Rule Change

[sigesige00]

In the 15-Player Rugby, the side which have conceded points do kick-off. In the 7-Player Rugby, this is opposite. I think that the rule of the 7-Player Rugby should be adopted in the 15-Player Rugby.
And there is one thing I cannot understand in the rule of the 7-Player Rugby. In the 7-Player Rugby, 5 substitutes can be named; but only 3 of them can be used. Why cannot all 5 substitutes used?
And, in the 15-Player Rugby, the number of substitutes are 7. I think this is too small; I think that 11 substitutes should be allowed. And there should be no limitation of substitution number/time.

 

[staph.glorious]

You'll have to argue your cases.

I'm more than content with the 15-man restart. There's an opportunity to reclaim possession in a strong position due to variety with numbers - look to Carter's kick-offs last season. There is also the likelihood of claiming possession off pressurising the opposition in-and-around their 22. This instills the fairer challenge.

Eleven substitutes is ridiculous. The strongest argument in this aspect of the game is that there are too many substitutes. The game evolved from a 15-man affair to that of 22/23 men. Now impact players became tactical to many sides. Eleven would push that even further, and in doing so negate from the challenges of lesser sides (who struggle to put together a competitive first XV). The spectacle could even be dampened in the considerable short-term, as reduced stamina can simply be pulled off the park. I can't envisage a decent argument to support a larger bench.

 

[sigesige00]

Have you watched futsal games? Futsal is played by 5-Player teams; but the number of a squad is 12. There is no limitation of substitution. I think that technique is more important than stamina; and technique makes the games more interesting.

 

[staph.glorious]

Futsal is more comparable to Rugby Sevens than rugby union's 15-a-side game; even then, its rugby-equivalent is played on a full-size pitch.

Rugby union does rely on stamina in a big way. To upend that would be to disrupt the training regimes of every professional side in the world. It would further the chasm between Tier-1 nations and lesser able unions. That would be ruinous to the game. The desired product of a system of limitless substitutes (or a de facto system) engendering improved technique would take years and years to fulfil; all you'll get is fresh meat knocking lumps into fresh meat.

The bizarre thing is that there's no outcry for this. Aside from the scrum and the breakdown, there's no demand for more interesting spectacles in rugby union. If the aforementioned contests can be refined, it would be indisputably the greatest game on the planet - a personal opinion, of course.

In the future, with worldwide support and success of the game, perhaps rugby union will then be forced to look at contriving an evolved skill level. Not now, though.

 

[lynam1104]

It already is the the greatest game on the planet.

 

[staph.glorious]

It already is the the greatest game on the planet.

I agree, but if the scrum clocks and rucking issues can be done away with, then there'd be nothing upon which to base the counter-argument.

 

[lynam1104]

Scrums taking 2 minuets needs to be dealt with leave the ruck alone, it's fine.

 

[Dougydeluxe]

Your rule changes might as well include changing the name of rugby to American Football.

 

[staph.glorious]

There are still timing issues at the breakdown, eg tacklers releasing. And then, ideally, a means of sorting out multiple infringements, and the oft-cited inconsistency of referees/officials.

But I do see scrum problems as the priority.

 

[sigesige00]

Your rule changes might as well include changing the name of rugby to American Football.

The only points which American Football is superior to Rugby is that the goal is based on the dead-ball line, and safety.

 

[sigesige00]

Scrums taking 2 minuets needs to be dealt with leave the ruck alone, it's fine.

I think that scrum should be replaced by FK (or PK, in the case of goal the point is 1). Rugby game would be faster and clearer.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I think you'd be better off watching Rugby League!



Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Tapatalk

 

[staph.glorious]

I think that scrum should be replaced by FK (or PK, in the case of goal the point is 1). Rugby game would be faster and clearer.

I think the game you want to watch is Rugby League

The scrum is a contest. Rugby union, in particular the 15-man game, thrives on its contests. They are fundamental to the game's character, its principles. Even the variations in tempo contribute to the unique spectacle.

Honestly, if you love the game, you would hate to lose the scrum.

 

[sigesige00]

I think the game you want to watch is Rugby League

The scrum is a contest. Rugby union, in particular the 15-man game, thrives on its contests. They are fundamental to the game's character, its principles. Even the variations in tempo contribute to the unique spectacle.

