The Modern Game Of Rugby Union
Discussion
So as not to sidetrack the Lions' thread from congratulating the winners I'd like to develop a point brought up by DJRC when he mentioned 'fancy dan' rugby.
Is the current craze for the new god 'continuity', as championed by our good friends in Gold and Black and the TV companies, good for the game?
I don't think it necessarily is so I'll list the modern developments I don't like and why.
1. Set pieces.
Scrums have been de-powered. It used to be a skill to destabilise your opposing prop by getting under him, tilting him, boring in, taking the hit differently, plus another bunch of skills learned over years of physical contests. That's why props used to be at their best around the 30yo mark. Now, a lot of these skills have been outlawed in the name of 'safety' and a young guy like Vunipola can perform in a Lions test whereas 20yrs ago some gnarled old vet such as Jeff Probyn would have handed him his arse all afternoon.
Hooking is another skill which has gone due to the acceptance on not-straight scrum feeds. (as an ex-halfback this is a pet hate of mine). This benefits teams which can't scrummage as they can apply an eight man shove, even on their own put-in.
Line-outs have become ridiculous parodies of a throwing/jumping contest. These changes to allow lifting and swapping positions before the throw were pushed through purely for selfish reasons by teams who, at the time, didn't possess players who could compete at the top level in the traditional throw-jump-catch contest.
The TV companies love these changes because they allow for quick restarts to get the ball back in hand. To them I'd say go and watch some RL instead.
Those countries who were getting hammered in the scrum and line-out love it because they can now achieve parity through artificial assistance.
2. The Tackle
The change in the law to allow an extra movement to place/release the ball is totally abused by all, with SuperRugby refs being particularly indulgent.
How many times in a match do you see a player tackled, then roll over the ball and place it back on his side? That movement of turning/rolling over before placing the ball back is directly in contravention of Law 15.5 which says release of the ball must be done immediately. You also see the tackled player pushing the ball back on the ground long after releasing it, also a direct contravention of the laws.(not a 'different interpretation')
Why does this matter? Well, it removes another skill from the game, namely turning your opponent in the tackle.
It also encourages players to take the tackle with much less chance of turnover ball.
3. Rucks
Why do referees stop competition. Many, many times I have seen a player enter through the gate, step over the ball and be told "leave it" by the referee. Why? Surely the point if a ruck is to compete for the ball on the ground.
I tell you, these days some of my favourite players, Scotland's holy trinity of Finlay Calder, Jock Beattie and John Jeffrey would spending most of each match watching from the side while their yellow card ran down.
The consequence of this is that few players need to be committed to retain possession, so we end up with this ridiculous, RL style, defensive line spread right across the pitch, denying space to run at, so we get much more kicking.
Rugby was always described as the game for all shapes and sizes. That's not so true now. Because 2nd rows can be lifted they can be shorter, and props in certain parts of the world who can't scrummage are protected by the referees so can be lighter and 'more mobile', the players seem to be converging on an optimal 6'4", 16/17 stone, super-mobile model.
Probably the ramblings of an old fart, but I miss seeing enormous guys like Paul Ackford soaring up to take a ball in the line-out unassisted.
I miss the massive bears such as Norman Pender arriving at a ruck just as the ball is cleaned out and moved away, but I forgave them because there was nothing to make the hairs on your neck stand up like the 5th reset of a 5M scrum on your opponents line.
I do admire the current players for their tremendous athleticism and fitness, and I still savour the massive collisions such as where George North dumped Israel Folau on his arse yesterday, but I miss the various mini-battles all over the place that we used to see before they were legislated out.
Indulgent ramblings of an old half-back, tell me where I'm right or wrong.
Is the current craze for the new god 'continuity', as championed by our good friends in Gold and Black and the TV companies, good for the game?
I don't think it necessarily is so I'll list the modern developments I don't like and why.
