more than just 80 minutes
Columns
sarugby.com
Fix Rugby: Part 1
Friday, November 27
Submit
There's a growing dissatisfaction in the Rugby world with the way the game's ruling body are enforcing the laws and the current state of the game. The whispers and moans of rugby fans are turning into fist thumping and shouts as the current laws of the game allow boring rugby to prosper.
Aimless kicking, hoof-and-chase tactics, messy breakdowns that favour the defending team, dog show scrum interpretations and more are erroding what so many people love about the game.
The IRB have come in for some serious criticism for their handling of the laws of the game in this regard. Some of it is justified and some of it is unfair. The failed ELV experiment was at least an effort to make the game a more open and flowing affair. A miserable failure it might be, but at least their heart was in the right place. What a pity that they took their eyes off what was happening while they were off cooking up some new rules in Stellenbosch though.
They are guilty, however, of promoting a sort of 'fashionable interpretations' of the laws whereby referees are told to be strict on certain interpretations and everything else seems to go out the window.
It's almost as if the poor referees can only remember one or two things a game and go around blowing them up while cunning coaches and players find ways to kill the game (to their advantage of course) in many other ways.
Mick Cleary wrote a brilliant article in the Telegraph (UK) earlier this week where he gave 'Five ways to get rugby back up and running'.
In this little series I am going to run through some of his ideas as well as some others and allow the SARugby.com community to have their say, poke holes or agree with the suggestions and vote on whether you'd like to see the IRB think about these changes.
Fix Rugby: Part 1 - Substitutions
Ban or limit the number of tactical substitutions in a game.
A simple idea, but one that could have huge benefits for the rugby watching public. Cut the number of tactical substitutions down and you'd see players tiring towards the end of games. Tired legs and minds can pave the way for the fitter and more determined team to go on and take the game. You'd cut out completely the routine substitutions towards the end of the game that disrupt the flow and do little for the spectacle.
Players would have to train themselves to be able to last an entire game and not just bulk themselves up for 60 or 20 minute sessions.
You could still allow injury replacements, but the injured player would face a mandatory two-week 'healing' ban to prevent the the rules being manipulated.
*Discuss the idea in the comments section below, give us the pros and cons of this idea and then vote on the top right hand side of the page.
 |
Designed and Implemented by DigIT Solutions
All content supplied by SARugby.com
Photographs supplied by Gallo Images/Getty Images.
All logos and trademarks are the property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2005 Fat Pig Productions CC The logos and trademarks used on this site are the property of their respective owners We are not responsible for comments posted by our users, as they are the property of the poster Advertise with SARugby.com | Legal Notices |
 |
Fix rugby part 1,2,3,4....15 till end
Fire Paddy OBrien and select Watson to do the job. Stop changing the rules would be the heading.
Nothing wrong with the game in SA except bums on seats. That have noting to do with rule changing, only to much top rugby these days on the telly.
Look at how cricket is going. Cant get a sell out for a ODI on Newlands, hell not in the past and rule changing alla T20 the reason for this.
The game should never lose it basic principle of good batting and bowling or in rugby like scrumming and rucking due to law changes.
Our game is on the up and heading in the right direction, till ONeil's CC kicking in over a few years and busting our bubble.
Thanks feel a bit better now.
It's not one of the most crucial changes by a long shot, but they should have looked at stuff like this before they started tampering with the breakdown and so on.
That part is unworkable unfortunately.
What you could do is limit the substitutions to three (both tactical and for injuries). If a player gets injured and you're out of subs - tough (.)(.)ies.
Rugby shouldn't be scared to look at the other professional sports that have many more years experience.
That's not to say I agree with the idea. Going back to the most professional of sports countries - USA. There its about having the most able bodied sportsmen on the field at all times, rolling substitutions - NHL has enough subs to make over 3 teams, NFL has around 4 teams available.
"Players would have to train themselves to be able to last an entire game and not just bulk themselves up for 60 or 20 minute sessions."
I want to see players train themselves to be the best technical athletes they can be - not the (edited)st racehorses we can find. The game could move to being one of whose (edited)st and not whose the most talented.
