fingersmiths gave a warm-hearted and fizzing performance last night, to a rather cold sparse theatre, of a slightly problematic play. John Godber's 1984 comedy revolves around a foolhardy bet, an inept rugby team, and a female trainer. Former professional rugby hooker Arthur has gone to seed, and these days stands on the sidelines arguing with arch-rival Reg who coaches top local amateur side, The Cobblers. Arthur shoots his mouth off, and ends up betting his house that he can train any side to beat The Cobblers. Reg immediately nominates the team from The Wheatsheaf Arms, who have never even scored a goal let alone won a match, and who never have seven men. Arthur convinces the team to go for it, and ropes in trainer Hazel, but he doesn't tell them about the bet. Of course they find out. Will they still agree to play, and if so can the plucky underdogs win for a proper fairytale ending?

The play has a lovely Shakespearean narrator, a sort of Puck figure, and the team themselves are Rude Mechanicals straight from Midsummer Night's Dream. The problem is that much of the humour seems to hinge on Hazel being female and attractive. fingersmiths are really playing it down: in their version the main emphasis is that the Wheatsheaf Arms players are all Deaf, and Arthur doesn't know any sign language. Can Rugby stand in as a universal language of its own? In the 1998 film Hazel is played by Samantha Janus (now Womack). Tanya Vital is a very different character, much more gutsy an actress, and to my mind more interesting. But this is not a play that could even spell the Bechdel test, and because of the central joke, it's not one that would really suit gender blind casting.

So much for feminism and gender diversity. If you're after diversity of language, however, the Deaf and hearing cast are superb, and there are some fantastic signed sequences, which can be very expressive! Some sections have voiceover, some are captioned with surtitles on a screen, most have signing and out-loud speeches together. It is at all times clear what's happening. I don't sign, but I found a lot of the signing so vivid that I could follow it - it became almost mime and physical comedy, and a perfect medium for storytelling. I suffered more from not knowing enough rugby jargon! The ensemble cast (Matty Gurney as big daddy Frank, Adam Bassett the educated Phil, Stephen Collins as big drinker Steve and Nadeem Islam as Tony, the baby of the group) really gel, and you don't need to understand every word to see the relationship between a group of guys down the pub or in the locker room, topping each other's stories and poking fun. The rugby itself provides a drama that also transcends language. The audience spontaneously cheered and gasped as the tries were attempted, the ball sailing towards the posts, or just the giant Cobblers hurtling towards the terrified Wheatsheafers.

There was some great dancing, Reg made an excellent panto villain, and I felt that all the changes fingersmiths had made had improved the play in every way. The set and costumes were versatile and inventive (particularly the rugby kit, cleverly allowing the actors to represent players from both teams), and I'd really recommend seeing this inventive production. It was a great shame the Playhouse was so poorly attended last night. The weather forecast won't have helped, but I can't help feeling that productions making themselves more accessible sometimes results in being seen as niche, and though it works for a bigger audience it actually gets a smaller one. I'm not suggesting anyone go out of a patronising desire to support "disability arts", but if you love rugby, or comedy, or language then you will enjoy this production, accessible in all the best senses. The tour continues elsewhere for the next month, and let's hope fingersmiths are back this way again soon.