Reduce number of players

[dropkick]

Tony Ward suggests today that rugby should remove 2 players to open up space.

Tony Ward: Move to 13-a-side only way rugby can avoid slow death by strangulation
http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugb...-30997751.html


This is something I've been thinking about as well. I would:
A, reduce the number of players to 14.
B, have 8 subs on the bench but only allow a team to make 6 substitutions.


14 man team
It might be the same number of players as the amateur days but since the game has gone pro, players have become much fitter and that means more of the pitch can be covered by a player.

Defences have become more organised which cuts down even more space.

Less space to play swings the balance to power. That means having bigger players. Other teams have to go bigger then which is a cycle rugby is stuck in at the moment.

Less space and more collisions with bigger and bigger men has resulted in an injury crisis throughout rugby. Concussions are rising all the time which is a disaster waiting to happen.


6 subs
This should be the first thing world rugby look at. With size increasing, a big part of that is down to how teams are using the subs bench these days.

Before players were supposed to last for 80min and only go off injured. Now the subs bench is used as part of the gameplan. France take it to extremes. They've all unfit heavyweights on the bench, basically to come on and do some boshing. Its easy to do that since there are 8 subs allowed.

If there were 6 subs allowed it would mean a coach could only make a small few tactical changes because they would need to save some subsitutions to cover injuries. That means a fitter squad which means smaller players.



With those changes I think there would be more space on the pitch to exploit which means small players would come back into fashion and we'd see fewer 19st+ players. It should also result in less injuries.

[goreyguy]

Why do people keep trying to change rugby?

[Logorrhea]

6 subs
This should be the first thing world rugby look at. With size increasing, a big part of that is down to how teams are using the subs bench these days.

Before players were supposed to last for 80min and only go off injured. Now the subs bench is used as part of the gameplan. France take it to extremes. They've all unfit heavyweights on the bench, basically to come on and do some boshing. Its easy to do that since there are 8 subs allowed.

If there were 6 subs allowed it would mean a coach could only make a small few tactical changes because they would need to save some subsitutions to cover injuries. That means a fitter squad which means smaller players.

Agree with this. The bench is playing more of a tactical role than was ever imagined it would.

Do not agree with reducing the number of players. That's just silly.

how's about we look to putting up glass walls or nets around the pitch to stop the ball from going out of play at all? We could split the game into 8 semi-quarters of 10minutes and include two "power semi-quarters" (copyright), where each team gets to select one opposition player forcing them top hop around on one leg for the 10 minute period.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

Why do people keep trying to change rugby?

I used to feel that way but in fairness to the IRB/World Rugby they've made loads of changes over the last ten years and most of them have worked well.

I think this whole thing about physicality/concussion is getting to the stage where something will be done to counter it.

The first thing I would do is stress to refs to penalise players leading with the forearm. Get the TMOs to be hot on it too.

Next thing I would do is go back to the way the breakdown used to be in terms of getting over the ball. More of a contest at the breakdown would tie players in and leave more space out wide. It would also mean that we had more traditional/smaller 7s which might counter the way back rows are going which is to just have three huge men.

Reducing players or any talk about limiting the weights of teams is ridiculous IMO but the one radical suggestion I'd have it was absolutely necessary would be to widen the pitch by a metre or two.

[simonokeeffe]

Why do people keep trying to change rugby?

I used to feel that way but in fairness to the IRB/World Rugby they've made loads of changes over the last ten years and most of them have worked well.

I think this whole thing about physicality/concussion is getting to the stage where something will be done to counter it.

The first thing I would do is stress to refs to penalise players leading with the forearm. Get the TMOs to be hot on it too.

Next thing I would do is go back to the way the breakdown used to be in terms of getting over the ball. More of a contest at the breakdown would tie players in and leave more space out wide. It would also mean that we had more traditional/smaller 7s which might counter the way back rows are going which is to just have three huge men.

Reducing players or any talk about limiting the weights of teams is ridiculous IMO but the one radical suggestion I'd have it was absolutely necessary would be to widen the pitch by a metre or two.

but making the breakdown more of a contest led to teams kicking the ball away like mad, see 2007 RWC

reducing number of allowable subs a good idea IMO

if they want to open game up just enforce existing rules on offside, more yellow cards for repeat penalties etc

[LeRouxIsPHat]

That period of constant kicking was very short, wasn't a problem until that WC and it didn't last long after that with the revised rules.

