Rumours and Stuff

[T-Boon]

I don’t get why people are against less players on the field. Surely the optimum number of players is the least number of players needed to have the game play you want.
We should list the essential things in the game. Then decide how many players on the field are needed to produce that product.
13 is a made up number of players. It has historic nostalgic relevance same as the scrum does but that is all it is.
Rugby seems to be bound by its stupid made up rules. Our thing should be to be about the game play.

 

[hineyrulz]

I don’t get why people are against less players on the field. Surely the optimum number of players is the least number of players needed to have the game play you want.
We should list the essential things in the game. Then decide how many players on the field are needed to produce that product.
13 is a made up number of players. It has historic nostalgic relevance same as the scrum does but that is all it is.
Rugby seems to be bound by its stupid made up rules. Our thing should be to be about the game play.

Go watch another sport you jizzmop.

 

[Glenneel]

As excited as I get about a seven tackle set, I think that rule needs to be altered.

 

[84 Baby]

I think it should remain 17 on 17, but each team is only allowed one player on field at a time.

 

[Bazal]

I think it should remain 17 on 17, but each team is only allowed one player on field at a time.

I think it should be 17 vs 1 to the attacking team, with kicks banned

 

[hindy111]

Footy has changed but its more tactical then anything. Like a gane of chess.
Few good changes would be

Score a try - Kick off

Attack kick inside 20 - no 7 tackles

No penalties inside 20 when on attack. Reff notifies it but Play rolls on and penalty then given at end of set. Stops defending teams giving one on purpose.

Will see a lot more tries based on last rule

 

[84 Baby]

If there’s something that could improve it, it’s definitely more rules

 

[84 Baby]

Or better chopping and changing rules. Particularly midseason. Those are the best changes

 

[hineyrulz]

If there’s something that could improve it, it’s definitely more rules

More rules and less players. It’s genius!!

 

[Eelogical]

More rules and less players. It’s genius!!

13 refs and 1 player per team.

 

[84 Baby]

13 refs and 1 player per team.

And 4 interchange refs

 

[T-Boon]

Or better chopping and changing rules. Particularly midseason. Those are the best changes

Rule changes are far, far better than the need for "interpretations" because of coach manipulations of old rules. Worse changes ever have had little to do with rule changes. Eg wrestling/gang tackles and decoy running.
Wrestling is a result of the ten metre rule coming in, but it took ages for wrestling to evolve and the ten metre rule initially produced some pretty great football for maybe 10 years.
Instead of never changing rules and thus having the game manipulated by coaches lets change the neutral zone rules on a regular basis.

 

[Stevie]

Haven’t been in here for a couple weeks, too much to read. What’s the goss?
Go easy on me as I’m fresh home from Summernats and my brain hurts.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

I don’t get why people are against less players on the field. Surely the optimum number of players is the least number of players needed to have the game play you want.
We should list the essential things in the game. Then decide how many players on the field are needed to produce that product.
13 is a made up number of players. It has historic nostalgic relevance same as the scrum does but that is all it is.
Rugby seems to be bound by its stupid made up rules. Our thing should be to be about the game play.

I agree with this but I think the problem is that such a major change has the potential to go very wrong and seriously mess with the game's popularity. Let's face it, they can't even get the minor changes right.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Haven’t been in here for a couple weeks, too much to read. What’s the goss?
Go easy on me as I’m fresh home from Summernats and my brain hurts.

@Barry O'Speedwagon would like a word with you.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

I guess one way to test it without people going berko would be to scrap the nines and have some 11-a-side competitions.

 

[T-Boon]

I agree with this but I think the problem is that such a major change has the potential to go very wrong and seriously mess with the game's popularity. Let's face it, they can't even get the minor changes right.

I was hoping the women's game might be the catalyst for some cool changes and a good way to sneak them into the NRL.
It would really one-up other codes in the contest for women if we could say big changes were brought about by the women's influence in the game. Seriously, dopey men have had 30 years to sort out the scrum and it just keeps getting worse.
But sadly it seems like the women in RL and all sports for that matter don't really see an opportunity to be leaders here but just want to be exactly like RL men.

 

[T-Boon]

Who was it that brought about the 40/30 rule change for NRLW?
Was that some women's rules committee? That gave me a lot of hope.

 

[T-Boon]

It baffles me that NRLW is 13 aside (and has scrums). If the men were starting from scratch again there is no way the scrum would survive. There are not enough women players to be silly about the numbers. Make it 10 or 11 aside and have 6 teams rather than 13 aside and 4 teams.

NRLW should be played on a smaller field with less numbers.

 

[84 Baby]

It baffles me that NRLW is 13 aside (and has scrums). If the men were starting from scratch again there is no way the scrum would survive.

This bit is probably correct.
The rest of your post could be deemed sexist