....?

So James Roby, Clark etc etc they just half backs now then? We maybe not use the actual term Hooker much these days. But until lit officially call it something else, it is a specialist position, you get yourself in enough bother on here than to be having ago at someone else.

Actually they probably should be known as specialist "dummy half" because that is what they are. Think most would know what the Duck was on about and not take it seriously (he does seem to have an "ageist" agenda though, what with "fax machines" and now "hookers".

Please add dial-up Internet to that list.

Aye heard them called that more than they use the word hooker these days.

As for the other there was no need to take the pee out of what he said regardless of wether he meant it or not.

9 is a half capable of making the odd tackle these days...once upon a time he was a forward to which defence and hooking were his make up...back then the pivot came usually from the loose.
There are no specialist hookers.

...I'd play with 3 props on the front row now.
I'd throw Clark in at 13 while utility Ratchford is our pivot at FB.

To be fair I wasn't sure what he was in about!!! My guess is I'm a good 20 years younger than RD, so no ageist agenda here



I don't really like referring to them as dummy halfs as many players in the side jump in to dummy half during a game - I must be a young traditionalist, despite the fact they don't 'hook' anymore, I still like referring to them as that.

Not sure how that's different to playing a normal front row with a prop at loose?

Do you not think the acting half loose would break from the scrum sooner to shape an attack?
Why tie him up between 11 men for a uncontested scrum?

I was told by someone that Livett may be moving up to Loose Forward, not sure if there is anything in that, but for what it’s worth I think he could play there.

Really?? The odd tackle?
Try telling that to Danny Houghton, after his 50odd tackles, in last year's CCF,as well as most games he plays.
I know he's a gob e, but Mickey Cackybumbum is hardly workshy. Add Roby to that list, too.
Our current hooker, was a MoS winner a couple of years ago, and he enjoyed a tackle.

Hooker a specialist position. You bet.

Again, Clark and most 'hookers' in SL these days regularly do that anyway.

You answered the question for me. So put a prop up front to do the tackling Houghton/Clark does.

My point isn't about the quality of the hooker as a running acting half or his ability to defend...mearly about the position he is taking in an uncontested scrum?....and the specific role of hooking....what is the point of him being sandwiched between 11 men when we could utilise his elusive running against relatively smaller men and less in numbers when he can break from the back of the pack the instant the ball comes out?
If the role of a hooker has changed so much, why hasn't his position in the scrum changed with it?

Seriously play a prop at 9??? No way would they make the amount of tackles made by said names Lefty mentioned, wouldn’t have the agility, motability etc.

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.

Are you going to answer or not?

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.

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?

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?

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.

good point