowed to interfere. "Just". That's a pretty big "just". It completely transforms the game. Not contested means headless running into a wall knowing you will keep the ball, it means guaranteed eating up the clock for however long the set of six lasts, it means players not following up in support of the ball carrier as there's no risk of losing possession (besides the rare event of spilling the thing), less diagonal running support with straight up running into a wall a constant. There's also a far greater requirement to offload in Union otherwise you will cough up possession.

The things that league fans don't like about Union (set pieces) I'd concur with. Previously I wasnt bothered so long as there was plenty of running Rugby which is no longer the case. With Union players now bulked up to the heavens (and the back row clogging up midfield) there are far less gaps. The game is bogged down and France in particular are unrecognisable. So league is where the running with the ball is at and the RLWC did showcase more flashes of quality attacking play, just a pity about that darn rule.

That's the justification you are using for unifying the codes though... more people will like it therefore it must be better.

You are completely failing to accept that for most people the things you describe subjectively as "the worst aspects" of each code, are in their opinions "the best aspects".

Nah, unless you missed the 90% of the post where the justification was removing the chaff. It needn't be a unification btw, just RL to discard its tackle rule. In terms of "worst aspects"...how many go to see the 600 odd times of the fella fluttering about in the RL tackle?...or the line out and scrum? That's not to say there are none of course...but it's the flair, creativity, running, off loading, tackling..that would get most attention. If there was still plenty of this then absolutely no problem, the set pieces wouldn't be an issue. Discarding set pieces and quickening up the game would also cut out the bulk...so more gaps. As I said before the conditions are changing so the game needs to change with it to maintain the game what it is. There will come a time when the hoop in basketball is raised.

 

[ratsapprentice]

What you are describing is basically 7s.


...Which is quite ****.

Also:

http://www.rfu.com/takingpart/fitness/rugbydemands/ballinplay

 

[RoosTah]

How many go to see the 600 odd times of the fella fluttering about in the RL tackle?...or the line out and scrum? That's not to say there are none of course...but it's the flair, creativity, running, off loading, tackling..that would get most attention. If there was still plenty of this then absolutely no problem, the set pieces wouldn't be an issue. Discarding set pieces and quickening up the game would also cut out the bulk...so more gaps. As I said before the conditions are changing so the game needs to change with it to maintain the game what it is. There will come a time when the hoop in basketball is raised.

I've decided only really to focus on this part of your comment, as that's really the crux of it. As I've said above, the problem you have here is that you'd really struggle to find a Rugby League fan that sees the play-the-ball as a problem for the game's appeal. And why would they? It's a fast and efficient means of recycling possession in order to get the ball back into action. When rule changes get discussed each year at NRL HQ, it's just not something that would ever come up. Rather, the focus on increasing the speed of the play the ball by looking at how tackles are officiated. A good example would be how the Melbourne Storm started using wrestling trainers to teach their players how to hold guys and make tackles slower so they could get back onside. The NRL then sent out an edict saying that referees had to call players "held" much quicker so the game didn't slow down too much. But it'll be a cold day in hell before you get anyone to talk about introducing rucks into the game.

On Union you're simply flat out wrong on that one. In Australia most people would agree with you, but head to South Africa and fans get bloody excited about scrums... As for line-outs. I actually really like them. They're an interesting mini-game that doesn't take very long to complete and ensures that possession isn't guaranteed. By the same token, I think the "quick line-out" pass in field rule is a great idea, as it changes the calculus of long kicking.

As I said at the outset, you're suggesting things from the perspective of an outsider who is frustrated by both game. The problem is you'd get little support from existing fans of either sport. Put it to you this way: I suggested to my Peruvian born soccer made child-hood friend that soccer's point scoring system was off balance. The game would be far better if penalty kicks in the box were worth less than an open field goal because they're frankly a much easier goal to score. Make box-penalties worth 1 point and open field penalties worth 2 points. Also, instead of warning players with a yellow card, do what Union does and send them to the bin for 10 mins. Would make for a much better spectacle I thought. But no, "you're messing with the DNA of the game when you start changing such long standing fundamentals" he argued. Introducing rucking to League or eliminating the set-piece from union is in the same category.