Improving the game

[William Fenn]

The world cup final was governed by the ability to get a penalty at almost every scrum using brute force! The current rule whereby going down, up, backwards or wheeling along with blatant feeding has ruined scrums and for what? Safety? ********! The other thing I believe should be looked at is pads. Players are hiding behind shields so they can commit body tackles they wouldn't risk without so we see more high chest and enevitably neck tackles and the big men that come out with forearms bound up to the elbows! What's that all about other than being able to chin someone either as you tackle them or fending off tackles when carrying!
Like the world, rugby needs to go backwards to move forwards!

 

[profitius]

Ive said it a thousand times. Reduce the number of subs to 5 players. That way teams cannot bring on a new set of forwards american football style. Teams would need to wait until later in the game to make the changes which means forwards would have to be fitter which means they would have to lose some weight.

 

[die_mole]

The world cup final was governed by the ability to get a penalty at almost every scrum using brute force! The current rule whereby going down, up, backwards or wheeling along with blatant feeding has ruined scrums and for what? Safety? ********! The other thing I believe should be looked at is pads. Players are hiding behind shields so they can commit body tackles they wouldn't risk without so we see more high chest and enevitably neck tackles and the big men that come out with forearms bound up to the elbows! What's that all about other than being able to chin someone either as you tackle them or fending off tackles when carrying!
Like the world, rugby needs to go backwards to move forwards!

woah, what the hell does this mean?

 

[William Fenn]

It means going back to 15 bloke's playing Rugby in boots, socks, shirts and shorts for the length of the game and substituted if injured and unable to continue! Like it used to be till the money boys got involved!
It's getting more like the chess game american footballers play!
With regards to the world, have you seen their putting up wind Mills and water wheels now with cars running on coal (fired power station's) ? Back to the future!

 

[BPM]

Smoking crack is clearly a worse epidemic than most of us had realised until now.

 

[Scotty]

The world cup final was governed by the ability to get a penalty at almost every scrum using brute force! The current rule whereby going down, up, backwards or wheeling along with blatant feeding has ruined scrums and for what? Safety? ********! The other thing I believe should be looked at is pads. Players are hiding behind shields so they can commit body tackles they wouldn't risk without so we see more high chest and enevitably neck tackles and the big men that come out with forearms bound up to the elbows! What's that all about other than being able to chin someone either as you tackle them or fending off tackles when carrying!
Like the world, rugby needs to go backwards to move forwards!

Your really complaining that brute force was used in the scrum? Are you bitter because a more powerful pack got the better of us(England)?

You dont have to put the ball in the centre anyway and tbh feeding has been a thing aslong as i can remember.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

...i agree a team shouldn't penalised just because the other team is stronger, free kick, having the ball is your reward for being stronger

...after that everything just started to read a bit like gibberish

 

[Reiser99]

I'd said it for a while, but I believe penalties at the scrum should only be awarded if a player collapses the scrum straight away. If the scrum is stable for 3-5 seconds then anything after that should only be a free kick. This will help improve it in a few ways. First you won't have as many collapses because players on the weaker side will starting scrummaging better as they know that they can only concede a free kick at maximum if they scrummage properly. It will stop teams trying to milk a penalty and so be safer for players as they won't have to be put under as much pressure. Finally it will speed the game up massively as teams won't waste time just for a free kick, which is the whole point of a scrum in that it's meant to be a restart.

S.A won fair and square and they were the better team. However for me it was the scrum which killed the game and stopped it being a true contest, just as it did when S.A played Japan. As soon as England and Japan were conceding regular penalties at the scrum it became almost impossible to play properly as it meant handling had to be perfect. They also couldn't just switch to a kicking game as S.A just kicked it straight back and again handling had to be perfect. Any handling errors almost always led to a penalty. At that point you lose all momentum and S.A could just grind them down and wait for opportunities to exploit. It was an excellent tactic and executed perfectly. NZ were able to win by being clinical and having excellent handling, but that's extremely hard to do.

As a rugby fan, I personally don't like the idea of teams winning (any teams) because they dominate one area so much that it almost makes the other aspects of the game redundant.

 

[Scotty]

...i agree a team shouldn't penalised just because the other team is stronger, free kick, having the ball is your reward for being stronger

...after that everything just started to read a bit like gibberish

But on the other side of that the having the ball doesnt mean your stronger just means you held your own or are equal, being dominant, if that is physical power or prop technique should be rewarded, as long as its instant, ball gets to the back if your not moving forward then use it. But if you have physical dominance then you do deserve the penalty.

For the record in no lover of the scrum and prefer quick ball. Hate all the time wasted on resets but may aswell go uncontested if you not getting rewarded for dominance.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

But on the other side of that the having the ball doesnt mean your stronger just means you held your own or are equal, being dominant, if that is physical power or prop technique should be rewarded, as long as its instant, ball gets to the back if your not moving forward then use it. But if you have physical dominance then you do deserve the penalty.

