1. Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Australian Rugby / RA

Discussion in 'Rugby Discussion' started by Dave Beat, May 21, 2013.

  1. Derpus Andrew Slack (58)

    Likes Received:
    3,911
    Yeesh man. I love rugby but it's just a game.

    The decision to not cut his pay seemed more a desperate ploy to try and keep him on board than something the man himself wanted.

    By all accounts hes a good bloke and i dont see why he wouldnt want to share his portion of the burden we are all bearing at the moment.
  2. RedsHappy Tony Shaw (54)

    Likes Received:
    5,303
  3. wamberal David Codey (61)

    Likes Received:
    4,423
    The only way something like this would happen would be if a local billionaire engineered a hybrid game, and it would certainly not encompass most of the rugby world. It might attract the Pacific Islands. And us.


    So the "big white flag" would, in practical terms, have to be waved by rugby league. Rugby would continue everywhere else.



    Can you seriously imagine the Brits and the rest of Europe giving up proper scrummaging?
  4. I like to watch Simon Poidevin (60)

    Likes Received:
    5,667
  5. Quick Hands David Wilson (68)

    Likes Received:
    9,996
    You've identified one of the main issues at play. None of the senior echelon of administrators want to change the fundamentals; they want SR in some form, they want NSWRU, QRU, ACTRU et al continuing their activities, they want SANZAAR/SANZAR, they want the NRC, they scoff and look down their noses at club rugby, they want they same RA board election "process" and on and on it goes.

    It's as if all this is going to be magically fixed by getting South Africa out of SR and sacking a few middle managers.
  6. pnut Sydney Middleton (9)

    Likes Received:
    20
    Already is from a basic skills point of view.
  7. liquor box Ken Catchpole (46)

    Likes Received:
    1,775
    What would a merge achieve?

    Everybody involved in Rugby could just go to League if they chose to, on some level they are involved in Rugby because they love it.

    I would prefer Union to be rich and have money to make the game thrive, but even if RA as we know if failed and we were forced to play club rugby amateurs as Test players I would still follow the game.

    These club rugby amateurs would still be the best in the country and if we managed to win a game every couple of years then imagine the joy we would feel.

    I dont think people appreciate what a true underdog win represents, imagine being able to get the feeling that Japanese supporters have had at the last two world cups.

    I will watch rugby in any form as I love the game. I do not enjoy League, and will not watch it not matter if a merger occurred because of the lack of enjoyment.
    Oldschool and twisted like this.
  8. KOB1987 Andrew Slack (58)

    Likes Received:
    3,710
    For starters the AAGPS and probably every other private school association wouldn’t do it. At the very least it would take them 200 years to debate it. So that kills it right there. Not to mention what the Northern Hemisphere and our friends across the Dutch would have to say about it.

    Aside from that I can’t see the NRL players agreeing to go back to their roots (no pun intended, I mean the grassroots of their game, not random schoolgirls) and having to pack a scrum.
  9. liquor box Ken Catchpole (46)

    Likes Received:
    1,775
    The article also assumes that people dont like scrums. I love scrums, I do however get annoyed watching the clock count down for the resets. I would rather keep the contest of the scrum and stop the clock from the moment a decision is made that a scrum will occur until the ball is out.
    Oldschool, twisted and KOB1987 like this.
  10. hoggy Bob Loudon (25)

    Likes Received:
    379
    A fantastic post that should be read.
  11. KOB1987 Andrew Slack (58)

    Likes Received:
    3,710
    Small modification, a scrum is pretty taxing on the players actually packing it. It’s probably actually the most energy consuming component of the game, particularly for the front rowers, and second rowers to a lesser extent. To remove it from the clock would be abhorrent. So put a clock on it, 60 seconds, use it or lose it.
    twisted likes this.
  12. KOB1987 Andrew Slack (58)

    Likes Received:
    3,710
    I did, 4 times so far..
    hoggy likes this.
  13. Quick Hands David Wilson (68)

    Likes Received:
    9,996
    The problem with scrums is that referees and administrators have allowed them to be transformed from a method of restarting play and deciding possession after a minor infringement to a device for obtaining penalties to kick for goal or territory.

    The purpose of a scrum is to restart play with a contest for possession after a minor infringement or stoppage.

    Reasonably easy to fix most of it.

    As you say, time limit on the scrum with a free kick against the team not ready

    Once the ball gets to the back of the scrum then penalties are off the table - use it or lose it. (exception only for pushover attempt at an attacking 5m scrum)


    Note this example from 1964 and see how quickly the ball gets back into play at scums and lineouts. I purposely picked an old 5N game to show that the NH wasn't always so obssessed with this nonsense. You only have to watch for about 90 seconds to see 4 lineouts and a scrum. The scrum is called at 1.14 and is packed and the ball in out by 1.26.




    Then watch this where France clearly win the ball at a scrum, have clean front foot ball but decide to play of a penalty instead of using the ball - and the ref rewards it.

  14. cyclopath Phil Waugh (73)

    Likes Received:
    15,532
    ^^^^
    Couldn't agree more.
    dru likes this.
  15. wamberal David Codey (61)

    Likes Received:
    4,423
    I agree even more.
  16. formerflanker Desmond Connor (43)

    Likes Received:
    1,342
    QH, the scrum law changes were designed to stop scrum related injuries.
    From a free-for-all packing of the scrum to today's interminable precision driven system of packing, laws and procedures have changed a lot.
    Any new law must take the best of both extremes - speed for entertainment and safety for players.
    I note from your footage that most players ran to the set piece after the refs whistle to stop play.
    Don't see much of that today.
  17. formerflanker Desmond Connor (43)

    Likes Received:
    1,342
    Another thought for speeding up the game - no stoppages for injury.
    I mean, you didn't see Charlton Heston stop his chariot for downed charioteers did you?
  18. Quick Hands David Wilson (68)

    Likes Received:
    9,996
    Absolutely there's now a safety factor as the scrums are more structured and thus more power goes through the front rows. But there's no need for them to take as long as they now do.

    I think KOBs suggestion about a 60 second limit provides enough time for a safe scrum. FK against the team not ready. I'll bet that teams with a good scrum will suddenly be able to organise themselves very quickly.
  19. WorkingClassRugger Andrew Slack (58)

    Likes Received:
    3,354

    Much of the issues surrounding the scrum come down to the collective skullduggery going on between packs. Which needs to be stopped. Yes, the scrum should be about technique and team work but there's far too much silly buggers going on around angling and weight distribution etc around the engagement all designed to milk the penalty.
    Quick Hands likes this.
  20. Rugbynutter39 Geoff Shaw (53)

    Likes Received:
    2,613

Share This Page