Ideas for NRC 2015

[Brendan Hume]

I have little doubt that you knew what I meant and just wanted to undermine me

Sorry mate, I couldn't recall any of the changes that were referred to. I asked twice and eventually looked them up again. I'm not interested in personality or undermining people. I thought I'd missed something when there were references to Law Changes being the biggest thing that should change. I think your arguments are pretty flawed when applied to Aus rugby, but I don't need to bring those up, plenty of others have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LeinsterRebel]

Well, frankly your comment warranted that level of derision. Why? Because your proposal would as others have mentioned cannibalise weaker clubs further narrowing our base. It doesn't take into account the comparative strengths of the individual competitions. It limits the development and opportunity for at least 85% of the talent. Then there's the fact that Club Rugby runs on the fumes off an oily rag. There are only three maybe four clubs possibly capable of actually affording to compete. There's probably a list of other reasons that I'm not even considering.

We do have a long history of club rugby. But one that failed to adapt when the game went pro. Outside the diehards few care anymore. Sad but true.

As previously stated, you cannot reasonably expect 10,000 odd crowds in its inaugural season. The NRC needs time to grow and develop its own history. While I do still enjoy watching the Wicks play (a team I have supported since I was a child) I understand the game needs to go forward and grow beyond it's often parochial mindset.

The post you "derided" was 3 simple lines. If you feel the need to behave the way you do that is your prerogative but attempting to ridicule people is not a mature approach to any discussion.

 

[LeinsterRebel]

Sorry mate, I couldn't recall any of the changes that were referred to. I asked twice and eventually looked them up again. I'm not interested in personality or undermining people. I thought I'd missed something when there were references to Law Changes being the biggest thing that should change. I think your arguments are pretty flawed when applied to Aus rugby, but I don't need to bring those up, plenty of others have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fair enough. It is just an opinion, which I am entitled to and I do not claim to have the answers. They were just some suggestions. I believe that it is equally flawed to believe that the existing setup will deliver the success many speculate it should have.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

The post you "derided" was 3 simple lines. If you feel the need to behave the way you do that is your prerogative but attempting to ridicule people is not a mature approach to any discussion.

It would not have mattered if it were three or 300 lines.

You seem to be awfully sensitive to ridicule. My original response could be hardly be considered harsh.

 

[Omar Comin']

I hope they keep the new points system and other law variations. They worked! Apart from some of you fogey's on this website, they were very well received. Give it 5 seasons of consistently exciting rugby and this competition will be in a good place.

The only significant difference about the game was a lot less kicking for penalty goal. And a bit less time wasting on things like quick taps not being taken on a precise blade of grass, or crooked throws on uncontested lineouts.

Oh, and there were more scrums, more lineouts, more rucks, more mauls, more running, more tackling - more of basically everything that is played by every player on both teams. Not every team played the same way, not every game was the same. The way some of you guys talk, you'd think every game was Fiji vs Fiji. That's just rubbish. The influence of a dominant scrum was a massive factor in Brisbane City winning the final. Some teams kicked a lot, some teams didn't, some teams played with a lot of width, some teams were more narrow, some teams were very structured in attack, some teams were more ad-lib. I mean, it was rugby as we all know it. Just without all the waiting around while a back from each team takes shots at goal after every other collapsed scrum or often debatable ruck infringement.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I'd probably bring the points for conversions back to 2 though.

This I agree with.

 

[Brendan Hume]

Yeah agree completely except for the 3 point conversion, not sure it was necessary with the adjusted penalty value... In saying that, if that's my only gripe, it's a pretty minor one and I'm happy enough to live with it. It would be interesting to assess the injury rates of teams with the 'more' rugby that was played. Not sure if anyone was commissioned to do this before the tournament, but I think it would be interesting - Qld Country seemed to have heaps of injuries, not sure how the other teams fared.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I agree on all fronts. Some games were open and played at break neck speed while others involve a more physical element.

 

[Jagman]

The three point conversion was there to ensure the importance of developing good goal kickers. It was needed to offset the fact that penalties goals would no longer be influential and some teams mightn't put much emphasis on goal kicking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

The three point conversion was there to ensure the importance of developing good goal kickers. It was needed to offset the fact that penalties goals would no longer be influential and some teams mightn't put much emphasis on goal kicking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And I think it exposed a serious issue in our game in Australia. The goal kicking was very average right across the competition. Certainly something that needs to improve a lot.

 

[Scoey]

I will simply say this Omar. You see only what you want to see. I would point out to you that numerous times during the NRC when a kickable penalty was awarded to a team, it was more that the 45 seconds (max) it would've taken for an attempt at goal for play to resume. In one particularly bad example it was a full 4 and a half minutes of game clock time (so not including time offs) for play to actually resume. 4.5 minutes!! This was not an isolated incident.
But like I said, you see only what you what and that clearly is a game where there are no attempts at penalty goal.

 

[TOCC]

I appreciate the rules are a critical component, but my understanding is that there is thread specific to the rules changes and this thread was a broader issue for ideas to boost the competition outside of rule changes?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Omar Comin']

I will simply say this Omar. You see only what you want to see. I would point out to you that numerous times during the NRC when a kickable penalty was awarded to a team, it was more that the 45 seconds (max) it would've taken for an attempt at goal for play to resume. In one particularly bad example it was a full 4 and a half minutes of game clock time (so not including time offs) for play to actually resume. 4.5 minutes!! This was not an isolated incident.
But like I said, you see only what you what and that clearly is a game where there are no attempts at penalty goal.

