T
TOCC
Guest
Wamberal if you want to watch Rugby League then change the channel, you don't have to troll through every thread making the same dreary comment
Broadcast options for Australian Rugby
- Thread starter WorkingClassRugger
- Start date
RugbyFuture
Lord Logo
the blues highlanders game was pretty crap imo. The brums reds game atleast was close. Rolling mauls are a part of the game, for forwards we enjoy watching scrums and mauls. Never understood peoples coplaints about having them there. Some of the most exciting rugby I remember watching when I was a kid was a 16 phase forward play by the wallabies (forgotten who it was against, I was in single digits though)
Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk
Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
Dear oh bloody dear. So the choice is between watching rugby league or watching awful rugby? Don't you occasionally want something a bit better?
Sometimes the truth hurts. Toughen up a bit, Princess.
T
TOCC
Guest
My mistake, you seem to refer back to league constantly...
May I ask that rather then crucifying everyone else who disagrees with your opinion, or drearily whining about what rugby games are entertaining that you offer some actual suggestion as to how the game could be improved for your liking, rather then sweeping statements like changing the rules? Give us something specific..
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
Are you really, really serious?
Sadly, the vast majority of the potential audience have a different definition of "exciting". Yes, the 16 phase incident was exciting. But it had nothing at all to do with rolling mauls, or scurms, or anything else. It was just unrelenting attacking rugby, error-free, and interesting for the uninitiated to watch. Totally different to some of the dross we saw last night, frankly.
Yes, rolling mauls are a part of the game. Do you sincerely believe that the audience that we need to reach will be enthralled by the sight of 16 forwards in a slow rumble? How do you explain to people that, unlike in every other phase of the game the ball carrier can be tackled, but not in a rolling maul?
We are fighting for our survival, mate. It is not about what you enjoyed when you were a kid, it is about where we are today. And where we are is not a pretty place, frankly.
Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk[/quote]
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
Okay. For the record, I have been watching, then playing then watching the game since the mid fifties. Yes, that is how old I am. I grew up near the old Eastwood Oval, and remember the sound of the whistle blowing when I was just a kid.
I love the game. I played it at every opportunity, not very well, sometimes in pretty poor teams. It has given me a lot, including friendships with several Wallabies over the years that I met through business, but became friends with because of my love for, and respect for, the game and all it means.
As a side issue, I have worked for a number of years for a very successful sporting organisation (not in rugby, and not in Australia), did a lot of strategic planning and marketing work. So I know a bit about what counts.
Rugby has always been up against it in my lifetime, with occasional bursts of success, and I suppose that I am motivated to want to see it survive. The odds are not in favour of survival, unless changes happen. Some of the changes are outside our control, particularly rule changes.
But, for crying out aloud, the most important thing is that ALL stakeholders need to understand that we are in a vulnerable position, and
ALL stakeholders need to start working together to make the game more attractive, more accessible, and more inclusive. That means everybody making sacrifices. Frankly, I would be a lot happier if the Brumbies had gone down in style. I have specifically mentioned rolling mauls, and it is just obviousl to anybody with a tiny slice of intelligence that only a few die-hards want to watch teams employ tactics like this.
So, frankly, suit yourself, sit in a corner with your hands over your ears and pretend everything in the garden is rosy.
I do not insult anybody here, and I object to being called a troll.
You seem to rate almost all rugby as awful rugby. I think you are setting the bar too high in terms of what you think an exciting game is. I think your expectation of what round one of any competition looks like is out of kilter with reality.
You seem to be comparing rugby union against rugby league games that you don't watch and then saying that the rugby league games are exciting and that is why people are watching them.
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
The problem is how do you cater an international sport with multiple stakeholders, for a local fan base which clearly has a limited desire in what they consider entertainment.
I grew up on league and can now not even stand it, to be point I no longer watch origin even due to the fact that the players have been so homogenised and the play so generic and over-coached to the point of risk minimisation. It no longer resembles the game I grew up on in the 90s.
I blame the input of coaches being considered in rule changes which has basically lead to a sport that is easier to coach, by minimising fatigue and individuality, quick play between phases(tackles) and the previous sweeping backline movements where a ball used to move from hooker, to halfback, to five-eight, to inside centre, to outside centre, to full back, to wing with regular occurrence.
It's developed into a game with zero substance about it, increasingly marketable due to the parochial nature of growing up supporting the teams your father supported.
It might seem like a one-eyed anti-league rant, but if I'm wrong, where are all the new markets league is finding success in? It's "growth" is the population growth of it's existing regions.
What I forgot to mention was that the commentators bang on about how great and exciting these generic tactics are and the audience just eats that up and regurgitates it. This is due to the fact it appeals to the simplest element of society, and there is an abundance of them.
I grew up on league and can now not even stand it, to be point I no longer watch origin even due to the fact that the players have been so homogenised and the play so generic and over-coached to the point of risk minimisation. It no longer resembles the game I grew up on in the 90s.
I blame the input of coaches being considered in rule changes which has basically lead to a sport that is easier to coach, by minimising fatigue and individuality, quick play between phases(tackles) and the previous sweeping backline movements where a ball used to move from hooker, to halfback, to five-eight, to inside centre, to outside centre, to full back, to wing with regular occurrence.
