Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

What dimensions are needed for each postion in modern rugby

Options
  • 09-06-2018 10:51pm
    #1
    RockBoysarewii
    Registered Users Posts: 73 ✭✭


    Just want to know what other people’s opinions are to win an argument.


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    The Lost Sheep
    Registered Users Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    What are your thoughts per position then?


  • Options
    #3
    RockBoysarewii
    Registered Users Posts: 73 ✭✭RockBoysarewii


    The Lost Sheep wrote: »
    What are your thoughts per position then?

    Challenge accepted.
    These are my beliefs except for extreme outliers. Opinions would be appreciated.

    1 and 3 - 5ft 10 and up. Being taller than 6ft 3 is a big disadvantage at scrummaging. 105kg up.

    2 - 5ft 9and up. Advantage at scrummaging if smaller than props.90kg up.

    4 and 5 - 6ft 4 and up. Can’t really be to tall.100kg up.

    6 - 6ft and up. Traditionally taller than 7 and 6ft plus for use in lineouts. But not to lanky because of reduction in mobility. 95kg up.

    7 - 5ft 10 and up. Being smaller gives advantage in the mobility, the breakdown and certain types of tackling.90kg and up.

    8 - 6 ft and up. Height gives advantage for big hard carries again not to lanky.100kg and up.

    9 - 5ft 6 and up. Easier to run around the field when not carrying a load of mass.75kg and up.

    10 - 5ft 9 and up. Like 9 protected from a lot of contact so not as much need for mass. 80kg and up

    12 and 13 - 5ft 10 and up. 13 usually doesn’t have to be as physically big as 12.80kg and up.

    11, 14 and 15 - 5ft 9 and up. Need to be mobile.75kg and up.


  • Options
    #4
    stephen_n
    Registered Users Posts: 12,920 ✭✭✭✭stephen_n


    In the professional game there are very few players under 6ft and 80kgs, players that are 5’6 and under 80kgs would be as rare as hens teeth.


  • Options
    #5
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 40,989 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    RockBoysarewii wrote: »
    Challenge accepted.
    These are my beliefs except for extreme outliers. Opinions would be appreciated.

    1 and 3 - 5ft 10 and up. Being taller than 6ft 3 is a big disadvantage at scrummaging. 105kg up.

    2 - 5ft 9and up. Advantage at scrummaging if smaller than props.90kg up.

    4 and 5 - 6ft 4 and up. Can’t really be to tall.100kg up.

    6 - 6ft and up. Traditionally taller than 7 and 6ft plus for use in lineouts. But not to lanky because of reduction in mobility. 95kg up.

    7 - 5ft 10 and up. Being smaller gives advantage in the mobility, the breakdown and certain types of tackling.90kg and up.

    8 - 6 ft and up. Height gives advantage for big hard carries again not to lanky.100kg and up.

    9 - 5ft 6 and up. Easier to run around the field when not carrying a load of mass.75kg and up.

    10 - 5ft 9 and up. Like 9 protected from a lot of contact so not as much need for mass. 80kg and up

    12 and 13 - 5ft 10 and up. 13 usually doesn’t have to be as physically big as 12.80kg and up.

    11, 14 and 15 - 5ft 9 and up. Need to be mobile.75kg and up.

    There's hope for us all then.

    I don't really want to know what kind of argument is trying to claim against those figures


  • Options
    #6
    The Lost Sheep
    Registered Users Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    RockBoysarewii wrote: »
    Challenge accepted.
    These are my beliefs except for extreme outliers. Opinions would be appreciated.

    1 and 3 - 5ft 10 and up. Being taller than 6ft 3 is a big disadvantage at scrummaging. 105kg up.

    2 - 5ft 9and up. Advantage at scrummaging if smaller than props.90kg up.

    4 and 5 - 6ft 4 and up. Can’t really be to tall.100kg up.

    6 - 6ft and up. Traditionally taller than 7 and 6ft plus for use in lineouts. But not to lanky because of reduction in mobility. 95kg up.

    7 - 5ft 10 and up. Being smaller gives advantage in the mobility, the breakdown and certain types of tackling.90kg and up.

    8 - 6 ft and up. Height gives advantage for big hard carries again not to lanky.100kg and up.

    9 - 5ft 6 and up. Easier to run around the field when not carrying a load of mass.75kg and up.

    10 - 5ft 9 and up. Like 9 protected from a lot of contact so not as much need for mass. 80kg and up

    12 and 13 - 5ft 10 and up. 13 usually doesn’t have to be as physically big as 12.80kg and up.

    11, 14 and 15 - 5ft 9 and up. Need to be mobile.75kg and up.
    Dont know what argument you're trying to make but where do you see 5'9/5'6 players regularly playing in some positions?
    What do you see as too tall for 2nd row when you say to play there you cant be too tall?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    The Lost Sheep wrote: »
    Dont know what argument you're trying to make but where do you see 5'9/5'6 players regularly playing in some positions?
    What do you see as too tall for 2nd row when you say to play there you cant be too tall?

    I think he means that there’s no such thing as too tall.


  • Options
    #8
    RockBoysarewii
    Registered Users Posts: 73 ✭✭RockBoysarewii


    The Lost Sheep wrote: »
    Dont know what argument you're trying to make but where do you see 5'9/5'6 players regularly playing in some positions?
    What do you see as too tall for 2nd row when you say to play there you cant be too tall?

    I meant that no one can be too tall for 2nd row the taller the better.
    5ft 6 is probably a inch shorter in hindsight.
    You shouldn’t struggle to find 5ft 7 scrum half’s.
    I’m sure there are plenty of 5ft 10 and under back three, hookers and out half’s that play pro that you can recall of the top of your head. So you shouldn’t find it hard to find players an inch shorter.

    I used this site to help my argument it includes height and weight of players in each position in the Heineken cup and Super Rugby in the 2012/13 season and the for the 2015 Rugby World Cup.

    https://www.rugbyhow.com/player-sizes-12.html#Q15


  • Options
    #9
    The Lost Sheep
    Registered Users Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    RockBoysarewii wrote: »
    I meant that no one can be too tall for 2nd row the taller the better.
    5ft 6 is probably a inch shorter in hindsight.
    You shouldn’t struggle to find 5ft 7 scrum half’s.
    I’m sure there are plenty of 5ft 10 and under back three, hookers and out half’s that play pro that you can recall of the top of your head. So you shouldn’t find it hard to find players an inch shorter.
    Not necessarily. Then why do we not have so many more 2nd rows taller than 6'6 regularly playing top level.
    If you're so sure on all these players in those positions then shouldnt it be easy to list them?


  • Options
    #10
    RockBoysarewii
    Registered Users Posts: 73 ✭✭RockBoysarewii


    The Lost Sheep wrote: »
    Not necessarily. Then why do we not have so many more 2nd rows taller than 6'6 regularly playing top level.
    If you're so sure on all these players in those positions then shouldnt it be easy to list them?

    Due to the small percentage of the worlds population being taller than 6ft 6 added to how small the playing base for rugby is aswell.
    Most international 2nd rows are 6ft 6 or taller in tier 1 Nations.

    It’s also hard to list because I don’t know the size of every player by just looking at them.

    https://www.rugbyhow.com/player-sizes-12.html#Q15


Advertisement