RFU Want 6 Nations Reduced to 6 weeks

by David-Douglas Fri 24 Mar - 22:28

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/39387032

Does anyone else think this is a bad idea, or is it just me?

by No 7&1/2 Fri 24 Mar - 22:46

Personally prefer it and think it would think it would draw in more casual fans.

by poissonrouge Fri 24 Mar - 23:10

I have concerns about the health consequences. With increasing size and fitness of players, there is a higher likelihood of injury, and omitting one of the "rest" periods in the 6 Nations will put more stress on the players - I'm not sure how much recovery you actually get in 1 week if you have been through a tough game, and carrying a minor injury into another game will increase the chance of it becoming more severe, and this would be cumulative. At present - you get 1 wk break between 1st and 2nd games - then you have a chance to recuperate with a 2 weeks break. If the 6 nations window is reduced to 6 weeks you will have 3 games in a row. So either you increase the injury risk or you rest your frontline players in one of the matches. So regarding the casual fans - will they be happy going to see their team when it is missing one or two of the best players? Or will the players trying to make their breakthrough play while carrying a minor niggle because they want the game time to impress the coaches? And then end up with a worse injury.
It is less of a problem if you have a larger pool of players as you would have more options for rotating players - but look at Scotland this 6 nations - they were scraping the barrel after injuries, and you would have had the position of either forcing battered and bruised players back on the field a week earlier than previous practice or dropping down to a lower level of experience in order to have a team.

by David-Douglas Fri 24 Mar - 23:49

poissonrouge wrote:I have concerns about the health consequences. With increasing size and fitness of players, there is a higher likelihood of injury, and omitting one of the "rest" periods in the 6 Nations will put more stress on the players - I'm not sure how much recovery you actually get in 1 week if you have been through a tough game, and carrying a minor injury into another game will increase the chance of it becoming more severe, and this would be cumulative. At present - you get 1 wk break between 1st and 2nd games - then you have a chance to recuperate with a 2 weeks break. If the 6 nations window is reduced to 6 weeks you will have 3 games in a row. So either you increase the injury risk or you rest your frontline players in one of the matches. So regarding the casual fans - will they be happy going to see their team when it is missing one or two of the best players? Or will the players trying to make their breakthrough play while carrying a minor niggle because they want the game time to impress the coaches? And then end up with a worse injury.
It is less of a problem if you have a larger pool of players as you would have more options for rotating players - but look at Scotland this 6 nations - they were scraping the barrel after injuries, and you would have had the position of either forcing battered and bruised players back on the field a week earlier than previous practice or dropping down to a lower level of experience in order to have a team.

I agree with this 100%. There doesn't seem to have been any thought regarding player welfare, and yes, the 'big' countries will gain an advantage.

by Guest Sat 25 Mar - 0:03

Bad idea. Safety of the players would be a concern. It would also advantage England as they have a bigger playing pool to draw from than the rest.

by Gwlad Sat 25 Mar - 0:11

I think its a great idea.

by Guest Sat 25 Mar - 0:15

You just want a fight Smile

by **Rugby Fan** Sat 25 Mar - 0:18

I don't yet have a good grasp of how the season is going to look following the changes announced recently by World Rugby.

The only mitigation for extending the Northern hemisphere season by one month is if the player workload can be managed to balance club and country commitments with appropriate rest periods.

I want to know what the whole proposal is for the Northern season before taking a view on individual parts.

by RuggerRadge2611 Sat 25 Mar - 0:30

It's easy for the RFU to say that, their player pool is enormous. Terrible idea that will hit the likes of Italy and Scotland the hardest.

by Gwlad Sat 25 Mar - 0:42

Munchkin wrote:You just want a fight

No i dont. Smile

by 123456789 Sat 25 Mar - 0:56

Probably about time we had a discussion over whether Player welfare or English rugby income was more important...

by Guest Sat 25 Mar - 1:15

Gwlad wrote:
Munchkin wrote:You just want a fight

No i dont.

Ah ha! I was right! Smile

by Pot Hale Sat 25 Mar - 3:24

Munchkin wrote:
Gwlad wrote:
Munchkin wrote:You just want a fight

No i dont.

Ah ha! I was right!

No you weren't....

by rainbow-warrior Sat 25 Mar - 5:19

Stuff the RFU. Should have had the decency to see what the opinions of the other unions were before opening their arrogant gobs. I would vote against just to p$ss them off.

by **Rugby Fan** Sat 25 Mar - 6:29

rainbow-warrior wrote:Stuff the RFU. Should have had the decency to see what the opinions of the other unions were before opening their arrogant gobs...

