Rugby 12s tournament

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Venod

Eh up
Location
Yorkshire
I was brought up on league, played but not a lot after school years, too brutal for me.
I like to watch a good game of Union, but don't like the time spent at scrum resets etc, league can become a bit repetitive at times, but when it's a flowing open game it's good to watch, as is Union, there are just too many players on the pitch, that's why I advocate a combination of the two, but it won't happen.
League needs a shake up to stop it becoming boring.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
nickyboy

nickyboy

Norven Mankey
I hope they mean 12 a side and not 12 plus a full bench waiting to be deployed.

15 mins a side suggests too much of 7's type action pace, so how is it really any different?

I'll take a curious look, but I'm with those suggesting 13 a side with medical substitution only, as the way to improve the real game.
I suspect 13 a side is a no no due to the accusation that it is Rugby League with a few scrums and lineouts. That's not to say that 12 a side won't be RL with a few scrums and lineouts but making the number of participants the same as RL may be a step too far

15 minutes each way sounds a bit short to me. Maybe it will be on a fully "stopped clock" basis so there is actually 30 minutes in total of the ball in play. Currently ball is in play for a laughable 36 minutes on average in a 15 a side RU game
 

AndyRM

XOXO
Location
North Shields
I only really watch 6 Nations and World Cup rugby union, so I don't know a great deal, but this just seems daft. It's true that the game has changed massively in the last 20 years (mostly down to player size, it's like everyone saw Jonah Lomu and thought "Let's find a bunch of massive guys and put them all over the place"), but I don't think reducing the number of players is the way to improve things.

Teams are essentially replacing entire parts of their sides at various points in the game, which is what I'd stop.
 

Beebo

Firm and Fruity
Location
Hexleybeef
I only really watch 6 Nations and World Cup rugby union, so I don't know a great deal, but this just seems daft. It's true that the game has changed massively in the last 20 years (mostly down to player size, it's like everyone saw Jonah Lomu and thought "Let's find a bunch of massive guys and put them all over the place"), but I don't think reducing the number of players is the way to improve things.

Teams are essentially replacing entire parts of their sides at various points in the game, which is what I'd stop.
The substitution issue is a problem.
Some players know they will only play for 50mins so they can be bulky.
If they had to play a full 80 they would be far slower and the spaces would open up.
 

AndyRM

XOXO
Location
North Shields
The substitution issue is a problem.
Some players know they will only play for 50mins so they can be bulky.
If they had to play a full 80 they would be far slower and the spaces would open up.

Personally I think that would make it better.

Limit subs (unless for head/blood injuries) and the game would go back to my nostalgic love of it.

It's never going to happen, and I still enjoy the matches I do watch, but players from the late 90s/00s era, when I played and got into the game, just wouldn't get a look-in these days.

I have no problem with change, but there is talk about head/brain injuries from that era these days. I can only imagine those becoming worse given some of the impacts these guys are putting themselves through.

Lighter, wee guys at speed are a lot less dangerous than the massive guys playing the game now I think.
 
Top Bottom