RugbyRebels

So says several leading authorities in the Guardian today:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/m ... rs-welfare

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/m ... er-welfare

Hard to argue with any of it. But on thing does annoy me - whenever we talk about a global season, why is it us aligning with the Southern Hemisphere? Why aren't they moving to align with us?

Yes they are.

And it's always us moving to accommodate them as A] they're special B] people think summer rugby would bring about a higher quality in the NH and C] the SH has hot places where it wouldn't be feasible to play in the summer.

Of course A] awww, bless. B] yes, but it also rains in NZ quite a lot, yet they still lead the way; and C] we just have to keep quiet about S France, Italy, Spain and Portugal - they're not relevant here; nor are people who go on holiday or otherwise busy in the summer etc etc.


Basically, yes, players are playing too much rugby - and a global season is no solution; the trick is to ask them to play less rugby; not to play in hotter weather and on harder pitches.

Which Tyler wrote:Yes they are.

And it's always us moving to accommodate them as A] they're special B] people think summer rugby would bring about a higher quality in the NH and C] the SH has hot places where it wouldn't be feasible to play in the summer.

Of course A] awww, bless. B] yes, but it also rains in NZ quite a lot, yet they still lead the way; and C] we just have to keep quiet about S France, Italy, Spain and Portugal - they're not relevant here; nor are people who go on holiday or otherwise busy in the summer etc etc.


Basically, yes, players are playing too much rugby - and a global season is no solution; the trick is to ask them to play less rugby; not to play in hotter weather and on harder pitches.

Spot on.

I just think having an overall time limit would be a simple solution...

Picking a number out of the air, but 2,000 minutes a season for a forward, and 2,200 for a back?

Or less, or something...

It would also, surely, help squad players to get more time, and the best teams do it anyway - see Sarries.

Stom wrote:I just think having an overall time limit would be a simple solution...

Picking a number out of the air, but 2,000 minutes a season for a forward, and 2,200 for a back?

Or less, or something...

It would also, surely, help squad players to get more time, and the best teams do it anyway - see Sarries.

That's a good point - good coaches/DORs manage their players and rotate them

We've been here before....on more than on one occasion. Even so, the argument for playing less is a strong one and clearly tighter guidelines need to be imposed.

As mentioned above rotation - and I mean proper rotation - is the key. Forwards shouldnt be playing game after game and at least one week out of six they should be exempt from matchday duty. I also think there should be a mandatory 4-6 week break at the end of a season for representative players. Goodness knows what kind of rest those players involved in the WC build up and the tour to Australia will be getting.

It'd help if they didn't train so much they were all so big. I am in favour of giving them more rest time, but I don't think they'd spend additional time on skills as a consequence

fivepointer wrote:I also think there should be a mandatory 4-6 week break at the end of a season for representative players. Goodness knows what kind of rest those players involved in the WC build up and the tour to Australia will be getting.

I believe a mandatory 5 week rest will be introduced as of this summer.

Digby wrote:It'd help if they didn't train so much they were all so big. I am in favour of giving them more rest time, but I don't think they'd spend additional time on skills as a consequence

Ban tin? They'd just take it out on social media.

Banquo wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Yes they are.

And it's always us moving to accommodate them as A] they're special B] people think summer rugby would bring about a higher quality in the NH and C] the SH has hot places where it wouldn't be feasible to play in the summer.

Of course A] awww, bless. B] yes, but it also rains in NZ quite a lot, yet they still lead the way; and C] we just have to keep quiet about S France, Italy, Spain and Portugal - they're not relevant here; nor are people who go on holiday or otherwise busy in the summer etc etc.


Basically, yes, players are playing too much rugby - and a global season is no solution; the trick is to ask them to play less rugby; not to play in hotter weather and on harder pitches.

Spot on.

Exactly. I thought it was just me banging this drum.

Peej wrote:

Stom wrote:I just think having an overall time limit would be a simple solution...

Picking a number out of the air, but 2,000 minutes a season for a forward, and 2,200 for a back?

Or less, or something...

It would also, surely, help squad players to get more time, and the best teams do it anyway - see Sarries.

That's a good point - good coaches/DORs manage their players and rotate them

.....agreed, however, in practice, that's tough for DOR's with smaller, lower quality squads. Capping minutes played could really hurt struggling sides, even though a good idea.

I can't see why so many are against the global season on principle. RU is not big enough to be isolationist. The game has to forget its amateur traditions, IMO, and move on. Let's compete on equal terms with NZ not play against their rejects in the odd European fixture against French sides.

Banquo wrote:

Peej wrote:

Stom wrote:I just think having an overall time limit would be a simple solution...

Picking a number out of the air, but 2,000 minutes a season for a forward, and 2,200 for a back?

Or less, or something...

It would also, surely, help squad players to get more time, and the best teams do it anyway - see Sarries.

That's a good point - good coaches/DORs manage their players and rotate them

.....agreed, however, in practice, that's tough for DOR's with smaller, lower quality squads. Capping minutes played could really hurt struggling sides, even though a good idea.

They already often sacrifice Europe, so I see no reason that would change. Smaller teams will just play their kids in the Challenge Cup, leaving the big boys free for the league. Not the greatest advertisement for Europe's second tier, but oh well.

I can't see why so many are against the global season on principle. RU is not big enough to be isolationist. The game has to forget its amateur traditions, IMO, and move on. Let's compete on equal terms with NZ not play against their rejects in the odd European fixture against French sides.

I'm not against a global season in principle. But since the Northern Hemisphere game has all the money, quite frankly, I don't see why we should bend to the dictations of the Southern.

.....agreed, however, in practice, that's tough for DOR's with smaller, lower quality squads. Capping minutes played could really hurt struggling sides, even though a good idea.

