It's time to change positions

[YoungBanno]

16 minutes ago, The Frying Scotsman said:

I think I would just have 3 Middle Forwards. Coaches already talk about their "Middles" or their "Middle Unit"

Fair point. I would be on board with that 

[BrisbaneRhino]

Middles sounds stupid.

[The Frying Scotsman]

11 minutes ago, BrisbaneRhino said:

Middles sounds stupid.

It would be a daft name for the position, but coaches and players in the SuperLeague use it all the time. "It was great work from our Middles" ...stuff like that. 

Hence my suggestion of Middle Forward.

[Wholly Trinity]

6 hours ago, marklaspalmas said:

I think this could help regular fans to understand the sport as it is today, without blinding them with tactical info and coach-speak.

Even if scrums do ever come back, their importance in the game has gone forever. We've moved on.

It would help change how the game is presented on TV.

it would also have the advantage of making things easier for newbies to understand or more accessible to fans of other sports. If done properly, this would be an opportunity to show casual viewers how different to rugby onion, Rugby League is.

Someone brought up soccer, and it's taken that sport ages for the fans to get away from 4-4-2 and 4-3-3 as the only possible tactical variations in their sport. Rugby League has always been much more dynamic than that.

 

Totally agree with the sentiment of distinguishing from RU. If we want to attract new fans from casual sport fans we have to be instantly recognisable and clearly distinguishable from the other code. If casual sports fans have come across 'rugby', it is most likely they've seen union and in particular the 6 nations. They'd have to be really paying attention to notice that RL is significantly different and if they've already decided that 'rugby is not for me', it's unlikely that they'll give RL fresh look as they'd likely assume it's just 'rugby'.

These were my suggestions for position names in the last incarnation of the thread. I would support the binning of scrums, but it doesn't really matter it they're kept, when was the last time a prop 'propped' or a hooker 'hooked'?

Quote

 

It would give us the chance to rename positions to reflect their modern role. My suggestions:

1. Full back
2. (Right) wing (3/4)
3. (Right) centre (3/4)
4. (Left) centre (3/4)
5. (Left) wing (3/4)
6. (Right) Half(back) or stand-off half or running half or 5/8
7. (Left) Half(back) or centre-half
8. (Right) Middle (forward)
9. Pivot
10. (Left) Middle (forward)
11. (Right) Wide (forward)
12. (Left) Wide (forward)
13. Loose (forward) or 3rd middle (forward)

You could then also make distinctions between tactical positional differences between teams. Do they play with a left and right half or a running half and a centre half? Do they have a loose forward or a 3rd middle?

 

 

As well as the position name changes, I would also take further action to distinguish the game without actually changing anything about the sport.

Drop 'rugby' from the name by referring to always as 'RL' or 'RL Football' more formally.

Change the field markings, so that it's instantly recognisable on TV as an RL pitch.

At its most basic level RL is a trade-off between position and possession, much more so than the other code. At a live game it's clear exactly where the play is on the pitch, but on TV sometime it's less clear with the close up shots. My suggestion would be to make zones which would be visible from TV pictures. This would help with explanation of the game, especially 40/20s (or even 20/40s) - out of the blue and into the red, nothing in this game for two in a bed... oh no, that's something else.

At a minimal level, it could look something like this:

 

It would be easier on commentary to explain the ebb and flow of the game.

[Big Picture]

5 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Way back when , before we had interchanges the hookers didn't spend anywhere near as much time at ' acting half ' , that was primarily the number 7s job 

That's very interesting, I wonder why the hooker ended up being the main acting halfback rather than (for example) the loose forward?

[Big Picture]

3 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Are they on the pitch at the same time as the quarter back ?

Do they have half backs ?

Do they have forwards and backs ?

Yes they do.  The linemen evolved from the forward roles in RU, blocking at the line of scrimmage is directly analogous to forwards pushing in scrums and rucks.  All the other positions evolved from the roles of backs in RU.

