weight restrictions

[El Diablo]

I hate agreeing with Neil Francis but I have to say he is spot on today:
http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/n ... 31393.html
The game is being ruined and the health of young men being put at risk by this movement to massive weight. The other thing that could be done is stop this wholesale change oft he entire front row after 60 mins....make them run for 80mins and there wont be too many 150kg props!

[simonokeeffe]

I hate agreeing with Neil Francis but I have to say he is spot on today:
http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/n ... 31393.html
The game is being ruined and the health of young men being put at risk by this movement to massive weight. The other thing that could be done is stop this wholesale change oft he entire front row after 60 mins....make them run for 80mins and there wont be too many 150kg props!

havent/wont read article but long thought limited number of subs plus you lose a player if you go over to replace a front rower and players get fitter and lighter and game is more skillful

[Fireworks]

The article identifies the issue but then comes up with a simplistic unworkable answer. There is no way that you could or should put limits on the players size but they should go with changes to rules to fix the problem.

It all began with Lomu. Before then big guys were forwards, the shortest guy was 9 and everyone else was a back of some form. Once Lomu appeared coaches started to look at big guys and wonder if they could stick them out with the backs for more impact. My schools coach took our number 8 and tried him at 13 for all of half a game.

The more a coach pushes size the less I think of them as they are showing that they do not have the coaching skills to get the best from the players so are resorting to brute force.. NZ have proved it is unnecessary to go large.

I would start with policing the off side rules and a few other tweeks to provide more space. There are lots of possibilities outside of banning guys from playing because their genes made them big.

[dropkick]

I hate agreeing with Neil Francis but I have to say he is spot on today:
http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/n ... 31393.html
The game is being ruined and the health of young men being put at risk by this movement to massive weight. The other thing that could be done is stop this wholesale change oft he entire front row after 60 mins....make them run for 80mins and there wont be too many 150kg props!

havent/wont read article but long thought limited number of subs plus you lose a player if you go over to replace a front rower and players get fitter and lighter and game is more skillful

+1. Substitutions are the main problem. If players had to last longer they would need to be smaller.

[simonokeeffe]

It would also level the field against Toulons of this world

[Logorrhea]

+1. Substitutions are the main problem. If players had to last longer they would need to be smaller.

+2 Agreed.

[ormond lad]

The article identifies the issue but then comes up with a simplistic unworkable answer. There is no way that you could or should put limits on the players size but they should go with changes to rules to fix the problem.

It all began with Lomu. Before then big guys were forwards, the shortest guy was 9 and everyone else was a back of some form. Once Lomu appeared coaches started to look at big guys and wonder if they could stick them out with the backs for more impact. My schools coach took our number 8 and tried him at 13 for all of half a game.

The more a coach pushes size the less I think of them as they are showing that they do not have the coaching skills to get the best from the players so are resorting to brute force.. NZ have proved it is unnecessary to go large.

I would start with policing the off side rules and a few other tweeks to provide more space. There are lots of possibilities outside of banning guys from playing because their genes made them big.

+1
Just putting a limit on weights isn't the way forward.
Limiting subs. Why?
You can work on ways to get players smaller without limiting the number of subs you can replace in a game. You only have 1 player to replace a 2nd row/back row and outside back per game if you have specialist front rows and half backs on the bench so limiting subs isn't really the answer.
And limiting subs doesn't really help in terms of closing gap between Toulons and others.

[simonokeeffe]

The article identifies the issue but then comes up with a simplistic unworkable answer. There is no way that you could or should put limits on the players size but they should go with changes to rules to fix the problem.

It all began with Lomu. Before then big guys were forwards, the shortest guy was 9 and everyone else was a back of some form. Once Lomu appeared coaches started to look at big guys and wonder if they could stick them out with the backs for more impact. My schools coach took our number 8 and tried him at 13 for all of half a game.

The more a coach pushes size the less I think of them as they are showing that they do not have the coaching skills to get the best from the players so are resorting to brute force.. NZ have proved it is unnecessary to go large.

I would start with policing the off side rules and a few other tweeks to provide more space. There are lots of possibilities outside of banning guys from playing because their genes made them big.

+1
Just putting a limit on weights isn't the way forward.
Limiting subs. Why?
You can work on ways to get players smaller without limiting the number of subs you can replace in a game. You only have 1 player to replace a 2nd row/back row and outside back per game if you have specialist front rows and half backs on the bench so limiting subs isn't really the answer.
And limiting subs doesn't really help in terms of closing gap between Toulons and others.

I disagree
If you say youre only allowed4 or 5 subs instead of 8, and you have to maintain competitive scrums/competent front rowers so you go down to 14 men if you use all your subs and have to bring on a front rower, then instead of preplanning 8 subs, but for relevancy 5 or 6 forward subs, coaches will preplan less subs so more players have (be able to) last the 80, and its easier to get your 4-8 to play 80 then jimmy someone in at 9 or 10

so then you cant say look a big fat 8, front row and lock all only have to play 45-55

It stops chequebook clubs as they can guarantee less gametime to to players so players might not coagulate in a smaller number of clubs when they can get way more gametime at a slightly smaller club

[ormond lad]

The article identifies the issue but then comes up with a simplistic unworkable answer. There is no way that you could or should put limits on the players size but they should go with changes to rules to fix the problem.