Why? We always complain about lack of transparency on the part of governing bodies in rugby. I have no problem with the RFU making their proposal public. If the other unions don't like it, then they'll vote it down, and it'll also be good we know they made that choice.

by Recwatcher16 Sat 25 Mar - 9:32

The usual and predictable concerns on player welfare...
but then we have the situation this season of Pro12 and AP finals and then just seven days later, the first game in NZ.

Player welfare ??

Any injuries suffered in 6N generally rules players out for the tournament an extra week makes little or no difference.

by mikey_dragon Sat 25 Mar - 10:27

It's a good idea but surely it can only work in tandem with a reduced club season?

by Hood83 Sat 25 Mar - 11:21

I really don't like the idea, I take what Hogg said seriously. It's a much, much bigger problem for teams other than France and England who have significant reserves. I'd far rather we got to see the best teams out as much as possible as the win against a massively depleted Scotland helped no-one I think.

by mikey_dragon Sat 25 Mar - 11:24

Again if the club season is also reduced then flogged players becomes a non-issue around Feb/March?

by majesticimperialman Sat 25 Mar - 12:04

On the one Hand, it does not seem a bad idea

On the other Hand, as some one already mentiond Player welfare.

Are the squad/ teams going to be bigger to account for player burn out?

An what effect will this have on the club season?

by wayne Sat 25 Mar - 12:30

As a couple have said earlier, because of their vastly bigger pool of players England wouldn't suffer half as much as probably all the NH countries except possibly France, and isn't it perfectly obvious PRL have been asking for it, and as the RFU cow tow to practically everything the PRL want eventually, that is the reason for this intervention.

by Shifty Sat 25 Mar - 14:27

Personally I'd prefer it over 5 weeks and push it back a month so we have warmer weather.
I'm not so concerned about the player welfare arguments. There is nothing wrong with removing key players from a game when it's clear it's been won or lost.

Even better still I'd like to add 2 more teams into the free 2 weekends, there is no reason players could not be benched or rested for those games anyway.

by Guest Sat 25 Mar - 21:29

Pot Hale wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
Gwlad wrote:
Munchkin wrote:You just want a fight

No i dont.

Ah ha! I was right!
No you weren't....

Yes I was

by Guest Sat 25 Mar - 21:35

Recwatcher16 wrote:The usual and predictable concerns on player welfare...
but then we have the situation this season of Pro12 and AP finals and then just seven days later, the first game in NZ.

Player welfare ??

Any injuries suffered in 6N generally rules players out for the tournament an extra week makes little or no difference.

Yes, player welfare. 5 straight weeks of playing 6N's is bound to have an adverse impact on player welfare. There's also the little gem that only England, with their larger player pool to draw from, would benefit from such a move. That's not a dig at England, but those who proposed such a move.

by bedfordwelsh Sun 26 Mar - 9:59

Remember years ago when it was the RFU that wanted it changed to longer, how times change

by David-Douglas Sun 26 Mar - 10:55

bedfordwelsh wrote:Remember years ago when it was the RFU that wanted it changed to longer, how times change

Ah, but these days the RFU are just puppets of the PRL and the club owners. The RFU need to grow a pair and take back control of the English game.

by No 7&1/2 Sun 26 Mar - 11:02

Yeah not like the world moves on or anything!

by Recwatcher16 Sun 26 Mar - 20:34

Munchkin wrote:
Recwatcher16 wrote:The usual and predictable concerns on player welfare...
but then we have the situation this season of Pro12 and AP finals and then just seven days later, the first game in NZ.

Player welfare ??

Any injuries suffered in 6N generally rules players out for the tournament an extra week makes little or no difference.

Yes, player welfare. 5 straight weeks of playing 6N's is bound to have an adverse impact on player welfare. There's also the little gem that only England, with their larger player pool to draw from, would benefit from such a move. That's not a dig at England, but those who proposed such a move.

The proposal is six weeks not five.
Any Union that opposes a concentrated run of games is probably never going to win a world cup.

If Unions choose to artificially concentrate players in their elite top tier of their game into two or three teams, then fans can't then bemoan a small player pool.

by GunsGermsV2 Mon 27 Mar - 9:22

I think it would be better for the fans. I hate the break weekends.

by cascough Mon 27 Mar - 9:53

I like the idea. I dislike rest weekends from a fan perspective. People keep rolling out player welfare as a negative, but what does that really mean?