It's developed into a game with zero substance about it, increasingly marketable due to the parochial nature of growing up supporting the teams your father supported.
It might seem like a one-eyed anti-league rant, but if I'm wrong, where are all the new markets league is finding success in? It's "growth" is the population growth of it's existing regions.
What I forgot to mention was that the commentators bang on about how great and exciting these generic tactics are and the audience just eats that up and regurgitates it. This is due to the fact it appeals to the simplest element of society, and there is an abundance of them.
I think you have to accept rugby for what it is. An international sport with rules that aren't at your control.
Australia needs to do the best with what they've got and continue to push for union to grow around the world. A bigger game will create more opportunities.
At the end of the day, Australia will keep producing quality rugby players because there are many professional opportunities available both in Australia and around the world. Australia needs to ensure that our Super Rugby teams are as good as they can be and the Wallabies are one of the top few teams in the world.
Broadcast rights will increasingly be where the bulk of the money can be made and Australia needs to ensure that they have teams in the right competitions to ensure that they are getting the biggest piece of the pie possible. At this stage that means The Rugby Championship and Super Rugby.
Highlander35
Andrew Slack (58)
Perhaps in the NRC you could rule that penalties must be taken as drop goals or something, I don't know. How would that be for attacking rugby.
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
Any reduction in the benefit of a penalty would encourage further cynical defence.
WorkingClassRugger
David Codey (61)
I think they should look at that. It adds another level of skill to the game and will likely encourage teams to push for the try.
Highlander35
Andrew Slack (58)
Then all penalties conceded in the 22 can be taken 10m out, straight in front of the posts, or maybe no kicks out on the full at all except from penalties or Free Kicks, I don't know, I'm talking out my asset here.
Sent from my LG-P713 using Tapatalk
p.Tah
John Thornett (49)
Foxtel figures for the weekend:
RL charity Shield: 151k
Tahs vs. Force: 122k
Brums vs. Reds 108k
Melbourne victory vs Adelaide: 70k
Sydney FC vs. Newcastle 62k
Wanderers vs Perth: 62k
The media beat up about the A-League going great guns was just a beat up. Rugby has to get a better broadcast deal next time round.
RL charity Shield: 151k
Tahs vs. Force: 122k
Brums vs. Reds 108k
Melbourne victory vs Adelaide: 70k
Sydney FC vs. Newcastle 62k
Wanderers vs Perth: 62k
The media beat up about the A-League going great guns was just a beat up. Rugby has to get a better broadcast deal next time round.
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
P Tah I don't think that's the only figure to look at. When we get a week where Aus teams are facing overseas teams both there and here we may not fare so well.
T
TOCC
Guest
You worked for a "very successful sporting organisation", interesting i don't think you have mentioned that before, full credit to you. Im sure that puts you in good stead to provide valuable input into what changes can be made to make the game more attractive to people like yourself.
Lets not get involved in the semantics about the definition of a troll, or who called who a princess or who posts antagonistic comments.. The point of the conversation is that you are critical of rugby union and its entertaiment value, now all i ask is that you offer something that can be done which would improve rugby union for you entertainment..
You have mentioned rolling mauls, do you want to get rid of them completely? What else do you want done?
You say all the stakeholders need to be aware of the vulnerable position that rugby is in and need to make sacrifices, which stake holders and what sacrifices should be made?
Apparently the woman's soccer prelim final a couple of Sundays ago out rated the Friday night a league game of that weekend. All not rosey in football I hear.
TOCC, Wamberal's mentioned his past work history with "a very successful sporting organisation" many times previously, maybe you've just missed it. I'll stick up for him on this point.
Rolling mauls? How 'bout the letter of the law be insisted on? Law 17 states "A maul occurs when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents, and one or more of the ball-carrier's team-mates bind on the ball-carrier.". This modern notion of holding the ball at the back of rolling mauls (or Saffer conga lines) away from the ball-carrier's opponents doesn't conform to the Laws of Rugby. IF the letter of the law was adjudicated properly by referees there'd be proper competition for the ball, as there is in any other breakdown.
While I'm on the laws, what about Law 20? In definitions it states "The purpose of the scrum is to restart play quickly, safely and fairly,..." Sorta makes one think about endless mincing of a weaker scrum by a stronger opponent, keeping the ball at the number 8's feet isn't restarting play quickly in my book.
Rolling mauls? How 'bout the letter of the law be insisted on? Law 17 states "A maul occurs when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents, and one or more of the ball-carrier's team-mates bind on the ball-carrier.". This modern notion of holding the ball at the back of rolling mauls (or Saffer conga lines) away from the ball-carrier's opponents doesn't conform to the Laws of Rugby. IF the letter of the law was adjudicated properly by referees there'd be proper competition for the ball, as there is in any other breakdown.
While I'm on the laws, what about Law 20? In definitions it states "The purpose of the scrum is to restart play quickly, safely and fairly,..." Sorta makes one think about endless mincing of a weaker scrum by a stronger opponent, keeping the ball at the number 8's feet isn't restarting play quickly in my book.
