Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Solution to Rugby as a Collision Sport

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Solution to Rugby as a Collision Sport

    Before I start, Eddie Jones is not the Messiah but I found a topic he raised here, http://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/story/_/...-beast-problem

    He is making a very valid point. The size of Rugby players is still an issue and its not going away. Sure New Zealand seem to have changed their approach but as Ken Early (who I do not like) pointed out in a piece in Todays IT . .there are still many hulking great physiques in the game today. And with them comes BIG collisions.

    Jones's stat that there is only 27 minutes of Rugby in an 80 minute Test Match is very interesting. He maintains that this allows the big hulks to remain huge and compete.

    He wants the IRB to make Law changes that cause more continuity in the game as one solution.



    However, I for one think his idea is only half a solution. Even with a more constant game will still see big lads last for plenty long to provide plenty of collisions, Sean O Brien can play 80 minutes as is so he will last quite a while, George North and Nemani Nadolo also etc etc. And it will effect the minnows far more imo as they haven't the same fitness of the top sides, widening the gulf.


    My own preference would be for more space on the field for the entire game - not just later when teams tire.

    This will increase the ground all players have to cover and make it far harder for the hulks - but it will also provide for far greater opportunities for mismatches and again a role for fast skillful backs with a flair and a step.

    So you can increase the entertainment and make the game safer.

    So yes, Increase the work load on players to force bodyshapes to change - but do so by creating more space on the park.

    I'm sure many folks have many other ideas??

    #2
    Simples. 13-man game, lose 1 centre and one back-rower, (blind-side of each scrum).
    Different game.
    Gwan Joe!!

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by ustix View Post
      Simples. 13-man game, lose 1 centre and one back-rower, (blind-side of each scrum).
      Different game.
      And create identikit players ala league?
      "Everything good about Ireland can be found in County Cork"....Lonely Planet Guide 2012

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Grandpasimpson View Post
        And create identikit players ala league?
        I think the 13 man option.... though far from ideal....is the best option.

        If you keep your scrums and line outs you should go some way to stopping Union ending up with League type teams of players.

        I would love to see players like Earls and Zebo is a 13 a side game of Rugby Union.

        The only other way to create space is much bigger pitches and that's unworkable

        Comment


          #5
          I was delighted to see Japan beat the boks last weekend. For me that says size does not matter (still) it's belief and and want.
          Excellence is hard to keep quite - Sherrie Coale

          Comment


            #6
            I don't understand. Japan have just shown yesterday that the game can be played very effectively by smaller teams if you play smart. Rugby league is a 13 man sport and if anything it is even more collision based

            Comment


              #7
              I think folks are missing the point.

              I don't think this is about not being able to beat big players.

              New Zealand are not the biggest team in the game but they are the best.

              It is about lessening the huge collisions. It is about the lack of space, particularly at test level in Rugby Union.

              Rugby League is not a collision sport because of the numbers on the field..... It's due to other factors

              Comment


                #8
                What other factors?
                Yorn desh born, der ritt de gitt der gue,
                Orn desh, dee born desh, de umn bork! bork! bork!

                Comment


                  #9
                  Allow the defending team a greater chance to compete legally for the ball at the ruck. This will make them commit more players to the ruck which will mean the team with the ball must do the same which means less players out the line and so more space.
                  Anybody who sees a psychiatrist would want their head examined.*&nb sp;Henry Ford

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Keep calm, all is not lost. The situation about bulking up is not straightforward.

                    From the BBC
                    According to Dr Grant Trewartha, a Bath University bio-mechanics expert who specialises in rugby, the average weight of players in the top tier of international rugby has actually started to plateau.


                    "If you look at the data for the size of elite rugby players, say the ones playing in England, overall there has perhaps been at most an increase of 2kg in their average weight since 2002.

                    "At some point there has to be an upper limit to the useful size of a rugby player, in terms of their ability to actually play at the pace that the modern game demands."

                    The players in the 2015 England side that played Fiji in the opening game of this year's tournament were in fact on average 1.4kg (3lb) lighter than those in the England side that won the World Cup back in 2003.






                    More here
                    Last edited by rathbaner; 21st-September-2015, 22:33.
                    Munster – Champions of Europe 2006, 2008, 2019.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by cornerboy View Post
                      Allow the defending team a greater chance to compete legally for the ball at the ruck. This will make them commit more players to the ruck which will mean the team with the ball must do the same which means less players out the line and so more space.
                      I disagree. There needs to be a greater danger for teams who do not compete at the ruck. Like if you get two men past the ball in a ruck then the third man can pick the ball up, bind on the men in front of him and form a maul. Rucks were intended to be dynamic until the current tackle interpretation. They need to make them so again to suck players in.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by HenryFitz View Post
                        I disagree. There needs to be a greater danger for teams who do not compete at the ruck. Like if you get two men past the ball in a ruck then the third man can pick the ball up, bind on the men in front of him and form a maul. Rucks were intended to be dynamic until the current tackle interpretation. They need to make them so again to suck players in.
                        We're kind of saying the same thing Henry......what ever needs to be done to get more players contesting the ruck is the secret.
                        Anybody who sees a psychiatrist would want their head examined.*&nb sp;Henry Ford

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by cornerboy View Post
                          We're kind of saying the same thing Henry......what ever needs to be done to get more players contesting the ruck is the secret.
                          Plus one,
                          along with opening up at least the possibility of some class of a corridor to attack down the blind-side.
                          Gwan Joe!!

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by McCloud View Post
                            I was delighted to see Japan beat the boks last weekend. For me that says size does not matter (still) it's belief and and want.
                            To be fair, that game is somewhat of an anomaly - it's usually the other way around. You've Gordon D'Arcy saying the centres he's been tackling since 2011 have grown exponentially in size.

                            That said, these fads come in swings and roundabouts - if Japan do something as crazy as reach a semi final, you could see teams thinking 'hmmm, maybe small and elusive is the way to go forward actually'.

                            I think a 13 man game would be better, there's feck all space in the modern game now, unless you go through multiple phases (hits)
                            Marty in the Morning

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Do folks who advocate the changes to the breakdown not think that this could cause the game to slow down . . . and give the big hulk lads more time.

                              Any idea that would allow you keep 15 men and bring about the changes would be ideal . . . .even though I think 13 men sides would be a great solution even if its appalling ideologically.

                              If you keep the emphasis on Scrum and Lineout - or increase it somehow - you could go along way to not having teams begin to resemble League sides. . . . to keep the different body shapes and skill sets of Union.

                              Would 13 men be too great a change though? Say you took 2 from the backs to keep the loose forwards and the contest at the breakdown specialists . . . .Say you got rid of the wingers. Would there be crazy space off set piece and tries scored far far too easily.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X