3rd tier is back in 2014 [Discontinued]

[suckerforred]

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.

So you agree that there is no need to change the laws of the game?

 

[Quick Hands]

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.

I think you have it there.

 

[Quick Hands]

What is needed to ensure high quality rugby, is highly skilled players, coaches with a positive approach (no particular style, just positive), administrators who promote the code and matches well and referees who apply the laws in the spirit that they were written (i.e. let the game flow and whistle when necessary).

In the professsional era in NSW alone we've seen numerous examples of players who can't catch and pass both sides and struggle in the set piece, coaches who sent crowds from 30,000 plus to 13,000 with a win ugly philosophy, administrators who have sent the code broke and referees who think the game is about them. Plenty of things to look at before we worry about tinkering with the laws.

As an aside, law changes usually have unintended consequences which are sometimes make the cure worse than the original problem. Use it or lose it resulted in more forwards clogging up the backline as it was no longer necessary to push the maul forward to get the scrum feed, the FK option in the ELVs resulted in more cyncial infringements and the managed scrum engagement has turned the scrum into a collapsathon.

 

[Highlander35]

Quality support, Especially in non-traditional areas takes time, effort and success.

It's taken Glasgow (with 2 non-traditional rugby regions, Highlands and the West) 20 years of professionalism, plus a half dozen of specific focus since the demise of the Reivers, 2 stadium moves, many years of player development and recruitment, and excellent coaching, to become an on-field and off-field success.

I remember going to Heinekan cup/Magners League games in the mid 2000s, down at FirHill, seeing a crowd in the 1500s and thinking it was a really good crowd.

 

[Quick Hands]

Quality support, Especially in non-traditional areas takes time, effort and success.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[Kenny Powers]

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.
.

Maybe if Rugby had been given the Kerry Packer makeover it wouldn't be in the state it is in.

Although I doubt he would have sold leather patch jackets at the merchandise stand.

 

[p.Tah]

As an aside, law changes usually have unintended consequences which are sometimes make the cure worse than the original problem. Use it or lose it resulted in more forwards clogging up the backline as it was no longer necessary to push the maul forward to get the scrum feed, the FK option in the ELVs resulted in more cyncial infringements and the managed scrum engagement has turned the scrum into a collapsathon.

Completely agree, however there have been some very good law changes in the past, lifting in the line out, not being able to take the ball back into the 22m and then kick out on the full, for example. I'm quite happy with the way the game can be played, but we don't know what these law changes are. I'm interested to see what it proposed.

 

[tony kennedy]

I would like to see all reserves get at least 20 minutes so to develop more players. Then if any bad injuries players can come back on, I say this because in some games the bench is not used how can that help the players confidence thinking coaches do not trust them

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Maybe if Rugby had been given the Kerry Packer makeover it wouldn't be in the state it is in.

Although I doubt he would have sold leather patch jackets at the merchandise stand.

You think they would have been faux leather?
Judging by what passes for cricket coverage he'd sell anything - even from the grave.

 

[Tigers Tale]

Tony Kennedy

"I would like to see all reserves get at least 20 minutes so to develop more players."

This is suppose to be a semi-professional rugby competition there should not be space for reserve tokenism like you suggest or club representation quotas - the next best 250 players in the country after the Wallabies should be playing even if that means that some of them have to move interstate. It should be like the BBL where some players play for the teams that are interstate from their domicile.

Get the best next 250 and distribute them amongst 8 teams - Syd(2), Bne (2), Canb(2), Melb(1) & Perth(1). Play each other once and then 1v4 & 2v3 into the semis.

The ARU have got it wrong by pushing it down to the clubs (well meaning amateurs) when it should have been run off the 5 Australian franchises as they have the professional structures (coaching & administration) in place to run these sides.

It is just going to be a shemozzle - it has been rushed and is ill conceived.

The two Bne sides will be made up entirely of Reds & ETS players with little room for the true club player, so why clubs who will have little or none of their registered players involved, chose to get involved is beyond me.

I'd say the smart club just stands back and watches ARC#2 go down the same path as ARC#1.

Don't get me wrong something needs to happen but it will be a miracle if ARC#2 is the answer.

 

[Tigers Tale]

Does anyone know what the plans are for the Australian Under 20s in the lead up to this years JRWC?

 

[Jets]

Does anyone know what the plans are for the Australian Under 20s in the lead up to this years JRWC?

Lee Grant is doing an article on it for the blog to follow on from the Junior Gold one he did today.

 

[Pete King]

Tony Kennedy

"I would like to see all reserves get at least 20 minutes so to develop more players."

This is suppose to be a semi-professional rugby competition there should not be space for reserve tokenism like you suggest or club representation quotas - the next best 250 players in the country after the Wallabies should be playing even if that means that some of them have to move interstate. It should be like the BBL where some players play for the teams that are interstate from their domicile.

Get the best next 250 and distribute them amongst 8 teams - Syd(2), Bne (2), Canb(2), Melb(1) & Perth(1). Play each other once and then 1v4 & 2v3 into the semis.

The ARU have got it wrong by pushing it down to the clubs (well meaning amateurs) when it should have been run off the 5 Australian franchises as they have the professional structures (coaching & administration) in place to run these sides.

