Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Rings a bell
3rd tier is back in 2014 [Discontinued]
- Thread starter Bowside
- Start date
- Status
Rings a bell
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
It was a while a go, that does sound familiar though.
Bruce Ross
Ken Catchpole (46)
Even at this late stage there is no guarantee that this competition will go ahead. The Expression of Interest document makes this clear:
"The ARU is planning to commence the competition in August 2014 and is currently in discussion with key industry stakeholders to establish their level of interest and support. The competition will only proceed if it is self-funded and the ARU is continuing to speak with commercial partners to make this happen."
As others have pointed out, one of the four "Objectives" for the new competition is to "introduce innovative new formats and laws to re-kindle excitement in the game." This is embarrassing. The senior body of our sport, alone among all rugby playing countries, believes that rugby is unexciting and that it requires "innovative new formats and laws to re-kindle excitement". No wonder we can't sell our product to the public when we have no belief in it ourselves.
.
"The ARU is planning to commence the competition in August 2014 and is currently in discussion with key industry stakeholders to establish their level of interest and support. The competition will only proceed if it is self-funded and the ARU is continuing to speak with commercial partners to make this happen."
As others have pointed out, one of the four "Objectives" for the new competition is to "introduce innovative new formats and laws to re-kindle excitement in the game." This is embarrassing. The senior body of our sport, alone among all rugby playing countries, believes that rugby is unexciting and that it requires "innovative new formats and laws to re-kindle excitement". No wonder we can't sell our product to the public when we have no belief in it ourselves.
.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Has the ARU fulfilled it's "self-funded" objective with the Fox deal? I recall something like this being said somewhere.
I wonder what is meant by "innovative new formats" given the the EOI document says that all teams will play each other once followed by semi-finals and a grand-final, which sounds like how most rugby competitions in the world are run.
The law change bit could be put down to a BP thought bubble, but its appearance in the EOI document is cause for concern. IMO the most dangerous part of the whole show. Given that the two areas in which the public are most frustrated are scrum resets and interpretations and cyncial penalties at the breakdown, I'm not sure what sort of innovative law changes he proposes.
6 man scrums with no push and allowing the tackled player to keep possession at the tackle perhaps?
I like to watch
David Codey (61)
I thought he might fiddle with the points,maybe 4 points for a try,2 for a penalty &1 for a field goal?
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
Bruce, you're being a little harsh on the current ARU administration with that comment. It's pretty clear the standard rules of Rugby haven't quite captured the hearts and minds of the vast majority of the public.
To continue on with no regard for this fact would be maintaining the NRL "This is the greatest game in the world" level of arrogance.
I'm not a fan of rule changes either. Especially as most concepts that are normally floated take away from fundamental aspects of the game, and reduce the effectiveness of the competition as a development tool. Let's face it, some of the Wallabies continued greatest shortcomings on the field are in the rugby union specific aspects of the game. Making the game more like League won't help alleviate this.
suckerforred
Chilla Wilson (44)
Maybe the 'innovation' is going to be actually enforcing the laws as they were intended.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Only in Australia.
The game is booming everywhere else.
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
So IS, essentially, our fans, or more appropriately, customers are wrong?
Success in other markets is really irrelevant to us, our market is the market we have to engage.
Success in other markets is really irrelevant to us, our market is the market we have to engage.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
But most of our potential fans/customers have either never heard of rugby or have never seen or played the game. They haven't had the chance to like or dislike what they see. They view rugby as an elitist private school game and the only time they hear about it is when they are watching a rugby league programme or reading an article by a league journo and they're told how boring it is.
Rugby is an international game, so we can't change our laws like league and AFL can when the Telegraph or the Herald-Sun don't like what they see. We have to play with the hand we're dealt. I've seen plenty of exciting rugby played no matter what the laws of the day said and just as many boring ones. People are never going to be converted to a sport by law changes, what they need is a local junior club in their area for their kids to play in and that is a long term project.
Badger
Bill McLean (32)
If EOI were due on Friday 13 January 2014, I reckon they have pencilled in 29 February 2014 to announce the winning tenders!
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Fans are fans.
What's the purpose of changing the laws so loig die hards can follow what's going on?
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
Slight exaggeration, old chap. But, seriously, how old are you? I remember the days when rugby almost died out, and was only saved by a couple of spectacular - and spectacularly successful - Fijian tours. We have been struggling for a long time. I have a strong memory of watching the Wallabies play France at the SCG in the early sixties in front of 7,000 people (admittedly, it was rotten weather). It was Michael Cleary's last Test, from memory.
Unlike any other comparable country, we are competing against two very successful football codes that allow body contact - both of which have been professional to some extent for the last 100 years, and both of which have rule books which are administered by Australians, for Australian tastes and conditions.