It all began with Lomu. Before then big guys were forwards, the shortest guy was 9 and everyone else was a back of some form. Once Lomu appeared coaches started to look at big guys and wonder if they could stick them out with the backs for more impact. My schools coach took our number 8 and tried him at 13 for all of half a game.

The more a coach pushes size the less I think of them as they are showing that they do not have the coaching skills to get the best from the players so are resorting to brute force.. NZ have proved it is unnecessary to go large.

I would start with policing the off side rules and a few other tweeks to provide more space. There are lots of possibilities outside of banning guys from playing because their genes made them big.

+1
Just putting a limit on weights isn't the way forward.
Limiting subs. Why?
You can work on ways to get players smaller without limiting the number of subs you can replace in a game. You only have 1 player to replace a 2nd row/back row and outside back per game if you have specialist front rows and half backs on the bench so limiting subs isn't really the answer.
And limiting subs doesn't really help in terms of closing gap between Toulons and others.

I disagree
If you say youre only allowed4 or 5 subs instead of 8, and you have to maintain competitive scrums/competent front rowers so you go down to 14 men if you use all your subs and have to bring on a front rower, then instead of preplanning 8 subs, but for relevancy 5 or 6 forward subs, coaches will preplan less subs so more players have (be able to) last the 80, and its easier to get your 4-8 to play 80 then jimmy someone in at 9 or 10

so then you cant say look a big fat 8, front row and lock all only have to play 45-55

It stops chequebook clubs as they can guarantee less gametime to to players so players might not coagulate in a smaller number of clubs when they can get way more gametime at a slightly smaller club

When you have such a variety of positions and technical expertise etc needed for so many positions I don't think limiting subs is way to go. I agree preplanning subs doesn't need to happen but we should be having it in place that scrums can be always contested bar exceptional circumstances and limiting the number of subs doesn't help that

[dropkick]

Allow 8 subs on the bench but only 4 can come on.

What that would do is prevent teams making tactical subsitutions because they need the subs for potential injury cover.


If they use up their subs and a player goes off injured, tough luck, they would have to play on with a man down.


There could be some exceptional circumstances like a player going off injured in the first 10 min. In that case a team could be allowed an extra sub.

[offshorerules]

Limiting the amount of subs would just lead to bloodgate II.

[ormond lad]

Allow 8 subs on the bench but only 4 can come on.

What that would do is prevent teams making tactical subsitutions because they need the subs for potential injury cover.

If they use up their subs and a player goes off injured, tough luck, they would have to play on with a man down.

There could be some exceptional circumstances like a player going off injured in the first 10 min. In that case a team could be allowed an extra sub.

I disagree with that. It just leads to more chances of abuse and trouble - bloodgate etc.
Tactical subs aid the game and not allowing them would be crazy. It still is the way at the moment that use all subs and you may have to go to 14 but limiting the number doesn't and wont help.

[Fan with smartphone]

The article identifies the issue but then comes up with a simplistic unworkable answer. There is no way that you could or should put limits on the players size but they should go with changes to rules to fix the problem.

It all began with Lomu. Before then big guys were forwards, the shortest guy was 9 and everyone else was a back of some form. Once Lomu appeared coaches started to look at big guys and wonder if they could stick them out with the backs for more impact. My schools coach took our number 8 and tried him at 13 for all of half a game.

The more a coach pushes size the less I think of them as they are showing that they do not have the coaching skills to get the best from the players so are resorting to brute force.. NZ have proved it is unnecessary to go large.

I would start with policing the off side rules and a few other tweeks to provide more space. There are lots of possibilities outside of banning guys from playing because their genes made them big.

Why is this still not happening? Make it advantageous to actually have the ball.

[El Diablo]

The article identifies the issue but then comes up with a simplistic unworkable answer. There is no way that you could or should put limits on the players size

I could talk about all the individual sports that have weight restrictions but obviously it would be more challenging in a team sport. However weight restrictions has worked well at underage level in New Zealand rugby for decades and also in the US College Sprint football. Sprint Football is played at a very high level in many of the elite US Colleges. All players have to weigh in below 172lbs (78kgs).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZFghLWpvpg
If weight restrictions are workable in schools and in US Colleges, why would it be "unworkable" in professional rugby environment? Rules change and evolve in every sport all the time and when they work they become accepted. I'm sure when the Quensbury Rules introduced 8 weight categories in boxing, there were people shrieking in horror that it would ruin the sport.

