Iggle Piggle
Well-known member
- Sep 3, 2010
- 5,955
There is nothing whatsoever passive about business mouse.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
The official not really bothered about the Rugby World Cup Thread
- Thread starter portlock seagull
- Start date
There is nothing whatsoever passive about business mouse.
Bwian
Kiss my (_!_)
- Jul 14, 2003
- 15,898
So which part of 'football can learn a lot from rugby' are you struggling with?How many times are we going to hear this old chestnut over the next few weeks ? .
I'll give you a couple of starters:
Only captains allowed to talk to the officials rather than the mobbing throng we see at virtually every football match. Ice Hockey uses a similar system.
Injured players treated while play continues around them-would go a big way to ridding football of all of the feigned injury cheating that sensible football fans loathe.
The yelow card sin bin option-foul play affects teams for 10 minutes when a red card would be too harsh.
Strange that you don't find any of the above 'old chestnuts' beneficial so presumably you are quite happy with the constant cheating we see all too often?
Yep, I love football the way it is.
Hate the term ' football could learn a lot from rugby '
Only 1 player can approach a football referee already. If 2 or more players approach him in a confrontational way, their club can be charged if he reports it. Brought in over the summer. So that's number one.
Treating players on the pitch with play in progress wouldn't work as football flows too quickly. It'd be good if they went back to the old days of treating them off the pitch though, unless perhaps the player has been injured while being fouled.
Sin bins I quite fancy - although it would probably encourage dirtier play, rather than restrict it, which is presumably the intention in rugby. Players are going to try to get away with more if they're only going to be penalised for a while.
As for cheating, a footballer now can also be banned retrospectively for feigning injury. Not sure how that rule would apply if someone, for instance, bit a blood capsule to pretend they really were injured. Obviously, rugby players would never do anything heinous like that.
So barring a complete change of culture to get footballers to treat refs in line with public schoolboy traditions, there's not much there on a rule by rule basis that doesn't already exist.
A quick decision could be made to the question "Is there any reason why this goal should not stand?" and such like, in my opinion would only add to the entertainment that is a football match.
League v Union:
League: fantastic ball handling but no contesting for the ball makes it all a bit predictable, and there is little in the way of kicking so I'm struggling to call it a football code.
Union: There shouldn't be room for fat people with beer guts in ANY professional top level team sport. Although in fairness, this is certainly changing.
I'll watch both however, but I think [MENTION=17261]Iggle Piggle[/MENTION] nails it - you can find theatre and excitement in any top level sport in the right match, regardless of your take on the sport itself.
Where would you draw the line though? The danger is that you'd get loads more goals ruled out for innocuous things that look bad on replays in slow motion. Loads of stuff goes on at corners for instance that instinctively in real time people appreciate does not merit stopping play, but which is obvious slowed down. And as one of the papers pointed out about the tackle on Luke Shaw, even now people in the game can't decide whether it as an illegal challenge.
But that's just ignorant isn't it, because it could.
My beef is that you don't hear enough of the other way round, and we really REALLY should:
It's not rugby money that has invested in these world class stadiums they are playing in, it's not rugby that has successfully expanded the game well out of it's traditional heartlands world-wide over the past 25 years (even now they are trying to take the World Cup away from Japan), it's not rugby in this country that is taught in all state schools and gives a chance to pretty much every child in the country - rugby (and cricket) simply remain out of reach and elitist in many many parts of the country - and it's not the England football team that takes a squad to a world cup where 21 out of 30 went to private school.
Superphil
Dismember
How come there were 1400+ empty seats on Saturday when they had 250k applications for tickets?
You make some good points, although I should point out that it was Japan who said that its Olympic stadium wouldn't be ready for the RWC in 2019, so it's fair to say that the IRB is trying to take it away from them. In fact, it's given Japan time to come up with an alternative plan.
And while it's true that rugby and cricket are on offer to fewer and schools, it's certainly not true that football's available to all. At my son's school, there is an opportunity to play football but it's £20 a term (and some parents on a tight income can't afford it) and there are a limited number of places so some kids are disappointed. At the current rate, it wouldn't surprise me if the majority of the English football team were privately educated ... although not in my lifetime, I suspect
Show me the details of this family that genuinnely cannot restructure their spending if they wished, to be able to afford £1.20 a week to allow their child to play football, and I will personally send them the £20.
Don't like the sin bin idea, but people pay to see 11 vs. 11 - so my change would be, two yellows, suspended for next match.
just a thought on the sin bin idea.