I presume you are referring to scrum resets? That is a completely separate issue. For the record, I am also not a fan of watching scrum collapses and resets. But my perception was that this wasn't an issue in most NRC matches. And most penalties resulted in a kick for a lineout. Even if the scrums had been more of a problem that's not an argument against the change in points system.

And there is almost always more than 45 seconds between a penalty being awarded and play restarting after a penalty goal. And more than that it's always a momentum killer because the ball goes back from attacking territory (for the team with the ball) to neutral territory with the restart. An advantage of the NRC, from a development as well as an entertainment perspective (IMO), is that the ball spent a lot more time inside the 22's and not just between them.

 

[Braveheart81]

I hope they keep the new points system and other law variations. They worked! Apart from some of you fogey's on this website, they were very well received. Give it 5 seasons of consistently exciting rugby and this competition will be in a good place.

I think you'll find that it is people like us on this website that were supporting the NRC. The crowds were small and they were generally the rugby diehards who attend regularly at various levels.

I enjoyed the NRC but like others, as it wore on I became a bit less interested and watched more ITM Cup games than I did NRC games.

Crowds and interest will always filter down from the top. There's just no way of avoiding it. It's the same across any sport. You build participation from the grassroots up, but you build fans from the top down.

I think the NRC would benefit greatly from more cross-selling between the Super Rugby sides and the NRC teams. One method that could be successful is to sell NRC memberships to Super Rugby members that come with a +1 to each game. That could help encourage fans to bring along an extra person who might have had less interest or exposure to rugby. Better utilising the existing fanbase is easier than developing a new fanbase.

 

[wamberal]

I hope they keep the new points system and other law variations. They worked! Apart from some of you fogey's on this website, they were very well received. Give it 5 seasons of consistently exciting rugby and this competition will be in a good place.

Five years? It will need to be in a "good place" a lot sooner than that.


The success or failure of the NRC will depend totally on whether the potential audience gets interested in following a team, not on the minutiae of the rules. The tweaking of the rules was a good idea to generate some interest and debate which drew attention to the tournament.


However, as even a young fogey needs to understand, the NRC would have a far better chance of surviving if it could be sold to overseas markets.

To be sold overseas, it will have to be based on the Laws of the Game, not some half-baked local version.

 

[Braveheart81]

However, as even a young fogey needs to understand, the NRC would have a far better chance of surviving if it could be sold to overseas markets.

To be sold overseas, it will have to be based on the Laws of the Game, not some half-baked local version.

I think this is crucial. Technology makes the world smaller and provides rugby fans with content from around the world.

Australia is a small market, particularly as far as rugby union is concerned and we need to drive revenue by tapping into overseas markets.

Our cricket players would earn about half as much if it wasn't for overseas markets (primarily India) filling the coffers locally. If there were two games each week with broadcast quality production, it would be a reasonable package to sell overseas and for a competition of the small size of the NRC, it wouldn't take much broadcast revenue to have a big impact on making the competition sustainable.

 

[Omar Comin']

Five years? It will need to be in a "good place" a lot sooner than that.

The success or failure of the NRC will depend totally on whether the potential audience gets interested in following a team, not on the minutiae of the rules. The tweaking of the rules was a good idea to generate some interest and debate which drew attention to the tournament.

However, as even a young fogey needs to understand, the NRC would have a far better chance of surviving if it could be sold to overseas markets.

To be sold overseas, it will have to be based on the Laws of the Game, not some half-baked local version.

Well it broke even in year 1 so it's got its head above the water. I don't think it's realistic to think it will equal the popularity of the ITM Cup in just a couple of years.

I also don't think selling it overseas is anywhere near as important as selling it in Australia. And I don't see why a few minor tweaks to the laws would make it any less attractive overseas anyway. The changes haven't radically altered the game, they just promote a more positive style of playing.

 

[Braveheart81]

I don't see how the NRC broke even in the first year. It might not have cost the ARU any money (although I don't know that for sure) because others footed the bill.

If Foxsports, Buildcorp and the various other backers didn't pay above the odds to support it, it would have cost the ARU several million dollars I'd imagine.

 

[Omar Comin']

I think you'll find that it is people like us on this website that were supporting the NRC. The crowds were small and they were generally the rugby diehards who attend regularly at various levels.

And not all rugby diehards prefer the 3/5/7 points system. It's not just fringe fans and rugby league supporters that don't like to see so many penalty goals in a game of rugby. From all the feedback I read on the facebook pages of teams it seemed to me that the rule changes, and particularly the change in points system, was very well received.

Also, there are many people that don't mind rugby, but hate all the penalty goals. The NRC was practically invisible in 2014 to the general sporting public. I know rugby people that barely heard about it. It will take time and a greater promotional effort to get people to give the competition a go and ultimately to care about it. But taking away a major frustration a lot of people have with the game can only be a positive in my mind.

 

[Omar Comin']

I don't see how the NRC broke even in the first year. It might not have cost the ARU any money (although I don't know that for sure) because others footed the bill.

If Foxsports, Buildcorp and the various other backers didn't pay above the odds to support it, it would have cost the ARU several million dollars I'd imagine.

You're basically saying if the NRC didn't generate any revenue then the ARU would have lost money. You could say that about anything. The fact is it did generate enough revenue to cover the costs.