Well, here's the thing; I define myself as a football fan in the widest possible sense. I'll watch anything from soccer to Gaelic football to Canadian football and always have. When I was a kid (in the interest of making other people feel old, I should mention that this was in the 90s), I actually watched far more Union than League (which had already taken Murdoch's shilling and buggered off wholesale to Sky, which we didn't have). It wasn't until we got cable at around the turn of the millennium that I had the chance to watch League regularly (it happened to come on after Soccer Saturday so it was easy to just stay on the same channel), and being able to watch it regularly I appreciated it because it was different from the other kinds of football I knew. Things being different are not a reason to dislike a sport.
I like both codes because they're different, and it irritates me a great deal to see the ruck (and the scrum) in the state it's in now. I love the concept of constantly competing for possession. It's a great idea, and when done properly it produces a wonderful, flowing game where all kinds of wonderfully different tactics can happen and you've no idea what might happen next; watching the stuff that's been on ESPN Classic over the past month has brought home how attractive it can be. When it's not done properly, it produces 15 phases of sod-all, and it seems that 15 phases of sod-all is firmly in the ascendancy.
(This is also why I think Ian's 5m ruck rule is the worst way they can possibly address the problem; we all know where the idea comes from.)
Nonetheless, when we trialled it here, it worked very well
The problems you perceive with the game are real and mostly correct. I'm not sure how far back you can remember in Rugby Union, but as a spectacle, the game was at its peak in the first years of professionalism, 1996 to 1999. If you ever get a chance to see some Super 12 rugby from that period you will see a fast, and exciting brand of rugby, with superb ball skills on display. It was a brand that really drew the crowds in. The game played to packed houses in New Zealand, Australia and South Africa. and then in 2000, a major rewrite of the Laws took place, and the game has gone downhill ever since.
Of all the changes what were made, there was one change above all that ruined the game... the introduction of the tackle gate. Prior to the rewrite, there was no tackle gate. Here is the 1996 Tackle Law.
[LAWS]
LAW 18. TACKLE, LYING WITH, ON OR NEAR THE BALL
A tackle occurs when a player carrying the ball in the field-of-play is held by one or more opponents so that while he is so held he is brought to the ground or the ball comes into contact with the ground. If the ball carrier is on one knee, or both knees, or is sitting on the ground, or is on top of another player who is on the ground, the ball carrier is deemed to have been brought to the ground.
(1)
(a) A tackled player must immediately pass the ball, or release the ball and get up or move away from the ball.
(b) After a tackle any other player must be on his feet when he plays the ball
(c) A player who goes to the ground and gathers the ball or with the ball in his possession but who is not tackled must immediately get up on his feet with the ball, or pass the ball, or release the ball and get up or move away from the ball.
(2)
It is illegal for any player:-
(a) to prevent a tackled player from passing or releasing the ball, or getting up or moving away after he has passed or released it,
(b) to pull the ball from a tackled player's possession or attempt to pick up the ball before the tackled player has released it,
(c) while lying on the ground after a tackle to play or interfere with the ball in any way or to tackle or attempt to tackle an opponent carrying the ball,
(d) to willfully fall on or over a player lying on the ground with the ball in his possession,
(e) to willfully fall on or over players lying on the ground with the ball between them or in close proximity, or
(f) while lying on the ground in close proximity to the ball to prevent an opponent from gaining possession of it.
Note:- Close proximity means within one meter.
(3) A player must not fall on or over the ball emerging from a scrummage or ruck.
Penalty:- Penalty kick at the place of infringement.
(4) A try may be scored if the momentum of a player carries him into his opponents In-goal even though he is tackled.
[/LAWS]
Thats it, simple and easy to understand.
Without a tackle gate, any player could come from any direction and challenge for the ball. It seems crazy to have it this way, because that means as soon as a tackled player hit the deck, anyone running from any direction could go for the ball. However, this did not happen very often... and the reason why? Well, its simple. The ball carriers would make every effort to stay on their feet in the tackle. They only needed to do this for a fraction of a second, until a team mate arrived, at which point, they would go to ground and a ruck would form,
with all participants still on their feet.
The introduction of the tackle gate meant that the tackled player now had an incentive to go to ground, knowing that team mates following them up would already be more likely to get to them first, since they were already approaching from the "gate" position, while the defending team would take fractionally longer having to go around through the gate. Essentially, going to ground afforded their team a better chance of keeping possession of the ball.
The reasons for this change are controversial. I know the NZRFU and the ARU did not support this particular change (not sure about South Africa). The changes were driven by the Four Home Unions, and many on here will not want to believe this, and will say its wrong, but it is the opinion of many in this part of the world that they drove this change through because they simply could bot cope with the speed the game was being played at here. They needed to slow the game down, and saw the tackle as the ideal place to do that. The introduction of the tackle gate (which is simply the requirement for all players, other than the tackler, to play the ball from their own side of it at the tackle) achieved exactly what they wanted. Apart from conversation I have had with people I know in the NZRU, I don't have any direct evidence of this, however, if you look back at the records of some of the test matches between NH teams and SH teams, its fairly obvious why they wanted to slow the game down.
Results such as
New Zealand 65-22 England
South Africa 96-13 Wales
Australia 76-0 England
South Africa 101-0 Italy
New Zealand 54-7 France
Fiji 51 - 26 Scotland
Some of the matches were little more than opposed training runs, with the northern players simply unable to keep up with the speed of the game in the south. In fact in that four year period Tri-Nations teams played Six Nations teams 22 times, for 22 wins, averaging 5 tries to 1 and 40 points to 10. Something had to be done to redress the balance, so they changed the Laws, and the result is that we now have a breakdown area that is excruciatingly complicated, a complete and utter shambles with players off their feet all over the place, whereas before 2000 it was relatively simple, and tidy, with players on their feet, and almost instantaneous quick ball from second phase.