E'nE, not for the first time I find myself in full agreement with your opinions.
Late last year I wrote an article I placed on
my own blog and also in
G&GR's blog section.
The article was titled, "Nine-a-side rugby: a game for boofy blokes". It started:
"For many rugby aficionados the sevens version of the game is deeply unsatisfying; a skim milk, decaffeinated, lukewarm concoction. ...
"What I want to propose is a shortened form of the game designed for knockout carnivals which would retain most of the elements that make rugby so distinctive. There would be strong emphasis on physical engagement and the scoring of tries."
Some of the features of the proposed version of the game included tries as the only method of scoring; claiming of marks anywhere in the field of play; kicks directly into touch other than from a penalty to provide no gain in ground; five players in the scrum; and a maximum of twenty seconds from when a lineout begins to form for the ball to be thrown in.
I argued: "With these variations to the Laws we would have a game which is played with minimum time wasting and delays. The features which make rugby so distinctive, namely serious scrums, lineouts, rucks and mauls, are retained ...
"So what we end up with is a fast-moving, physically demanding and entertaining form of rugby which is complementary to sevens but likely to appeal to a different player and supporter base."
The degree of uninterest was overwhelming, but I'd be surprised if I was the only one who would much prefer watching such a game to Sevens.
On reflection I'd make one amendment to the laws, namely that the front rows should engage before the second rowers pack to eliminate any delays caused by re-packing.