With that said, I think there's an argument for saying that more kicking would reduce the physicality, which could again be appealing to the powers that be. Obviously there's a balance there with them wanting it to be entertaining, but just saying it might be considered.

I always hated the way it became harder to compete on the deck when they started enforcing the clear release (feckin ruined my game too!) but I don't actually see them changing that. What I would like to see is that they stop letting attacking teams seal off the ball. Always amazes me that a defender is done immediately for going off their feet but the attacker can nearly always get away with it. A defender looks at a ruck that's been sealed off and just fans out even if there's only one person in it (not that that's technically a ruck but you know what I mean). The other thing is something that has become prevalent over the last few months, tacklers rolling away in the direction of the ball/the scrumhalf meaning the slow down play. It's so obviously cynical, can't understand why it's not being picked up. Clean up those areas and you might see more space and quicker ball.

I'm worried that the game will go the opposite way and just become more like Super Rugby/glorified TAG.

There'll be something else to fix in a year or two though anyway. It's bit like tax avoidance, teams will just find other ways to con the ref.

[paddyor]

That period of constant kicking was very short, wasn't a problem until that WC and it didn't last long after that with the revised rules.

With that said, I think there's an argument for saying that more kicking would reduce the physicality, which could again be appealing to the powers that be. Obviously there's a balance there with them wanting it to be entertaining, but just saying it might be considered.

I always hated the way it became harder to compete on the deck when they started enforcing the clear release (feckin ruined my game too!) but I don't actually see them changing that. What I would like to see is that they stop letting attacking teams seal off the ball. Always amazes me that a defender is done immediately for going off their feet but the attacker can nearly always get away with it. A defender looks at a ruck that's been sealed off and just fans out even if there's only one person in it (not that that's technically a ruck but you know what I mean). The other thing is something that has become prevalent over the last few months, tacklers rolling away in the direction of the ball/the scrumhalf meaning the slow down play. It's so obviously cynical, can't understand why it's not being picked up. Clean up those areas and you might see more space and quicker ball

I'm worried that the game will go the opposite way and just become more like Super Rugby/glorified TAG.

There'll be something else to fix in a year or two though anyway. It's bit like tax avoidance, teams will just find other ways to con the ref.

It's something Toulon are very good at IMO. France were at it as well and got away with a few times on Saturday I think the refs are trying to crack down on it hence them being harsh when players don't immediately roll away. Best got pinged for for the 2nd penalty France kicked I think for this reason though I thought it was harsh as a French player came in from the side to pin him in.

[Morf]

Lazy runners going into the defensive line in front of where 9 is passing or obstructing him as he reaches the ruck is another.

Mattie Williams had a great rant about that on Setanta.

[dropkick]

Do not agree with reducing the number of players. That's just silly.

how's about we look to putting up glass walls or nets around the pitch to stop the ball from going out of play at all? We could split the game into 8 semi-quarters of 10minutes and include two "power semi-quarters" (copyright), where each team gets to select one opposition player forcing them top hop around on one leg for the 10 minute period.

How is it silly having 1 less player? I've mentioned some pros but what are the cons?

[JB1973]

Concussion seems to be the major worry at present but reducing the numbers is not the answer, there are only 13 Men RL still get concussions there .

I can see head guards being made compulsory in the future, also seen touted 1) a maxium weight for players 2) ban tackling above the waist to stop the head on head contact

Can't see either being law in the near future, the irb have brought some good rules in during recent years (banning shoulder charge, arms in the tackle, etc ) even taking away the hit at scrum seems to be helping re injuries. Not sure how much more they can do , it's simply the size and power of these guys that is leading to more injuries

[Golf Man]

Concussion seems to be the major worry at present but reducing the numbers is not the answer, there are only 13 Men RL still get concussions there .

I can see head guards being made compulsory in the future, also seen touted 1) a maxium weight for players 2) ban tackling above the waist to stop the head on head contact

Can't see either being law in the near future, the irb have brought some good rules in during recent years (banning shoulder charge, arms in the tackle, etc ) even taking away the hit at scrum seems to be helping re injuries. Not sure how much more they can do , it's simply the size and power of these guys that is leading to more injuries

Thing is that they have to do something.

