Rugby For A new Decade. - The Instant Solution.

[Little Richardjohn]

Every rugby correspondent this year has spent hundreds of words and trees bemoaning the death of midfield play, the density of the laws, and the horrendous injury toll.
The reason fo0r all these shackles on the modern game is simply that in effect, the pitches have been getting smaller for the last decade, and more. But especially since professionalisation and the industrialised training. Martyn Williams calls it 'players outgrowing their bodies.' But in doing so, they've also outgrown the size of the pitch, which hasn't been officially changed since Twickers was a cabbage patch. Probably the one law which hasn't ever been tinkered with, and the one which now needs it the most.
Give modern players more room to move and think - the same amount that the players of the past did - and we will see the same degree of open play some of us remember, and reverse the current homogenisation of body type which is so fatal to the game as a spectacle.
Make the pitch wider.

 

[Fa'atau82]

Matt Dunning defeats your theory. The pitch will never be THAT wide.

 

[Bullitt]

That makes as much sense as... Well, a little.

However, with modern stadia already at their limit for allowed pitch area, that idea simply isn't workable. At least not without £millions of revelopment literally everywhere there's a fixed grandstand.

How to fix the laws:

1. Drop the value of Penalties and DGs to 2 points each. This means that it would take 4 non-try scores to overturn a touchdown, thus making them a less attractive option to "keep the scoreboard ticking over", especially when it's rare that teams have less then 8 kicks at goal per game... 2 Tries and suddenly kicking at goal ain't going to win you the match.
2. Allow direct-to-touch clearances when the ball is passed back into the 22. No more aerial ping-pong.
3. Bring back Rucking.
4. The sacrifce of John O'Neil to our Lord Richard Hill and Messiah Sebastian Chabal (hallowed be thy name).
5. BRING BACK RUCKING
6. Referries & touch judges are actually expected to be fit enough to keep up with play and not make it up as they go along due to standing 30 metres away from a breakdown.

 

[feicarsinn]

I'd agree with alot of that Mite, but I don't see changing the points system as a good move. We've had enough chopping and changing recently to last a lifetime so more major rule changes probably wouldn't be for the best right now. Anyway, goal kicking is one of the major skills of rugby Union. To downgrade it's role would take something away from the sport in my humble opinion.

 

[Bullitt]

Yes, but it would stop this constant fear of giving away 3 points whenever the ball is within 50m of your posts, thus there's less reason to kick it away and have a round of Tennis before someone drops it.

 

[feicarsinn]

That kicking comes moreso form a fear of taking the ball into the breakdown when isolated though, doesn't it? Another thought, if the points system that you suggest was in place earlier in the year the Lions would have lost 25-19 and we wouldn't have as many reasons to hate ROG.

 

[Bullitt]

If rucking was back, there would be less examples of players on the wrong side/hands in/holding on so the isolation of players would be different. As for the Lions game, the Boks wouldn't have gone for as many kicks in looking to overturn the deficit in the first place. The game would have had a very different look to it.


And I'll always have plenty of ammo in my arsenal to hate O'Shithead with!

 

[fcukernaut]

I think rucking in the pro game is alright but I don't think you can justify bringing it back into the amateur game in full force. I could deal with the two point on the penalties just don't change the points for the drop goal, that's all I ask. It's the hardest skill to execute in a live game and we shouldn't penalise Frans Steyn for being able to kick 50m drop goals when almost no one else in the world can.

 

[Bullitt]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fcukernaut @ Dec 21 2009, 09:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

I think rucking in the pro game is alright but I don't think you can justify bringing it back into the amateur game in full force. I could deal with the two point on the penalties just don't change the points for the drop goal, that's all I ask. It's the hardest skill to execute in a live game and we shouldn't penalise Frans Steyn for being able to kick 50m drop goals when almost no one else in the world can.[/b]

Wes we should because it's all he ever does. He literally NEVER runs it... Clearance kick-Drop Goal-clearance kick-Drop goal-Clearance kick-Drop Goal-BORING.

 

[feicarsinn]

Don't worry Mite, he'll eventually be exposed. Actually look at the France game. Without a pack going forward he was useless.

 

[Olyy]

Joe Worseley had his scrotum ripped open through rucking...surely this is reason enough to bring it back?

 

[Bullitt]

Bah, that's nothing! Buck Shelford has the same, had 'em stitched up again and then finished the match!

 

[Olyy]

Apparently Worsely did the same (though my source of this information was on old copy of The Sun in a chinese takeaway...)

Just read about the Shelford incident on Wikipedia....ouch. His testicle was hanging free out of his scrotum :blink:

 

[Nickdnz]

Yeah, Buck was a tough *******.

 

[QLD]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Teh Mite @ Dec 20 2009, 04:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

That makes as much sense as... Well, a little.

However, with modern stadia already at their limit for allowed pitch area, that idea simply isn't workable. At least not without £millions of revelopment literally everywhere there's a fixed grandstand.