1. Set pieces.
Scrums have been de-powered. It used to be a skill to destabilise your opposing prop by getting under him, tilting him, boring in, taking the hit differently, plus another bunch of skills learned over years of physical contests. That's why props used to be at their best around the 30yo mark. Now, a lot of these skills have been outlawed in the name of 'safety' and a young guy like Vunipola can perform in a Lions test whereas 20yrs ago some gnarled old vet such as Jeff Probyn would have handed him his arse all afternoon.
Hooking is another skill which has gone due to the acceptance on not-straight scrum feeds. (as an ex-halfback this is a pet hate of mine). This benefits teams which can't scrummage as they can apply an eight man shove, even on their own put-in.
Line-outs have become ridiculous parodies of a throwing/jumping contest. These changes to allow lifting and swapping positions before the throw were pushed through purely for selfish reasons by teams who, at the time, didn't possess players who could compete at the top level in the traditional throw-jump-catch contest.
The TV companies love these changes because they allow for quick restarts to get the ball back in hand. To them I'd say go and watch some RL instead.
Those countries who were getting hammered in the scrum and line-out love it because they can now achieve parity through artificial assistance.
2. The Tackle
The change in the law to allow an extra movement to place/release the ball is totally abused by all, with SuperRugby refs being particularly indulgent.
How many times in a match do you see a player tackled, then roll over the ball and place it back on his side? That movement of turning/rolling over before placing the ball back is directly in contravention of Law 15.5 which says release of the ball must be done immediately. You also see the tackled player pushing the ball back on the ground long after releasing it, also a direct contravention of the laws.(not a 'different interpretation')
Why does this matter? Well, it removes another skill from the game, namely turning your opponent in the tackle.
It also encourages players to take the tackle with much less chance of turnover ball.
3. Rucks
Why do referees stop competition. Many, many times I have seen a player enter through the gate, step over the ball and be told "leave it" by the referee. Why? Surely the point if a ruck is to compete for the ball on the ground.
I tell you, these days some of my favourite players, Scotland's holy trinity of Finlay Calder, Jock Beattie and John Jeffrey would spending most of each match watching from the side while their yellow card ran down.
The consequence of this is that few players need to be committed to retain possession, so we end up with this ridiculous, RL style, defensive line spread right across the pitch, denying space to run at, so we get much more kicking.
Rugby was always described as the game for all shapes and sizes. That's not so true now. Because 2nd rows can be lifted they can be shorter, and props in certain parts of the world who can't scrummage are protected by the referees so can be lighter and 'more mobile', the players seem to be converging on an optimal 6'4", 16/17 stone, super-mobile model.
Probably the ramblings of an old fart, but I miss seeing enormous guys like Paul Ackford soaring up to take a ball in the line-out unassisted.
I miss the massive bears such as Norman Pender arriving at a ruck just as the ball is cleaned out and moved away, but I forgave them because there was nothing to make the hairs on your neck stand up like the 5th reset of a 5M scrum on your opponents line.
I do admire the current players for their tremendous athleticism and fitness, and I still savour the massive collisions such as where George North dumped Israel Folau on his arse yesterday, but I miss the various mini-battles all over the place that we used to see before they were legislated out.
Indulgent ramblings of an old half-back, tell me where I'm right or wrong.
Edited by DocJock on Sunday 7th July 11:20
The changes are fundamental. They've come from various directions, safety being one. In the old days players were seriously injured and the solution was to introduce replacements.
Health and safety has had a big impact. Insurance rates have gone up and continue to do so, limiting what clubs can allow and they look to the referee to keep them safe in a way.
Further, as you say, fitness has increased tremendously. My team, playing at level 6, although ambitious, train twice a week, and really train. The optimum height/weight does seem to be over 6'3", my height. 40 years ago it was seen as tall and got me into the second row purely on height grounds. Nowdays there's scrum halves as tall.
Speeds have increased no end and if you are tackled at full chat you are going to get injured. I wonder how long we'll see the impacts that we see now.
Whether it is better or not is, I think, not the point. It's the only one we've got.