As far as I can tell this won't result in more games, so that's not an issue. Even if it clashes with fewer club games meaning players are technically available for selection in more club games there is an agreement in place for the England players to only play a maximum amount of minutes in a season anyway. Not sure about the other nations.

In terms of fewer rest periods, depending on your arrangements it's currently possible for a player to play all 5 6N games and 2 games for their club in between. Also, it would mean players playing on 3 consecutive weekends, which is no different to what players do for their clubs now.

by beshocked Mon 27 Mar - 10:16

well said cascough.

Do Wales care about player welfare when they play an extra game in the AIs? censored

I don't think there is anything necessarily wrong with this as long as players get sufficient rest time throughout the season.

Player welfare doesn't seem to be an issue when it comes to the Lions.... game after game. A whopping 10 games in 35 days.

5 games in 42 seems relatively civilised in comparison.

We aren't at football levels of games congestion just yet!

by Geordie Mon 27 Mar - 11:05

Its because the nasty RFU have suggested it so everyone automatically hates it...as per Rainbow d1ck above....

by munkian Mon 27 Mar - 11:08

Union with the biggest player base in the world doesn't care about rest weeks shocker.

by Geordie Mon 27 Mar - 11:13

Absolutely

by wayne Mon 27 Mar - 11:17

beshocked wrote:well said cascough.

Do Wales care about player welfare when they play an extra game in the AIs?

I don't think there is anything necessarily wrong with this as long as players get sufficient rest time throughout the season.

Player welfare doesn't seem to be an issue when it comes to the Lions.... game after game. A whopping 10 games in 35 days.

5 games in 42 seems relatively civilised in comparison.

We aren't at football levels of games congestion just yet!

To you and the previous poster. What a load of B0llocks, the extra week PRL clubs will be playing said players, and it would disadvantage everyone bar England and France with their player pool being miles LAAAAARRRRRGGGGEEEERRRR, than the other 6 Nations teams. It's just the PRL tail pulling the RFU body, with the RFU being the poodle.

by beshocked Mon 27 Mar - 11:35

wayne wrote:
beshocked wrote:well said cascough.

Do Wales care about player welfare when they play an extra game in the AIs?

I don't think there is anything necessarily wrong with this as long as players get sufficient rest time throughout the season.

Player welfare doesn't seem to be an issue when it comes to the Lions.... game after game. A whopping 10 games in 35 days.

5 games in 42 seems relatively civilised in comparison.

We aren't at football levels of games congestion just yet!

To you and the previous poster. What a load of B0llocks, the extra week PRL clubs will be playing said players, and it would disadvantage everyone bar England and France with their player pool being miles LAAAAARRRRRGGGGEEEERRRR, than the other 6 Nations teams. It's just the PRL tail pulling the RFU body, with the RFU being the poodle.

It could be a stipulation that players must have more rest periods during the season.

Rest weekends break up the flow of the competition as well.

Don't see you complaining about the ridiculous Lions schedule. That's going to be worse for player welfare than playing a game every week.

by mikey_dragon Mon 27 Mar - 11:36

beshocked wrote:
Don't see you complaining about the ridiculous Lions schedule. That's going to be worse for player welfare than playing a game every week.

He and many others have complained about the Lions schedule and Wales' AI game outside of the international window.

by cascough Mon 27 Mar - 11:38

wayne wrote:
beshocked wrote:well said cascough.

Do Wales care about player welfare when they play an extra game in the AIs?

I don't think there is anything necessarily wrong with this as long as players get sufficient rest time throughout the season.

Player welfare doesn't seem to be an issue when it comes to the Lions.... game after game. A whopping 10 games in 35 days.

5 games in 42 seems relatively civilised in comparison.

We aren't at football levels of games congestion just yet!

To you and the previous poster. What a load of B0llocks, the extra week PRL clubs will be playing said players, and it would disadvantage everyone bar England and France with their player pool being miles LAAAAARRRRRGGGGEEEERRRR, than the other 6 Nations teams. It's just the PRL tail pulling the RFU body, with the RFU being the poodle.

Constructive.

As I said, England players can only play a certain amount of minutes, regardless of how they are spread out. If other unions don't have a similar agreement and they are really bothered about welfare then they need to get one. That goes for however the 6 nations is laid out.

Secondly, playing on consecutive weekends for extended periods is already more prevalent in club rugby and the AIs (and the lions) than the 6N. If this proposal was approved, it still would only result in 3 internationals in a row. That would still be less than most countries AIs and often equal to summer tours.

The point is it will be no more games, and if your union has it's house in order will result in no more minutes of Rugby being played than is being played currently.