-The current players, whether people like it or not are guinea pigs - this is an appalling situation to be in and Rugby can't ignore it - there is enough medical info out there now
- Young kids will be stopped from playing - and its very hard to argue against anyone who takes this stance. 15/16 year olds shouldn't be struggling with injuries, getting regular concussions etc - there will be injuries in every sport but it shouldn't be the norm, which is becoming the case

I do think clearer and stronger applications of existing laws with harsher penalties would help. Not sure how many concussions are happening at rucktime - would have thought it is more in the open field collisions etc

- The subs idea is a good one
- You can't just eliminate the idea of reducing numbers - problem is it is generally accepted that you get rid of the two flankers - does have 6 v 6 and 7 outside backs mean more space than 8v8 and 7 outside backs?
- Weight restrictions for senior players won't work - but should definitely be used right up to U-18 - let the skills rather than the size flourish and this could find its way through to the pro game - as well as protecting kids
- Headgear for all is a no brainer imo
- Independent doctors is also a no brainer
- Any sign or symptom of concussion should result in the player immediately being taken off - no protocols none of that shite - and a properly enforced rest period => no player taken off in this instance should be playing 7 days later for example
- Harsher penalties as above - leading with elbow, over physical cheap shots when clearing out, etc - consistent yellow cards
- Punching - while this is maybe not the cause of the concussion its a bugbear of mine - it should be punished far more severely - its almost condoned in rugby (a bit like ice hockey but not as bad) - has no place and desperate image wise

[LeRouxIsPHat]

Ah here, I love a good punch up. As long as it's not like the Rugby League Grand Final it's usually alright. Not that you're wrong to suggest that it should be punished more severely.

There's another big article in the Times today about concussion. A Clongowes player got a blow to the head and was very wobbly on his feet and fell over, then got some treatment and carried on. This isn't going to go away any time soon.

The way I see it, it's not really that big an issue, but World Rugby will be compelled to do something and could use the opportunity to create more space on the field and change the trend of using bigger and bigger men to get over the gain line. When I say it's not that big of an issue, awareness of concussion and making sure players are removed and monitored is obviously hugely important, I'm just not sure that it's happening THAT much more these days and think it's more likely that it seems that way because of the spotlight on it. But some subtle changes could help decrease the number of incidents and improve attacking play so let's see what we can do.

[Flash Gordon]

The other alternative is to go back to the old days where you could only be replaced if you were injured. Difficult for 20 stone freaks to do what they do over 80 minutes. In the old days gaps used to open up in the last 20 minutes, now they just send on the special teams.

[Oldschoolsocks]

I have just had the chance to read this article,

I really enjoyed the match. It was as Tony put it

...a hugely intense tribal contest in which we won

, but the fact that

Les Bleus play[ing} rugby with gay abandon

seems to be a thing of the past and is damaging the game and the only logical solution is to reduce the number of players.

However I actually don't believe that Tony Ward actually believes what he has written. Thw quote below show where he really thinks the source of the french performance came from. Philippe Saint Andre seemed to send his team out to play with inadequate preparation:

In relation to Lopez: "It is fine to pass to Mathieu Bastareaud from time to time because he sucks in three players to bring him down; however, we need to alternate our play, give it some variety and feed it down the backline or kick in behind the Irish backs."

Where did this Damascus moment come from? His opposite number Joe Schmidt would have spent all week and longer discussing in minute detail precisely the same plan of action for Johnny Sexton and Conor Murray. It's called sensible game management and can be found on page one of the Dummy's Guide to Out-half Play.

Now I cannot claim to have watched every major rugby match over the last three years, but it seems to me that our Southern brethren in the Rugby Championship and Super Rugby seem to be able to play some open exciting rugby, scoring plenty of tries and entertaining stuff to boot. And them Boks and Polynesians ... (sorry I mean New Zealanders) can be pretty big blokes. So the argument that it's big fit men causing the issues does not seem compelling at all.

the answer may end up being reducing the number of players on the field, however it just might be an idea to investigate what is working for them?

On the number and seriousness of concussions in the modern game, I don't think this is a new thing, it is just starting to be recognised (and about time I say), it seems the obvious first step should be to ensure all tackles are at least below nipple level (can I saw nipple?), an possible side effect of this might be to make passing and offloading out of the tackle easier, and increasing the number of line breaks.

[FLIP]

The idea that a few millimetres of foam stops concussions is dangerous, in my opinion.

[Golf Man]

I have just had the chance to read this article,

I really enjoyed the match. It was as Tony put it

...a hugely intense tribal contest in which we won

, but the fact that

Les Bleus play[ing} rugby with gay abandon

seems to be a thing of the past and is damaging the game and the only logical solution is to reduce the number of players.

