Does rugby need to be brutal with itself?
After an incredible (and unexpected) opening weekend to the one of the world’s best annual sporting championships, the Guinness Six Nations, is it time to evaluate the rules of rugby again to improve the spectacle and reduce the injury rate?
It’s fascinating to see that whilst on the other side of the pond the popularity (if not viewership) of the NFL is higher than ever - there are ongoing concerns for the health of Rugby Union and it’s ageing audience. It was surprising to see the empty seats at the Stade De France on Friday night, which no doubt was in part due to travel difficulties for Welsh fans, the recent struggles of the Les Bleus but also must be an example of the quality of entertainment on offer. International Rugby, at it’s most basic, is an entertainment activity that is now competing in a rapidly evolving market and cannot rest on it’s laurels if it wants to develop and flourish. The Super Bowl, the importance of it’s half time show and even it’s half time adverts, still ensure it remains the most sought after ticket in town that dominates US conversation for some weeks in the lead up, and for some days after. How is rugby, now competing not only with new popular sports or activities like T20 and mamils, but also Netflix and Twitch, going to innovate?
I think, and have thought for some time, that Rugby’s USP is the sport itself. There are very few platforms that combine skill, pace, tactics, teamwork, strength, technique, guts, respect and accuracy like Rugby Union - and is the main reason it still has such a loyal legion of fans. Therefore, those in charge need to re-focus on this and improve the on-field spectacle again, whilst simultaneously working on off field initiatives to continue to attract the audiences.
The 'lowest hanging fruit' of these on field changes for me comes down to replacements, and I’d be interested to hear peoples’ thoughts on this. It is all to often that we see in top level rugby a barrage of changes between 45 and 55 minutes. New, 18 stone man mountains, running onto the pitch to batter each other for maybe 10 - 12 minutes of actual playing time. There are a whole host of implications this, not least the impact on the flow of the game, but also the fact that those they have replaced know they no longer need to be prepared for 80 minutes of rugby, but only 50 minutes. For the player themselves, this changes everything from preparation to body composition, and I suspect, has an impact on both injury rates and quality of the on field entertainment. It is no surprise that after week one of the 6 Nations, three top class players in CJ Stander, Sam Skinner and Maro Itoje are all ruled out for a number of weeks through injury. They’re massive guys, subjecting themselves to car crash forces week in week out, and no longer need to focus on a high level of fitness in the final 10 minutes of the game, as it is as slow as the first 10.
If replacements were reduced to four per team, and eventually three, (you can name as many as you like, but only use three) could we see the following benefits;
- smaller, fitter players focussed on playing 80 minutes of rugby not 50 or indeed 30
- more player & squad rotation to accommodate more minutes being played, with the associated benefits on longer term player welfare
- more continuity in the ‘flow’ of the game
- fatigue in players in latter stages of the game, allowing for more exciting miss matches and down to the wire finishes
What are the negative implications I wonder? Is it increased liklihood of uncontested scrums? Would it impact the spectacle and crucial elements of scrums and lineouts, which need to be protected?
If those changes led to a better on field spectacle, and less injuries, would rugby be very well placed for future growth, both in existing markets and new markets?
Senior Vice President, Insights & Consultancy @ Onclusive
5ywhat a good assessment. Hadn't thought of the implications of the bench in such terms, but you're making a lot of sense. The advent of 'finishers' points to players being schooled to fulfil a particular role at a particular time, and as you say, with only 20 mins left on the clock they can be as big as they like. Players no longer need to train for endurance, just power. Apart from the question of keeping Rugby competitive in the entertainment eco-system, injury also threatens to future of the game if parents and young players decide enough is enough (as many are).
Security Manager bei UBS Schweiz
5yTotaly agree!
Risk and crisis management specialist with international experience in developing and leading teams to deliver operational resilience, security & technology risk solutions
5yGreat article Stu and I fully agree. I do think a concept of fewer replacements needs to be combined with a lower and less severe injury rate. For that to happen there needs to be an overhaul of the tackle and contact related laws. We are seeing way too many life changing and sadly in some top flight young players in France recently, life ending injuries. In addition, more young people would be attracted to play and watch a game that is more entertaining both as a sport and as a spectacle (to your NFL point). This in turn would bring more money into the game and premiership players could be compensated nearer to their football peers... basically: make it safer and make it more fun. Kit, now 17 and playing and loving 1st XV rugby has wisely for his years pointed out the futility of pursuing a professional rugby career where the risk / reward just does not stack up... nice article Stu. This is a topic that the powers in rugby union would be wise to address, so this beautiful game and culture can be preserved