• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Time for change

Sea fossil

Academy Player
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
3
Played RU in my younger days and have been a fan ever since. But the entertainment value is to say the least going down the pan. During the Eng v Georgia match I managed to make a brew and sandwich while Nigel Owen was resetting the same scrum! Started getting into League especially since I can watch quality entertainment from down under. The latter match was boring compared to Le crunch with Leeds getting hammered by Catalan. Its time for a change and the RFU need to wake up.
 
What do you suggest? RFU need to wake up and do what?
 
There are good and bad games in every sport.

thats life sal valentinetti GIF by America's Got Talent
 
Think someones been posting under the influence
Love a good rant that something should be done to make the game more exciting with zero ideas and blaming the RFU? As if they can fire eddie for winning in a biring manner haha.

I know if we take away scrums lineouts rucks and mauls and limit to 6 carries per twam before turning the ball over it will be so much quicker and exciting :) ;)
 
Honestly I get sick and tired of hearing this sort of stuff.
Why exactly does the game needs to be changed to make it more exciting?

Seems to me that it's all about widening the fan base in the never ending search for more revenue.
The news is it's never going to compete with football (soccer), it's already better than American Football (and those who don't think it is never will) and the only way to convert the RL fans that don't like both codes will be to copy them, which would destroy a lot of the existing fan base (more of that in a bit).

So are we trying to appeal people who don't really like sport? If so, how is the game supposed to adapt to appeal to them given that they probably don't know what they want and even if they did, they still might not like it.

Which brings me back to the current fan base - the idea that the game is now less entertaining than it was 5/10/15/20 years ago is just utter crap. You get poor games of course but you can say that about any sport - that's part of the point of something that is live, unscripted and dependent on a range of external factors.
There's an argument that the increased speed makes it more difficult/less accessible for casual fans but minimising or reducing the technical aspects of the game (which let's face it, is what such arguments that OP is putting forward are based on) fundamentally changes the game into something else.
So what about the people who like it as it is? **** us right, the game needs more money so let's just assume we'll stick around.

So imho if you want something else, find a different game that provides it or start a new one. Either way stop *****ing that something isn't what you want it to be - it's like moving next to a race track and then moaning about the noise (incidentally another thing that ****** me right off).

Maybe I'm way off track here and I'm not gonna cry if people want to burn be down, just felt it had to be said.

Rant over.

And breathe.
 
What do you suggest? RFU need to wake up and do wha
There are good and bad games in every sport.

thats life sal valentinetti GIF by America's Got Talent's Got Talent

Not only has the scrum become tedious, but it is dangerous - and the International Rugby Board knows it. Paying customers are rightly registering their disapproval and asking where the value for money is in watching the game.
The above is a quote from Brian Moore in 2013.
Since 1960 the scrum rules have been changed or adjusted more than any other part of the game, mainly in the interest of safety. I am neither qualified or in a position to advise the Unions on how to run the game. However the more times the scrum is reset increases the risk factor, and you dont need to be a genius to see that. I understand that it is difficult for the Ref's to oversee the whole scrummaging action but they have been given guidelines for keeping the game flowing - in all parts of the game. More simply put ease up on the whistle.
What do you suggest? RFU need to wake up and do what?
 
What do you suggest? RFU need to wake up and do what?
Rugby simply needs to change some rules. Here are some suggestions: 1. scrum clock. From the ref's call for a scrum, forwards get 25 seconds to lock together ready for engagement with the other pack. Failure results in a differential penalty. 2. Fewer replacements. Limit subs or finishers to 5 in total. Because players are now so fit and half the team can be subbed there is much less space for attack. It would open up the last 30 minutes particularly. 3. Ball out at scrum base. Once the scrumhalf touches the ball at the base of the scrum the ball is live . 4. (Most controversial) Reduce on field team to 13, probably losing Flankers. There now too many (very fit) players on the field, especially with no gap between defenders and attackers at the gain line to allow open flowing Rugby.
 