How to fix the laws:

1. Drop the value of Penalties and DGs to 2 points each. This means that it would take 4 non-try scores to overturn a touchdown, thus making them a less attractive option to "keep the scoreboard ticking over", especially when it's rare that teams have less then 8 kicks at goal per game... 2 Tries and suddenly kicking at goal ain't going to win you the match.
2. Allow direct-to-touch clearances when the ball is passed back into the 22. No more aerial ping-pong.
3. Bring back Rucking.
4. The sacrifce of John O'Neil to our Lord Richard Hill and Messiah Sebastian Chabal (hallowed be thy name).
5. BRING BACK RUCKING
6. Referries & touch judges are actually expected to be fit enough to keep up with play and not make it up as they go along due to standing 30 metres away from a breakdown.[/b]

Great post. Nowdays as soon as teams get a penalty in the oppo 50 they point straight to the posts. Its getting ridiculous now. The only time I saw a team inside the oppo 22 get a penalty and go for touch is when Australia were 15 points behind SA this year!

the half arms ELVS just made flankers and other forwards do more illegal stuff in the Breakdown. I think players would be less inclined to lay around the breakdown if penalties were 2 points and rucking was back.

 

[O'Rothlain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Teh Mite @ Dec 19 2009, 12:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

2. Allow direct-to-touch clearances when the ball is passed back into the 22. No more aerial ping-pong.[/b]

That's all I would change, right there.

 

[Charles]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O'Rothlain @ Dec 22 2009, 07:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Teh Mite @ Dec 19 2009, 12:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

2. Allow direct-to-touch clearances when the ball is passed back into the 22. No more aerial ping-pong.[/b]

That's all I would change, right there.
[/b][/quote]

+1

Change penalty to 2 pts would just allow the players to infringe more.

Widening the pitch would be a good idea but it is alas impossible now.

 

[QLD]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Charles @ Dec 22 2009, 03:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O'Rothlain @ Dec 22 2009, 07:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Teh Mite @ Dec 19 2009, 12:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

2. Allow direct-to-touch clearances when the ball is passed back into the 22. No more aerial ping-pong.[/b]

That's all I would change, right there.
[/b][/quote]

+1

Change penalty to 2 pts would just allow the players to infringe more.

Widening the pitch would be a good idea but it is alas impossible now.
[/b][/quote]

With the ELVS you saw how much more players infringed.. I would say players just as infringe more now because they aren't afraid to give away 3 points and have a rest.. reducing it to two would mean teams would take a quick tap or kicking for touch more often which could backfire to those who give away more infringements due to more tries scored. Some of the games now are ridiculously boring, admit it or not but fans are not happy with the current game.

 

[dullonien]

Not totally sure about reducing penalties to 2 points. I also think it could just result in more panalties being given away, although that could easily be coutered by referees giving more yellow cards. Not sure, could work, could backfire big time like the pass back into the 22 rule! Agree with reducing drop-goals to 2 points. Seeing the likes of Wilkinson taking that option before even trying to score a try is really hurting the game.

Another solution could be to change the balls back to an older style (which was alot harder to kick with). Modern balls are one of the main reasons kickers can tee up inside their own half and have a decent chance of success. Kickers accuracy would also drop, making tries a better option.

But I agree with feicarsinn, that there ahs been enough prodding and changing in the game recently. Let's leave it as it is for the time being, and let the players get used to these rules.

 

[Little Richardjohn]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Teh Mite @ Dec 19 2009, 06:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

That makes as much sense as... Well, a little.

However, with modern stadia already at their limit for allowed pitch area, that idea simply isn't workable. At least not without £millions of revelopment literally everywhere there's a fixed grandstand.[/b]

They're not at their limit at all, especially given the distinctly scanty attendances at most matches. What we're inevitably facing at some point is the loss of a few rows alongside the touchlines. So the capital cost would be minimal. And since the resulting matches played would be a superior spectacle, the increased attendances overall would more than pay for the investment in a relatively short time. And the clubs which grasped this nettle soonest would be the winners.
The only opponents to this advance would be incompetent accountants, the type who do not believe in investing in long-term improvements. The kind who've been running the game for ten years and whose train ran into the buffers last autumn on Wall Street.
lety's be honest, 40 years of tinkering with the laws of play hasn't been able to keep pace with the increase in power and speed of the players, and there is no reason to assume that it ever will. At some point the legal web will become too tangled, and the game so constipated and difficult to referee and watch, especially for the new spectator, and the injury toll so horrendous, that the calls for a 13-man helmeted exhibition sport, refereed by computer, will become irresistible.
Is that what you want? 'Cos that's what'll happen.
Since the minimum pitch size is one of the very few laws to remain untouched by the committee, it is the only option left. Imposing even more burdens on the intellectual and sensory talents of referees and players is doomed to failure. I'm sure you understand why.