However I actually don't believe that Tony Ward actually believes what he has written. Thw quote below show where he really thinks the source of the french performance came from. Philippe Saint Andre seemed to send his team out to play with inadequate preparation:

In relation to Lopez: "It is fine to pass to Mathieu Bastareaud from time to time because he sucks in three players to bring him down; however, we need to alternate our play, give it some variety and feed it down the backline or kick in behind the Irish backs."

Where did this Damascus moment come from? His opposite number Joe Schmidt would have spent all week and longer discussing in minute detail precisely the same plan of action for Johnny Sexton and Conor Murray. It's called sensible game management and can be found on page one of the Dummy's Guide to Out-half Play.

Now I cannot claim to have watched every major rugby match over the last three years, but it seems to me that our Southern brethren in the Rugby Championship and Super Rugby seem to be able to play some open exciting rugby, scoring plenty of tries and entertaining stuff to boot. And them Boks and Polynesians ... (sorry I mean New Zealanders) can be pretty big blokes. So the argument that it's big fit men causing the issues does not seem compelling at all.

the answer may end up being reducing the number of players on the field, however it just might be an idea to investigate what is working for them?

On the number and seriousness of concussions in the modern game, I don't think this is a new thing, it is just starting to be recognised (and about time I say), it seems the obvious first step should be to ensure all tackles are at least below nipple level (can I saw nipple?), an possible side effect of this might be to make passing and offloading out of the tackle easier, and increasing the number of line breaks.

IMO this kind of comes from the simple idea of developing skills first and foremost as kids - these come to the fore rather than the size (bit like Barcelona in soccer) That said I don't think there are any less injuries in the Southern Hemisphere than there are here, but its certainly a better style - they tend to play more games in better conditions as well which definitely helps

The idea that a few millimetres of foam stops concussions is dangerous, in my opinion.

If it came across as that it wasn't meant to - the constant injuries issue is an overall one (although most of eth focus is rightly on concussion). IScrumcaps are proven to be effective with regards to cuts, abrasions, ears etc - if all kids have to wear them then it will just become standard in time for everyone to wear the them. Its a simple but effective measure of preventing a certain type of injury - and in theory in would lead to less blood subsitutions - which ties in with the earlier suggestion regharding use of the bench

[JB1973]

the increase in concussion is good 1 way it shows at least more cases are now being diagnosed.

Have to say at grass roots level when I played and I think for pretty much all of us here if you have the bare 15 and you take a knock on the head, 9 times out of 10 your going to play on because your team needs you and you feel by going off your letting them down.

How often were we told as players "never show your hurt"

Wether you will ever change that mindset in rugby players I don't know ?

[Oldschoolsocks]

Postby JB1973 » February 20th, 2015, 11:27 am

the increase in concussion is good 1 way it shows at least more cases are now being diagnosed.

Have to say at grass roots level when I played and I think for pretty much all of us here if you have the bare 15 and you take a knock on the head, 9 times out of 10 your going to play on because your team needs you and you feel by going off your letting them down.

How often were we told as players "never show your hurt"

Wether you will ever change that mindset in rugby players I don't know ?

not sure who owns this quote:

footballers spend 90 minutes pretending they’re hurt, rugby players spend 80 minutes pretending they’re not.

I don't think that the mindset of the rugby player will change, and I think that's a good thing, perhaps what needs to be looked at is the competence of the coaches and officials in recognising concussions and other serious injury. Surely a common sense approach similar to the "Friends don't let friends drive drunk" campaign would see results.

Oh and on another note -- playing on while injured is not exclusive to rugby -- during my short and inglorious hockey career people played on with broken noses, ripped hands and knees etc.. and I personally witnessed a black belt grading (kenpo) where the student injured his ankle half way through, strapped it up and kept going. When he turned up for his presentation the following Tuesday it turned out he had broken the ankle, but kept going regardless.

[Sionnach]

Mandatory headgear in American Football just led to more and more head clashes and it's not as if they have no problems with concussion.

I don't think it's a 'no brainer' to introduce mandatory headgear at all.

[Oldschoolsocks]

Postby Sionnach » 20 Feb 2015, 12:28

Mandatory headgear in American Football just led to more and more head clashes and it's not as if they have no problems with concussion.

I don't think it's a 'no brainer' to introduce mandatory headgear at all.

this