How does pitch size effect game?

[sigesige00]

According to the current laws,

Pitch width --70s (minimum 68m)
Length of field of play --100m (minimum 94m)
Length of ingoals -- 22m or shorter, at least 10m when possible, and minimum 6m

How would changing these sizes effect RU games?
When the length of field of play is 94m, how play is different from 100m?
If the length is more shorter (88m), is there any significant change? (88m is simply 22m*4)
Longer ingoals would increase attempt of try from kicks. And how shorter ingoals effects play?:huh:

 

[Feicarsinn]

I wouldn't worry about it. Once the Japanese get all of those radioactive players they're breeding at Fukushima they're going to be like Team Lomu and none of us will be able to keep up anyway. Rugby is doomed.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Welford road is a great example is you want a proper case study.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I wouldn't worry about it. Once the Japanese get all of those radioactive players they're breeding at Fukushima they're going to be like Team Lomu and none of us will be able to keep up anyway. Rugby is doomed.

Will they have special goal kickers just to bring on for the kicks?

How much will kick at goal be points?

I think replace scrum with kick at goal. Also lineout with kick at goal.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

If the pitch is shorter, there is a chance a player could run right off the end and not put the ball down because they were expecting a longer pitch. You can see this almost happen in the England France game. The players are simple creatures and can't understand that a shorter pitch means the try area is closer. Also there is a real health risk as they may run into the posts as they expect them to be further back. Likewise with the pitch being too narrow, at a lineout the number 2 will sometimes try to throw it from the stands.

The reason why some pitches are shorter is perfectly simple, the designers can't all count as high as the best and have to make do with the highest they can count to.

I hope this helps.

 

[Feicarsinn]

Will they have special goal kickers just to bring on for the kicks?

How much will kick at goal be points?

I think replace scrum with kick at goal. Also lineout with kick at goal.

I believe there should only be one set of posts, at the centre of the pitch. That way, if you miss, the opposition will get a good field position, therefore teams wont kick as much. Also, the posts must look as follows:

 

[steve9145]

i think it will have a massive effect.
if the pitch is made shorter it wont be so long and if the width is reduced the pitch could possibly be narrower.
the land saved could be sold to supermarket chains bringing much needed food concessions.

 

[smartcooky]

According to the current laws,

Pitch width --70s (minimum 68m)
Length of field of play --100m (minimum 94m)
Length of ingoals -- 22m or shorter, at least 10m when possible, and minimum 6m

How would changing these sizes effect RU games?
When the length of field of play is 94m, how play is different from 100m?
If the length is more shorter (88m), is there any significant change? (88m is simply 22m*4)
Longer ingoals would increase attempt of try from kicks. And how shorter ingoals effects play?:huh:

This is a rarity for you, a good question. Unfortunately, you aren't going to get many good answers because you have built yourself a reputation for asking stupid questions and coming up with stupid ideas, so the members here don't trust you, they regard you as a troll, and they answer you accordingly.

However, I will try to give you a serious answer

W.R.T. the international minimums...

1. The length of the "field of play" doesn't really affect the game other than for goal-kicking.

2. The "in goal" depth can make a big difference to teams that use attacking grubber kicks and goal-line bombs as a tactic. The deeper the in-goal, the more room there is for tactically kicked balls to stay in play, better judgement is required for shallow in-goals.

3. The width of "the playing area" can have quite an effect on play. It is much easier to defend a narrow pitch than a wide one. Teams whose game plan does not involve running the ball much in the backs can gain considerable advantage over teams who like to play an expansive game, by making the pitch narrower.

At one time, there was no minimum but in 2013, the iRB added clause (d) to Law 1.2...

[TEXTAREA](d) In respect of:
(i) Matches between the senior national representative team or the next senior national
representative team of a Union against the senior or next senior national representative
team of another Union; and
(ii) International seven-a-side matches;
the dimensions should be as close to the maximum sizes as possible, and not less than 94
metres in length for the field of play, 68 metres in width, and with a minimum in-goal length
of 6 metres. Unions wishing to vary minimum or maximum dimensions should apply for
dispensation to the IRB.[/TEXTAREA]

This was in response to complaints that some teams were intentionally making the playing area narrow when they were playing against opponents known for their expansive style, e.g Scotland v Australia in 2004 where the Scots made the pitch only 60m wide, and again v Tonga in 2012. Teams can still have pitches narrower than 68m but not as of right, they have to apply to WR and justify their reasons for doing so.

 

[ratsapprentice]

This was in response to complaints that some teams were intentionally making the playing area narrow when they were playing against opponents known for their expansive style, e.g Scotland v Australia in 2004 where the Scots made the pitch only 60m wide, and again v Tonga in 2012. Teams can still have pitches narrower than 68m but not as of right, they have to apply to WR and justify their reasons for doing so.

They actually did that!?

Jheeez.... what a bunch of absolute *****

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

They actually did that!?

Jheeez.... what a bunch of absolute *****

 

[psychic duck]

They actually did that!?

Jheeez.... what a bunch of absolute *****

They just wanted to move the lower profile AI fixture around the country and Pittodrie, Aberdeen just happened to have a narrow pitch. There's nothing in it, especially as there no real advantage playing two extremely direct Island teams anyway.

 

[smartcooky]

They actually did that!?

Jheeez.... what a bunch of absolute *****

It happens a lot more than you would think and not just Scotland, they are the only international matches I could find where it was news.

Tigs Man might not like me saying this, but IMO a good deal of Tigers' overall game plans rely on the narrow pitch at Welford Road. The Azzuri also have a narrow pitch at Stadio Olimpico,

Even in RL, in one test in 2004, the NZRL made the pitch narrow to curb the Kangaroos expansive game... and it seems to work, the Kiwis shut down the Roos out wide and got a 16-16 draw compared with the thrashings we had got prior to that in Aussie.

