11-a-side rugby league

[southwalesrabbitoh]

4 hours ago, RP London said:

1. Not bothered by the markings on the pitch, that isnt what i was saying.. everything you do is marked into 5s and 10s (or at least pretty much everything i see) to start sticking in 7 is just a random figure plucked off the top of your head and that people are going to struggle to workout. 

No no no no no. It was 7 in the early nineties in Oz. Peter Sterling suggested we go back to 7 metres a few yrs ago. IMO, if we can get away with 5, great, I'd prefer 5 instead of 7. I'm just concerned that defences will be on top of the attackers too quickly on too many occasions, but fine f the attacking team can adapt, great. So, 5 then.

[Oliver Clothesoff]

Rugby League isn’t perfect but I wouldn’t want the game to turn into some Basketball style game where scores end ridiculously high by reducing numbers and creating more space. 

[southwalesrabbitoh]

1 hour ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

Rugby League isn’t perfect but I wouldn’t want the game to turn into some Basketball style game where scores end ridiculously high by reducing numbers and creating more space. 

Going to 11 a side won't achieve that i don't think. A 5 metre defensive line, surely not. 

[doc]

This is the sort of daft thread that should be reserved for the off season.

[fighting irish]

9 minutes ago, doc said:

This is the sort of daft thread that should be reserved for the off season.

We should bump it to the RaRa forum.

I've got some really good suggestions for them to make their game more interesting to players and spectators alike.

First, take the two most useless, most cumbersome (tallest) players off the field reducing the numbers per team to thirteen.

Second, Put their back rowers into the second row to make six man scrums.

Third, make their defensive players retire 10 metres from the gain line at the stoppage to stop them stifling every single attacking play.

Fourth, eliminate the ludicrous ''line out'' as a way of restarting the game when the ball goes into touch.

Fifth, make them form and put the ball in the scrum within 30 seconds.

Sixth, limit their possession to six ''phases'' to stop the boring grind of go-nowhere 23 phase sh  ite.

I'm sure I could think of a load more but i'm getting really bored with this thread.

Come on John consign it to the scrap heap?

 

[RP London]

14 hours ago, southwalesrabbitoh said:

No no no no no. It was 7 in the early nineties in Oz. Peter Sterling suggested we go back to 7 metres a few yrs ago. IMO, if we can get away with 5, great, I'd prefer 5 instead of 7. I'm just concerned that defences will be on top of the attackers too quickly on too many occasions, but fine f the attacking team can adapt, great. So, 5 then.

and there are obviously reasons we came away from it.. 

[RP London]

14 hours ago, southwalesrabbitoh said:

There are 4 main components of fitness IMO, CV endurance, flexibility, muscular endurance and strength. It might be a good thing to see some who are carrying too much fat playing, they'll probably be strong and possibly very flexible. But players can't get any bigger muscles than what they currently are carrying around. 

The problem here is all of that is based on "IMO" where as actually you may want to base your opinion of how this will work on facts from physiologists. They have been talking for a while about the fact that the more interchanges you have the more you can have "impact" players that can cause more damage (both to defensive lines and to each other)

Not sure where the "bigger muscles" arguments has been brought up... certainly not by me... fresher, big players is the issue and has been for a number of years, this year with less interchanges there is timber being shed to be able to cope with more minutes.

you said earlier:

On 05/04/2019 at 14:53, southwalesrabbitoh said:

One match! ffs! You stupid idiots. Play when you've changed your training regime, and become aerobically fitter. That's another reason why i want less on the paddock so ppl spend less time lifting heavy weights and more time out on the paddock running and doing skill work.

yet you want unlimited interchanges which is to the detriment of this as you can roll on and off the big guys.. 

pick what you want and stick to it.. if you want fitter players then you need limited and low numbers of interchanges (HIA and Blood is always considered separate to great success in both codes, watch them, it works) and you can do that with 13 a side, we are even starting to see that happen now since dropping the number of interchanges. 

