Could XV Rugby do with less players?

It might seem an odd proposition, but with defences much improved and players much bigger, could having less players open up the game and grant more try scoring opportunities?

I like to see running rugby and tries being scored from 40m out but these seem rarer these days. It seems more common to see tries from close range through the forwards.

My proposition would be to take out one centre and a back-rower to leave 13 players on the field. That way the ball should come from the ruck quicker and there will be more space out wide to attack, promoting running rugby.

All home nations have great counter attacking FBs and other dangerous runners - North, Kearney, Daly & Maitland - but I can't help but feel we're not seeing them at their full potential. It's a bit disappointing to see that all the talk is over power (re Sam Burgess) not agility to break defences (like Wade).

I'm not sure what others think but for me the sevens is what I like to think of Rugby as - almost like playing on the beach with tricks and beating your opponent. XV rugby is just getting a bit stodgy for me personally.

Spoken like a true league fan / back / Aussie...

I agree, with the scrums in such a mess why not replace them with a tap restart and drop out the need for the front row?

Absolutely not. The capacity to attack is still there and can be seen in lots of games. And tries are not the be all and end all.

Let's drop the scrum, breakdown and get everyone the same size while you're at it. Introduce a 5 tackle rule too...

I think we can be a bit too league-phobic when it comes to discussing rule changes. If rugby league didn't exist, there's a good chance these kinds of suggestions would get a better hearing because we wouldn't be so paranoid about morphing into the old arch enemy.

No, but the world is over populated

Improve skill levels, no need to change anything, SA doubled their try scoring per match last year purely because they play more attacking rugby.

GloriousEmpire wrote:I agree, with the scrums in such a mess why not replace them with a tap restart and drop out the need for the front row?

So you actually liked the SH ELVs then GE??? the free kick tap kicks..... yeah they were good, so good in fact that the SR saw attendances fall dramatically and people started turning off the TV en masse. It was dire.

One of the worst rules in rugby history.

No.

It could maybe do with fewer players but definitely not less.

I think rugby could do with fewer meat heads or players with loads of talent and not enough discipline or work ethic or players with loads of work ethic and not enough talent but then again the world would be a duller place with just the best of each world.

I think where there is room for culling is the bench rather than the 15 who start.

jelly wrote:No.

It could maybe do with fewer players but definitely not less.

thank you

and no we don't need to change it, just change the mindset of the teams

jelly wrote:No.

It could maybe do with fewer players but definitely not less.

a improved grammar... thanks Jelly

Certainly the opposition should always have one or two less players.

My England managed ok with 16 once.

Cut down on the number of talentless massive backs whose only job is to crunch through barriers in a laser guided straight line and yet get all the plaudits as fantastic 'creative' players.  Nope, they're massive and they eat plenty.  We all know that one has gotta be said by someone.

Might I suggest that Nematode try either 7's or at a pinch Rugby League.Both are pretty tedious to me but each to their own.

Perhaps it would help us score more tries if our wingers actually put the ball down properly when they crossed the whitewash...

I don't think so. There's nothing inherently exciting about watching someone run over a line holding a ball. The excitement of watching rugby for me comes from an appreciation of the skill, tactics, physicality, effort and intense competition.

If I were to change an aspect of rugby to make it more entertaining, it would be to make fewer offences punishable by goal-kickable penalties. There are too many accidental offences (like offside from a kick) that can result in a three-pointer. I'd like to see these penalties either downgraded to scrums or replaced with penalties that can only be kicked to touch, not goal. Sometimes it seems too much like crucial points are awarded based on chance or a referee's whim.

Rugby Fan wrote:I think we can be a bit too league-phobic when it comes to discussing rule changes. If rugby league didn't exist, there's a good chance these kinds of suggestions would get a better hearing because we wouldn't be so paranoid about morphing into the old arch enemy.

But then some of us look at league and go "thank god someone is showing us the problems with this kind of thinking"


Lets face it people like Gatland would just figure that more space = greater risk of letting the ball out of the ruc k =slow ball down more
Rather than opening up the game the law of untended consequences would seem teams desperately trying to keep the game tight, especially if we go with the taps instead of penalties etc which would make infringing even more popular.
Tackle ...ghold on ...tap...tackle..hang on .... oh wait youve got rugby league.


Whats wrong with a bit of rumble? Whats wrong with seeing big lardy props side step wingers?
It has tro be better than a bunch of identical players taking it in turns to run into each other.

There are probably more tries scored now than ever though.

Easiest way to reduce the number of meatheads is restrict substitutes more and force the fatties to stay on the pitch longer.

It is a very difficult area to effectively police though. As we all know, when substitution was only for injuries, injuries could be manufactured.

