Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

General Rugby Discussion 3

1152153155157158204

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,411 ✭✭✭ersatz


    rumour that it’s coming fro World Rugby, though it’s from barstool sports so as likely to be horseshit as based on something real. Seems an insane love that will destroy union in the US.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,252 ✭✭✭Jacovs


    Would it be some sort of long term ploy to get rugby union closer to rugby league, and then end up amalgamating the 2 rugby codes into 1 when they are similar enough? Thus combining both fan bases into 1.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 13,922 ✭✭✭✭Exclamation Marc


    No. Rugby union is far far more popular than rugby league in the US.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,252 ✭✭✭Jacovs


    Im talking universally. Union in trouble in Australia, but League is a lot more popular.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,830 ✭✭✭CMOTDibbler


    But not anywhere else. Would be tail wagging the dog.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,252 ✭✭✭Jacovs


    Absolutely, but for these corporate types its all about the numbers. If they can count that whole fan base in with their own, grow their commercial income, they absolutely will.

    Why else get rid of scrums so much? Do scrums lead to that many injuries? I was under the impression most injuries come from open play, tackles etc. Then they just need to stop all contact and play touch rugby instead. Soon you wont need dedicated props or hookers, since it will just be the odd time they will scrum.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,492 ✭✭✭Blut2


    Merging with league would be great for the sport, if it didn't require too many compromises. But it probably would.

    Moving to 13 players and trying to make the game a little bit faster to bridge some of the gap would both be obvious wins for Union though - a big reduction in wages for professional clubs, more players to spread around teams for amateur clubs that are struggling with numbers, and a faster game for spectators.

    More cardio to cover the open spaces would mean smaller players too with positives for player welfare.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 32,160 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Sounds utterly dreadful, genuinely.

    If people want to watch League they can go watch League - but ridiculously few people do. Why we let Aussies try and drive us towards League I will never understand.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 17,324 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    If a majority Like the game wanted to follow League they already would but outside of Australia , they just don't.

    Why we keep pandering to Australias local issues I will never understand.

    It'd be like us asking to introduce the running solo to Rugby so we could "compete" with Gaelic Football



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,830 ✭✭✭CMOTDibbler


    Not sure why you'd be asking why get rid of scrums so much. Endless resets, opaque penalties, cheating and more resets.

    They've improved things by various means of getting the ball out quicker and removing the scrum option from a number of restart scenarios. But it won't be got rid of completely since it provides a good method of thinning out the field for some back moves.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,057 ✭✭✭irelandrover


    Im a big enough rugby fan but will be honest and say scrums aren't all that interesting to me. It's got better recently but the less scrums in games the better.

    So I don't think the rules are all that bad. Only one I don't like is

    When the ball is knocked on or thrown into the in-goal area and grounded by either team, the result will be a goal-line dropout, eliminating the scrum as a restart option.

    That just allows teams to play back into their try zone and touch the ball down. It's too easy an out



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,830 ✭✭✭CMOTDibbler


    I thought carrying the ball back into your own in-goal resulted in a 5m scrum? Throwing it back would be risky enough. Don't think too many teams would be doing that.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,492 ✭✭✭Blut2


    league123.jpg

    There are plenty of league viewers in the UK too. These 2024 attendance figures are comparable to the Premiership or URC UK teams.

    Bringing those fans (and their money) on-board would do wonders for the game, especially in Australia where its dying.

    But even money and fans aside, reducing union to 13 players isn't exactly turning the game into League. Theres no real negative to it, but plenty of postives - reduce wage bills for professional clubs by approx 15% overnight, spread more players around amateur teams, a faster / more exciting game, smaller players to cover the more field space so reduced contact injuries etc.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,057 ✭✭✭irelandrover


    Thats currently the rule.

    The new version.

    When the ball is knocked on or thrown into the in-goal area and grounded by either team, the result will be a goal-line dropout, eliminating the scrum as a restart option.

    Think of a defending 5m lineout. Now you can just touch it down and get a pressure free goal line drop out.

    Unless I'm misinterpreting the new rule.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 13,922 ✭✭✭✭Exclamation Marc


    There's absolutely no chance of it happening (the sports merging).

    Rugby union is far more popular worldwide than rugby league so if it was hypothetically going to swing any direction it would be rugby league moving towards rugby union. Then you're losing hoards of money out of the 'combined' sport by virtue of a rake of teams no longer existing and losing a rake of broadcasting deals, sponsorships etc. And that's before you go near governance, unions, existing agreements etc.

