: Mon Jun 08, 2009 5:37 pm  

Wes Hooligan wrote:

Or we can just stop making up stupid contrived ideas and leave it as it is.

Does that mean you are leaving the forums?

Re: The Bench : Mon Jun 08, 2009 5:57 pm  

Isaiah wrote:

What would your views be, on having a bigger bench?

Instead of 4, would our game benefit from having say 6 on the bench?
Still have only 12 interchanges.

Would it also give clubs an opportunity, to give the youngsters more of a chance.

I've not read all the thread.

I would have six on the bench, two who must be 21 or under and no interchanges.

[tb]

Re: The Bench : Mon Jun 08, 2009 6:19 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

I've not read all the thread.

I would have six on the bench, two who must be 21 or under and no interchanges.

So, the six on the bench would just be spectators? Surely they'd be more comfortable in the stand?

: Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:59 am  

Durham Giant wrote:

Could you imagine teams loading the bench with 6 forwards determined to batter their opponents. It would make a physical game even harder as fresher players run and hit harder. More injuries worse for players.

The only way i could see it would be something like in RU where you can replace a specialist wioth another specialist ie 4 on the bench but with 3 others available ie full back and a half back who could only come on to replace injured players .

The other way is to return to competitive scrums. This would create a game of different shapes and sizes as props & second rowers would have to bulk up to push in the scrum (but be mobile, like Carl Webb or Keiron Cunningham). That would create a more varied and create game where little men could use skills to exploit gaps without merely running one out from dummyhalf. Benches would need cover for forwards, backs and playmakers.

Re: The Bench : Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:03 am  

tb wrote:

So, the six on the bench would just be spectators? Surely they'd be more comfortable in the stand?

I thought that!

: Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:34 am  

The idea of 6 is good i feel but only 4 of these should be able to be used during the game with 12 interchanges.

: Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:40 am  

The Observer wrote:

The other way is to return to competitive scrums. This would create a game of different shapes and sizes as props & second rowers would have to bulk up to push in the scrum (but be mobile, like Carl Webb or Keiron Cunningham). That would create a more varied and create game where little men could use skills to exploit gaps without merely running one out from dummyhalf. Benches would need cover for forwards, backs and playmakers.

Yeah, and we could maybe have 15 players on the pitch, to get more people involved, maybe reward good kicking with some way to compete for the ball when kicked in touch. What would be even better would be a mass of rules that the punters know nothing about, so that the ref can make about six calls and then award a penalty every few minutes - since there'll be more penalties we should increase their value to 3pts...

: Tue Jun 09, 2009 10:06 am  

4 Subs is plenty, its supposed to be a game of tactics and stamina not a friendly exhibition match.

Impact Hooker must be a Super League innovation.

: Tue Jun 09, 2009 11:07 am  

Competative scrums are a thing of the past, and even the RFU are going to get rid of them eventually.

They are dangerous parts of the game, singularly the biggest risk to a player in the game.

: Tue Jun 09, 2009 11:36 am  

Code13 wrote: Competative scrums are a thing of the past, and even the RFU are going to get rid of them eventually. They are dangerous parts of the game, singularly the biggest risk to a player in the game. AFAICT (from research, and Google Scholar provides a useful academic research tool) the injury risk due to scrums is largely due to the hit when packs come together, the hit or 'engage'. While the IRB added a touch call where opposing props tap each other to ready for the hit, the RFU's scrum coach has suggested the hit be removed from the Rugby scrum - i.e. the scrums should link together first before pushing. That would have the positive knock on effect of eliminating injuries due to scrum collapses (as there wouldn't be the same expenditure of force in the hit). In RL, a significant number of shoulder, neck and back injuries are recorded - they are sustained by collisions in the tackle. Do we outlaw tackling from RL? If anything, if RL's 6 man scrums were packed in a clean way like RU's are now ( as opposed to the messy set of the past), they would be less risky than RU because a smaller packweight would lead to smaller forces being exerted on frontrowers. The RFU (& the other leading European 5 Nations) have no plans to get rid of the scrum, and steadfastly preserved its importance in Union - even when nations like Australia were trying to promote a brand of Rugby which minimised the importance and prominence of scrummaging. Past players like Arthur Beetson and Tommy Raudonikis keep calling for the return of contested scrummaging, a tradition the game had for decades. While the game's authorities in both hemispheres have sought to speed up and slow down the game artificially through a number of measures to either open the game up or make it a contest, both to allow creative attacking play. Either through varying interchange (6 subs, unlimited, unlimited with 2 permanent replacements, 12 substitutions, 10 substitutions), altering ruck speed & the play the ball to swing advantage to the tackler or attacker. Both these are linear solutions that to & fro without addressing the fundamental architecture of the game needs to be addressed.

Code13 wrote: Competative scrums are a thing of the past, and even the RFU are going to get rid of them eventually. They are dangerous parts of the game, singularly the biggest risk to a player in the game. AFAICT (from research, and Google Scholar provides a useful academic research tool) the injury risk due to scrums is largely due to the hit when packs come together, the hit or 'engage'. While the IRB added a touch call where opposing props tap each other to ready for the hit, the RFU's scrum coach has suggested the hit be removed from the Rugby scrum - i.e. the scrums should link together first before pushing. That would have the positive knock on effect of eliminating injuries due to scrum collapses (as there wouldn't be the same expenditure of force in the hit). In RL, a significant number of shoulder, neck and back injuries are recorded - they are sustained by collisions in the tackle. Do we outlaw tackling from RL? If anything, if RL's 6 man scrums were packed in a clean way like RU's are now ( as opposed to the messy set of the past), they would be less risky than RU because a smaller packweight would lead to smaller forces being exerted on frontrowers. The RFU (& the other leading European 5 Nations) have no plans to get rid of the scrum, and steadfastly preserved its importance in Union - even when nations like Australia were trying to promote a brand of Rugby which minimised the importance and prominence of scrummaging. Past players like Arthur Beetson and Tommy Raudonikis keep calling for the return of contested scrummaging, a tradition the game had for decades. While the game's authorities in both hemispheres have sought to speed up and slow down the game artificially through a number of measures to either open the game up or make it a contest, both to allow creative attacking play. Either through varying interchange (6 subs, unlimited, unlimited with 2 permanent replacements, 12 substitutions, 10 substitutions), altering ruck speed & the play the ball to swing advantage to the tackler or attacker. Both these are linear solutions that to & fro without addressing the fundamental architecture of the game needs to be addressed.