The game shouldnt be easy. If coaches have to adopt innovative thinking to force try scoring opportunities then that can only be a good thing. Take England -Ireland - it was good to see how dangerous Ireland looked on 1st phase ball.

Nematode wrote:It might seem an odd proposition, but with defences much improved and players much bigger, could having less players open up the game and grant more try scoring opportunities?

I like to see running rugby and tries being scored from 40m out but these seem rarer these days. It seems more common to see tries from close range through the forwards.

My proposition would be to take out one centre and a back-rower to leave 13 players on the field. That way the ball should come from the ruck quicker and there will be more space out wide to attack, promoting running rugby.

All home nations have great counter attacking FBs and other dangerous runners - North, Kearney, Daly & Maitland - but I can't help but feel we're not seeing them at their full potential. It's a bit disappointing to see that all the talk is over power (re Sam Burgess) not agility to break defences (like Wade).

I'm not sure what others think but for me the sevens is what I like to think of Rugby as - almost like playing on the beach with tricks and beating your opponent. XV rugby is just getting a bit stodgy for me personally.

Just watch Super rugby

lostinwales wrote:Easiest way to reduce the number of meatheads is restrict substitutes more and force the fatties to stay on the pitch longer. It is a very difficult area to effectively police though. As we all know, when substitution was only for injuries, injuries could be manufactured.

The game shouldnt be easy. If coaches have to adopt innovative thinking to force try scoring opportunities then that can only be a good thing. Take England -Ireland - it was good to see how dangerous Ireland looked on 1st phase ball.

Fair point actually.

Ditch props and the scrum sounds good to me. That would make the game safer as well

Steffan wrote:Ditch props and the scrum sounds good to me. That would make the game safer as well

Will never happen. Its part of the game.

On subject of the fatties bunging up the available space on the pitch:
[WARNING:CONTROVERSIAL]

BBC today: "Eating like the English could save 4,000 lives a year in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, a study claims."

GunsGerms wrote:There are probably more tries scored now than ever though.

Quite. And why are there less silly ones ( if indeed there are, what period are we talking here?) its because all players are now expected to tackle and have some knowledge of defensive positioning. The days of a bunch of blokes in wooly jumpers and hangovers strung out across a field watching a 3ft welshman jazz feet his way slowly across the field are long gone ( well roughly the time shane retired)
And to be fair how many of those do we see form league where a kick isnt made?
Indeed its form league that this idea of structured play, crash ball, and creating gaps through phases has really come from.

Lets also please be clear ...historically rugby is a kicking game with a physical contest for possession of the ball. The gradual creep has been toward running and passing and try scoring, not the other way round.

gregortree wrote:On subject of the fatties bunging up the available space on the pitch:
[WARNING:CONTROVERSIAL]

BBC today: "Eating like the English could save 4,000 lives a year in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, a study claims."

More spuds? We told you that years ago!

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Lets also please be clear ...historically rugby is a kicking game with a physical contest for possession of the ball. The gradual creep has been toward running and passing and try scoring, not the other way round.

History doesn't play anymore though "in all fairness". Knees gone I hear, which is sad.

IronMike wrote:

Nematode wrote:It might seem an odd proposition, but with defences much improved and players much bigger, could having less players open up the game and grant more try scoring opportunities?

I like to see running rugby and tries being scored from 40m out but these seem rarer these days. It seems more common to see tries from close range through the forwards.

My proposition would be to take out one centre and a back-rower to leave 13 players on the field. That way the ball should come from the ruck quicker and there will be more space out wide to attack, promoting running rugby.

All home nations have great counter attacking FBs and other dangerous runners - North, Kearney, Daly & Maitland - but I can't help but feel we're not seeing them at their full potential. It's a bit disappointing to see that all the talk is over power (re Sam Burgess) not agility to break defences (like Wade).

I'm not sure what others think but for me the sevens is what I like to think of Rugby as - almost like playing on the beach with tricks and beating your opponent. XV rugby is just getting a bit stodgy for me personally.

Just watch Super rugby

Or New Zealand.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:

IronMike wrote:

Nematode wrote:It might seem an odd proposition, but with defences much improved and players much bigger, could having less players open up the game and grant more try scoring opportunities?

I like to see running rugby and tries being scored from 40m out but these seem rarer these days. It seems more common to see tries from close range through the forwards.

My proposition would be to take out one centre and a back-rower to leave 13 players on the field. That way the ball should come from the ruck quicker and there will be more space out wide to attack, promoting running rugby.

All home nations have great counter attacking FBs and other dangerous runners - North, Kearney, Daly & Maitland - but I can't help but feel we're not seeing them at their full potential. It's a bit disappointing to see that all the talk is over power (re Sam Burgess) not agility to break defences (like Wade).

