Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú

Personally Jack: Rugby = tedium.

Looks more interesting to play than watch but I don't get it and never have. Not watched the six nations in years.

I'm sure there are things that can be learned from Rugby but I would associate the use of the sin bin more with Ice Hockey and not Rugby. And the skyscraper view of coaches is something you are more familiar seeing in American football.

Still I suppose the issue is that football should learn from other sports: principally the supportive use of video technology.

Bet you also get a comment from some tedious Rugger chappie or chappet about manners and respect for officials and other supporters as other lessons that should be learned.

If the red card for denying a goal-scoring opportunity was changed to a sin bin offence, then I think all we'd see is more hatchet job attacks (most likely leading to more injuries) and less goals from open play. Enough penalties are missed for it to be worthwhile. The fact that it still happens fairly often despite the double penalty should show that quite clearly, and 1 man down for 15 mins doesn't really change the game as much as it does for other sports.

One other factor about being close to the touchline is that I'd think you're more likely to get caught up in it all rather than see the game more pragmatically e.g. you might be more likely to counter an opposition player that's near you (and winding you up) than one at the other side. Just guessing but I know it feels a different game from the trackside hospitality at Tannadice than it does from up in the stands - much more involved, but you see less of the what's really happening.

Some good points, but what about only the captain can approch the ref re decissions given? Any chat back by other players move the free kick forward 10 yards........if this results in a penalty......tough......learn to keep your mouth shut.

I would agree with rokaniry - the ref talking to the captain only , and the ten yard rule would get rid of a lot of dissent in theory .

Although being an aberdeen fan , our skipper is the one with the worst disciplinary record !

Watching from higher up is definitely much better . you see the general flow of the game , off-the-ball moves etc . Put the manager in the stand and the assistant mgr in the dugout - and use walkie-talkies

While sometimes 10 men perform better than 11 , generally they don't , and losing a player ruins the game as a spectacle . Proper sendings off should be for serious stuff - where injury is very likely . Not for the sort of thing Considine did

I disagree as strongly as possible about the 15 minute sin bin idea instead of a red card. it would serve only to make players more likely to commit those tyes of offences.

In fact, maybe it is rugby that should learn from soccer in this regard.

As for the managers viewing the match from a better vantage point, I agree it is easier to get a proper view of what is happenig from tge stands. With modern technology the manager could still communicate with the backroom staff in the technical area.


The only reason I can see for them being down there is a "closer connecton" to the team.

Where we should be learning from rugby is in the use of technology by the match officials, but that will never happen while the puppet master and his puppets remain in control at FIFA and uefa, will it ?

As a player in a good standard of rugby team, I would like to stress how easy it is to concede a penalty which can lead to tries which can increase confidence as well as points. The sin bin in rugby can be given for an easy crime and therefore isn't given an early shower and a ban for the next game. Paul Davis (former Arsenal player), I believe, was banned for 12 games (my facts may be wrong) for breaking someone's jaw. Is this worthy of a 10 minute sin bin? NO! So the footballing punishment of the red card should be as it is; to make a statement as well as punishment.

Playing as a front row forward (the big fat guys who don't do too much running), I do see a lot of the backs (the guys who tend to do most of the running and passing) putting out moves. The rugby players already have a set move when the ball is coming out of a ruck or any set piece. This is different from football because when starting a counter attack, it all depends on who is there, in the right position, at the right time! Therefore the managers and coaches of rugby like to sit high up so they can see who is doing their job right and what's going right and wrong.

If football was to learn anything from football, it would be team work as opposed to the technical part of the game. Punishment? That's up to FIFA or whoever it might be. And for the managers and coaches high up, it depends on how the managers style for training is.

* last parag. - if football was to learn anything from RUGBY, ...

Another topical think-piece and follow-on discussion. I find it hard to see where rugby can influence the beautiful game. The only aspect of the game which may have a role in football is the respect for the referee. Other than that it is a game which lacks fluency and is restricted by so many rules and stoppages. I agree with your points that rugby can learn from the beautiful game - and who in their right mind would pay £72 to see our national team for 80min....on the other hand I thought the young bravehearts were awesome in Dublin.....

Sorry to hear your news Jack - I'm sure, and know, you still have a lot to offer our national sport...Godd luck, MK

One of the best things in rugby is the fact the ref wears a microphone, and supporters can hear all the "chat" and reasons for decisions ("Ref Link"). Exact opposite of football, where refs seem to take some sort of Trappist monk vow of silence ever to explain why they do what they do.

