# Rugby 12s tournament



## nickyboy (7 Sep 2021)

Being proposed

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/58476455

I've said for ages that since RU went professional there are too many players on the pitch. Everyone's too fit, no space for flair players so it becomes a collision-fest

No doubt the fogeys will be vehemently against it but I hope (a) it happens (b) it's a great success

To me, 7s is so far removed from 15s rugby to be practically a different sport. I hope 12s will be like 15s but with a bit more space so it tips the balance in favour of running and passing, not arm wrestling


----------



## matticus (7 Sep 2021)

Speaking as a keen armchair viewer, I'd agree with all of that.

Sports evolve - sometimes changing the rules makes them better to reflect this. Almost every major (commercial!) sport has seen it happen. This seems a radical change, but it might pay off handsomely.


----------



## Venod (7 Sep 2021)

I have said for years Union would be a better game if played with 13 men like league, a combining of the rules losing some of dafter ones from each would be a good idea.


----------



## T4tomo (7 Sep 2021)

It runs the risk of being too gimmicky, but fundamentally removing some players from the pitch is a major plus. with 15 fit and mobile players, its all collisions and not enough running rugby. back in the glory days, half of the forward pack didn't get involved except at set plays, so there were more gaps to exploit!


----------



## ClichéGuevara (7 Sep 2021)

One of the plus points to union is the variety of shapes and sizes that lends itself to the positional and tactical element. That for me adds a bigger dimension to the game. I quite enjoy the rooks and mauls. In contrast, I find league very repetitive, with a lot of the players static for relatively long periods at the play the ball, and little variation in tactics from one game to the next, so perhaps I have a bias.

One thing to note is that league, which is a similar format to the one proposed, is dying a not so slow death, with Sky giving them an ultimatum to liven it up, or lose their funding.

I couldn't see in that link which positions are liable to be removed. Presumably it will be forwards or it makes little sense. I could sort of see how removing he flankers could work in reducing numbers, but which would be the other position lost, and how would that affect a restart?


----------



## T4tomo (7 Sep 2021)

It is being played to Union Rules, not League. League is dull because here isn't any "what we would call union forward play".

one less back mean its hard to cover tactical kicking to both touch line and "in behind" as you've lost a winger or a full back, without leaving your first up line of tacklers short in numbers. it should open it up, without it getting into a completely different games like 7's


----------



## nickyboy (7 Sep 2021)

ClichéGuevara said:


> One of the plus points to union is the variety of shapes and sizes that lends itself to the positional and tactical element. That for me adds a bigger dimension to the game. I quite enjoy the rooks and mauls. In contrast, I find league very repetitive, with a lot of the players static for relatively long periods at the play the ball, and little variation in tactics from one game to the next, so perhaps I have a bias.
> 
> One thing to note is that league, which is a similar format to the one proposed, is dying a not so slow death, with Sky giving them an ultimatum to liven it up, or lose their funding.
> 
> I couldn't see in that link which positions are liable to be removed. Presumably it will be forwards or it makes little sense. I could sort of see how removing he flankers could work in reducing numbers, but which would be the other position lost, and how would that affect a restart?


I suspect you have a scrum half, full back and four others covering what are five positions in 15 a side

It will be interesting to see if it takes off, in the way that T20 cricket has taken off and usurped longer forms of the game in some countries


----------



## Drago (7 Sep 2021)

Rugby lite. Not for me.


----------



## Beebo (7 Sep 2021)

It will be interesting to see if clubs and unions are willing to release players for this. 
Rugby is an attritional sport, you can’t play loads of games in a short space of time.


----------



## Milkfloat (7 Sep 2021)

I think it could succeed if they managed to take away the mysticism of the rules and the seeming randomness of referees decisions especially at the scrum. Uncontested scrums with reset after reset followed by a random penalty sucks the life out of me, I like the one reset rule proposed but make the scrums contested. I also think a new format is a chance to improve player safety, perhaps by reducing substitutions and even radically making players wear impact monitors a pull them off when they exceed limits.


----------



## Chap sur le velo (10 Sep 2021)

I hope they mean 12 a side and not 12 plus a full bench waiting to be deployed. 

15 mins a side suggests too much of 7's type action pace, so how is it really any different?

I'll take a curious look, but I'm with those suggesting 13 a side with medical substitution only, as the way to improve the real game.


----------



## Venod (10 Sep 2021)

Milkfloat said:


> I think it could succeed if they managed to take away the mysticism of the rules and the seeming randomness of referees decisions especially at the scrum. Uncontested scrums with reset after reset followed by a random penalty sucks the life out of me



The rules at the scrum and the time taken to complete it, are the worst aspects of RU to me, I know its part of the game and die hard Union players extol its merits, but its not good viewing.

12 minutes a half is a waste of time.