Yeah - that's definitely a difficulty. I wonder if the relaxation of the cap, and the more generous funding for Academy players, will see squads being enlarged not just in terms of numbers but also quality, so that it's easier for DORs and coaches to rotate without risking results in quite the same way. But again, I suppose, the richer clubs will benefit more.

I think the global season idea is far too messy to ever get agreed on. Cole playing 40 games how ever is just straight up negligent. Apparently in NZ they play around 25. There should be a hard cap on time played that is non negotiable.

twitchy wrote:I think the global season idea is far too messy to ever get agreed on. Cole playing 40 games how ever is just straight up negligent. Apparently in NZ they play around 25. There should be a hard cap on time played that is non negotiable.

Good luck negotiating a non negotiable system. Right now there are caps on game splayed, but if for instance you come off the bench after 40 minutes it doesn't count that you then played in that match (I think), so there's a long way to go. And it's been said before but the RFU can't go to the clubs saying they need to rest players when they've arranged a 3 test tour to Australia at the end of a WC season and prior to the start of a Lions jamboree season, they'd just look blithering idiots.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Peej wrote:
That's a good point - good coaches/DORs manage their players and rotate them

.....agreed, however, in practice, that's tough for DOR's with smaller, lower quality squads. Capping minutes played could really hurt struggling sides, even though a good idea.

They already often sacrifice Europe, so I see no reason that would change. Smaller teams will just play their kids in the Challenge Cup, leaving the big boys free for the league. Not the greatest advertisement for Europe's second tier, but oh well.

Depends on the capping limit- the likes of Falcons, Wuss need their best players all the time in the AP, give or take, unless they just take dives against the likes of sarries. As I said, its the right idea (rotation/capping time), but it does have consequences, and its not simply down to the quality of the DOR.

Peej wrote:

I can't see why so many are against the global season on principle. RU is not big enough to be isolationist. The game has to forget its amateur traditions, IMO, and move on. Let's compete on equal terms with NZ not play against their rejects in the odd European fixture against French sides.

I'm not against a global season in principle. But since the Northern Hemisphere game has all the money, quite frankly, I don't see why we should bend to the dictations of the Southern.

.....agreed, however, in practice, that's tough for DOR's with smaller, lower quality squads. Capping minutes played could really hurt struggling sides, even though a good idea.

Yeah - that's definitely a difficulty. I wonder if the relaxation of the cap, and the more generous funding for Academy players, will see squads being enlarged not just in terms of numbers but also quality, so that it's easier for DORs and coaches to rotate without risking results in quite the same way. But again, I suppose, the richer clubs will benefit more.

yep- survival of the (financially) fittest

Digby wrote:

twitchy wrote:I think the global season idea is far too messy to ever get agreed on. Cole playing 40 games how ever is just straight up negligent. Apparently in NZ they play around 25. There should be a hard cap on time played that is non negotiable.

Good luck negotiating a non negotiable system. Right now there are caps on game splayed, but if for instance you come off the bench after 40 minutes it doesn't count that you then played in that match (I think), so there's a long way to go. And it's been said before but the RFU can't go to the clubs saying they need to rest players when they've arranged a 3 test tour to Australia at the end of a WC season and prior to the start of a Lions jamboree season, they'd just look blithering idiots.

? 'look'?

Banquo wrote:

Peej wrote:

I can't see why so many are against the global season on principle. RU is not big enough to be isolationist. The game has to forget its amateur traditions, IMO, and move on. Let's compete on equal terms with NZ not play against their rejects in the odd European fixture against French sides.

I'm not against a global season in principle. But since the Northern Hemisphere game has all the money, quite frankly, I don't see why we should bend to the dictations of the Southern.

.....agreed, however, in practice, that's tough for DOR's with smaller, lower quality squads. Capping minutes played could really hurt struggling sides, even though a good idea.

Yeah - that's definitely a difficulty. I wonder if the relaxation of the cap, and the more generous funding for Academy players, will see squads being enlarged not just in terms of numbers but also quality, so that it's easier for DORs and coaches to rotate without risking results in quite the same way. But again, I suppose, the richer clubs will benefit more.

yep- survival of the (financially) fittest

What rules wouldn't leave the better off as the better off though?

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

twitchy wrote:I think the global season idea is far too messy to ever get agreed on. Cole playing 40 games how ever is just straight up negligent. Apparently in NZ they play around 25. There should be a hard cap on time played that is non negotiable.

Good luck negotiating a non negotiable system. Right now there are caps on game splayed, but if for instance you come off the bench after 40 minutes it doesn't count that you then played in that match (I think), so there's a long way to go. And it's been said before but the RFU can't go to the clubs saying they need to rest players when they've arranged a 3 test tour to Australia at the end of a WC season and prior to the start of a Lions jamboree season, they'd just look blithering idiots.

? 'look'?

Some say they look Squeaky clean now

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Peej wrote:
I'm not against a global season in principle. But since the Northern Hemisphere game has all the money, quite frankly, I don't see why we should bend to the dictations of the Southern.



Yeah - that's definitely a difficulty. I wonder if the relaxation of the cap, and the more generous funding for Academy players, will see squads being enlarged not just in terms of numbers but also quality, so that it's easier for DORs and coaches to rotate without risking results in quite the same way. But again, I suppose, the richer clubs will benefit more.

yep- survival of the (financially) fittest

What rules wouldn't leave the better off as the better off though?

none, I don't have a problem with survival of the fittest- I'm saying 'new rules' are likely to skew even more in their favour, but player welfare and quality of game are very important.

Digby wrote: game splayed

Lions jamboree

Too much advocaat in the Snowballs?

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote: game splayed

Lions jamboree

Too much advocaat in the Snowballs?

It's the lime that hits hardest. Game splayed sounds like a clubhouse drinking game the front row would get stuck into