I don't think the sin bin idea has any value in football, just as the 10 yard penalty for dissent doesn't work either. Rugby is a numbers game: go a man down and it's tough not to concede points. Just check the stats for points scored when teams are a player short. Similarly, conceding ground is costly in rugby: concede a penalty almost anywhere in your own half and there's a high likelihood of conceding points.

One area football would benefit is adoption of the citing system, so clubs can formally complain about fouls etc that refs miss and seek retrospective punishment. Football might also consider rugby-type punishments for serious foul play. A guy in France (ie a top pro player) was banned for 9 months for eye gouging. No messing with 1-3 game bans there.

The stopping of the clock by the ref for stoppages in rugby was a massive improvement when it replaced the dubious allocation of added time. I think it could be applied similarly to football.

Respecting the ref is a massive part of rugby and something the sport is proud of - Gentleman's sport and all that. Hence, it kind of keeps it self in check. Tough to bring better respect for refs into football from players when it has never existed, it would take a long time!

I don't think sin-binning would really work in football. Would love to see video technology of some kind being brought in. With the increasing amount of cameras being brought in to stadia giving various angles of play allowing fans to more easily criticize refs surely it is only fair that referees can also use the technology.

Good blog Jack although it's a debate that has been discussed before. I guess the debate will continue as long as football refuses to adopt any ideas from other sports.

Following on from Rob04's mention on American Football and your point about the higher vantage point perhaps it can be solved if the assistant manager sat in the stands and the manager remained on the touchline and they communicated via the headsets. That way you have one pair of eyes on the shape of the teams and flow of the game while you still have a voice on the ground to bark orders at the players.

I know Sam Allardyce and Phil Brown used this format at Bolton and had the p*ss taken out of them for wearing "Madonna mics" though. Don't know how much of an advantage it would give you but think it would be worth a shot.

Re American football, it is done as supershunsuke describes.
The equivalent of a football manager in the NFL, the 'head coach', is always on the sideline, but his assistants and/or members of their staff sit in elevated positions, watch play execution, study game video and statistics and relay advice to the sideline via headsets.
Good ideas football should take from rugby: video replay for officials, audible officials, a sin bin (for dissent or a second yellow card - keep dismissal but only for a third or egregious offence), off-field time keeping.

Very good points so far.

No sin bin for football and I would strongly agree with Hot Dog at Post 5. We would simply formalise more of the strategic tackle allowing the 10-man team to go into a defensive format for the next 15mins and I don't want to see that brought in. Far too negative and cynical and it just means negative football and probably without the team with 11 men scoring. Teams would just keep it tight and play keep baw for the entire period and you can see whole matches just strung out this way. No thanks, ideally I want to see 11 against 11 for the whole game if that is possible and not various options of 11-10, 11-9, 10-10, etc, skewing a result.

I do take the point about the double sanction for a professional foul in the penalty box. Its wrong and can quickly kill a game as we saw recently at Aberdeen against Celtic. One possible solution may be to award a penalty irrespective of where the professional foul occurs and just yellow card the player involved. Or find another least worst option.

Video technology to aid officials: yes please, quick as you like.

More respect for officials: yes but NO to moving the foul forward 10 yards for dissent because we already punish this with a yellow card anyway. Why change? Football has always been a passionate game of differing opinions between players and officials and really so what if players debate a decision its part of the culture of the game: especially when the ref calls its seriously wrong. Given the levels of inconsistency in ref decisions anyway in such a fast flowing game going down this route would be madness for football and simply feed a ref ego with this power.

The use of video evidence is probably the best thing football could take from Rugby. I'd like to see the time keeping done in a similar manner too. I like that when you watch a 6 nations match you know exactly how long is left.

I don't think football should adopt the Captain only rule when speaking to the referees. If players are showing a lack of respect by showing too much dissent it's the ref's own fault for not using the yellow card enough when players are getting mouthy. If referees laid down a marker and started booking players more regularly for excessively disputing decisions players would soon cut out the dissent!

My main complaint about rugby is that players are not allowed to pass the ball ahead. This usually slows down a sudden move forward as the ball is passed sideways or even backwards. Changing this would make the game more exciting.

On the other hand, I love to see a really good try taken from a long distance.

I would like to see something similar introduced to football e.g. a free kick near the goal area where no defenders are allowed similar to a penalty.

I agree that a coach can see more from the stand than the pitch level, why don't football managers do it, best we ask them? As for the 15-minutes for a red card - totally convinced this would lead to hatchet jobs and make the game worse. I think yellow cards could have a 10-minute sin bin as in rugby thereby disadvantaging the team with hot-heads on their side - surely a disincentive to get a yellow in the first place. A red card should remain off the pitch for the remainder of the game. Also totally agree that only captains should speak to the referee and foul and abusive language to the ref should result in a yellow card and 10-minutes on the sidelines to cool off. Some footballers think they can do waht they like - bad precedent to set and poor advert for the game. Give the refs more power.