It is just going to be a shemozzle - it has been rushed and is ill conceived.

The two Bne sides will be made up entirely of Reds & ETS players with little room for the true club player, so why clubs who will have little or none of their registered players involved, chose to get involved is beyond me.

I'd say the smart club just stands back and watches ARC#2 go down the same path as ARC#1.

Don't get me wrong something needs to happen but it will be a miracle if ARC#2 is the answer.

agree all points bar 2 sides for Canberra - 3 syd, 2 bri 1 for other 3

 

[Kenny Powers]

Judging by what passes for cricket coverage he'd sell anything - even from the grave.

Granted the promo's for the latest version of Underbelly #23 or some Talent Show are tacky at least it has moved on from the 1980's.

Shute Shield on the ABC in 2014 will be broadcast exactly the same as it was circa 1984. One game a week at 3pm on a Saturday, same number of cameras, same graphics.

Few sports competitions could make that claim.

The only positive is that at least Tom Waterhouse is not on the broadcast.

But then again despite the proliferation of sports betting, I can't find any of the sports bookies taking bets on the Shute Shield 2014.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

, same number of cameras

Not fair.
Not saying that the additional cameras they have are pointed in the right direction.

 

[p.Tah]

The ARU have got it wrong by pushing it down to the clubs (well meaning amateurs) when it should have been run off the 5 Australian franchises as they have the professional structures (coaching & administration) in place to run these sides.

If the clubs weren't involved I don't think that would go down well in club land, in fact they'd ensure the NRC went the way of the ARC.

 

[Quick Hands]

Tony Kennedy

"I would like to see all reserves get at least 20 minutes so to develop more players."

This is suppose to be a semi-professional rugby competition there should not be space for reserve tokenism like you suggest or club representation quotas - the next best 250 players in the country after the Wallabies should be playing even if that means that some of them have to move interstate. It should be like the BBL where some players play for the teams that are interstate from their domicile.

Get the best next 250 and distribute them amongst 8 teams - Syd(2), Bne (2), Canb(2), Melb(1) & Perth(1). Play each other once and then 1v4 & 2v3 into the semis.

The ARU have got it wrong by pushing it down to the clubs (well meaning amateurs) when it should have been run off the 5 Australian franchises as they have the professional structures (coaching & administration) in place to run these sides.

It is just going to be a shemozzle - it has been rushed and is ill conceived.

The two Bne sides will be made up entirely of Reds & ETS players with little room for the true club player, so why clubs who will have little or none of their registered players involved, chose to get involved is beyond me.

I'd say the smart club just stands back and watches ARC#2 go down the same path as ARC#1.

Don't get me wrong something needs to happen but it will be a miracle if ARC#2 is the answer.

Like some others, you are confusing the aims of the BBL with the aims of rugby 3T. They aren't the same or even similar.

The main aim of 3T are to fill the gap in standard between club (4T) and super (2T) and also to build a coherent competition in which the rugby public will become involved and to try to spread the game beyond its strongholds (as few as they are). The role of the BBL is to provide cheap entertainment to the masses and has nothing to do with preparing players for test cricket. It's in fact a modern version of bread and circuses.

Whatever 3T entities emerge from this process will need to provide something lasting which can rely on a degree of local support from rugby communities. This won't be achieved by parachuting players in from all around the country in the hope of achieving an even competiton. The BBL experiences the same examples of strong and weak teams despite doing this. For 3T rugby this would be a short term sugar hit for the developing areas and would do nothing to develop a strong rugby community and a strong rugby competition in places like Melbourne and Perth. People aren't going to watch games long term if they have no idea who is playing and have no identification with the team.

IMO your suggestions of cutting out the clubs (i.e. grass roots rugby supporters) would doom the NRC to the same expensive fate as the ARC. If the desire is merely to gather the 250 next best players along the lines you suggest, there are cheaper ways to do it than the NRC. Just have 5 academy sides plus a barabarians sides to make 6 and play each other at closed grounds on a Wednesday afternoon while we're all at work.

I agree with you that this has been rushed and this increases the chance of a shemozzle - 2015 would have been better.

You're right there shouldn't be quotas for clubs or anyone else for that matter. But letting the clubs organise themselves brings competition, innovation and ideas - it might be messy (like democracy) but it's infinitely better than having centrally controlled entities following the head office line (see Soviet Union for how well this worked).

The big challenge for the ARU, in the short time frame they've given themselves, is to have the thing on a solid foundation before a ball is kicked. If they mess it up it will disappear in a crumbling ruin like the house built on sand.

 

[wamberal]

So you agree that there is no need to change the laws of the game?

No, the rules are the game's biggest handicap. However, I was making the reasonable point that intelligent match officials can work around the letter of the law, if that is what they have to do in the ARC.

 

[Quick Hands]

No, the rules are the game's biggest handicap.

Which ones would you change?

 

[Brumby Jack]

ARU say that 41 expressions of interest received for the NRC from all states and the ACT. Interest includes existing teams, individuals and syndicates.

The only way to get any information was to submit an EOI, so the real number could be a lot less, maybe closer to 20.

Successful teams to be known in early March.