I'm not sure what others think but for me the sevens is what I like to think of Rugby as - almost like playing on the beach with tricks and beating your opponent. XV rugby is just getting a bit stodgy for me personally.

Just watch Super rugby

Or New Zealand.

True they looked like they were playing with 13 men for most of the game against Ireland

It looked like that when Ryan Crotty, 13, eventually dotted down the final try from 50m out.   

Steffan wrote:Ditch props and the scrum sounds good to me. That would make the game safer as well

Agreed, the scrum is a legacy aspect of rugby that should be phased out now. Nobody is interested in watching it and the referees can't control it. It's just a source of debate about which team cheated more and the outcome is invariably a lottery.

Let's just ditch it and move on with an improved game.

I'm interested in watching it, is there anything more stirring in the entire sport of rugby union than an 8-man shove to push the opposition scrum back on their own put in and claim a vital turnover?

There's no pretty backs move that provokes the same visceral reaction for me.

Not even a 13 man lineout Notch?   

 

  And may I add as an Englishmen:
no finer sight than 16 white shirts flowing across the paddock.

Flowing would be Fiji and a streaker!

More like huffing and puffing across the paddock.   

We now play 15 man running rugby Kia (16 if the ref is not looking).
You must visit the UK soon and get an update.

Ah! I thought the 16 included the ref

Will be there for 2015 RWC mate. See you in the final.   

GE, no your getting confused with Walsh... he plays for Wales, or otherwise ABE.

Scotland have a ready made solution to this issue. We select Jim Hamilton, which usually means at least 10 minutes of every match played with 14 men, and after the 60 minute mark (despite the 10 minute rest), he doesn't really move, so again, we have a solution to the problem.

Scot
Is that solution working out ? I see you beat Italy with it.
Jim used to play for my beloved Glaws. We miss his abrasive grit tbh.

England were the pioneers of 13 man rugby against new zealand in 2008, unfortunately the all blacks refused to join in with the spirit of the thing and insisted on keeping 15 on the pitch. Its your lots fault GE, they even had the indecency to keep winning penalties from the scrum despite englands lard brigade.

Indded the way things stand now it would probably greatly favour England for GEs propossed rule changes to be put in. Youngs can go back to being a center, Hartley can f off back home, Dan Cole can take some much needed time off, Vunipola can fill in for his injured brother and Marler can get the professional wrestling contract hes always dreamed of. Meanwhile we will be spared the boredom of watching 3 aging Welshmen fall over repeatedly in an attempt to win penalties.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:

IronMike wrote:

Nematode wrote:It might seem an odd proposition, but with defences much improved and players much bigger, could having less players open up the game and grant more try scoring opportunities?

I like to see running rugby and tries being scored from 40m out but these seem rarer these days. It seems more common to see tries from close range through the forwards.

My proposition would be to take out one centre and a back-rower to leave 13 players on the field. That way the ball should come from the ruck quicker and there will be more space out wide to attack, promoting running rugby.

All home nations have great counter attacking FBs and other dangerous runners - North, Kearney, Daly & Maitland - but I can't help but feel we're not seeing them at their full potential. It's a bit disappointing to see that all the talk is over power (re Sam Burgess) not agility to break defences (like Wade).

I'm not sure what others think but for me the sevens is what I like to think of Rugby as - almost like playing on the beach with tricks and beating your opponent. XV rugby is just getting a bit stodgy for me personally.

Just watch Super rugby

Or New Zealand.

True they looked like they were playing with 13 men for most of the game against Ireland

Didn't you know they had turns taking a rest to make it a bit more even

SecretFly wrote:Cut down on the number of talentless massive backs whose only job is to crunch through barriers in a laser guided straight line and yet get all the plaudits as fantastic 'creative' players.  Nope, they're massive and they eat plenty.  We all know that one has gotta be said by someone.

Come down off that soapbox Fly... you just wont stop mocking Gatlandball will ya!  

On the OPs point, I would wait a few years to see. I'm on the fence about it.


Its a good point though. The advantages of going to 14 players would be more space on the pitch, which could mean more running rugby which would mean smaller, fitter, more skillful players.


If rugby continues to keep going in the size/physicality direction then they might have to do something drastic. However NZ are the best team in the world and they are by playing good quality rugby. For the time being it looks to be ok but obviously could be better.

At the highest level teams are becoming more and more competitive. There are still bags of tries scored at lower levels of the game. The England v Ireland game was a belter. A great game but only 1 try a piece. It was awesome.

englandglory4ever wrote:At the highest level teams are becoming more and more competitive. There are still bags of tries scored at lower levels of the game. The England v Ireland game was a belter. A great game but only 1 try a piece. It was awesome.

I actually thought the England vs Ireland game was disappointing. The Scotland Italy game was of better quality and was truly tense.