Clearly football can learn alot from rugby and other sports. The obvious point being video evidence but that would mean FIFA moving to the 21st century which dosnt seem likely with the status quo. It would be nice if footballers respected referees as they do in rugby, and didnt play act as much so maybe a 10 min sin bin for both. I agree with a previous poster that sin binning for offences during play including preventing a goal scoring opportunutiy would not benefit from sin binning. If a red card and a 3 game ban hasnt prevented it 10 mins on the sidelines is not going to make any difference. I also agree with the poster about being able to hear the referee and understand why they make the decisions they do. This has been done in american football since time imemorium where the viewers in the stands and on TV are told exactly what each penalty is for. Another aspect of american football i really like and i feel football would benefit from is the coaches challenge. Each coach has two of these per game and if he disagrees with a ruling on the field he can challenge it and ask the officials to review the replay. If the referee, having reviewed the replay, sticks by his decision then the challenging team loses a timeout which also prevents an abuse of the system and too many stoppages (much as i have become a fan of the game it already has enough commercial stoppages - which we dont want in football!) but oftentimes the referee, having seen the action again, will overturn the decision and no timeouts are lost. At the end of the day referees are human and are going to make mistakes. They need tools at their disposal to try and minimise these mistakes and when most sports (rugby, cricket, american football, ice hockey, baseball, aussie rules i believe but dont quote me on that last example) have already adopeted this surely the worlds most popular sport should be catching up with the times.

@18. I like the idea of the coach's challenge but American football is a game with built-in hiatus points, which present natural opportunities for the red flag to be thrown. When, in a association football game, would a challenge be allowed? To review ejections and check for offside or other infringement after the ball's in the net seems logical, but it seems like overkill for corner/goal kick decisions etc.
Also, without timeouts what would a failing challenger forgo? I have often thought that teams should have more than 3 subs per game (and why 3 anyway?), so maybe if each team were to start with say 5, a failed challenger could lose a sub. If subs had already been used, you'd lose the corresponding number of challenges. You need a strong disincentive to ensure only really significant reviews occur.

An article about what football can learn from rugby and you don't mention things like respect for the referee, camaraderie amongst opposition players, non segregation of supporters, toughness and lack of diving from the players, intelligence of players in the post match interviews, the fact that there wasn't a single arrest during the 2007 World Cup in Paris? Football can learn a lot from rugby.

And as for one of the replies above, to me, football = tedium. You can go for a pint at the local, miss 30 minutes of the match and not actually miss anything.

#21

But in effect by proxy you describe the relative appeal of the game both nationally and internationally which in Scotland is largely drawn from the rural areas and the private school elite. In other words, among a very narrow social group who probably all chat to themselves about their schooldays at various private schools.

After all you would hardly ever describe Rugger as the 'people's game' in Scotland and unlike football it never mirrored the issues that affected the wider society (e.g. like sectarianism, racism or other political divisions) nor did most kids bother with it as much if at all.

It still has that image of a public school game.

Lack of diving? Well I've never seem the physio in a football match burst fake blood to con a player off a field I must admit.

And as for the 'intelligence' of (football) players in post-match interviews' whatever you think that actually means, I'm not sure footballers get paid to speak but its nice to see that there is always an intellectual on hand to pick up on it!

I was referring of course to #20!

I read this article by Jack Ross.
The best thing that happened to me was to be taught the laws of rugby at school back in the 70's. We had two schoolteachers who played for Osterley RFC. It was the best thing that could have happened.As a result I enjoy rugby immensely and it has become a fast physical game which can be very exciting but admittedly also very dull at times. Yes the rules do vary from time to time but the law makers do this with a view to making the game flow and thus more entertaining.
I have to say though, that I always played football throughout my life up to my late forties. This was because I played with a circle of friends and ex school colleagues and more latterly with police colleagues.
It is possible to enjoy both sports, however I do sometimes get very annoyed with the antics of some highly paid footballers, especially in their treatment of the referee which is where there is the biggest disparity between to the two sports.

I don't understand why coaches take a sideline view--granted I'm not used to it, but when I first had one I felt I couldn't see a thing. To me the solution is managers having a TV monitor handy at the bench, because I also think it's vital they be with their players on the sideline. Not just to sub quickly, but to be able to get or give a quick word, do whatever they can to pull the team together, and so on. Maybe having an assistant high up in the stands would be a good move as well, since there are plusses and minuses to both stand and television views.

