Better Rugby Rules

A review of the game based on the balance between structured vs non structured rugby.

Conditions: Dry, ground hard.

• – Short Lineouts: 16
• – Full Lineouts: 12
• – Scrums: 20
• – Rucks: 120 (The best I could count)
• – Mauls: 2
• – Tries Broken Play: 2
• – Tries Set Piece:0
• – Tries Phase Play:1

The percentage of ‘ball in play’ when the ‘Backs vs Backs’ contest was unfettered by a forward was (12+20+2)/(16+12+20+120+2) = 20%. I wish to see this figure above 30%! (I do admit I saw a few rucks when forwards did not stand in the back line, so I accept an error rate of 3%).

So ask yourself this question, how often did you see the mid field contest go head to head ? It would seam the back coach these days must ask the 6,7 and 8 to be part part of the back training and moves. A guy like Conrad Smith must be studying ‘Dummies: How to be a loose forward!”

Conrad would have more to do under my ELV amendments, see here.

The game was excellent in the last 20 minutes as forwards and backs were separated by frequent scrums, the first 60 minutes was kinda ‘force back’ with ‘run and bash’ (Yes I am afraid ‘Glorified Touch Football’). The ‘field wide defensive trench was very visible through out the game. There was some moments of brilliance off the back of the scum by the Hurricanes. So for three tries on a ground that was in excellent condition, I would have to say they were of a low standard. What do I mean, did you see any space created for players out wide, did you see any over laps. Nope it was missed tackles, a charge down and a bash through. So more tries are not always better, sure it could have been just one of those games. More games will need to be reviewed.

Sure lots of heart, determination and tension, but you can get that in ‘bull rush’ as well, I am grading the game on the rugby union combination contest only.

If this game was a pin up for the ELVs, then more needs to be done. Like I have said on this blog a lot can be fixed by not allowing short lineouts and promoting the maul. Interesting enough there were 2 times when my 50/22 rule would have been used.

I agree that not all of this can be blamed on the ELVs (coaches and captains as well), but the LPG Committee did start with a blank piece of paper so they could have and should have done more.

If the reader is over 40 years then you will easily understand my point. If the reader is under 30 years then you will not, this is because you have only seen one style of footy, and NO I dont want to go back to the ‘good old days’, I prefer a mid point between today and say 1990’s footy. I will review my thoughts with my office 40 years plus friends and see if they concur.

Some just looked at the game through foggy glasses…

Source: Marc Hinton Blues topple Canes – both now vulnerable

…”If rugby’s in trouble, this match should be compulsory viewing for the nay-sayers. It was an absolute peach. A couple of teams stood toe to toe and slugged it out for 80 minutes, and at the end one side had slipped in just one more punch than its opposite.”…

..”In a classic contest of seething intensity and fabulous commitment, both sides played themselves to a standstill. The defence of both teams, particularly in their own red zone, was heroic.”…

Sure it was ..”classic contest of seething intensity and fabulous commitment”. But a representation of rugby tactical skill, no it was not, why because little space out wide was created, tactically it was a poor game: kick and hope, run and bash, pick and go, thats it!

Richard Loe hit the nail on the head. You see I am not alone, I dont live on a desolate island in the Pacific !

Source: Intense encounter welcome but major question unanswered

..”It was an intense game; exciting because of that although, apart from some silly lapses, the defences ruled and there wasn’t that much entertaining attacking play, especially from the Blues who seemed to over-rely on the kick.”…

The End.