Rugby simply needs to change some rules. Here are some suggestions: 1. scrum clock. From the ref's call for a scrum, forwards get 25 seconds to lock together ready for engagement with the other pack. Failure results in a differential penalty. 2. Fewer replacements. Limit subs or finishers to 5 in total. Because players are now so fit and half the team can be subbed there is much less space for attack. It would open up the last 30 minutes particularly. 3. Ball out at scrum base. Once the scrumhalf touches the ball at the base of the scrum the ball is live . 4. (Most controversial) Reduce on field team to 13, probably losing Flankers. There now too many (very fit) players on the field, especially with no gap between defenders and attackers at the gain line to allow open flowing Rugby.
So rugby League then?
 
These are my ideas and mine alone:
1) The scrumhalf should simply be able to pull the ball along the ground with his hands and it will count as still in the ruck as currently until it is lifted or goes beyond the back foot.
2) A ruck may not be more than 2 players deep. You can have the person at the front and one person bound on behind them.
3) Use it call to actually be enforced

4) When a player shouts "Mark!" if the chasing attacker shouts "O polo!" they are free to still smash them.
 
These are my ideas and mine alone:
1) The scrumhalf should simply be able to pull the ball along the ground with his hands and it will count as still in the ruck as currently until it is lifted or goes beyond the back foot.
2) A ruck may not be more than 2 players deep. You can have the person at the front and one person bound on behind them.
3) Use it call to actually be enforced

4) When a player shouts "Mark!" if the chasing attacker shouts "O polo!" they are free to still smash them.
I like them rules and ive said move the ball with their hands would be great for ages. Dont like caterpillar rucks but if i had to chose id have rule 1 over rule 2. If the bball can get back quickly then the amount of players isnt a factor, though id rather your rule aswell.

Mark rule should be they have to take 2 steps before calling for the mark.
 
The one rule change I would introduce above all others is to increase the width of pitches by 10m. Seriously! It's no wonder space is at a premium when the pitch dimensions are the same as the early amateur days yet the players are twice as fit and more than half of them can be substituted for fresh legs.

Jones is always banging on about needing players to be more fatigued to create space. Totally agree with that so let's make it a 90 minute game - why on earth not? And reduce the number of subs which is a long standing bugbear.

Of mooted changes I like the idea of the 50:22.

I would also do away with teams being able to throw in when they kick to touch from a pen. Too much like double jeopardy and leads to some very predictable patterns of play. Possession or territory, take your choice. Exception for offences warranting a yellow or red card.

I would also change the maul. If a team has clear control of the ball play should continue even if it stops going forward. Teams can regroup and start going forward again, a bit like a double shunt in the scrum. Rationale, if you have control of maul the opposition have to commit at least an equal number of defenders to try to stop it thereby creating space elsewhere. Not sure if that's a law change or an attitude change.

While mauls are about starting to move forward and tying defenders in, rucks are more often about quick ball. So an immediate "use it" edict once the ball is available to prevent the caterpillar.
 
incidentally another thing that ****** me right off).

Maybe I'm way off track here and I'm not gonna cry if people want to burn be down, just felt it had to be said.
p
So rugby League then?
Not exactly. But how much better to have the great players of both games come together. RL is the minor rugby version world wide by far but nearly all the recent attacking and defensive developments of Rugby Union in the last 30 years have come from Rugby League. Just a few major examples- slide/drift defence and dummy/block runners in attack which didn't exist in Rugby until a few years ago but now are central to Rugby. To appreciate this you have to understand the different relationship which Union has to League in Australasia compared to Europe. League is the major form in Aus and Union is king in NZ but just look at how the ABs play. It is right out of the Australian NRL playbook.
I can't see either one or the other Rugby format completely taking over the other but the trend is definitely that RU is getting closer to RL.
What are the main differences to overcome to merge the 2 formats? 1. Scrums: What are they for? A restart which locks up the forwards and opens up back play, or a test of strength and technique between 16 forwards. 2. A tackle ending in a ruck or maul, or in a 'play the ball' 3. Defending line : RU team defends on the gain line and in RL must be 10 metres behind the gain line (play the ball point)
There are other differences of course, and some hybrid games have in the past been played. It will take some more years but the 2 versions of the game will continue to get closer together until they eventually merge.
 
Here are my suggested rule changes.