For the record in no lover of the scrum and prefer quick ball. Hate all the time wasted on resets but may aswell go uncontested if you not getting rewarded for dominance.

penalties aren't a reward...they're a punishment for someone doing something wrong...and being weaker isn't something a team can actually fix

being given the ball (free kick) is the reward

 

[TRF_heineken]

Ive said it a thousand times. Reduce the number of subs to 5 players. That way teams cannot bring on a new set of forwards american football style. Teams would need to wait until later in the game to make the changes which means forwards would have to be fitter which means they would have to lose some weight.

See, I don't agree here. Rugby has always been about the inclusion of every shape and size person. We have the fatties at prop, the tall ones at lock, the shorties at scrumhalf and wing, and so on.

Plus you are forgetting that a couple of years ago, we went through a period where the scrums weren't deemed so important, and that teams started to play slimmer, more agile guys at prop to speed up the game. Then there was an outrage because most fans said that it was starting to look like rugby league, and the rugby union is losing it's identity by not keeping their core fundamentals such as lineouts and scrums in tact.

It's not about losing weight. Pieter-Steph Du Toit was probably one of the fittest players at the tournament, and in the playoffs he played every single minute of the springboks campaign. Yet he weighs +-117kgs.

Plus to win a scrum isn't about the mass of the players, but rather the technique and timing and strength of the players. Some guys weigh around 110kg's and then they overpower a 130kg guy because they have the better technique.

 

[profitius]

See, I don't agree here. Rugby has always been about the inclusion of every shape and size person. We have the fatties at prop, the tall ones at lock, the shorties at scrumhalf and wing, and so on.

Plus you are forgetting that a couple of years ago, we went through a period where the scrums weren't deemed so important, and that teams started to play slimmer, more agile guys at prop to speed up the game. Then there was an outrage because most fans said that it was starting to look like rugby league, and the rugby union is losing it's identity by not keeping their core fundamentals such as lineouts and scrums in tact.

It's not about losing weight. Pieter-Steph Du Toit was probably one of the fittest players at the tournament, and in the playoffs he played every single minute of the springboks campaign. Yet he weighs +-117kgs.

Plus to win a scrum isn't about the mass of the players, but rather the technique and timing and strength of the players. Some guys weigh around 110kg's and then they overpower a 130kg guy because they have the better technique.

It'll balance out in the end. Props couldn't slim down too much because theyll get destroyed in some games when up against bigger, less fit props. So coaches will need to get the balance right between fitness and size.


And you say it's not about slimming down. Well if it went to 5 subs every team would need to lose the kgs, guaranteed. PSDT might be extremely fit but if the game went even faster he would have to adapt.


A faster more skilled game would be better for Asian countries too and would mean less players were picked because they're over a certain size.

 

[TRF_heineken]

It'll balance out in the end. Props couldn't slim down too much because theyll get destroyed in some games when up against bigger, less fit props. So coaches will need to get the balance right between fitness and size.


And you say it's not about slimming down. Well if it went to 5 subs every team would need to lose the kgs, guaranteed. PSDT might be extremely fit but if the game went even faster he would have to adapt.


A faster more skilled game would be better for Asian countries too and would mean less players were picked because they're over a certain size.

I'm so glad you brought up the point of balance.

But what you are suggesting, is to tip the scales in favour of a certain grouping of teams whose players aren't necessarily physically stronger/bigger, but rather smaller/faster/agile.

To me that wouldn't balance the game out at all.

And your suggestion of only having 5 subs could have a detrimental effect on the game. Teams might then opt not to replace their props at all, and instead send their locks, flankers and backline players on the field to replace a prop, which would then lead to uncontested scrums. To illustrate my example, let's say the props are perfectly fine in the game, but others get injured in the game, some in the first half, or early in the second half. Then by around the 60min mark, you are left with maybe 2 subs allowed, and then instead of sending on a prop to replace a tired prop, you send your x-factor utility back, to try and create some magic to help you win the game. that leaves you with one sub, so you replace a prop, but not necessarily with another prop. Uncontested scrums, while you have the x-factor guys ready to pounce.

I think the balance is fine just as it is. In the Japan conditions it seemed to be a great move to have the 6/2 split for SA, but it won't necessarily work when we play in France or Australia where the conditions are totally different.

 

[profitius]

I'm so glad you brought up the point of balance.

But what you are suggesting, is to tip the scales in favour of a certain grouping of teams whose players aren't necessarily physically stronger/bigger, but rather smaller/faster/agile.

To me that wouldn't balance the game out at all.