[Big Picture]

41 minutes ago, Wholly Trinity said:

Totally agree with the sentiment of distinguishing from RU. If we want to attract new fans from casual sport fans we have to be instantly recognisable and clearly distinguishable from the other code. If casual sports fans have come across 'rugby', it is most likely they've seen union and in particular the 6 nations. They'd have to be really paying attention to notice that RL is significantly different and if they've already decided that 'rugby is not for me', it's unlikely that they'll give RL fresh look as they'd likely assume it's just 'rugby'.

These were my suggestions for position names in the last incarnation of the thread. I would support the binning of scrums, but it doesn't really matter it they're kept, when was the last time a prop 'propped' or a hooker 'hooked'?

 

As well as the position name changes, I would also take further action to distinguish the game without actually changing anything about the sport.

Drop 'rugby' from the name by referring to always as 'RL' or 'RL Football' more formally.

Change the field markings, so that it's instantly recognisable on TV as an RL pitch.

At its most basic level RL is a trade-off between position and possession, much more so than the other code. At a live game it's clear exactly where the play is on the pitch, but on TV sometime it's less clear with the close up shots. My suggestion would be to make zones which would be visible from TV pictures. This would help with explanation of the game, especially 40/20s (or even 20/40s) - out of the blue and into the red, nothing in this game for two in a bed... oh no, that's something else.

At a minimal level, it could look something like this:

 

It would be easier on commentary to explain the ebb and flow of the game.

You're forgetting that a good few English RL clubs pay at stadiums which either can't fit a full length field of play or whose management can't or won't measure and mark the field correctly for RL.  Next thing you know @Dave Tor someone like him will criticize you for wanting something which isn't really needed according to said critic.

[Wholly Trinity]

23 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

You're forgetting that a good few English RL clubs pay at stadiums which either can't fit a full length field of play or whose management can't or won't measure and mark the field correctly for RL.  Next thing you know @Dave Tor someone like him will criticize you for wanting something which isn't really needed according to said critic.

We'll see...

The thing with these coloured zone markings though is that even the shorter pitches (e.g. Cas) still have the important lines at the full measurement i.e. half-way & 10m lines and try line & 20m lines, so it doesn't matter too much that the unshaded areas are too small (in-goal and 10m to 20m lines).  The numbers on the pitch are nice, but not absolutely necessary. I guess the soccerball tenants may have difficulties.

[Big Picture]

3 minutes ago, Wholly Trinity said:

We'll see...

The thing with these coloured zone markings though is that even the shorter pitches (e.g. Cas) still have the important lines at the full measurement i.e. half-way & 10m lines and try line & 20m lines, so it doesn't matter too much that the unshaded areas are too small (in-goal and 10m to 20m lines).  The numbers on the pitch are nice, but not absolutely necessary. I guess the soccerball tenants may have difficulties.

Ah but the distance between the lines does matter.  Kickoffs and dropouts have to go 10 metres, so we need a 10 metre line, a 30 metre line and a 40 metre line all 10 metres from the goal line, the 20 metre line and the 50 metre line respectively.

[Wholly Trinity]

3 hours ago, Big Picture said:

Ah but the distance between the lines does matter.  Kickoffs and dropouts have to go 10 metres, so we need a 10 metre line, a 30 metre line and a 40 metre line all 10 metres from the goal line, the 20 metre line and the 50 metre line respectively.

Ok, I've just read the RFL guidelines and it does state that is a requirement that all pitches at SL and championship be 100m x 68m Plus 8 metre IN-GOALS Plus 3 metre run-offs (minimum dimensions only apply to lower tiers T3 and below).

http://files.pitchero.com/clubs/1022/RugbyLeaguePitchSizeGuidance.pdf

At Cas, it's just the space between the 30m & 40m  that's short (about 7m) - all the other lines are 10m apart - so that meets your requirements for 10m markers for kicks, but not the stated minimum requirements. In-goals and run-offs seem to be short at soccerball stadia.

