Warren Gatland's idea's for the game

[trendylfj]

I really do like a lot of what he has said in this article - https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rug ... s-28354814.

I wouldn't go as far as abolishing subs except for injuries but would certainly reduce them to perhaps 5 or 6 with a maximum of 4 forwards and would not do away with the mark, (ex FB) but everything else he says makes total sense to me. Cancel the pass-back law both into the 22 and the halfway line and let the game flow more. As he says, that would make back 3 remain deep and create attacking space.

[tigerburnie]

Before the game went pro only one sub was allowed( usually Angus Collington in Tigers case) in the '70's and he could only take the field if a doctor said the injured player was unfit to continue.

[Scott1]

I’m in 2 minds about the bunker,its success % is huge! Bar Curry’s and one more that has escaped me I believe that they have got every single one right in the games I’ve seen. But on the flip side it means the ref can bottle out of a decision too. I’ve seen some reds sent to the bunker which should’ve been given on field

[Tiglon]

I'm not convinced any of his suggestions will reduce the emphasis on kicking, and surely getting rid of the mark will just encourage more kicking.

The 50:22 "taken back" rule removal would make a marginal difference, and while it may encourage the back 3 to hang back on a few more occasions, it also just encourages kicking in more situations.

The bunker system works very well IMO. It gets almost every decision right, and doesn't waste any time. I'm struggling to see a downside.

I do agree on substitutes, however.

Surely though, if we want to make the game more open and less about who kicks the most metres, aren't we missing a really simple solution that would also save costs and make the club game more sustainable? Have fewer players on the pitch...

Get rid of flankers, have 6 man scrums, more gaps on the field, scrums become genuine attacking opportunities rather than just a way to win a penalty, the best tacklers are gone, and other forwards have to become more mobile to compensate. £1m shaved off each club's wage bill, as a bonus.

Flanker are ruining the game, let's get rid of them

[northerntiger]

Surely though, if we want to make the game more open and less about who kicks the most metres, aren't we missing a really simple solution that would also save costs and make the club game more sustainable? Have fewer players on the pitch...

Get rid of flankers, have 6 man scrums, more gaps on the field, scrums become genuine attacking opportunities rather than just a way to win a penalty, the best tacklers are gone, and other forwards have to become more mobile to compensate. £1m shaved off each club's wage bill, as a bonus.

Flanker are ruining the game, let's get rid of them

Feel that’s been tried somewhere.............

[Tiglon]

Surely though, if we want to make the game more open and less about who kicks the most metres, aren't we missing a really simple solution that would also save costs and make the club game more sustainable? Have fewer players on the pitch...

Get rid of flankers, have 6 man scrums, more gaps on the field, scrums become genuine attacking opportunities rather than just a way to win a penalty, the best tacklers are gone, and other forwards have to become more mobile to compensate. £1m shaved off each club's wage bill, as a bonus.

Flanker are ruining the game, let's get rid of them

Feel that’s been tried somewhere.............

Not really, the scrum is still contested, the lineout stays the same, the breakdown/ruck/tackle laws and everything else all stay the same.

[tigerburnie]

If you want to get rid of kicking, get rid of all the backs, 8 man a side rugby, good old fashioned foot rushes, what's not to like, rolling mauls the full length of the pitch...........heaven.........................................

[mol2]

Forwards:3
Restrict subs to 3 front rows. (who gain can only play in their normal positions unless Ref/Dr/HIA agree for them to play elsewhere if the utility players have been used.

Backs:2
Designated bench scrum half and fly half, who, if they are brought on must play scrum half/fly half. They could replace a centre or wing if the utility players have been used but they must be recognised 9s or 10s.

1 utility player. (who can play anywhere but the front row if needed)

We cannot return to the days of Wasps forcing uncontested scrums once the opposition get on top.

[anz3001]

Personally, I find the fixation of constantly trying to change the game more damaging than anything…..except the caterpillar…..ban the caterpillar!

[Rugbygramps]

Personally, I find the fixation of constantly trying to change the game more damaging than anything…..except the caterpillar…..ban the caterpillar!

Totally agree with this. As much as the laws are changed teams will find a way to play as close to them as possible.
IMO there isn’t a lot wrong with the product now.

[Voyager1]

I agree with the removal of the caterpillar as it adds no value to the game whatsoever.

With it being quite obvious that the referees are not enforcing the five second law it’s
becoming one of the biggest time wasters in a match.

The authorities want the game speeded up so just do it……>>

[No6_Flanker]

In the Telegraph today, Brian Moore suggests that when the ref calls use it, no more players can join the ruck.

I initially thought this was a good idea, but now I think that the caterpillar often forms prior to the ref’s call. So a potential solution is to reduce the time limit from 5s to 3s or even 1s to use the ball.

The thing is, enforcing this would result in lots of free kicks, which are likely to result in scrums! Which brings us back to just enforcing the straight scrum feed!

Regarding calling a mark, the issue is not the mark, but the delay between calling it and taking the free kick. It should only give you a free catch, not the opportunity to drain the momentum out of the game. So require the team to play the free kick within 5/3/1s, and then actually enforce the ‘no huddle before a lineout’ rule.

Oh and actually enforce the ‘no water carriers on the pitch outside from the designated water break’. While they’re at it, just scrap the water breaks unless it’s >25C.

With changes like this to maintain the tempo in the game, you might not even need to change the substitution rules as the players will be out on their feet!

[LessThanSte]

Completely agree with Gatland on all counts.

For me, the single biggest improvement to the game will come from reducing the size of players. There are several ways to achieve that, including reducing/restricting 'gym' time (which would have the side benefit of having more training time with ball in hand, which can only be a good thing), maximum squad weight and, as Gatland has suggested, reducing substitutions. I would be in favour of 3 subs, ala football, with a proviso for an additional substitution in the event of injury (to be ruled on by an independent match doctor). The need to play 80 minutes will have to manifest itself in a move from power/muscle to cardio, which in turn dramatically reduces forces in contact and, as alluded to, increases tiredness and hence gaps later in the game. To be fair, there is a small risk of tiredness induced injuries.

Of course, the reduced number of subs means a squad can be reduced in size too, making the whole shebang more affordable.

[Rugbygramps]

I’m all for reducing the number of subs sensibly, and the size of squads, however I’m unsure how you legislate on the size of players. Yes there is a lot of gym work but a lot of players, especially forwards are naturally large citizens, take the Chessum boys for example.

Henry Tuilagi son currently ripping things up in France is that size down mainly to genetics not the gym

[Scott1]

It's all those special nuts and berries shakes they have