I've often wondered if there is some idea of amalgamating the two games and that is why we're speeding up the restarts. That's another reason I think that fitness is so important. It used to be that players ran about (we're talking about those outside the tight 5) for around 30 mins during a game. Nowadays it gone up to 45-50 mins, that's an increase of more that 50%. I think that's good.
I have to say I'm enjoying watching rugby nowadays more than I used to. I find the athleticism a major factor. On top of that there's a lot more intelligence required from (most) players and on top of that there seems to be a lot more team work.
That said, it might be that I'm more involved now, it being my main sport.
Football has changed over the same period.
TV has changed the way things are played as well. Much that used to go off the ball has been curtailed.
Club rugby has improved no end I think. The level of ability has gone up as has fitness. Sophistication of tactics is so much better.
I know what you mean about the old players. Some of our past heroes, players and teams, wouldn't get a look-in nowadays. But my lad, 25, thinks the changes are great for him, back row, and for the sport in general. He would prefer some sense brought in for scrums but, in general, he's happy.
Older farts are no so convinced though. I was at my club's AGM and there was a fair bit of discussion about the 'old days' and it was mentioned, rather sharply, when the effete pack was mentioned (i.e. they can run) and how wimpish they all were, the old stagers were asked how long they would have lasted in training.
Health and safety has had a big impact. Insurance rates have gone up and continue to do so, limiting what clubs can allow and they look to the referee to keep them safe in a way.
Further, as you say, fitness has increased tremendously. My team, playing at level 6, although ambitious, train twice a week, and really train. The optimum height/weight does seem to be over 6'3", my height. 40 years ago it was seen as tall and got me into the second row purely on height grounds. Nowdays there's scrum halves as tall.
Speeds have increased no end and if you are tackled at full chat you are going to get injured. I wonder how long we'll see the impacts that we see now.
Whether it is better or not is, I think, not the point. It's the only one we've got.
I've often wondered if there is some idea of amalgamating the two games and that is why we're speeding up the restarts. That's another reason I think that fitness is so important. It used to be that players ran about (we're talking about those outside the tight 5) for around 30 mins during a game. Nowadays it gone up to 45-50 mins, that's an increase of more that 50%. I think that's good.
I have to say I'm enjoying watching rugby nowadays more than I used to. I find the athleticism a major factor. On top of that there's a lot more intelligence required from (most) players and on top of that there seems to be a lot more team work.
That said, it might be that I'm more involved now, it being my main sport.
Football has changed over the same period.
TV has changed the way things are played as well. Much that used to go off the ball has been curtailed.
Club rugby has improved no end I think. The level of ability has gone up as has fitness. Sophistication of tactics is so much better.
I know what you mean about the old players. Some of our past heroes, players and teams, wouldn't get a look-in nowadays. But my lad, 25, thinks the changes are great for him, back row, and for the sport in general. He would prefer some sense brought in for scrums but, in general, he's happy.
Older farts are no so convinced though. I was at my club's AGM and there was a fair bit of discussion about the 'old days' and it was mentioned, rather sharply, when the effete pack was mentioned (i.e. they can run) and how wimpish they all were, the old stagers were asked how long they would have lasted in training.
I've only really been a casual observer of Rugby, but my dad was Welsh. 
His dad was the "magic spongeman" for Bath back when they won everything.
As a result I've been to see a fair few games, and watched a lot on TV. The game as played 20 years ago was a lot different. I used to really enjoy the slog - scrums walking their way up the field in a massive battle of strength and will, rolling mauls, and so on. But it made the game very slow. the ball was static, and hidden, for long periods. That made it difficult for the casual observer, or someone who wanted to get "into" rugby to understand what was going on.
With the rules as they are now the ball is hidden for a minimum amount of time, and everyone is mobile, which makes it better as a spectacle. It's a different game for sure but I don't think it's necessarily worse.