Honestly, if you love the game, you would hate to lose the scrum.

I like Rugby League too, however Rugby Union with rack and mall is also interesting. However I think scrum is unnecessary.
Scrum is a difficult play; very often collapse, and difficult to see which side collapsed it. I do not think that scrum is fundamental, since it occurs only insignificant fouls (such as knock-on) happen.

 

[smartcooky]

In the 15-Player Rugby, the side which have conceded points do kick-off. In the 7-Player Rugby, this is opposite. I think that the rule of the 7-Player Rugby should be adopted in the 15-Player Rugby.
And there is one thing I cannot understand in the rule of the 7-Player Rugby. In the 7-Player Rugby, 5 substitutes can be named; but only 3 of them can be used. Why cannot all 5 substitutes used?
And, in the 15-Player Rugby, the number of substitutes are 7. I think this is too small; I think that 11 substitutes should be allowed. And there should be no limitation of substitution number/time.

1st point: Rugby doesn't have "Rules", it has "Laws". The distinction is subtle, but essentially, Laws are open to interpretation, whereas Rules are hard and fast, unchanging.

2nd point: Restarts. There is a very good reason why restarts are the way they are in 7's. Its because in 7's possession is everything, and territory is nothing and the game is very short. Tries in 7's are routinely scored from almost any territorial position, and mostly from mid-pitch on the field of play. If the team that scored received the ball at every restart, it is quite conceivable that the kicking team might not get the ball for the entire half.

3rd Point: Substitutions. Seven a side rugby has less requirement for specialist positions e.g., props and hookers do not have to be STE (suitably trained and experienced). At a tournament teams can use squads of no more than 12 players for the whole tournament. Having all 12 able to be named but only being allowed to use 10 allows a team to not have to name a team for each match; all 12 are automatically named.
► If a player is injured in a match and will miss the next match, he is still "named" but is simply one of the two that wont sub on.

► If a player has to be replaced in a squad, that player is out for the rest of the tournament and can only be replace from the host team's player pool.

 

[Dougydeluxe]

smartcooky, thanks for that, I really could just not be bothered to go over why the laws are they way they are.

 

[sigesige00]

1st point: Rugby doesn't have "Rules", it has "Laws". The distinction is subtle, but essentially, Laws are open to interpretation, whereas Rules are hard and fast, unchanging.

2nd point: Restarts. There is a very good reason why restarts are the way they are in 7's. Its because in 7's possession is everything, and territory is nothing and the game is very short. Tries in 7's are routinely scored from almost any territorial position, and mostly from mid-pitch on the field of play. If the team that scored received the ball at every restart, it is quite conceivable that the kicking team might not get the ball for the entire half.

3rd Point: Substitutions. Seven a side rugby has less requirement for specialist positions e.g., props and hookers do not have to be STE (suitably trained and experienced). At a tournament teams can use squads of no more than 12 players for the whole tournament. Having all 12 able to be named but only being allowed to use 10 allows a team to not have to name a team for each match; all 12 are automatically named.
► If a player is injured in a match and will miss the next match, he is still "named" but is simply one of the two that wont sub on.

► If a player has to be replaced in a squad, that player is out for the rest of the tournament and can only be replace from the host team's player pool.

As for the restarts in the Sevens, I had known what you said. My question is why restarts in the 15-Player Rugby is done in the different way.

As for substitutions, 15-Player Rugby should have 11 substitutes, and 7-Player Rugby should have 5 substitutes (in all games), and injury reserves should be allowed unlimitedly.

 

[formerlyfastwing]

I agree, but if the scrum clocks and rucking issues can be done away with, then there'd be nothing upon which to base the counter-argument.

Rugby League says HI

 

[formerlyfastwing]

good lord.....it might be time to leave the laws alone for a while....

Whne I started there were no subs and tries were worth 4, with a convert worth 2. Some changes have been very good, line out lifting was great for the game IMO. The line out was a mess. Tries upped to 5 pts, good, make the try and convert worth more than 2 penalties.

One of the best things about our sport is the physicallity and the need to be physical for 80 minutes.....too many subs ruins that.

 

[sigesige00]

Should the DG points be 3?
In Rugby League, DG point is only 1.
England's Wilkinson proved that DG is a very effective strategy. It is quite possible to see many games decided by DGs.
I think that the DG points should be reduced from 3 to 2.