By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Rugby is chess wearing a gumshield. I like football too, obviously, but there it’s the simplicity of checkers with the difficult skill of doing that with a ball at your feet and at speed.
Rugby is chess wearing a gumshield. I like football too, obviously, but there it’s the simplicity of checkers with the difficult skill of doing that with a ball at your feet and at speed.
I've played chess a thousand times but admittedly not once wearing a gumshield.
I don't lower myself to draughts.
Bloody cheek.
I get it, it's a great way to stay fit I'm sure. But as a game?
What with you and your egg-chasing and our friend there with his hockey...
I've always been a football rather than rugby man, but the advent of professionalism has made rugby union a much worse spectacle. In the amateur days, the forwards would run out of puff after an hour & space would open up for the backs. Now, they replace half their team with fully fit, steroidal monsters so the bish, bash, bosh continues. It's become a bad version of Rugby League, with 2 extra players cluttering up the pitch. But worst of all is the scrum nonsense. It's no longer a contest for the ball as it's fed into the second row (WHY - it's against the laws) but a means to gain a penalty kick, after the referee guesses which front row infringed the undecipherable scrum laws. Plus, every scrum is now an excuse for a water break & general time out, before the inevitable re-sets & penalty kick. I don;t think one scrum in the England-Ireland game was actually completed.
I've always been a football rather than rugby man, but the advent of professionalism has made rugby union a much worse spectacle. In the amateur days, the forwards would run out of puff after an hour & space would open up for the backs. Now, they replace half their team with fully fit, steroidal monsters so the bish, bash, bosh continues. It's become a bad version of Rugby League, with 2 extra players cluttering up the pitch. But worst of all is the scrum nonsense. It's no longer a contest for the ball as it's fed into the second row (WHY - it's against the laws) but a means to gain a penalty kick, after the referee guesses which front row infringed the undecipherable scrum laws. Plus, every scrum is now an excuse for a water break & general time out, before the inevitable re-sets & penalty kick. I don;t think one scrum in the England-Ireland game was actually completed.
I find Rugby League a much better watch now, at least it has accepted what it is and put rules in place to force it to be more exciting.
Rugby Union has got more and more professional, and the size of the players is something else now - what would have been a number 8 25 years ago would now be a centre, but it has just made each game a poor spectacle. I think it is partly that i only watch England and we are a really poor watch with forwards constantly in the line and taking it straight back into contact etc - Wales are much more fun to watch even if they don't win as much
I've always been a football rather than rugby man, but the advent of professionalism has made rugby union a much worse spectacle. In the amateur days, the forwards would run out of puff after an hour & space would open up for the backs. Now, they replace half their team with fully fit, steroidal monsters so the bish, bash, bosh continues. It's become a bad version of Rugby League, with 2 extra players cluttering up the pitch. But worst of all is the scrum nonsense. It's no longer a contest for the ball as it's fed into the second row (WHY - it's against the laws) but a means to gain a penalty kick, after the referee guesses which front row infringed the undecipherable scrum laws. Plus, every scrum is now an excuse for a water break & general time out, before the inevitable re-sets & penalty kick. I don;t think one scrum in the England-Ireland game was actually completed.
I agree that when rugby union is bad it’s bad – and rugby league has a higher low point in entertainment because the ball is generally moving and the players running as a default.
But when it’s good the greater nuance and dimensions of union come to the fore. Where defences can be manipulated with the different options and the kick behind keeping the opposition honest.
In that context, the scrum contest can be decisive and extremely tense (e.g. last 5 minutes of Scotland v. England this year). But I take your point re: scrum resets that suck the excitement and tempo out of the game. Ironically, that’s why they allow a crooked feed so that the hookers don’t need to strike for the ball and destabilise the scrum but also just to get the scrum completed and the ball in the backs’ hands.