Losing a player in rugby is very different to losing one in football. Football teams can cover far more easily with only 10 men, in rugby losing a player = lots more space. That's without considering which player goes, losing a lock for 10 mins present a very different proposition to losing a winger. I know you can make a case for the same in football, but it's far easier to shift and move players around to cover. Footballers can interchange far easier than rugby players in most instances due to the skill sets, player size etc etc..
There is a danger of considering anything which 'works' in rugby to be parachuted into football. I think the respect to the ref etc is an obvious one, but let's take the example of moving a team back 10 yards if they bicker about the decision. In rugby this could dramatically change the options to the attacking team. In football less so, it might help the attacking team but in rugby it can mean the difference between getting 3 points, a very dangerous lineout or in the case of defending deep, offering a real escape.
Losing a player in rugby is very different to losing one in football. Football teams can cover far more easily with only 10 men, in rugby losing a player = lots more space. That's without considering which player goes, losing a lock for 10 mins present a very different proposition to losing a winger. I know you can make a case for the same in football, but it's far easier to shift and move players around to cover. Footballers can interchange far easier than rugby players in most instances due to the skill sets, player size etc etc..
There is a danger of considering anything which 'works' in rugby to be parachuted into football. I think the respect to the ref etc is an obvious one, but let's take the example of moving a team back 10 yards if they bicker about the decision. In rugby this could dramatically change the options to the attacking team. In football less so, it might help the attacking team but in rugby it can mean the difference between getting 3 points, a very dangerous lineout or in the case of defending deep, offering a real escape.
Pogue Mahone
Well-known member
- Apr 30, 2011
- 10,949
You're right.
We had that ten yard thing for a while. It didn't work, and fizzled out.
I can't get my head round the idea that losing one player from a massive team of 15 is more difficult to cover than losing a player from a team of 11. But whatever, I don't like the sin bin idea. What [MENTION=12935]GT49er[/MENTION] suggests above, though, that might work.
People go on and on about respect for the referee. It would be nice, but are we extending this to the fans? Are the rugby lobby telling me that I cannot yell abuse at Simon Hooper, for example?
Yoda
English & European
In RL, I would say it is more easier. But in RU, you are limited on cover in the back's as quite often if a forward is binned. Yes, they are able to make a change for the 10 minutes, otherwise they wouldn't be able to contest the scrums. This does leave big spaces in behind as a lot of the time as the forwards are the ones making the main tackles and going into the rucks or maul from lineouts. Japan took full advantage with SA being down to 14 at the end. Moving the ball from one side of the pitch, to the other and quickly back again for the space vacated (where it was 3 on 2 for Japan).
Cheers Pogue,
The main difference is that whilst there are a set of core skills which apply across a rugby team there are a number of specialist roles/positions which are generally very difficult for another player to backfill.
A particular player might be the lead in calling and receiving the lineout throws, or the main kicker. There's also the difference in size, so if you lose a forward then it'll be harder to cover that particular area as someone else will have to move up.
Then there's the way the game is played. In football you defend a goal, in rugby it's an entire end. Losing one player means that there will either be (i) wider spaces between the team down to 14 men if they spread out or (b) an overlap if they try and defend narrow.
Though no football team would like to play with 10 men for 10 mins they are far more able, by the nature of the game itself, to not concede or make it harder for the opposition to score. In rugby the chances are you will concede points.
The main difference is that whilst there are a set of core skills which apply across a rugby team there are a number of specialist roles/positions which are generally very difficult for another player to backfill.
A particular player might be the lead in calling and receiving the lineout throws, or the main kicker. There's also the difference in size, so if you lose a forward then it'll be harder to cover that particular area as someone else will have to move up.
Then there's the way the game is played. In football you defend a goal, in rugby it's an entire end. Losing one player means that there will either be (i) wider spaces between the team down to 14 men if they spread out or (b) an overlap if they try and defend narrow.
Though no football team would like to play with 10 men for 10 mins they are far more able, by the nature of the game itself, to not concede or make it harder for the opposition to score. In rugby the chances are you will concede points.
No it isn't ignorant, I have been watching football for over 40 years and apart from cricket I'm not bothered about watching other sports.
please note the thread title here.
Why do I want football to change? I enjoy it how it is, I watch all BHA home games and some aways, I watch non league football and my sons youth football teams.
Anyway you have disagreed with me and then made some very good points on rugby learning from football.
There was a shortage of wacky fancy dress outfits this weekend and some fans didn't want to feel out of place.
Deportivo Seagull
I should coco
As I was normally one the lightest guy's on the pitch then yes it would be!
Deportivo Seagull
I should coco
Exactly what should rugby learn from football