General Rugby Discussion 3

It's not as simple as saying people who would prefer league are free to follow it. It's to do with popularity too. You can have very little interest in union and walk into a pub on 6N day and it will be presented to you along with the fanfare. If you like rugby league as much or more than union, there's no way to passively see it and there's probably nobody to talk to about it after you've seen it.

Taking good Ideas from league shouldn't be avoided just because league thought if it first.

I like the size mismatches in union from the front three to the back three. And you need scrums to maintain the size mismatch. Without scrums there would be no need for props. So I'm not a fan of this idea. But simply saying that league does it so union can't copy or changing the game would mean it's not union anymore, is silly.

I don't see how replacing scrums with free kicks improves the game. Free kick are shíte. It might "speed the game up" by not having to pack down for a scrum but you lose the opportunity for a pre-planned backline move in the space available while more than half the players are tied up.

Some of the rule changes are removing the scrum option, which doesn't necessarily reduce the number of scrums at all. The big one would be a free resulting from an unplayable mail. By definition you won't have a quick tap in that situation so you either have one lad carry into the entire other team or a garyown, not sure how that improves the spectacle.

I think there is other areas too that can make some changes to speed up the game. Penalties inside the opposition 22 is an automatic 5m lineout if the attacking team chooses a lineout over a quick tap instead of wasting time on the 10 kicking.

There was one Leinster game a while back and I calculated the kickers took almost 3 minutes out of the game lining up kicks to touch in the opposing 22

I'd like to see them reform the conversions to speed up the game and reward where the try is scored a bit more.
For example,
If a try is scored between the posts the try is a 7-pointer with no conversion required, like a penalty try.
If a try is scored outside the posts but within the 15-metre line from the touch-line the try is a 6-pointer with a single point available for a drop goal from the 22-metre line in line with where it was touched down.
If a try is scored outside the 15-metre line from the touch-line the try is a 5-pointer and the conversion is from the ground for 2 points in line with where it was touched down.

Removing the need to convert from under the posts would save a bit of time, and having a drop-kick conversion for near-in tries would speed it up a good bit and would mean players would have to develop that skill a bit more, plus there is an in-built reward for teams scoring closer to the posts which would add to the drama of the score, the defending team would want to make them score further out obviously.

Im sure there are a lot of areas the game can improve. But what is the obsession with speeding up the game? Isnt that just rugby league then? Ive never watched it, but from my understanding its just faster paced rugby.

Do we want 30 guys running up and down continuously for 40 minutes, have 10 or 20 minutes break and then another 40 minutes non-stop? Are they going to increase how many reserves each team gets? You might need 15 men for the first half and then a whole fresh new 15 men for the second half. I dont like the obvious time wasting either, which has already been addressed by some new rules recently, but damn, let rugby be rugby. Teams have missed kicks from right in front of the posts before. It all adds to the drama of the game. If we take it away the game becomes way too predictable.

It's not just speeding up the game, it's increasing the ball in play time. Kicking a goal can be a dramatic moment in a game. But is there really anything dramatic or even barely interesting about watching someone kick for a line-out? Or walking up to a lineout, or packing down for a scrum? Those are 'wasted' minutes.

Agreed. Much like scrummaging, it seems to be seen as an inconvenience to those who might be better off sticking to watching 7s or league.

The obsession is money from casual TV viewers with limited attention spans.

The Scottish and Welsh URC teams have an average attendance of approx 7,500. The English Premiership is at 12,500, and Super League is at 9,500. All with a similar number of yearly games played.

You claimed "ridiculously few people watch league", which is just just completely factually wrong, even in the UK example alone.

"It wouldn't be rugby union any more" could be applied to plenty of changes made over the years.

Did moving to 8 players on the bench make the game no longer rugby union?

Did changing the ruck dramatically make the game no longer rugby union?

Does the 50:22 make the game no longer rugby union?

Did the scrum changes make the game no longer rugby union?

Did the changes in reffing dangerous tackling make the game no longer rugby union?

Did changing the points for a try to 5 make the game no longer rugby union?

And thats all just in the last few decades in my playing/watching lifetime, nevermind before. The sport of rugby union in 2025 is dramatically different to what was rugby union in 1985 to play and watch. And by 2055 it will likely be dramatically different again. The idea that sports can't change, evolve and improve is obviously nonsense.

"This is how we've always done it" is not a defense against trying something that would improve the game by most assessments.

It may be stupid but it is happening sports all across the spectrum and not just rugby union so I don't understand why you would think it to be implausible.

The likes of CVC are not buying into rugby to see things stay the same for core fans.