Which clubs do not meet these requirements?

Are any kicks taken from the 30m or 40m line?

 

P.S. There is a note at the bottom of the page which I guess is the get-out clause

Quote

Please note: Some existing Rugby League pitches may be smaller than the preferred or minimum sizes however new
pitches should conform to the PREFERRED sizes unless agreement is reached with the RFL that there are mitigating
circumstances

 

[Just Browny]

Not up for this, to be honest. The nature of positions and their roles will always evolve so changing their  'official' names gets you into a cycle of trying to chase down the role being played. 

I also don't know why you would change simple terms like 'prop' for a mouthful like 'middle forward' or any of the suggestions on here.

[Archie Gordon]

One problem with mixing new and old terminology is that you end up with middles and centres and it confuses. 

[Wholly Trinity]

54 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

Not up for this, to be honest. The nature of positions and their roles will always evolve so changing their  'official' names gets you into a cycle of trying to chase down the role being played. 

I also don't know why you would change simple terms like 'prop' for a mouthful like 'middle forward' or any of the suggestions on here.

Yeah, why would you change something simple like 'blind side prop forward' for a mouthful like middle? 

The main reason for changing them for me would be to make a clear distinction between two sports. The names are archaic and redundant. Why not change names with the role played, it works quite well in soccer. The name is there to describe the role. What purpose does the name prop serve in modern RL? How would you explain to a potential nee fan what the role of a prop is and why he's called that?

[Wholly Trinity]

34 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

One problem with mixing new and old terminology is that you end up with middles and centres and it confuses. 

The terms would have specific meaning in the sport. Are people confused now by having centres on the outside? 

The words are not similar, why would there be confusion?

If it was centre and centroid, maybe.

[Just Browny]

13 minutes ago, Wholly Trinity said:

Yeah, why would you change something simple like 'blind side prop forward' for a mouthful like middle? 

The main reason for changing them for me would be to make a clear distinction between two sports. The names are archaic and redundant. Why not change names with the role played, it works quite well in soccer. The name is there to describe the role. What purpose does the name prop serve in modern RL? How would you explain to a potential nee fan what the role of a prop is and why he's called that?

Nobody has said 'blind side prop forward' since 1968.

In football, the team list gives you the squad numbers of the players on the field. The names of the positions are added informally by the commentators / fans / manager. No reason why you couldn't have the same in RL; in fact we do.

[Wholly Trinity]

2 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

Nobody has said 'blind side prop forward' since 1968.

In football, the team list gives you the squad numbers of the players on the field. The names of the positions are added informally by the commentators / fans / manager. No reason why you couldn't have the same in RL; in fact we do.

So you're saying it's ok to change name from blind side prop forward to prop as the specific role of blind side became redundant, but not prop to middle?

If you're happy with how it's done in soccer, why are you so resistant to doing the same in RL?

It helps explain to newcomers what the roles being played are. If you can say that a team is playing with a 3rd middle rather than a loose forward, it adds to tactical understanding of the game. 

A pivot is much more descriptive than a hooker.

[Curly perm]

I’ve never been for this but some really good arguments here (and in the last few years) make you think. It really would distinguish from RU and making the game/positions easier to explain can never be a bad thing.

I don’t think many people would need to trace the positions back to old names...we all know what middle/edge forwards are, pivot/dummy half etc. The new names could be used for TV coverage and presenters could explain the positions, their responsibilities etc in the pre-game, similar to how Mark Chapman asks questions to extract explanatory info from the ex-pros on the NFL show. 

I don’t think we can use Quarterback at all though. Irrespective of the position on the pitch, it’s too synonymous with the NFL and would be very misleading in an RL context. Pivot would be my vote. 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

14 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Already happened , Leeds changed their hookers to quarter backs years ago 

5001

[Just Browny]

12 minutes ago, Wholly Trinity said:

So you're saying it's ok to change name from blind side prop forward to prop as the specific role of blind side became redundant, but not prop to middle?