I also think you have a point re: the greater size, strength, speed and stamina of the modern-day professionals. There is nothing like the space available on the pitch compared to 20 years ago. The good thing is that rugby at least isn’t afraid to change the rules where it can to help that and probably will do again. I think lowering the tackle height will see players able to offload much more easily and make it harder for defenders to kill the ball and slow the side in possession.
I think football could do similar by changing the offside rule (only within 25 yards of goal) to stop defences squeezing space and making it far harder to play. It hasn’t been as big a change as rugby going from amateur to professional but there’s no doubt that players are stronger, faster and have more stamina too. But it makes a lot of games slow and turgid at the top level or scrappy, percentage-based stuff at a lower level as they’re trying to win second balls and/or force mistakes.
I agree that when rugby union is bad it’s bad – and rugby league has a higher low point in entertainment because the ball is generally moving and the players running as a default.
But when it’s good the greater nuance and dimensions of union come to the fore. Where defences can be manipulated with the different options and the kick behind keeping the opposition honest.
In that context, the scrum contest can be decisive and extremely tense (e.g. last 5 minutes of Scotland v. England this year). But I take your point re: scrum resets that suck the excitement and tempo out of the game. Ironically, that’s why they allow a crooked feed so that the hookers don’t need to strike for the ball and destabilise the scrum but also just to get the scrum completed and the ball in the backs’ hands.
I also think you have a point re: the greater size, strength, speed and stamina of the modern-day professionals. There is nothing like the space available on the pitch compared to 20 years ago. The good thing is that rugby at least isn’t afraid to change the rules where it can to help that and probably will do again. I think lowering the tackle height will see players able to offload much more easily and make it harder for defenders to kill the ball and slow the side in possession.
I think football could do similar by changing the offside rule (only within 25 yards of goal) to stop defences squeezing space and making it far harder to play. It hasn’t been as big a change as rugby going from amateur to professional but there’s no doubt that players are stronger, faster and have more stamina too. But it makes a lot of games slow and turgid at the top level or scrappy, percentage-based stuff at a lower level as they’re trying to win second balls and/or force mistakes.
Really good points. Yes, referees now ignore the crooked feed because both teams do it & if it makes it more likely that a scrum will result in clean possession for a team, so much the better. Yes, I've preferred Union to League because of the greater variety, but Union teams no longer commit to rucks so there's usually a line of 12 defenders strung closely together, which is near impossible to break, especially since Union adopted League tackling & defending techniques.] I agree the tackle height will be lowered further, which should help mitigate the concussion issue & reduce the number of disruptive red cards. Yes, pro football has a similar issue with the increased mobility & fitness of players. I think a 25 yard line would be worth trying or even abolishing offside as has been done in hockey. Pro football might also be better as a 10 or 9 a side game.
Really good points. Yes, referees now ignore the crooked feed because both teams do it & if it makes it more likely that a scrum will result in clean possession for a team, so much the better. Yes, I've preferred Union to League because of the greater variety, but Union teams no longer commit to rucks so there's usually a line of 12 defenders strung closely together, which is near impossible to break, especially since Union adopted League tackling & defending techniques.] I agree the tackle height will be lowered further, which should help mitigate the concussion issue & reduce the number of disruptive red cards. Yes, pro football has a similar issue with the increased mobility & fitness of players. I think a 25 yard line would be worth trying or even abolishing offside as has been done in hockey. Pro football might also be better as a 10 or 9 a side game.
Re: hockey, I was playing when they moved offside to a 25-yard line and then did away with it completely a couple of seasons later.
Surprisingly, it didn’t feel as if the game changed ridiculously. You imagined strikers goal hanging for the entire time but they were too isolated doing that. So all it really did was give the attacking side the upper hand in being able to stretch the play and not be squeezed themselves, so there was more space to use the ball and more reward for good play.
I find Rugby League a much better watch now, at least it has accepted what it is and put rules in place to force it to be more exciting.