Your point about WHY the proposal might be happening, ie the PRL and the RFU power struggle may well be a debate worth having. But it doesn't lend any more credence to the "player welfare" criticism that is wheeled out.

by beshocked Mon 27 Mar - 11:39

mikey_dragon wrote:
beshocked wrote:
Don't see you complaining about the ridiculous Lions schedule. That's going to be worse for player welfare than playing a game every week.

He and many others have complained about the Lions schedule and Wales' AI game outside of the international window.

Well if you reduce them then you have more impact on player welfare than stopping the flow of the 6 nations tournament.

Liking watching an exciting TV programme then having it off air for a week. Reduces momentum and interest.

by RuggerRadge2611 Mon 27 Mar - 11:51

beshocked wrote:
mikey_dragon wrote:
beshocked wrote:
Don't see you complaining about the ridiculous Lions schedule. That's going to be worse for player welfare than playing a game every week.

He and many others have complained about the Lions schedule and Wales' AI game outside of the international window.

Well if you reduce them then you have more impact on player welfare than stopping the flow of the 6 nations tournament.

Liking watching an exciting TV programme then having it off air for a week. Reduces momentum and interest.

Absolute tripe. The 6N will always generate interest even if the games were spread throughout the season.

Condensing the 6N into such a narrow window will make the tournament a battle off attrition. The rest weekends are vital, although for the majority of Scots exiles they represent their clubs in the rest weekends anyway. Visser, Richie Gray and Maitland all ran out for their clubs in the "rest" weekends.

by No 7&1/2 Mon 27 Mar - 11:55

Why are the rest weekends vital? As others have said players do play more consecutive games for their clubs and some cases country anyway? You're also saying it's currently an unlevel playing field with some players not getting those rest periods.

by wayne Mon 27 Mar - 12:00

beshocked wrote:
wayne wrote:
beshocked wrote:well said cascough.

Do Wales care about player welfare when they play an extra game in the AIs?

I don't think there is anything necessarily wrong with this as long as players get sufficient rest time throughout the season.

Player welfare doesn't seem to be an issue when it comes to the Lions.... game after game. A whopping 10 games in 35 days.

5 games in 42 seems relatively civilised in comparison.

We aren't at football levels of games congestion just yet!

To you and the previous poster. What a load of B0llocks, the extra week PRL clubs will be playing said players, and it would disadvantage everyone bar England and France with their player pool being miles LAAAAARRRRRGGGGEEEERRRR, than the other 6 Nations teams. It's just the PRL tail pulling the RFU body, with the RFU being the poodle.

It could be a stipulation that players must have more rest periods during the season.

Yes it could be, but you and I KNOW, it won't

Rest weekends break up the flow of the competition as well.

Break up the flow? NO it allows the smaller countries to get some of their injured players fit again, when the same doesn't apply to the big 2, because of their MASSIVELY bigger Professional Player Pool.

Don't see you complaining about the ridiculous Lions schedule. That's going to be worse for player welfare than playing a game every week.

Player welfare is a consideration, and as Mikey said I've complained vociferously over the AIs especially with the number of players we've (Ospreys) historically supplied to TW. Not so much the Lions as to me it is the pinnacle of NH Rugby.

by The Great Aukster Mon 27 Mar - 13:47

Is the current format of the 6N successful - if yes why change it?
How much more revenue (in £ notes) will reducing the schedule by one week generate for the Unions?
The only obvious benefit is that the PRL and the LNR get an extra week with all their Internationals available for domestic competition.

It is shocking that the RFU would rather devalue the quality of the most historic International rugby competition by prioritising domestic rugby over it. Soon it will be solely up to clubs discretion as to whether they want to make players available for Test rugby at all.

by beshocked Mon 27 Mar - 14:20

ruggerradge2611 so then it doesn't matter then does it? if Scottish players aren't being rested anyway.

I would suggest as a compromise that players playing outside Scotland,Wales etc should be rested more too.

Only way one would prove it would be viewing figures.

wayne yes you are right, there likely won't but there should. Well I see the rest periods as breaking the flow of the competition.

Fair enough but if you don't sort out the AIs and Lions then why worry about the 6 nations changing?

Rushing back players isn't good for player welfare either.

The great aukster I personally don't think it's devaluing a competition to not chop a competition up.

by SecretFly Mon 27 Mar - 16:07

The Great Aukster wrote:

It is shocking that the RFU would rather devalue the quality of the most historic International rugby competition by prioritising domestic rugby over it. Soon it will be solely up to clubs discretion as to whether they want to make players available for Test rugby at all.