If you're happy with how it's done in soccer, why are you so resistant to doing the same in RL?

It helps explain to newcomers what the roles being played are. If you can say that a team is playing with a 3rd middle rather than a loose forward, it adds to tactical understanding of the game. 

A pivot is much more descriptive than a hooker.

I think 'so resistant' is a bit of a push mate, I'm really not that bothered. Fairly sure I joined this by saying I wasnt up for the change; not that I was going to stage a sit in outside Red Hall.

When Luke Gale or whoever comes on the telly and says 'I think us middles done great today' it doesn't bother me at all. I just wouldn't change the official names of the positions on that basis because he might start calling them 'the big units' in two years' time when a new Aussie coach comes over.

[Archie Gordon]

25 minutes ago, Wholly Trinity said:

The terms would have specific meaning in the sport. Are people confused now by having centres on the outside? 

The words are not similar, why would there be confusion?

If it was centre and centroid, maybe.

Middle and centre aren't similar? As you wish.

 

[Wholly Trinity]

31 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

Middle and centre aren't similar? As you wish.

 

They both have 6 letters and end in e, but so does bubble.

In everyday parlance when describing location they have similar meanings, but context is king. The words themselves are distinct, so can be applied differently.  

Anyhow, the actual words are irrelevant, it's the principle of abandoning archaic meaningless terms and adopting terms that more accurately reflect the modern game and clearly distinguish it from another sport where there is confusion.

If you're concerned about confusion, maybe it's centre that should be changed?

[Man of Kent]

1 hour ago, Curly perm said:

I don’t think we can use Quarterback at all though. Irrespective of the position on the pitch, it’s too synonymous with the NFL and would be very misleading in an RL context. Pivot would be my vote. 

I’m not precious about this but pivot isn’t specific to the hooker position.

I just think quarterback could be the way to go, particularly with North America emerging as the most important RL growth area of the coming decades. The similarities between the snap and play-the-ball are obvious. 

[Dave T]

7 hours ago, Big Picture said:

You're forgetting that a good few English RL clubs pay at stadiums which either can't fit a full length field of play or whose management can't or won't measure and mark the field correctly for RL.  Next thing you know @Dave Tor someone like him will criticize you for wanting something which isn't really needed according to said critic.

You don't need it. Rugby league has been played for over 125 years without issue on these pitches. Your obsession with it is weird. 

[Trojan]

15 hours ago, marklaspalmas said:

I think this could help regular fans to understand the sport as it is today, without blinding them with tactical info and coach-speak.

Even if scrums do ever come back, their importance in the game has gone forever. We've moved on.

It would help change how the game is presented on TV.

it would also have the advantage of making things easier for newbies to understand or more accessible to fans of other sports. If done properly, this would be an opportunity to show casual viewers how different to rugby onion, Rugby League is.

Someone brought up soccer, and it's taken that sport ages for the fans to get away from 4-4-2 and 4-3-3 as the only possible tactical variations in their sport. Rugby League has always been much more dynamic than that.

 

Once the covid scare is over, I'd like to see a couple of experimental games with scrums that observe the laws and see what the outcome is.  The scrum removes twelve players from the open field, and if for no other reason has its place in the game.

[Big Picture]

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

You don't need it. Rugby league has been played for over 125 years without issue on these pitches. Your obsession with it is weird. 

I get that RL in England has had that acceptance that it has to doff its cap and make do with substandard fields of play for a long time, and I find the willingness of supporters like yourself to accept that disturbing.  As @Wholly Trinityfound when he looked, the RFL guidelines state that it's a requirement that all fields in SL and the championship be 100m x 68m with 8 metre deep goal areas.

When even third world PNG can provide such fields without issue and get them all marked according the Plan in the game's rule book, it's simply embarrassing that English RL cannot.  The mishmash of different lengths and markings seen in the English game makes it look very poor in comparison to other sports where that isn't seen.