Except for a couple of relatively brief periods of apparent prosperity, we have lurched from crisis to crisis for most of those 100 years.
We have no right to exist, we certainly have no right to thrive. We carry a lot of weight in our saddlebags, and as I have said many times, ALL stakeholders here need to accept that we are in a permanent fight for survival as a serious, professional, sport, and ALL of us need to put our own sectional, petty, interests to one side and work together, for the sake of the game that we all love.
The fact that the game is doing better in some other countries is totally irrelevant. We do not live in other countries, old chap. We live here.
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
IS and QH I agree you can't just sell the game out to cater to the fad following fans at the expense of those fans that have kept the game going. What I'm getting at is you have to consider that perhaps they need to do something to cater to the wider public.
Whilst I'm against any rule changes at all, perhaps they are a necessary evil for survival.
My point was more so that admitting that we are struggle to appeal to the wider market isn't a defeatist attitude, saying otherwise would be a deluded view.
Whilst I'm against any rule changes at all, perhaps they are a necessary evil for survival.
My point was more so that admitting that we are struggle to appeal to the wider market isn't a defeatist attitude, saying otherwise would be a deluded view.
Jagman
Trevor Allan (34)
I seem to remember an article from last year which featured Pulver discussing rule changes for his proposed Super B comp. He had been in a meeting in England with IRB big shots to talk about it and found that he could change a lot of things just by having coaches agreements. For example he proposed that there could be a coaches agreement not to take penalty goals. Perhaps he's still thinking more along these lines.
He also said that there were no stipulations in how long a game has to go for but that it was only written in the rules that a half must be no longer than 40 minutes.
I don't want any rule changes but if I were Pulver I'd want to keep a close leash on the coaches and referees of the NRC to make sure they are encouraging attractive rugby and not cynical rugby.
He also said that there were no stipulations in how long a game has to go for but that it was only written in the rules that a half must be no longer than 40 minutes.
I don't want any rule changes but if I were Pulver I'd want to keep a close leash on the coaches and referees of the NRC to make sure they are encouraging attractive rugby and not cynical rugby.
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
Jagman, couldn't agree more. Most of the worse rule changes made in professional sports are due to consultation with coaches. The NRL is terrible for this.
suckerforred
Chilla Wilson (44)
Boys I can see the arguement for law changes to 'make it exciting' & 'attract' payment public to the games.
My view however is that we need to be careful because we have a high probability of changing the laws, not attracting more patrons & turning off existing patrons. Therefore ending up in a worse situation.
QH you were dead right what you said above & Jagman you expanded on it when you said that the ARU needs to make sure that the NRC teams are encouraged to play attractive rugby & not cynical rugby. So how do we 'encourage' this?
Coaches, players, teams etc will find a way to win. How often do we bitch about an international side playing cynical rugby because the conditions mean that that will get them a win?
I only had my tongue half in my cheek when I said above that maybe the innovation would be just enforcing the laws how they are written. Might not be a bad starting point. Just Saying.
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
If you are really interested in the result of a match, you will usually enjoy it (especially if your own team is competitive). So it is very important that the teams are able to be identified with by supporters and potential supporters.
If the games are played in the right spirit, a fair bit of open play, but most importantly, not too many unforced errors, that will help a lot.
Intelligent match officials should be able to provide a sensible platform for good, open, and competitive rugby even under the existing rule book. The rest is up to the players and coaches.
If the games are played in the right spirit, a fair bit of open play, but most importantly, not too many unforced errors, that will help a lot.
Intelligent match officials should be able to provide a sensible platform for good, open, and competitive rugby even under the existing rule book. The rest is up to the players and coaches.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Well given that you must be just a little older than me you should take more of the blame.
I don't think you even know what saved the game or why there was a 1 off Bledisloe at the SCG in 1979 or who paid for our touring jerseys - I'll give you a big hint: it was not Fiji.
The problems here start at the bottom - you are just looking at the fluffy bit on the top.
Older chap, this is a global game: we cant do what you think should be done. Thankfully.
By the way, old chap, its a law book.
If you dont know that I doubt you've actually looked at it. here's a link for you:
http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?&language=EN
Eyes and Ears
Bob Davidson (42)
IIRC, the ELVs (ie FKs) were used in the Shute Shield in 2007 but not the full ELVs like the ruck laws. The full ELVs were then played in the ARC and then in 2008, they were used for all Australian rugby competitions. We reverted back to the partial ELVs in 2009 in SS which I think was in line with their use in Super rugby. In 2010, the ELVs had been scrapped as we were in the 2 year window leading into the RWC.
- Status