I agree with all of this and to add to that, the constant changes from an organisational perspective are ridiculously frequent.

In the last few years we've seen significant and constant changes to the World Cup, the Pro14/Pro16/URC, the European Champions Cup, Super Rugby, Premiership Rugby etc.

It must be frenetic for someone who started watching rugby in the last ten years to keep up with the constant changes.

There's an argument that sometimes you don't know how good you have it and at some point the constant tinkering is going to backfire and people will switch off.

Agree on the YC whether or not a Try is scored. As to the number of penalties, call it 5 per half or whatever the average of the lower penalised sides is. If teams are on a particular number of penalties it will alter their behaviour. It's not an enormous leap from the present, but inconsistent, system of being 'on a warning'. It would introduce a certainty for the players, officials & fans.

A free kick will of course lead to a much shorter time to the next ruck but is that the objective here? Free kicks are a crap way to restart play. Particularly from an unplayable maul when the ball is trapped which prevents a quick tap when players aren't ready. A free kick from an unplayable maul generally sees one forward carry directly into the entire opposition pack or a hail Mary kick with the opposition back three in place.

At least with a scrum, both packs are tied up and there is an opportunity for a strike move from it or a planned exit. A free kick may result in a faster restart in play but is that play actually one that improves the game? I would say having lots of free kicks would make for a worse spectacle.

Total attendance across the last Super League season was 1,429,370, if you'd rather that metric than averages.

That compares to 1,346,607 for the Premiership.

So either way very clearly not the "ridiculously few people watch league" that the poster I was replying to claimed.

Well the real world stats would disagree with you that "ridiculously few people watch league". Unless you also say the same about the Premiership, or the URC, or… well any rugby union club competition really. Its directly comparable to all of them. Thats not even going into its dominance in Australia.

As above, we've already changed the points for a try and the number of players in a matchday squad in recent history and lots more. The idea that reducing the numbers of players on the field would completely destroy rugby when they don't just isn't logical. Its a similar evolution.

Removing 6 & 8 (and a bench spot, and back-up players in the squad) would reduce wage bills significantly at a time when huge numbers of clubs around the world are facing bankruptcy.

Removing them would help amateur clubs, most of which are struggling hugely to put out teams compared to twenty years ago, with their dwindling player numbers - those players can now be used in other positions.

Removing them would create more space on the field, resulting in more attacking, high scoring rugby (which most casual fans prefer).

And, more theoretically, removing them would hopefully slim players down slightly due to having to do more cardio - resulting in less impactful collisions, and improved player welfare.

Versus.. what exact downsides? Actual fact based ones please, and not "but thats not rugby" moaning about change.

Why stop at 13? Might as well get rid of all the big, heavy lads. They don't contribute much in attack, and think of all the extra space on the pitch. You could shorten matches up too, make it more intense. Could have more teams playing on the same day, hell you could have them all play in the same stadium. Be a great atmosphere, fans could really enjoy a festival of rugby.

except for NZ and the Pacific Islands. and france. and lebanon. and jamaica. and Papua New Guinea (where its the national sport)

and the semi pro league in the USA. and the semi-pro team in Canada, which was likely to have been in the Super League by this stage if covid (and a dodgy owner) hadnt intervened - the wolfpack had much better support than the arrows ever had. the NRL opening round in vegas last year was popular enough that they are doing it again this year

wales have gone downhill in the last 20/30 years but they have (had) a rich history with the sport too.

'the 6N would be the kind of stuff beyond even the most fever dreamed imaginations of league fans' - league fans, even non aussie ones, would probably say the same about State of Origin

Im saying all this as someone who is much more invested in union than league, but can see that both codes have their good and bad points.

Your points contradict each other. You say the 6N is on in pubs BECAUSE it's a great spectacle and League isn't on in pubs because it isn't a great spectacle. But you also say GAA is only on in Ireland and not elsewhere.

If GAA is a great spectacle in Ireland, why isn't it also great in Peru? It's either good to watch or it isn't. What you're missing is the fanfare around it. People with little interest can be swept along because it's in the news, people chat about it at lunch in work and down the pub and so on. That packaging and presentation to the casual viewer is all totally independent to the quality of the sport.

League is a similar but different sport and a decent sport to watch and the point I made was that union shouldn't fear taking a good idea from League just because League thought of it first.

6N gets casual support from people in countries that oarticipate. It’s the only rugby many people in Ireland, France and the UK watch. Anoraks in Germany, USA, etc watch it. There’s no comparison w GAA. It’s not a sport COUNTRIES compete in. Part of the spectacle is Ireland playing England, etc.