A return to the attacking rugby style?

Question

France used to play that attacking rugby style, but now except the AB , there are very few teams playing that kind of rugby (maybe Wales and Fidji among a few others). But I'm sure it's the most effective way: for ex I'm convinced that if France hadn't try to play like England in the semis they would have gone through, and Fidji almost got the better of SA.

All of this to say, eventhough we had a great WC, I hope that the rules changes that are coming up soon, will allow the exciting rugby to come back (for ex, even in its 22meters the player who kicks has to find a bounce before the ball goes into touch or the possibility to bring mauls down..)

Your opinon?

Answer 1

Defence wins you rugby games not attack. we have seen that in all the world cups. attacking rugby looks good but is too high risk.

Answer 2

I agree with you. That is the way rugby should be played and, as you say, had some teams notably France, but NZ too, played that way they might well have got better results. Copying England is no recipe for success.

On the other hand I am not so strongly in favour of changing the laws. I believe the way to get rid of that style of playing is to beat it. Demonstrate that by playing another way can bring results.

However, to be able to play open, running rugby you have to have good forwards to gain you the possession for your backs to then run with the ball. Something Wales have forgotten unfortunately.

Answer 3

You know what's annoying me at the moment is all this business about negative rugby and how the rules of the game need to be changed.

Was anyone complaining during the 6N or 3N about the rugby being played? Or the Super 14 or GP? No.

But then the RWC comes along, a few teams grind out some shock results by defending to the hilt and making the opposition pay for infringing, and all h**l brakes loose.

Ridiculous. The stakes were at their highest, and some teams went safety first. England turned their tournament round by doing so, and then were beaten at it in the final by SA. Had certain other teams not choked under the pressure, and if they played their expansive rugby, no one would be complaining now.

I can't help but feel like all this nonsense stems from the fact that the Aussies aren't happy they got beat in such a way, that two SA teams were in the S14 final, and that they aren't producing any half-decent scrummaging prop forwards, so want to change the game so that it doesn't matter.

Perhaps, instead of the IRB pandering to those who want people to watch rugby, they should listen to the people that play the game week-in, week-out and see what they make of the current laws.

Answer 4

Yes, yes & yes.  The 2007 RWC was boring as h**l.  Defensive rugby is boring as h**l.  Running rugby is way better to watch.  As we speak, I'm already looking forward to the start of the NRL.  Go Warriors!!

Answer 5

This is going to ruin rugby union. If these rule changes come in I will stop watching and playing. One of the great things about Union over League is that there are many different ways and gameplans to win a game. These rule changes are being done to encourage southern-hemisphere style running rugby over northern hemisphere forward dominated play. I think the northern hemisphere (and Argentina) should boycott the South Africa-New Zealand-Australia axis (who are trialling this farce)  untill such time as they want to play the game properly again.

As a side note It's funny to note how the aussies are so happy about these changes, it's such blatent self-interest because they can't produce a decent pack!

Answer 6

would be great. reduce the value of a penalty to 2 and allow hands in the ruck.

Answer 7

By exciting attacking rugby coming back, I assume you mean the year (and only the 1 year) when NZ drew with OZ 74-74?

There were a few antipodeans in the bar that night going wild. The rest of us were going; can't these guys take a clean line-out / scrum or defend worth a d**n?

At half time 74-0 I remembered Bill Beaumont's recollection of the first tour to Fiji, 'These guys are good, but now they kick off to us.'

Why don't we go one better, just play the pick and drive, two short passes, fall over, repeat 5 times, lose the ball, game that NZ played against France? I mean we could try the desperation drop goal from the half way after losing the ball under the posts.

Well if that's what you mean by exciting attacking rugby then I for one am going to need cheerleaders and 4 quarters for a beer run. On second thoughts I'd rather watch the wrestling, I'm mean it's homoerotic but at least someones given some real thought to the excitement levels.

I bet your one of these people who don't watch 7's because it's not a real game. But then try and change 15's into a cross between league and 7's.

Leave my game alone, watch 7's or league. Or better yet I'm sure wrestling or NFL will give you exactly what you need in a sport.

Answer 8

I strongly believe there is nothing wrong with the way the game is played.  

The attacking style of play in Rugby has always been there, but a lot of teams choose not to use it, practically in the World Cup and there is nothing wrong with that.

You will find that a lot of coaches teach this method of play or game plan practically when playing teams like AB’s to minimise mistakes and turnovers.

The number of turnovers and mistakes while playing an attacking style of play out weights the tight style of play and as we all know any National Teams will take full advantage of any turnovers or mistakes.

The method of playing tight is the foundation and one of the fundamental basics that every rugby player first learnt and it’s great to see it still used in our National Teams.

So let not take that away from our up and coming players, but use it as the foundation to continue build other structures or other methods to counter act it.

As for our point system they should also remain the same, as a penalty is a deterrence to stop infringements by the defending team and the drop kick is a great tool to use to apply pressure and one should not discourage a talented skill player because they can kick.

Answer 9

As stated above, a reduction from 3 to 2 points for kicks would make a big difference. This would surely increase the incidence of tries.

Answer 10

I personally find two sets of forwards grinding a game out as exciting and interesting as wingers running in tries from 70 metres.  This probably isn't good for people who haven't played the game or are casual observers but by changing it you change the nature of what rugby union is.

If you think "exciting" rugby involves it being played like basketball then just watch rugby league instead.

Answer 11

Kick & Clap will NEVER be able to match RL for excitement give up now! Yeah reduce the points for goal kicks(drop & penalties) You can already drop a maul by the way it's called having a one man tackle muppet!

Anyway why would the RFU want to seem to be copying RL it just wouldn't be cricket old man...LMFAO

Answer 12

Sorry but I am a little confused.

You First state that the you want rule changes to allow mauls to be collapsed(Something which is very dangerous and no player would advocate this). Then in a further statement you say that mauls are an important part of the game.

If you allow them to be collapsed they cease to exist as every maul that forms would turn straight in to a ruck.

However I thing that something needs to be done to encourage more attacking play. Having bonus points in league systems works well ie +1 point for scoring more than 4 trys and +1 point for loosing within 7points etc.

Also reducing penalty's to 1 point may encourage the kick to the corner but then whats the point of the catch and drive if you allow the maul to be pulled down.

Oh and Tony F: you need two players from one team and 1 from the other in contact with the ball off the ground to form a maul. Therefore a tackle is not a maul. Before speculating on Union rules and referring to people as muppets do your research and get your facts right.