I'm also with those who would keep the red card/penalty. Sure, it's draconian, and in borderline cases a poor fit to the offense. But because it's so harsh, it goes as far as possible to preventing fouling in the box, and that still isn't far enough. On the other hand, it's also good because officials won't award it that often, so play will continue as much as possible. The wider the range of penalties officials have to choose from, the more penalties they'll call, and the more they'll wander around breaking up play and making the fans watch them. The great virtue of football is relatively continuous play, and it's worth keeping even at the price of what looks like fairness.

I think that the most OBVIOUS thing that should be adopted by Football is the Penalty Try (would be a penalty goal) where there is NO way that the goal could have failed apart from a foul. Admittedly the only time I can see this happening is in the case of a handball on the line, as even a striker clear on an open goal could still skew the ball wide, but this would definitely stop the Suarez style handball on the line. In most cases a penalty is converted but as proven in the WC2010, it doesnt always happen and Uruguay cheated their way to the next round.

I also think that the match should be EXACTLY 90 minutes long with the fourth offical in charge of timing instead of the referee. He can stop the clock, when necessary, BUT at the end of 90 minutes its all over at the next stoppage of play or a hooter.

Substitutions should cause the clock to be stopped so using a substitution as a way of timewasting would be completely eradicated

Where do you live? All over the commonwealth the magistrate, judge, or whoever always has the option of fining, jailing, or both filing and jailing an offender. Football being an English invention therefore shows no contradiction in both awarding a penalty, and sending off the offending player for the goal line handball infraction. And just ask the Uruguayans, the penalty is worth paying for if the reward is a berth in the semi-final of the World Cup!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

In most cases a penalty is converted but as proven in the WC2010, it doesnt always happen and Uruguay cheated their way to the next round.
-------------------

I agree with you about the penalty try but this could only come with the introduction of video back up as in some cases its uncertain.

Suarez did not break any law and by definition did not cheat. The action was instinctual. To say that Uruguay cheated though also implies some collective action which is nonsense when it was Suarez himself who acted as an individual.

Rob04 freely admits that he has not watched 6 nations "in years" Hardly in a position to constructively criticize then - is he?
He comes across as another of the "rugby is for posh folk" brigade and has clearly neglected the fact that for years the heartland of rugby in Scotland was the Borders and in Wales, the mining communities.
Football can certainly learn more from Rugby than vice versa. Respect for officials, no feigning of injury or attempts to deceive the referee. Sin Bin and stopping the clock when ball is not in play are only a few that would greatly enhance our so called National Sport.
Oh - and the ability to actually play the game at a higher than incompetent level , would also help.

#30

But I've seen some rugger obviously - between yawns! Slower game..prefer American Football to be honest, its at a higher technical level.

Borders = agriculture. Gala, Hawick, Selkirk and Jed are all pretty small and close to each other then there is the dominance of the big sporting/ farming estates owned by the elites (e.g. Buccleuch, Roxburghe, Sutherland) right across to the Merse. Very wealthy area.

Heartland = Edinburgh private schools and private schools more generally. Even the SRU chappies admit this is a huge issue in terms of the spread of the game. Not so much posh as those with more money.

No feigning of injuries? Wasn't someone recently banned for bursting fake blood on a player to get him off the park?

Whatever our national sport is, it sure ain't Rugger.

Higher than incompetent level? You've got me there as I don't watch enough rugger to comment on the standard in Scotland I'm afraid.

can i say that the reason footie mgrs. dont go up top is because most of them have no idea about actual team management and just go with gut reactions and that requires them to be able to shout instructions to players when it comes to them, as opposed to analysing the game and making constructive comments at half time and in coaching sessions. As a rugby man and part-time (ManU) fan, I am always amazed by footie mgrs.' lack of skills, they are just good ex-players (Keegan, Hoddle, etc) but have little skill in mngt.

Re red lion
Next you'll be saying the English invented golf !

But to the article, respect is the thing that football can most of all learn from rugby, for referees and fellow players particularly.

A few things have been said about feigning injury - but if there is one thing that annoys me about football it is blokes screaming and rolling around the ground looking for fouls. Not a great way to keep the game moving or for youngsters watching.

I think, like rugby, that play should continue whilst there is an injury. The Physio should be allowed to attend the player, but the game should keep going. It would lead to a lot less "injuries" and a lot more football.

In 1990 I moved home from Lanarkshire to the Edinburgh area and one of my new neighbours kindly invited me to a six nations match the following week against Wales. Having watched Rugby many times on the TV I was not overly excited but... the guy I went with was in fact a rugby referee who took time to explain the rules properly and tactics of the teams as the match progressed. It transformed my enjoyment and after a few Friday nights at Boroughmuir I actually started to enjoy what is if fact a really good sport.

My experience with the (mainly Glasgow based) football fan is that the play the elitist card when in fact they really have no grounding or understanding of the sport - never played it at school etc. I count myself in that camp as well and have tested it out with my football buddies all of whom are still based in the west.

I am first and foremost a football fan but the way 16stone athletes get knocked over with powder puff challenges in football is a joke and more often that not an attempt to influence the referee. For that reason I agree with many of the comments pointing out that Rugby (fairly in my view) is labelled as more of a mans game.

#31 Rob04

I'm astonished that you would consider rugby slow in comparison to American football. The average NFL game (ostensibly 60 minutes) is spread over a 3+ hour broadcast and contains a little less than 11 minutes of action. I would agree that some of the athleticism displayed is outstanding, but the game itself is nothing if not glacial.

Lessons to learn from other sports:
1) 10-15 minutes in the sin bin for a yellow card offense adds a little extra weight to the punishment. Rugby also has a red card for severe offenses - I don't see why the introduction of a sin bin (for yellow card offenses) would change that in football.
2) As was noted above, the 10 yard penalty for dissent has already been tried - apparently successfully. Does anyone know why it was not more widely introduced?
3) Rugby's system of time keeping - stopping the clock during delays and then playing to the next stoppage of play when the match time is up - is way better than football's current system (Fergie time anyone?).
4) Technology only works in situations in which there is a natural hiatus in play. Mostly that means where the question is whether or not a goal has been scored. Even in American Football, penalties (in our context, the awarding of free kicks, bookings, etc.) are not reviewable - only the outcome of plays are reviewable.
5) It's really hard to see how a system of managers' challenges could work. If goal-line technology is introduced for the scored/didn't score decision, what is left to appeal? I suppose inside/outside the area for penalties is a possibility, but, as replays ad nauseam have already demonstrated, technology doesn't necessarily make anything clearer.

Should have been clearer #36. I meant Rugby is slower in relation to football and not as technical as American Football. I also think Rugby is a much less exciting game than Gaelic Football, which is well worth playing and watching (though for some it might mean dropping some ideological baggage) and which still embody's the old amateur code unless the GAA recently changed their stance on payments to players.

I think the danger throughout this blog is the assumption that you can just import practices from other sports with no damage to the culture and flow of football. These are two very different sports and cultures. Lots of comments about respect for officials but its hardly unique to Rugby and I happen to think that the reaction, backchat and mouthing are just art and part of the passion of the game and what always was a working-class sport where the refs were expected to be treated as adults and not like schoolteachers. Easy to see where some of the above comments come from really.

Re: Strange_Uboat,

When Messi scores, and Barcelona end up winning, is it Messi who wins or Barcelona. Suarez did it for the team, so Rooney Scores and M.a.n.u.*.*. wins! Football is a team sport, even the goalie saves a penalty and the team ends up winning. So separating Suarez from Uruguay is the proverbial splitting of hair!

And when Messi gets sent off for violent behaviour after having had enough of strong tackles would he still be doing this for your hypothetical team?

And its right to split Suarez from Uruguay when someone says that 'Uruguay cheated' when they collectively and very clearly did no such thing.

Football is a team sport. Well done! But individual actions shape it.

I love football, I also love rugby both are very entertaining to watch. There is a lack of respect for refs in football that doesn't exist in rugby. Sin binning is a terrible idea. It would mean a 'keep away' kick the ball around for 20 minutes or boredom. I think a 4th official replay person that rugby uses could be adopted, then you wouldn't have so many dreadful calls in football --- 1 out of every 5 goals seems to be a foul, offsides or something else. Given a minute to replay and check wouldn't hurt. Especially, when you lose a world cup game cause the ball crosses the line over 2 feet, yet the ref is on the take and doesn't see it.

Nice article...What I would like to see, is in Rugby, if a player trys to back chat, the ref can move the kick up by 10 meters....If they had that in soccer, or a reverse of the decision if a player decides he knows more then the ref, that should help stop some of the players tantrums?

I would take it further, 10 min sin bin for foul play or abuse to a referee or linesman. To stop diving constantly interrupting the flow of the game, allow trainers to enter the pitch and attend injured players so letting the game continue. No substitutes allowed in the the last ten minutes of a game to interrupt play and waste time. Final whistle called when ball goes out of play, and TV evidence used to identify cheats and ungentlemanly conduct punished by match bans.