Rugby Union has got more and more professional, and the size of the players is something else now - what would have been a number 8 25 years ago would now be a centre, but it has just made each game a poor spectacle. I think it is partly that i only watch England and we are a really poor watch with forwards constantly in the line and taking it straight back into contact etc - Wales are much more fun to watch even if they don't win as much
I agree, certainly with Northern Hemisphere Rugby, but watching Super Rugby can still be an exciting watch, it's like the Baa Baa's where they just try and throw the ball around to create space.
The only issue with that is, if your just an armchair fan, it's hard to get emotionally invested in a Canterbury Crusaders or Highlanders game, add in the fact that they start at 8.30 in the morning, means to get an enjoyable fix of Rugby it's not the easiest to get involved.
Having said that, the Wales France game was a fantastic spectacle.
I agree, certainly with Northern Hemisphere Rugby, but watching Super Rugby can still be an exciting watch, it's like the Baa Baa's where they just try and throw the ball around to create space.
The only issue with that is, if your just an armchair fan, it's hard to get emotionally invested in a Canterbury Crusaders or Highlanders game, add in the fact that they start at 8.30 in the morning, means to get an enjoyable fix of Rugby it's not the easiest to get involved.
Having said that, the Wales France game was a fantastic spectacle.
Yep, I was basically talking about that game in my last sentence as did watch that the other evening - England are always a turgid watch
Re: hockey, I was playing when they moved offside to a 25-yard line and then did away with it completely a couple of seasons later.
Surprisingly, it didn’t feel as if the game changed ridiculously. You imagined strikers goal hanging for the entire time but they were too isolated doing that. So all it really did was give the attacking side the upper hand in being able to stretch the play and not be squeezed themselves, so there was more space to use the ball and more reward for good play.
Of course, football would change hugely if off-side was abandoned. There have been a few trial matches & the problem was that teams kept looking for the long ball to some goal-hanging strikers. It would need an extended trial to see how tactics might work out so I think it's too big a leap. I thought when the NASL used a 35 yard line, it worked fairly well between 1972 & 1982, when they dropped it at the request of FIFA. Football authorities are always reluctant to tinker with the rules - the only meaningful change I can recall is the back pass law - while rugby chiefs are always changing the laws in attempts to improve the game, to their credit.
Of course, football would change hugely if off-side was abandoned. There have been a few trial matches & the problem was that teams kept looking for the long ball to some goal-hanging strikers. It would need an extended trial to see how tactics might work out so I think it's too big a leap. I thought when the NASL used a 35 yard line, it worked fairly well between 1972 & 1982, when they dropped it at the request of FIFA. Football authorities are always reluctant to tinker with the rules - the only meaningful change I can recall is the back pass law - while rugby chiefs are always changing the laws in attempts to improve the game, to their credit.
On the pitch Rugby Union seems to be more open to change than what football is. I like the sin bin idea to be imported into football. Possibly not for a yellow card but say for a second yellow card.
However rugby Union, off the pitch, is still appears to be quite backward. For example, football is used to evening kickoffs on various days of the week but Union seems to want to stick to traditional kickoffs.
On the pitch Rugby Union seems to be more open to change than what football is. I like the sin bin idea to be imported into football. Possibly not for a yellow card but say for a second yellow card.
However rugby Union, off the pitch, is still appears to be quite backward. For example, football is used to evening kickoffs on various days of the week but Union seems to want to stick to traditional kickoffs.
They spread the fixtures over the weekend pretty well to be fair. And a lot of evening kickoffs.
The reason they don’t have midweek fixtures is that the protocols don’t allow for more than a game a week roughly. So midweek games would mean teams and schedules getting out of sync.
The risk of head injuries the main reason for making sure there’s 5-6 days between games at a minimum but also because players wouldn’t be able to cope physically with the wear and tear. And even with just one game a week, full contact training is kept to an absolute minimum for the same reasons.
There’s also little to no need for midweek games as the season is 30-40 games unlike football’s 50-60 games.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