Looking at what I've just said, I guess I'm saying - either drop the subs down OR increase the number allowed dramatically (like another 15 on the bench with rolling subs).
Still, tactics, especially in sa, have evolved into the kicking, wait for the opposition to make a mistake, game... So how about allowing a mark anywhere on the field, and then allow the team receiving the kick to kick it straight out and have the throw in at the lineout? That will stop aimless kicking...
I deliberately started with this one - just as sort of a warm-up. Of course there are far more controversial ideas that could be implemented to 'improve' the game.
I do think the substitutions idea is an interesting one though. It's something that we just take for granted and it actually doesn't really add anything to the game.
Ollie le Roux and Albert van den Bergh getting over 50 caps - is that a measure of how good they are when they each started about 4 Test matches?
Towards the end of the game it's a complete mess. From doing player ratings I can tell you that not only do the crowd, TV and commentators not know who is on the field that more than half the substitutes have little or no influence on the game. Once again pointless.
I'm keeping a list of all the suggestions so keep them coming - we'll have a look at all of them in turn. Be a good way to keep rugby fit during the off season!
Cheers,
Ed
You know that in Australia, if a some stadiums are not full they won’t broadcast the game in that city /town, thus encouraging ticket sales and getting people to the game
It was John O'Neill's idea to begin tampering with them to begin with for fear that Union was losing appeal and revenue compared to League and AFL.
Stop interfering and trying to re-invent the wheel and we won't be in this position to begin with! Union is becoming the laughing stock of sport. How can the powers that be expect to draw crowds when no one seems to know how to interpret the laws to begin with.
We need some consistency and back to the drawing board...the way rugby should be played and what has worked up until now.
I am all for limiting the number of subs - games hardly ever get better because of substitutions
you also cannot put a 2 week ban on a injured player because sometimes a players CAN be subbed for a 'niggling' slight injury
that could become major if he is left on the field,but rested he
might be ready before 2 weeks to play again! If this happens to be a 'key'player coaches would do about ANYHING to get them on the field again-so messing with the sub rules other than only injury subs being allowed is not fair to player or coach and it will be too hard to police false 'inury' subs! This is a hard one!!!
I think the scrums are a balls up, and the rucks and mauls. The old rules were better with regards to these. I recon there are too many grey area's that allow for different interpretations. Each ref is reffing his own understanding of the rules.
And there are definately too many rules changing the whole time this game is over a 100 years old you think the best methods of reffering would have been resolved ages ago, slight adjustments are fine but each season has new ruck and maul rules which is crazy.
For real though, After 3 or more collapsed scrums, have uncontested scrums. I hate it when there is re-set after re-set after re-set....it just makes the game slow and boring. There would have to be a way of regulating a weaker scrum collapsing a scrum on purpose, and I don't pretend to know how that would be done, but as I have stated, I hate watching a game littered with collapsed scrums....EXTREMELY BORING.
i think we'd need to come up with something more effective and a limit to substitutes could be the way forward, although that has problems of its own...! (i can only imagine the cries of injustice that will come out as soon as a team loses because it had less the 15 players on the field.)
also, i'm not sure whether the ed was making a call for other suggestions beyond this issue of substitutes, but here's a quick one nonetheless: take the "hit" out of the scrum.
i know, i know... controversial, but i honestly can't stand watching 10-15 scrums collapse every game. winning the scrum nowadays seems all about winning the hit, not actual ability to scrum (i.e. push). moreover, i think awkward collisions in the hit are in large part to blame for illegal srummaging (boring in, up, etc)
just a thought. use it, don't use it.
Injuries would be an exception.
Look at soccer, they have 3 substitutes and they have to give good consideration about which players to substitute. With rugby it feels as if they decide before the match who they will substitute and at what time.
IMO, the substitutes must consist of a specialist hooker, a specialist tighthead prop, specialist loosehead prop, 2 forwards and 2 backline players. Thus, Making it more specific.
In short, it means that the problem does not necessarily lie in the number of substitutes, but in the application thereof.