I don't think it's a new hypothesis that the RFU (given they've handed over so much to their day to day work to the private business interests of the club owners via PRL) have become basically an Agent platform working to uphold, promote and lobby for the interests of the English PRL/Club Premiership game.

The RFU in general - and Richie in particular, seems to have taken it upon themselves/himself to be the unofficial mouthpieces for World Rugby policy (present and projected). Richie is always the guy telling us what's on the agenda and telling us how we should ideally react to all the nice new proposals he and his RFU people are championing on any given day of the week.

On any of this stuff - Global Season, 6N duration, player residency issues - I'd prefer if World Rugby took ownership of the publicity and briefings concerning the conversations going on in private about all the issues pertinent to the future of the International game.

by Guest Mon 27 Mar - 18:12

So, most/all England fans for it, with most/all others against. Fairly predictable.

Hopefully all the other Unions tell Richie to take a running jump.

by Poorfour Mon 27 Mar - 18:13

SecretFly wrote:On any of this stuff - Global Season, 6N duration, player residency issues - I'd prefer if World Rugby took ownership of the publicity and briefings concerning the conversations going on in private about all the issues pertinent to the future of the International game.

Quite apart from the fact that World Rugby doesn't have any direct jurisdiction over the 6N - that's between the 6N organisation itself and the constituent unions - if World Rugby did take over these announcements and issues, how would you blame the PRL for all the world's evils then?

It really does get wearing that pretty much anything the PRL or RFU say is immediately leapt upon by certain elements of this board as concrete evidence of a nefarious plot to ruin rugby for the benefit of English club owners.

I suspect that even if they issued two entirely contradictory statements on the same day they'd get condemned on hear thrice over. It's the same warped logic that makes selecting Nathan Hughes automatically bad, while "Project Players" are perfectly acceptable.

by Guest Mon 27 Mar - 18:18

You can't deny that reducing the 6N's to 6 weeks, will benefit England.

I like winning as much as anyone else, but not winning by any means.

by Recwatcher16 Mon 27 Mar - 18:28

At least your usual moan is consistent Secret.
The RFU had their chance to control the professional game twenty years ago and they (rightly) walked away. The annual RFU financial contribution for test players is just that, a contribution. So the RFU have to work with the PRL who fund the professional tier of the game, which is different from the Union closed shop ownership model.

The RFU is up to plenty of other activities like investing in a hundred new plastic pitches and large numbers of new coaches for the juniors and women's game. That is the RFU's goal in terms of access and participation.

Expecting World Rugby to be a professional organisation with so many vested interests and political agendas is asking too much. Pretty sure many view Steve Tew as having World Rugby in his back pocket any way.

by SecretFly Mon 27 Mar - 18:34

Poorfour wrote:
SecretFly wrote:On any of this stuff - Global Season, 6N duration, player residency issues - I'd prefer if World Rugby took ownership of the publicity and briefings concerning the conversations going on in private about all the issues pertinent to the future of the International game.

Quite apart from the fact that World Rugby doesn't have any direct jurisdiction over the 6N - that's between the 6N organisation itself and the constituent unions - if World Rugby did take over these announcements and issues, how would you blame the PRL for all the world's evils then?

It really does get wearing that pretty much anything the PRL or RFU say is immediately leapt upon by certain elements of this board as concrete evidence of a nefarious plot to ruin rugby for the benefit of English club owners.

I suspect that even if they issued two entirely contradictory statements on the same day they'd get condemned on hear thrice over. It's the same warped logic that makes selecting Nathan Hughes automatically bad, while "Project Players" are perfectly acceptable.

I suspect that the Aliens from Cryopses 7 would begin colonisation of earth quicker

But there you go. I'm not responsible that some folks here get very bitey when the obvious is presented on these pages. And yes, it truly does get wearing that the RFU and PRL seem to always have something new to say on rugby and somehow manage to always varnish it as official-speak from Head Office of Rugby Union Executive International Authority. Oh and yes, World Rugby does have a say in any new 'Global Season' of which 6N would only be a piece in the jigsaw.

Let's try this - let's agree that all the Unions are talking about new ways in private boardrooms or hotels. Let's say they seem to be all coming to a general consensus of sorts - so let's say the Scottish Union CEO is next on the list to publically pronounce on what Rugby in the NH or SH is thinking about. Richie always does the honours. Time for a new voice to prove there is a consensus and a democracy of opinion in action behind those closed doors.

by Sponsored content