His dad was the "magic spongeman" for Bath back when they won everything. As a result I've been to see a fair few games, and watched a lot on TV. The game as played 20 years ago was a lot different. I used to really enjoy the slog - scrums walking their way up the field in a massive battle of strength and will, rolling mauls, and so on. But it made the game very slow. the ball was static, and hidden, for long periods. That made it difficult for the casual observer, or someone who wanted to get "into" rugby to understand what was going on.
With the rules as they are now the ball is hidden for a minimum amount of time, and everyone is mobile, which makes it better as a spectacle. It's a different game for sure but I don't think it's necessarily worse.
Oh, I'm not advocating a return to the 'stick it up your jumper' days of one maul moving half the length of the pitch.
I am disappointed that there is a dumbing down of many of the old skills. So Derek, I agree that there are areas where players need to think smarter, but there are also area where the opposite is true.
I'll use as an example a centre taking a crash ball.
These days he'll fly in, and if tackled he hits the deck, rolls over (temporarily blocking off the defenders) and places the ball back. Years ago if the defender judged it right you'd land facing the defence and it was normally a turnover (Allan Bateman anyone?) so you had to give some thought to how you took contact.
Even today, with the placement law, every match sees way too much leniency in allowing playing of the ball after the 'immediate' tackle phase.
I am disappointed that there is a dumbing down of many of the old skills. So Derek, I agree that there are areas where players need to think smarter, but there are also area where the opposite is true.
I'll use as an example a centre taking a crash ball.
These days he'll fly in, and if tackled he hits the deck, rolls over (temporarily blocking off the defenders) and places the ball back. Years ago if the defender judged it right you'd land facing the defence and it was normally a turnover (Allan Bateman anyone?) so you had to give some thought to how you took contact.
Even today, with the placement law, every match sees way too much leniency in allowing playing of the ball after the 'immediate' tackle phase.
DocJock said:
Oh, I'm not advocating a return to the 'stick it up your jumper' days of one maul moving half the length of the pitch.
I am disappointed that there is a dumbing down of many of the old skills. So Derek, I agree that there are areas where players need to think smarter, but there are also area where the opposite is true.
I'll use as an example a centre taking a crash ball.
These days he'll fly in, and if tackled he hits the deck, rolls over (temporarily blocking off the defenders) and places the ball back. Years ago if the defender judged it right you'd land facing the defence and it was normally a turnover (Allan Bateman anyone?) so you had to give some thought to how you took contact.
Even today, with the placement law, every match sees way too much leniency in allowing playing of the ball after the 'immediate' tackle phase.
Yes, I'll accept that.I am disappointed that there is a dumbing down of many of the old skills. So Derek, I agree that there are areas where players need to think smarter, but there are also area where the opposite is true.
I'll use as an example a centre taking a crash ball.
These days he'll fly in, and if tackled he hits the deck, rolls over (temporarily blocking off the defenders) and places the ball back. Years ago if the defender judged it right you'd land facing the defence and it was normally a turnover (Allan Bateman anyone?) so you had to give some thought to how you took contact.
Even today, with the placement law, every match sees way too much leniency in allowing playing of the ball after the 'immediate' tackle phase.
And I agree with your view of the interpretation of placing the ball after the tackle. I assumed the idea was to speed up
presentation to the scrum half.
I sit in on tactics talks with my team and I have to say the coach gives them lots to think about. More surprisingly, you can see it in the following match. There is a lot of input form the payers as well, with the coach asking questions, other than 'what the f**k were you thinking of there' sort of things.
Cheib said:
I read somewhere recently that there are going to be some new scrummaging laws?
Main things were that they are going to try and reduce the hit as that is where most injuries occur and shock horror stop feeding. Hookers are going to learn how to hook again.
I'll believe it when it happens, Brian Moore frequently bemoans the changes to the scrum and rucks in the Telegraph and lack of consistency from referees. Part of the problem seems to be that the Northern and Southern Hemispheres seem to have developed totally different ways of refereeing the same game!Main things were that they are going to try and reduce the hit as that is where most injuries occur and shock horror stop feeding. Hookers are going to learn how to hook again.