 

[southwalesrabbitoh]

7 hours ago, RP London said:

The problem here is all of that is based on "IMO" where as actually you may want to base your opinion of how this will work on facts from physiologists. They have been talking for a while about the fact that the more interchanges you have the more you can have "impact" players that can cause more damage (both to defensive lines and to each other)

Not sure where the "bigger muscles" arguments has been brought up... certainly not by me... fresher, big players is the issue and has been for a number of years, this year with less interchanges there is timber being shed to be able to cope with more minutes.

you said earlier:

yet you want unlimited interchanges which is to the detriment of this as you can roll on and off the big guys.. 

pick what you want and stick to it.. if you want fitter players then you need limited and low numbers of interchanges (HIA and Blood is always considered separate to great success in both codes, watch them, it works) and you can do that with 13 a side, we are even starting to see that happen now since dropping the number of interchanges. 

 

You'd only have 4 on the bench, and some teams won't want too much disruption during matches, hopefully that'll go for every team. If one or two out of the 15 are a bit bigger, well some ppl want to see big front-on collisions like me. And there are at least 4 components of fitness, the 'IMO' is down to what you mean by fitness and what you mean by sport. I studied sports science and was a fitness instructor, and ppl call things different names but generally mean the same thing. 

Anyway, i think that going to 11 a side with a 5 metre line would benefit NH rugby teams, it would bring us closer to Oz.  

[RP London]

1 hour ago, southwalesrabbitoh said:

You'd only have 4 on the bench, and some teams won't want too much disruption during matches, hopefully that'll go for every team. If one or two out of the 15 are a bit bigger, well some ppl want to see big front-on collisions like me. And there are at least 4 components of fitness, the 'IMO' is down to what you mean by fitness and what you mean by sport. I studied sports science and was a fitness instructor, and ppl call things different names but generally mean the same thing. 

Anyway, i think that going to 11 a side with a 5 metre line would benefit NH rugby teams, it would bring us closer to Oz.  

Gave yourself away there didn’t you

And you now want to see the front on collisions but before wanted open running rugby 

11 would be rubbish btw

your arguments are bonkers to be fair so will leave you be..

[southwalesrabbitoh]

40 minutes ago, RP London said:

Gave yourself away there didn’t you

And you now want to see the front on collisions but before wanted open running rugby 

11 would be rubbish btw

your arguments are bonkers to be fair so will leave you be..

Uh? Wor?

[Damien]

2 hours ago, RP London said:

Gave yourself away there didn’t you

And you now want to see the front on collisions but before wanted open running rugby 

11 would be rubbish btw

your arguments are bonkers to be fair so will leave you be..

He certainly did 

[Manx RL]

6 hours ago, southwalesrabbitoh said:

You'd only have 4 on the bench, and some teams won't want too much disruption during matches, hopefully that'll go for every team. If one or two out of the 15 are a bit bigger, well some ppl want to see big front-on collisions like me. And there are at least 4 components of fitness, the 'IMO' is down to what you mean by fitness and what you mean by sport. I studied sports science and was a fitness instructor, and ppl call things different names but generally mean the same thing. 

Anyway, i think that going to 11 a side with a 5 metre line would benefit NH rugby teams, it would bring us closer to Oz.  

The only thing that will bring you closer to Oz is clicking your ruby red heels 

[RP London]

3 hours ago, southwalesrabbitoh said:

Uh? Wor?

Look at the bit in bold sparky

[southwalesrabbitoh]

2 hours ago, RP London said:

Look at the bit in bold sparky

11 + 4 = 15

It's a 17 person sport at the moment. I want it to be a 15 person sport. Most of you lot are paranoid insecure buffoons. Like reading about the insecurity in Aussie RL in 1995, when RU went full-time. Embarrassing.  

[southwalesrabbitoh]

Going to 5 metres and 11 a side would help with all this milking malarkey around the tackle area. 

[Oliver Clothesoff]

15 men, lineouts and calling it Rugby Union would help it become more popular. 

[southwalesrabbitoh]

1 hour ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

15 men, lineouts and calling it Rugby Union would help it become more popular. 

Popular where? Lol, so stick that intoo ya pueep