What's new

The Rugby Thread

teok

teok

Well-Known Member
Aug 11, 2011
10,870
33,717
Yeah sarries dominated them. The lein vs uls was quality though. If only stockdale would have grounded properly.
 
teok

teok

Well-Known Member
Aug 11, 2011
10,870
33,717
The only serious suggestion I have seen about player size is reducing the amount of subs. This makes it so each player has to play more minutes and has to be fitter. I'm not sure I would want this though.

I also see they were debating bringing a version of the "40 - 20 rule" from league https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rugby_league_40_20_diagram.gif.

This would force the wingers back to defend supposedly and create more space to attack (but who knows how it would actually pan out).
 
'O Zio

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2014
7,405
13,785
teok said:
The only serious suggestion I have seen about player size is reducing the amount of subs. This makes it so each player has to play more minutes and has to be fitter. I'm not sure I would want this though.

I also see they were debating bringing a version of the "40 - 20 rule" from league https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rugby_league_40_20_diagram.gif.

This would force the wingers back to defend supposedly and create more space to attack (but who knows how it would actually pan out).
Click to expand...

I hope they don't bring in the 20-40 kick rule. There's already too much kicking in the modern game for my personal taste. I want to watch teams try and play rugby, not constantly kick for territory. Obviously kicking is a big part of the game and that's fine, there's definitely something satisfying about a really well executed kick into the corners, but I don't think we need to encourage more kicking by bringing in a rule like this. I think it'll just make teams kick as a first option because it'll be easier to just chance your arm going for a 40-20 than it will be to try and play with the ball in hand.
 
teok

teok

Well-Known Member
Aug 11, 2011
10,870
33,717
It's not supposed to encourage more kicking. It's supposed to force at least 2 players back from the defensive line which opens up more space for the attack to run into.
 
'O Zio

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2014
7,405
13,785
teok said:
It's not supposed to encourage more kicking. It's supposed to force at least 2 players back from the defensive line which opens up more space for the attack to run into.
Click to expand...

I dunno what would happen. It just seems like another experiment that could go either way. Personally I think there are other changes that should be a higher priority.
 
Japhet

Japhet

Well-Known Member
Aug 30, 2010
19,277
57,636
'O Zio said:
I dunno what would happen. It just seems like another experiment that could go either way. Personally I think there are other changes that should be a higher priority.
Click to expand...

The thing with Rugby is that the powers that be are much more prepared to bring in rule changes to improve tha game than in football. There have been plenty of changes in the past that have been quickly scrapped in attempt to keep the players safe and the punters interested, and it doesn't take years of committee meetings to do it. If they bring in the 40/20 kick rule and it doesn't work it will be scrapped. Rugby is much better at evolution and if mistakes are made it moves on immediately.
 
'O Zio

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2014
7,405
13,785
Japhet said:
The thing with Rugby is that the powers that be are much more prepared to bring in rule changes to improve tha game than in football. There have been plenty of changes in the past that have been quickly scrapped in attempt to keep the players safe and the punters interested, and it doesn't take years of committee meetings to do it. If they bring in the 40/20 kick rule and it doesn't work it will be scrapped. Rugby is much better at evolution and if mistakes are made it moves on immediately.
Click to expand...

True but I'm just a bit confused as to why they've sat down and come up with this as a rule change as opposed to umpteen other things that off the top of my head would improve the game more. It may work, it may not work, if they're prepared to get rid of it if it doesn't work then fair play, go ahead and test it. I just find it odd that they've gone "You know what's wrong with the game today, wingers. It drives me mad how these nippy ****s are always staying in line with the rest of the defence :mad:. If only there was some way we could make them fuck off back where they belong level the fullback somehow...."
 
Japhet

Japhet

Well-Known Member
Aug 30, 2010
19,277
57,636
'O Zio said:
True but I'm just a bit confused as to why they've sat down and come up with this as a rule change as opposed to umpteen other things that off the top of my head would improve the game more. It may work, it may not work, if they're prepared to get rid of it if it doesn't work then fair play, go ahead and test it. I just find it odd that they've gone "You know what's wrong with the game today, wingers. It drives me mad how these nippy ****s are always staying in line with the rest of the defence :mad:. If only there was some way we could make them fuck off back where they belong level the fullback somehow...."
Click to expand...


The rule is really designed to stop the defensive line from being ultra flat and aggressive. Making the wingers drop back to cover the kicks is a way of giving the attacking side a few more running options with the defensive line more disjointed. I think it will lead to more running rugby rather than more kicking.
 
'O Zio

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2014
7,405
13,785
Japhet said:
The rule is really designed to stop the defensive line from being ultra flat and aggressive. Making the wingers drop back to cover the kicks is a way of giving the attacking side a few more running options with the defensive line more disjointed. I think it will lead to more running rugby rather than more kicking.
Click to expand...

Yeah I mean if it works then by all means, I'm just in two minds about whether it will though. Like I say, it's really hard to tell how things will pan out. If teams don't drop their wingers then it could mean kicking to touch becomes the first choice option for teams. But conversely if teams drop their wingers back all the time, it could leave too much space for people to run into making the whole game a bit of a crazy back-and-forth mess because it's too hard to successfully defend against both the 40-20 kick and the run so they end up just doing neither of them well. I'm up for encouraging more ball-in-hand rugby but if this rule creates too much space it could end up with teams breaking away too easily and often which ends up just being boring in a different way.
 
teok

teok

Well-Known Member
Aug 11, 2011
10,870
33,717
Belham one of the connacht players got a horrible injury in the game vs sale. He ripped the "webbing" of his hand and it was so painful for him as he was coming off the pitch he was puking every 10m or so. Fuck me. :hungover:
 
Last edited:
teok

teok

Well-Known Member
Aug 11, 2011
10,870
33,717
Tigers got smashed again today. Exeter put 50 on them. Massive game coming up with newcastle next week.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

mawspurs
Harry Kane praises team’s mentality after beating Senegal to go through to the quarter-final
Replies
0
Views
231
mawspurs
mawspurs
mawspurs
Harry Kane: I wanted to win trophies at Tottenham, but Bayern move will make me better
Replies
3
Views
560
DJS
DJS
Houdini
  • Sticky
SC Cheltenham Festival 2024. Tipster Competition.
7 8 9
Replies
174
Views
16K
TheChosenOne
TheChosenOne
Top