And your suggestion of only having 5 subs could have a detrimental effect on the game. Teams might then opt not to replace their props at all, and instead send their locks, flankers and backline players on the field to replace a prop, which would then lead to uncontested scrums. To illustrate my example, let's say the props are perfectly fine in the game, but others get injured in the game, some in the first half, or early in the second half. Then by around the 60min mark, you are left with maybe 2 subs allowed, and then instead of sending on a prop to replace a tired prop, you send your x-factor utility back, to try and create some magic to help you win the game. that leaves you with one sub, so you replace a prop, but not necessarily with another prop. Uncontested scrums, while you have the x-factor guys ready to pounce.

I think the balance is fine just as it is. In the Japan conditions it seemed to be a great move to have the 6/2 split for SA, but it won't necessarily work when we play in France or Australia where the conditions are totally different.

So lowering weight therefore having more teams competitive would be less balanced than it is now?


As for the uncontested scrum theory, it's the same as it is now. When I say 5 subs, I mean you can still have 8 players on the subs bench but only are allowed to select 5.

 

[TRF_heineken]

So lowering weight therefore having more teams competitive would be less balanced than it is now?

You are oversimplifying it. As it is now, every team can be competitive in every aspect of the game on any day, but it's the strategy and execution of the gameplan which seperates the winners from the losers.

As for the uncontested scrum theory, it's the same as it is now. When I say 5 subs, I mean you can still have 8 players on the subs bench but only are allowed to select 5.

So of the 5 subs allowed, 2 MUST then be for the props.

 

[TheOvalBall]

Time-out at scrums, and when ball is put in, time-on.

 

[Scotty]

You are oversimplifying it. As it is now, every team can be competitive in every aspect of the game on any day, but it's the strategy and execution of the gameplan which seperates the winners from the losers.




So of the 5 subs allowed, 2 MUST then be for the props.

I agree on your first point, take the final England were coprehensivly beaten by physicality up front. But PSDT shooting out the line at every oppertunity to target ford made our game slower and forced us into mistakes, had ford kept his cool and passed well or PSDT not chased as well we could have attacked in the wide channels more and attacked in a different way. I big pack only means you cant run through them.


On your second point i wonder if we would start to get props that can cover both sides so as to only change as and when needed. Props are able to play a full game. Of the 8 2 must be props but of the 5 your allowed, if your scrum is functioning and props are fit enough props could end up plYing 80 as could FHs SHs ect who often get replaced.

Im not for this tbh i want it to stay with 8 subs allowed

 

[Scotty]

Time-out at scrums, and when ball is put in, time-on.

I want as i said before the clock to stop after the first reset and only restart after the ref says crouch.

Also a tap and go style free kick(instead of a regular free kick) meaning exactly that. You let the team retreat and either kick it(same rules apply as open play) or tap and go. Awarded instead of a normal free kick. This stops multiple resets, free kick reset penalty. Penalty only awarded for a clear collapse.

 

[TRF_heineken]

On your second point i wonder if we would start to get props that can cover both sides so as to only change as and when needed. Props are able to play a full game. Of the 8 2 must be props but of the 5 your allowed, if your scrum is functioning and props are fit enough props could end up plYing 80 as could FHs SHs ect who often get replaced.

Im not for this tbh i want it to stay with 8 subs allowed

Yeah, but that was already tried in the past, and it didn't work. There was a time where many props were on the bench to cover both loosehead and tighthead, and then came on depending on which prop gets injured first, but it didn't really work as the other prop then later on also had to go off, and then it lead to uncontested scrums.

The issue to remember is that the subs bench was increased from 7 to 8 in order to force all teams to have 2 props and a hooker on the bench because these players take the most strain in a game. It would be severely counterproductive to limit the substitutions to only 5 as it would IMHO cause more injuries and fatigue than before. There are already so many games in the year and we see coaches everywhere talking about too many games being played in a season and that the players are getting injured more often. Now limiting the subs to 5 would just increase these injuries and then the issue of depth will become an issue again. And then we'll hear that WR isn't taking the players safety seriously and that test caps are being cheapened because coaches are forced to cap more players just because of injuries.

We really don't need to restart that cycle again...

 

[Scotty]

Yeah, but that was already tried in the past, and it didn't work. There was a time where many props were on the bench to cover both loosehead and tighthead, and then came on depending on which prop gets injured first, but it didn't really work as the other prop then later on also had to go off, and then it lead to uncontested scrums.

The issue to remember is that the subs bench was increased from 7 to 8 in order to force all teams to have 2 props and a hooker on the bench because these players take the most strain in a game. It would be severely counterproductive to limit the substitutions to only 5 as it would IMHO cause more injuries and fatigue than before. There are already so many games in the year and we see coaches everywhere talking about too many games being played in a season and that the players are getting injured more often. Now limiting the subs to 5 would just increase these injuries and then the issue of depth will become an issue again. And then we'll hear that WR isn't taking the players safety seriously and that test caps are being cheapened because coaches are forced to cap more players just because of injuries.

We really don't need to restart that cycle again...

As i said in my previous post at the end im not for it changing to 5 subs i was just trying to look at it from another point of view. But i do agree with what your saying