- - - Updated - - -

They just wanted to move the lower profile AI fixture around the country and Pittodrie, Aberdeen just happened to have a narrow pitch. There's nothing in it, especially as there no real advantage playing two extremely direct Island teams anyway.

Well, not quote.

SRU spokesman Graham Law admitted they reduced the field but said it was to "ensure consistency" for Scotland's four home tests that year including a second test v Australia at Hampden Park in Glasgow and v Japan McDiarmid Park in Perth. This sounds like a BS story to me, besides that match against Australia was at Murrayfield, no need to narrow it there. What happened to the "consistency" when they went back to a full 70m width pitch v South Africa at Murrayfield a week after the Hampden park match, or the three home games in the 6N, all at Murrayfield, all on full width pitches.

 

[psychic duck]

It happens a lot more than you would think and not just Scotland, they are the only international matches I could find where it was news.

Tigs Man might not like me saying this, but IMO a good deal of Tigers' overall game plans rely on the narrow pitch at Welford Road. The Azzuri also have a narrow pitch at Stadio Olimpico,

Even in RL, in one test in 2004, the NZRL made the pitch narrow to curb the Kangaroos expansive game... and it seems to work, the Kiwis shut down the Roos out wide and got a 16-16 draw compared with the thrashings we had got prior to that in Aussie.

They just felt a 20,000 stadium would be more appropriate, better atmosphere for a game against a lower profile team, whilst also giving other parts of the country a chance to see an international.

Likewise Italy playing at the Stadio Olimpico has nothing to do with pitch width. It was just the stadium they managed to get when they decided on going for a bigger one than the Stadio de Flaminio. They wouldn't have gone back to a 30,000 stadium and lost a whole load of potential ticket sales just because of the pitch width.

 

[ruckin]

i think it will have a massive effect.
if the pitch is made shorter it wont be so long and if the width is reduced the pitch could possibly be narrower.
the land saved could be sold to supermarket chains bringing much needed food concessions.

lmao

 

[smartcooky]

They just felt a 20,000 stadium would be more appropriate, better atmosphere for a game against a lower profile team, whilst also giving other parts of the country a chance to see an international.

Likewise Italy playing at the Stadio Olimpico has nothing to do with pitch width. It was just the stadium they managed to get when they decided on going for a bigger one than the Stadio de Flaminio. They wouldn't have gone back to a 30,000 stadium and lost a whole load of potential ticket sales just because of the pitch width.

You are missing the point. The SRU narrowed the pitch to 60m AT MURRAYFIELD!!!

 

[sigesige00]

Welford road is a great example is you want a proper case study.

Do you mean Leicester Tigers stadium? Because I cannot find any information about the pitch size at Welford Road Stadium, I will ask them by emai.

 

[YoungScud]

You are missing the point. The SRU narrowed the pitch to 60m AT MURRAYFIELD!!!

No they didn't. They narrowed it to 65m. The outrage takes a bit of a knock when you don't do your homework.

 

[sigesige00]

This is a rarity for you, a good question. Unfortunately, you aren't going to get many good answers because you have built yourself a reputation for asking stupid questions and coming up with stupid ideas, so the members here don't trust you, they regard you as a troll, and they answer you accordingly.

However, I will try to give you a serious answer

Well, I admit that I am a very unique (in other word, insane) person who often makes strange ideas, but I believe that you understand that I am not a troll.

- - - Updated - - -

No they didn't. They narrowed it to 65m. The outrage takes a bit of a knock when you don't do your homework.

Was there no rule that the minimum is 68m at that time?

 

[sigesige00]

However, I will try to give you a serious answer

W.R.T. the international minimums...

1. The length of the "field of play" doesn't really affect the game other than for goal-kicking.

2. The "in goal" depth can make a big difference to teams that use attacking grubber kicks and goal-line bombs as a tactic. The deeper the in-goal, the more room there is for tactically kicked balls to stay in play, better judgement is required for shallow in-goals.

3. The width of "the playing area" can have quite an effect on play. It is much easier to defend a narrow pitch than a wide one. Teams whose game plan does not involve running the ball much in the backs can gain considerable advantage over teams who like to play an expansive game, by making the pitch narrower.

At one time, there was no minimum but in 2013, the iRB added clause (d) to Law 1.2...

[TEXTAREA](d) In respect of:
(i) Matches between the senior national representative team or the next senior national
representative team of a Union against the senior or next senior national representative
team of another Union; and
(ii) International seven-a-side matches;
the dimensions should be as close to the maximum sizes as possible, and not less than 94
metres in length for the field of play, 68 metres in width, and with a minimum in-goal length
of 6 metres. Unions wishing to vary minimum or maximum dimensions should apply for
dispensation to the IRB.[/TEXTAREA]

This was in response to complaints that some teams were intentionally making the playing area narrow when they were playing against opponents known for their expansive style, e.g Scotland v Australia in 2004 where the Scots made the pitch only 60m wide, and again v Tonga in 2012. Teams can still have pitches narrower than 68m but not as of right, they have to apply to WR and justify their reasons for doing so.

You say that the length of the "field of play" does not effect game, but would shorter length not encourage kicking to enter the opponent side's deeper zone?

And the pitch width will surely effect the play. As a serious suggestion, the reduction of number of on-pitch players from 15 to 13 like RL, because of the development of defense tactics and skills has reduced the number of tries (is there any statistics)?

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Do you mean Leicester Tigers stadium? Because I cannot find any information about the pitch size at Welford Road Stadium, I will ask them by emai.

Length is 91m width is 64.5m