The only top level team sport with weight restrictions that I can think of is rowing which only has 2 weight categories I think.
In summary over time it might switch the emphasis from bulk and power to skill and speed. It is worth trying. Perhaps start with a simple upper ceiling of 130kg introduced over 2 or 3 years to allow the fatties to trim a bit. You could allow certain exceptions for players over a certain height. See how that beds in and then review.

Obviously you will have a couple of players like Skelton and Antonio that will have a big problem but give them a couple of years. 150Kg behemoths charging around the park bashing guys for 20 minutes is not the rugby I want to see.

[FLIP]

However weight restrictions has worked well at underage level in New Zealand rugby for decades

Those are not weight restrictions, those are weight categories. All that ensures is that those who hit puberty earlier aren't made to look good by bulldozing over everyone in their path, but instead face those of a similar build, making them rely on skill instead.

An upper weight limit would kill off the idea of rugby as a sport for all sizes.

[Dave Cahill]

It was an idiotic article written by a moron.

The reality of any sport is that the sport follows winners. New Zealand play a fast skills based game, they are world champions, people will play a fast skills based game. Teams that were once famed for their power game like Argentina and South Africa are/have changed their approach, it has filtered down to teams like Connacht and Glasgow at club level and Toulon, the European purveyors of beef, biff and bosh par excellence ended up empty handed last season

[El Diablo]

It was an idiotic article written by a moron.

The reality of any sport is that the sport follows winners. New Zealand play a fast skills based game, they are world champions, people will play a fast skills based game. Teams that were once famed for their power game like Argentina and South Africa are/have changed their approach, it has filtered down to teams like Connacht and Glasgow at club level and Toulon, the European purveyors of beef, biff and bosh par excellence ended up empty handed last season

my point exactly Dave. NZ are the only country in the world that have brought in weight "categories" in junior rugby. Maybe the kiwi skill level in their 20s might have something to do with those limits on weight at junior level???
I agree that last season some off-loading skillful teams did well (Fiji in the Olympic 7s) but there is no evidence that the emphasis on size has peaked never mind reversed. Why anyone would be against a limit of 130 or 135kgs in our sport is beyond me. There is no need for players to be bigger than that other than to hurt tired players in the latter stages of games. It would be easy to implement as a 1st step in reversing this emphasis on size. Perhaps when a player hits 120kgs and he knows he is near the max weight, he might start working more on skills than on his bench press.
No idea is idiotic when it comes to player health and safety.

[Dave Cahill]

my point exactly Dave. NZ are the only country in the world that have brought in weight "categories" in junior rugby. Maybe the kiwi skill level in their 20s might have something to do with those limits on weight at junior level???
I agree that last season some off-loading skillful teams did well (Fiji in the Olympic 7s) but there is no evidence that the emphasis on size has peaked never mind reversed. Why anyone would be against a limit of 130 or 135kgs in our sport is beyond me. There is no need for players to be bigger than that other than to hurt tired players in the latter stages of games. It would be easy to implement as a 1st step in reversing this emphasis on size. Perhaps when a player hits 120kgs and he knows he is near the max weight, he might start working more on skills than on his bench press.
No idea is idiotic when it comes to player health and safety.

New Zealand are also the only rugby playing country in the world that have to deal with their genetic profile across the board. That is why they brought in weight categories for childrens rugby, not restrictions, categories. At senior and the upper age grades, these categories disappear and even at lower age grade level there is a huge variation in the band sizes between provinces even to the point where the width of the weight groups are so great as to render them meaningless in some unions and there is, of course, no upper limit. But what they aim to do is reduce the power premium some children in certain genetic groups might have over other children in other genetic groups that don't mature at a similar physical rate. It puts a premium on skill because it takes size based power out of the equation.

The idea that we might exclude someone from our sport because of their size is, frankly, reprehensible. The great thing about rugby was that there was a place for everyone, from little lads to brobdingnagian bruisers, like Ben Tameifuna, who would have come through the NZ system with its categories.

Finally, there can be plenty of idiotic ideas no matter how good the intention. This is one.

[Lar]

brobdingnagian bruisers

Superb!

[El Diablo]

The idea that we might exclude someone from our sport because of their size is, frankly, reprehensible.

I respect your view but the article wasn't about excluding anyone. It was about getting young players to put more emphasis on skill development that just bulking up. No one is born 130kgs+; they work hard to gain that weight so they will have a power advantage. The article was about changing the emphasis so those young players will work more on skill and speed rather than gaining muscle mass.
I was speaking to a young prop yesterday who is at 116kg. I would say he has just turned 19 and is just a shade over 6ft. He knows to be competitive he needs to keep putting on weight. I wonder what risks he is taking with his health to keep up this weight gain. Would he be tempted to take banned or dangerous substances in order to hit those weight targets. No weight limit is ever going exclude him from rugby. However it might get him to start thinking differently about how he develops his game over the next few years.
My only quibble with the article is the targets are too ambitious. Other than that it is the most sense Neil Francis has spoken in years!