1. Every time you take a shot at goal, a new player in the side has to do it. You can only have your main kicker take a second shot when all 15 players have had a kick at goal.

2. Ball is fitted with a device that causes it to burst into flames at a predetermined but random time, ie different with each ball. Any player who refused to play once the ball is on fire will see the opposition awarded a penalty. New ball to be provided once it is no longer in one piece.

3. Each player is allowed to pick one method of penalty foul that doesn't apply to them.

4. Tries scored in which the ball is caught, held and grounded in one hand are worth an extra two points.

5. If a player misses a tackle, but apologises profusely, the player in possession has to come back and be tackled. Play restarts with a scrum to the attacking team.

6. Two balls are involved, but one belongs to the referee and the touch judges, who pass the ball across the field continuously. Interfering with the ref ball is a yellow card offence.

7. Any tries scored do not count until the scorer can name the opposition country's capital, currency, official language and three dominant socioeconomic issues.
 
The one rule change I would introduce above all others is to increase the width of pitches by 10m. Seriously! It's no wonder space is at a premium when the pitch dimensions are the same as the early amateur days yet the players are twice as fit and more than half of them can be substituted for fresh legs.

Jones is always banging on about needing players to be more fatigued to create space. Totally agree with that so let's make it a 90 minute game - why on earth not? And reduce the number of subs which is a long standing bugbear.

Of mooted changes I like the idea of the 50:22.

I would also do away with teams being able to throw in when they kick to touch from a pen. Too much like double jeopardy and leads to some very predictable patterns of play. Possession or territory, take your choice. Exception for offences warranting a yellow or red card.

I would also change the maul. If a team has clear control of the ball play should continue even if it stops going forward. Teams can regroup and start going forward again, a bit like a double shunt in the scrum. Rationale, if you have control of maul the opposition have to commit at least an equal number of defenders to try to stop it thereby creating space elsewhere. Not sure if that's a law change or an attitude change.

While mauls are about starting to move forward and tying defenders in, rucks are more often about quick ball. So an immediate "use it" edict once the ball is available to prevent the caterpillar.
Some good points. Increasing the pitch would be difficult on local fields but impossible on senior and international venues. The reason for reducing the size of the team by 2 players and shrinking the subs bench to 5 max or alternatively widening the pitch is to reduce congestion and open up play. It's badly needed because defence is now too dominant over attack.
The 50/22 kick advantage would be a big improvement. So would preventing the defending team from touching down behind their tryline to gain a 22 drop out. A voluntary defensive touchdown from an attackers kick should result in a goaline dropout.
Here's one more: advantage should be over once the ball is either carried or kicked forward 10 metres from the infringement. The team given the advantage has the choice to use it and play on, for example if the defending team is in disarray and a try is likely, or, they can indicate to the ref that they want the scrum or penalty on the spot, straight away. Why? Because advantage is sometimes given to a ridiculous degree, sometimes lasting more than a minute or several phases only to be cancelled out and reverted back to the infringement if the ref feels there hasn't been sufficient advantage. This is double jeopardy for the defending team and a waste of spectating time if it is called back after a such a long time.
 
Here are my suggested rule changes.

1. Every time you take a shot at goal, a new player in the side has to do it. You can only have your main kicker take a second shot when all 15 players have had a kick at goal.

2. Ball is fitted with a device that causes it to burst into flames at a predetermined but random time, ie different with each ball. Any player who refused to play once the ball is on fire will see the opposition awarded a penalty. New ball to be provided once it is no longer in one piece.

3. Each player is allowed to pick one method of penalty foul that doesn't apply to them.

4. Tries scored in which the ball is caught, held and grounded in one hand are worth an extra two points.

5. If a player misses a tackle, but apologises profusely, the player in possession has to come back and be tackled. Play restarts with a scrum to the attacking team.

6. Two balls are involved, but one belongs to the referee and the touch judges, who pass the ball across the field continuously. Interfering with the ref ball is a yellow card offence.

7. Any tries scored do not count until the scorer can name the opposition country's capital, currency, official language and three dominant socioeconomic issues.
i do like number 6 but the ref ball needs to be a bright colour so it draws the players attention towards it
 

Latest posts

Top