    I get the desire to make moves to make the sport exciting but looking to a fundamentally less successful sport (globally) and thinking "lets be like them" is a complete non-runner.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 32,160 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Good for them. League is non-existent outside the north of England and Australia and making Union "more like League" won't attract league fans anyway.

    There is any number of negatives to reducing the number of players, primarily being it wouldn't be Rugby Union anymore. It is an abomination of an idea. League is a joke in comparison to Union, why on earth poeple keep trying to make the globally successful sport more like the regional backwater of a sport is beyond me.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,055 ✭✭✭hold my beer


    Where's that new version coming from? The US? That won't spread anywhere else, stupid rule.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,830 ✭✭✭CMOTDibbler


    But neither of those mentions carrying the ball over the line.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,057 ✭✭✭irelandrover


    It mentions throwing the ball over the line. My original post didn't mention carrying it back.

    Currently defending a line out of the 5 you pass back to your 10 and he clears under pressure. With the change you can pass back to your 10. He touches down and has a pressure free clearance.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,830 ✭✭✭CMOTDibbler


    I know. I was asking was there any change there. Clearly not, so there's at least one scrum option.

    Also there's something weird about that wording:

    When the ball is knocked on or thrown into the in-goal area and grounded by either team, the result will be a goal-line dropout, eliminating the scrum as a restart option.

    A grounding by one team would be a try, providing it wasn't they who threw it into the in-goal. Also if the defending team pass it back and ground it, that was always a goal line drop-out or 22. I think. So many law changes are melting my head.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,057 ✭✭✭irelandrover


    I always thought a defending team passing back into the in goal area and grounding it was a 5 metre scrum.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,746 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    I don't think eliminating the scrum has anything got to do with Rugby League. It's a soulless marketing response to customer satisfaction surveys that claim it kills the atmosphere or slows the game down.

    It's designed to respond to the criticism coming from the 6 Nations only supporters who spend half the match (they paid too much for) standing at the bar under the stand.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,830 ✭✭✭CMOTDibbler


    You're probably right. As I said, head melted. Carrying it back though is still a scrum. Or at least it was last weekend.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,055 ✭✭✭hold my beer


    It is. This looks like a stupid rule being tried in the US.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,411 ✭✭✭ersatz


    obviously trying it in the US because audiences are small and insignificant in the larger rugby world. It’s likely an R&D excercise to experiment with the rules to minimise scrums. It does feel like it’s headed to RL territory but let’s face it, doing that would haemorrhage supporters because union fans don’t like rugby league. But be it’s a dangerous trend that assumes downsizing forward play will attract more fans by speeding up the game. Kind of ironic that it’s trialing in the US where AL is religion, a game that takes 4 hours for less than 20 minutes of play.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,537 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,718 ✭✭✭sprucemoose


    you might not be a fan but to call league 'a joke in comparison to union' is a bit ridiculous - the international game is, but the NRL and Super League are very good competitions. im definitely against the push from the southern hemisphere to make union more similar to the NRL (mainly for safety reasons), but i also think both games can learn and take things from each other



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 32,160 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    It is a joke in an international or global context.

    I appreciate that people like league but I'm not sure why anyone thinks union has anything to learn from it when it is wildly more popular already. I don't care that Australia is an exception as a country that prefers league.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,718 ✭✭✭sprucemoose


    you could say the same about GAA, Canadian Football, Aussie Rules etc,. id argue it applied to NFL recently apart from the Super Bowl, although that seems to be becoming more popular worldwide in recent years (not that im a fan personally)

    of course union can learn from league (and vice versa). for one, the 50/22 law comes from the success of the 40/20 rule in league. attacking patterns have benefitted from league influence (ireland being a good example) and the influx of league coaches in the early 2000s improved defences massively (debatable whether it is a good thing or not)

    more than anything, the NRL has the best marketing of any competition in either rugby code. by an absolute mile.

    again, union shouldnt just copy everything league does, but there are definitely things that can be learned.

    conversely, league needs to learn from union in terms of tackle safety, so im not saying for one second that its all a one way street. the rugby league world cup is also an absolute joke apart from the final and occasionally the semis.

    also, its not even australia as a whole that prefers league, its pretty much nsw, act and queensland that care about either code, with some interest in melbourne and even less in the other states



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,592 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    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.



Advertisement
Advertisement