"Go through the phases..." a phrase which should send shivers down the spine of every true rugby fan. It basically means 20 phases of going sideways across the field one way or another, recycling the ball just for recycling sake and hoping to move the opposition defensive structure out of line to make the break. This is the multi phase backs rugby that modern fans seems to think is entertain. Because it involves backs running. Usually 5m each time into a wall of defenders, but its BACKS RUNNING!! Its creative, flowing dont you know!
Its s
t.
Its come about because of the massive advances in defensive technique, the RL 9 man defensive wall spread across the field job. The blitz and choke defenses, etc & first phase ball is no longer supposed to be about attacking and striking from it.
See Warrenball is pretty much what my posts have been espousing for the last months. I like the way he plays rugby, forwards grinding forward (Warren was a forward afterall), flankers punching holes on the fringes, always making yards going forwards. Sucking defenders in and then launching strike runners at weak points in that defensive line stretched thin again because your Pack has made the opposition commit properly. The trouble was the 3rd test was the only one the Lions executed the game plan properly for 80mins, they did on and and off in the first two tests, but were hampered by the refs and the scrum in the second. In fact that second test should be the textbook from which it is explained to those who think rugby is all about "creativity" and running backs that rugby dont matter st if you arent competing at the scrum. The third test should be the textbook of why rugby is based on the scrum and more importantly why its based on the front row.
It was glorious, glorious to watch
Its s
t.Its come about because of the massive advances in defensive technique, the RL 9 man defensive wall spread across the field job. The blitz and choke defenses, etc & first phase ball is no longer supposed to be about attacking and striking from it.
See Warrenball is pretty much what my posts have been espousing for the last months. I like the way he plays rugby, forwards grinding forward (Warren was a forward afterall), flankers punching holes on the fringes, always making yards going forwards. Sucking defenders in and then launching strike runners at weak points in that defensive line stretched thin again because your Pack has made the opposition commit properly. The trouble was the 3rd test was the only one the Lions executed the game plan properly for 80mins, they did on and and off in the first two tests, but were hampered by the refs and the scrum in the second. In fact that second test should be the textbook from which it is explained to those who think rugby is all about "creativity" and running backs that rugby dont matter s
t if you arent competing at the scrum. The third test should be the textbook of why rugby is based on the scrum and more importantly why its based on the front row.It was glorious, glorious to watch
greygoose said:
Cheib said:
I read somewhere recently that there are going to be some new scrummaging laws?
Main things were that they are going to try and reduce the hit as that is where most injuries occur and shock horror stop feeding. Hookers are going to learn how to hook again.
I'll believe it when it happens, Brian Moore frequently bemoans the changes to the scrum and rucks in the Telegraph and lack of consistency from referees. Part of the problem seems to be that the Northern and Southern Hemispheres seem to have developed totally different ways of refereeing the same game!Main things were that they are going to try and reduce the hit as that is where most injuries occur and shock horror stop feeding. Hookers are going to learn how to hook again.
http://www.planetrugby.co.uk/story/0,25883,3551_88...
Cheib said:
I look forward to seeing if this works.As a back row converted to prop, the scrum is clearly of interest to me, the size and strength of modern day players has changed the face of the game, along with new laws introduced, or existing laws ignored to prevent or reduce injuries, but it would be good to see a set stable scrum and hookers competing for the ball.
Though even back in 'my day' which was 20-40 years ago, we often opted not to strike but go for the extra man pushing to get the nudge as the ball came in to give the opposition poor scrum ball.
Anyway if it improves the scrum I will be happy.
Interesting analysis of what the new laws might achieve:
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/analysis-wallabie...
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/analysis-wallabie...
I reckon there is too much emphasis on kicking penalties. It's boring and takes too much time. How about offering the offended against captain the choice of going for the posts with 2 points if successful and sin binning the offender for 5 minutes, or no sin bin and taking one of the other currently available options, i.e. kick to touch or play the ball in hand to go for a try?
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff