Re: Rumours : Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:06 pm  

rubber duckie wrote:

Wow wow.....let's rewind a little...who said anything about not playing 9?
I don't care what number he has on his shirt....

I'll ask the question again...what is the point of having Clark sandwiched between 11 men in an uncontested scrum?

Well you said play a prop to do the tackling Houghton and Clark do, last time I looked they wore the number 9 shirt.

Re: Rumours : Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:26 pm  

karetaker wrote:

Well you said play a prop to do the tackling Houghton and Clark do, last time I looked they wore the number 9 shirt.

Are you going to answer or not?

Re: Rumours : Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:19 am  

rubber duckie wrote:

Wow wow.....let's rewind a little...who said anything about not playing 9?
I don't care what number he has on his shirt....

I'll ask the question again...what is the point of having Clark sandwiched between 11 men in an uncontested scrum?

Actually Duckie if you ever decide to watch closely, 8/10 times the hooker is at the back of the scrum with the loose at the front. very often you'll see a centre taking up a 2nd row spot with the backrower standing at first receiver.

It's actually pointless what you're suggesting because it happens anyway. You say you don't care what number a player is wearing? Then why are you so adamant on making a prop wearing 9?

Re: Rumours : Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:40 am  

moving on... wrote:

Actually Duckie if you ever decide to watch closely, 8/10 times the hooker is at the back of the scrum with the loose at the front. very often you'll see a centre taking up a 2nd row spot with the backrower standing at first receiver.

It's actually pointless what you're suggesting because it happens anyway. You say you don't care what number a player is wearing? Then why are you so adamant on making a prop wearing 9?

Perhaps you missed it... I said I didn't care what number he had on his shirt.

Re: Rumours : Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:44 am  

moving on... wrote:

Actually Duckie if you ever decide to watch closely, 8/10 times the hooker is at the back of the scrum with the loose at the front. very often you'll see a centre taking up a 2nd row spot with the backrower standing at first receiver.

It's actually pointless what you're suggesting because it happens anyway. You say you don't care what number a player is wearing? Then why are you so adamant on making a prop wearing 9?

8 out of ten scrums on your stat does then indicate that a 'hooker' is no longer a specialised position.... well for at least 80% of the time?

Re: Rumours : Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:09 am  

Have to agree with Duckie on this one, for the following reasons

* The fact the hooker doesn't actually 'hook' anymore
* The ball handling skills of a 9, are much more suited to being at the back of the scrum in the LF role, than being stuck in the front row. (as pointed out this already happens sometimes)

So why not just play 3 props and have the LF as the man controlling the floor, as the 'hooker' does now...

Why not update RL positions to come in line with modern RL... a hooker no longer 'hooks'.. So lets change the roll.

Re: Rumours : Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:49 am  

morleys_deckchair wrote:

Have to agree with Duckie on this one, for the following reasons

* The fact the hooker doesn't actually 'hook' anymore
* The ball handling skills of a 9, are much more suited to being at the back of the scrum in the LF role, than being stuck in the front row. (as pointed out this already happens sometimes)

So why not just play 3 props and have the LF as the man controlling the floor, as the 'hooker' does now...

Why not update RL positions to come in line with modern RL... a hooker no longer 'hooks'.. So lets change the roll.

Because the LF is already used as a 3rd Prop? Why change the names of positions and swap around roles that have been going since the game began? And a hooker can still 'hook' the ball actually, and scrums can still be contested. It's just that teams choose not to.

If you already have 3 props on the field (8, 10 & 13) why change the Hookers/dummy halfs number from 9 to 13. to bring the 3rd prop into the front rows number system? If theyre already on the field, what does it matter?

Re: Rumours : Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:55 am  

If we're playing three props in the front row wouldn't we then have to call them a different name as they are no longer propping up the hooker?

Pretty soon all we'll have left is middles, back row, pivots and outside backs.

The 'hookers' role has undoubtedly changed in the past couple of decades, his specialism has changed to being in control of the ruck. Loose forward has changed too, SO'L is probably the closest we have to a traditional Loose Forward in SL.

I'll still keep to calling them hookers and Loose forwards though, as well as calling my half backs stand off & scrum half rather than pivots. RL changes rules and structures so often, I like to keep some things traditional.

Re: Rumours : Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:02 am  

Alffi_7 wrote:

If we're playing three props in the front row wouldn't we then have to call them a different name as they are no longer propping up the hooker? .

good point

Re: Rumours : Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:07 am  

Alffi_7 wrote:

If we're playing three props in the front row wouldn't we then have to call them a different name as they are no longer propping up the hooker?

Pretty soon all we'll have left is middles, back row, pivots and outside backs.

The 'hookers' role has undoubtedly changed in the past couple of decades, his specialism has changed to being in control of the ruck. Loose forward has changed too, SO'L is probably the closest we have to a traditional Loose Forward in SL.

I'll still keep to calling them hookers and Loose forwards though, as well as calling my half backs stand off & scrum half rather than pivots. RL changes rules and structures so often, I like to keep some things traditional.

This. Although There isn't much difference between the SO and SH anymore besides which side they control you do notice the best teams have their halves controlling different parts of the game. The need for traditional names for positions is very relevant still.