13 a side, Union rules, less referee interpretation, scrums speeded up, League points for tries and kicks.


----------



## matticus (10 Sep 2021)

Venod said:


> 12 minutes a half is a waste of time.


I'm guessing that a lot of marketing thought has gone into this. _12 minutes, 12 players => "World 12s"_. Slick eh??
They're also aiming at a short tournament, for fans with short attention spans, where lots of games can be played in a short period (weekend?).

Much less risk in a short tournament, with less people/facilities tied up for less time.
I could imagine it expanding to longer games if the format is popular.


----------



## Beebo (11 Sep 2021)

The club game in England last year was full of high scoring games. Teams made a conscious decision to go all out attack. It just needs a change of mind set. 

It’s really only the international game which suffers from the attritional defensive tactics. The recent Lions tour being a prime example of how not to play the game. 

I would much prefer the points for a penalty to reduce to 2 and a try increased to 6.

If this tournament goes ahead it will be on a pay per view channel with limited audience. It needs to be on terrestrial TV to make an impact. But it will be all about the cash.


----------



## Dayvo (11 Sep 2021)

I played rugby union from the age of 14 to 35 and thoroughly enjoyed it BUT I would much rather watch a game of rugby league over union any day.
If they can come up with a decent format for 12s (max two substitutes for injuries, not tactical: a scoring system to encourage open rugby, and 2x20 minutes of _actual _playing time and not just waiting for scrums and line outs to get ready, then maybe it’ll rival rugby league.
BTW I’m a southern Jessie, but a fan of rugby league.


----------



## Venod (11 Sep 2021)

I was brought up on league, played but not a lot after school years, too brutal for me.
I like to watch a good game of Union, but don't like the time spent at scrum resets etc, league can become a bit repetitive at times, but when it's a flowing open game it's good to watch, as is Union, there are just too many players on the pitch, that's why I advocate a combination of the two, but it won't happen.
League needs a shake up to stop it becoming boring.


----------



## nickyboy (15 Sep 2021)

Chap sur le velo said:


> I hope they mean 12 a side and not 12 plus a full bench waiting to be deployed.
> 
> 15 mins a side suggests too much of 7's type action pace, so how is it really any different?
> 
> I'll take a curious look, but I'm with those suggesting 13 a side with medical substitution only, as the way to improve the real game.


I suspect 13 a side is a no no due to the accusation that it is Rugby League with a few scrums and lineouts. That's not to say that 12 a side won't be RL with a few scrums and lineouts but making the number of participants the same as RL may be a step too far

15 minutes each way sounds a bit short to me. Maybe it will be on a fully "stopped clock" basis so there is actually 30 minutes in total of the ball in play. Currently ball is in play for a laughable 36 minutes on average in a 15 a side RU game


----------



## AndyRM (25 Sep 2021)

I only really watch 6 Nations and World Cup rugby union, so I don't know a great deal, but this just seems daft. It's true that the game has changed massively in the last 20 years (mostly down to player size, it's like everyone saw Jonah Lomu and thought "Let's find a bunch of massive guys and put them all over the place"), but I don't think reducing the number of players is the way to improve things. 

Teams are essentially replacing entire parts of their sides at various points in the game, which is what I'd stop.


----------



## Beebo (25 Sep 2021)

AndyRM said:


> I only really watch 6 Nations and World Cup rugby union, so I don't know a great deal, but this just seems daft. It's true that the game has changed massively in the last 20 years (mostly down to player size, it's like everyone saw Jonah Lomu and thought "Let's find a bunch of massive guys and put them all over the place"), but I don't think reducing the number of players is the way to improve things.
> 
> Teams are essentially replacing entire parts of their sides at various points in the game, which is what I'd stop.


The substitution issue is a problem. 
Some players know they will only play for 50mins so they can be bulky. 
If they had to play a full 80 they would be far slower and the spaces would open up.


----------



## AndyRM (25 Sep 2021)

Beebo said:


> The substitution issue is a problem.
> Some players know they will only play for 50mins so they can be bulky.
> If they had to play a full 80 they would be far slower and the spaces would open up.



Personally I think that would make it better. 

Limit subs (unless for head/blood injuries) and the game would go back to my nostalgic love of it. 

It's never going to happen, and I still enjoy the matches I do watch, but players from the late 90s/00s era, when I played and got into the game, just wouldn't get a look-in these days.

I have no problem with change, but there is talk about head/brain injuries from that era these days. I can only imagine those becoming worse given some of the impacts these guys are putting themselves through. 

Lighter, wee guys at speed are a lot less dangerous than the massive guys playing the game now I think.


----------



## Beebo (27 Oct 2021)

Well I’m not surprised to see that World Rugby have dismissed it for the time being.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/59067701


----------

