How would reducing the length of field of play from 100m to 93m affect Rugby?

[sigesige00]

In my opinion, the current standard size of Rugby Union field 70m*144m (100m field of play, 22m*2 ingoals) should be reduced to 68m*105m (93m field of play, 6m*2 ingoals). And goals should be moved from try-line to deadball-line.
How would this change affect Rugby?

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

In my opinion, the current standard size of Rugby Union field 70m*144m (100m field of play, 22m*2 ingoals) should be reduced to 68m*105m (93m field of play, 6m*2 ingoals). And goals should be moved from try-line to deadball-line.
How would this change affect Rugby?

It would **** over a lot of unions and clubs who's stadiums wouldn't be able to change without incurring massive costs or would simply be rendered useless.

 

[norcalbuff]

It would **** over a lot of unions and clubs who's stadiums wouldn't be able to change without incurring massive costs or would simply be rendered useless.

How would it **** them over? Increasing the size would do that but decreasing the size would not.

 

[gaston le gaff]

and play with a square ball while you are at it!!! 30 players per side!!! 6 referees!!!!
intelligence at its highest!!!!!!!!!

 

[goodNumber10]

In my opinion, the current standard size of Rugby Union field 70m*144m (100m field of play, 22m*2 ingoals) should be reduced to 68m*105m (93m field of play, 6m*2 ingoals). And goals should be moved from try-line to deadball-line.
How would this change affect Rugby?

It's your opinion, so why don't YOU tell us how it would change rugby?

 

[nickdnz]

sigesige just keeps on keepin' on.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

How would it **** them over? Increasing the size would do that but decreasing the size would not.

Ah! I see I didn't read the post thoroughly. My humble apologies for my.. ?trite? response, sigesige00! My English is failing me today seemingly.

 

[sigesige00]

It's your opinion, so why don't YOU tell us how it would change rugby?

When I told this to my friends, they said that it would make entering 22m zone much easier, and Rugby would become less tactical.

 

[goodNumber10]

When I told this to my friends, they said that it would make entering 22m zone much easier, and Rugby would become less tactical.

lol!

 

[sigesige00]

And I have other ideas about scoring, and conversion.
In comparison with RL, there are too many PGs in RU. So I think that the value of Conversion should be increased, and the value of PG should be decreased.
And one of the interesting point of American Football is there are 2 types of "try for point" after touchdown (1-point kick or 2-point pass/run). So there should be Conversions with different values.

Like this--2 points from 5m line, 3 points from 22m line, 4 points from halfway-line. Do you think that this is a very strange idea?

 

[goodNumber10]

And I have other ideas about scoring, and conversion.
In comparison with RL, there are too many PGs in RU. So I think that the value of Conversion should be increased, and the value of PG should be decreased.
And one of the interesting point of American Football is there are 2 types of "try for point" after touchdown (1-point kick or 2-point pass/run). So there should be Conversions with different values.

Like this--2 points from 5m line, 3 points from 22m line, 4 points from halfway-line. Do you think that this is a very strange idea?

No i think it all makes sense, rugby isn't in anyway complciated so a difficult and convoluted points scoring system is EXACTLY what it needs.

 

[kenny_bee180]

I would consider reducing the value of pens to 2points and drop goals to 1point like league. It then would perhaps stop teams from just going for the sticks everytime you get a pen within 40m.
Some players can take getting on for 2mins to take the kick.
It also seems quite unfair to me that a team could score more trys and completely dominate the game, and still lose.

 

[kenny_bee180]

Changing the size of the pitch would ruin the game. It would be easier to kick deep, so teams would kick even more.
There would be less room for the backs to express themselves so it would become a forward orientated game.
Also the original post isn't to clear. But it seems your suggesting that they reduce the size of the in goal area. This would all but stop grubbers and cross field kicks.

 

[goodNumber10]

it might stop teams going for goal, but it would also probably see a raise in penalities as teams coudl infringe safe in the knowledge they'd only conceed 2 points.

If a team scores more points and dominates, they shouldn't really give away enough penalties to lose.

Teams, generally, conceed penalties when under pressure. The, generally, do so to snub out an attack, it is an reward for a team in a dominant position/passage of play.

 

[sigesige00]

sigesige just keeps on keepin' on.

Could you tell me the exact meaning of "keep on keeping on"? In Japan my favourite singer was singing a song with this ***le.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJXtnfWyMqQ

 

[kenny_bee180]

it might stop teams going for goal, but it would also probably see a raise in penalities as teams coudl infringe safe in the knowledge they'd only conceed 2 points.

If a team scores more points and dominates, they shouldn't really give away enough penalties to lose.

Teams, generally, conceed penalties when under pressure. The, generally, do so to snub out an attack, it is an reward for a team in a dominant position/passage of play.

As I wrote the word "dominate" I questioned myself if it was the correct choice of word. But I couldn't be bothered to delete it and think of a more appropriate word.
I would just rather a team kick to touch and go for the 5 points over the 3. It would make the game much more entertaining. And tbh a driving maul is one of the most beautiful sights in rugby.

 

[goodNumber10]

As I wrote the word "dominate" I questioned myself if it was the correct choice of word. But I couldn't be bothered to delete it and think of a more appropriate word.
I would just rather a team kick to touch and go for the 5 points over the 3. It would make the game much more entertaining. And tbh a driving maul is one of the most beautiful sights in rugby.

i get you, but the beauty of rugby union is that it's a game of tactics and that is a genuine tactical consideration as to whether they take the 3 or go for the 5.

 

[sigesige00]

lol!

Do you mean "I totally agree"?

 

[kenny_bee180]

i get you, but the beauty of rugby union is that it's a game of tactics and that is a genuine tactical consideration as to whether they take the 3 or go for the 5.

Very true. But 2 points for a pen would still punish the undisciplined teams.
But I reckon as your not getting such an award teams would only go for the sticks if the chances of converting were high.
Coming in from the side On the halfway line and then conceding over half the value of a try seems unfair and reduces the value of a well worked try.
Having said that. If this was the case we would have never won the world cup (I'm English btw)

 

[sigesige00]

I would consider reducing the value of pens to 2points and drop goals to 1point like league. It then would perhaps stop teams from just going for the sticks everytime you get a pen within 40m.
Some players can take getting on for 2mins to take the kick.
It also seems quite unfair to me that a team could score more trys and completely dominate the game, and still lose.

The value of PG should be decreased from 3 to 2--but in the case from team's own half the value should be 3.
And under the current rule in the case of FK, scoring by kicking is not allowed. But it should be allowed--the value should be 1, and 2 in the case from team's own half.

And the time should be changed to the playing-time system (20mins half).