Declining participation and ARU plans for the future

[tragic]

The other issue is the appeal of going to the stadium.
Soccer and AFL are better games live - there is a whole facet of the game which involves off the ball positioning that is hard to capture on tv. League is not much different either way.
Rugby is better on TV. It's hard to decipher at the ground, even in the premium priced seats. How many times do you have to wait for the ground announcer to explain why a penalty was awarded? Then turn to the screen looking for a replay which may or may not come depending on whether it benefits the home team. How many times have you gone home to rewatch the game to see if your perceptions at the ground were realistic?
Part of the appeal of union is that it is inherently more complex and interesting than NRL but you can take a good thing too far.

 

[chibimatty]

Just wondering about the ball in play stat. That used to be RL's claim to fame, that they had more time with the ball-in-play, while our game was kick-and-clap. But if ball-in-play was truly a positive feature in RL, then I would have grown up an RL fan, living here in Perth with a strong WA side and a team in the (then) ARL.

Instead, I became a fan of rugby. The reason? Ball-in-play doesn't mean much to me if it's just repetitive one-out hit-ups, over and over again. The second RL claim to fame was that most of their points are from tries, not penalties. But when even most of the tries are the same, ie; line-break, pass to the support runner, try! Then what's to enjoy in that? I liked rugby because of the true three-quarter play, that on every phase there was the possibility of something happening, whether it was an overlap, or a kick that slides off the side of the boot, a tight-head or a line-out steal.

I really do feel that the game is too much like RL now, while overall feeling like a soccer match: attrition, nothing much happening, then a whistle.

Sorry for being negative; maybe, as has been mentioned, it's all about perceptions.

I will say this though, the last four games I've thoroughly enjoyed have been the Kings vs the Aussie teams, I dunno how they've managed to find such space. Maybe the cure for running rugby is playing against shitty defences?

 

[Braveheart81]

Just wondering about the ball in play stat. That used to be RL's claim to fame, that they had more time with the ball-in-play, while our game was kick-and-clap. But if ball-in-play was truly a positive feature in RL, then I would have grown up an RL fan, living here in Perth with a strong WA side and a team in the (then) ARL.

Instead, I became a fan of rugby. The reason? Ball-in-play doesn't mean much to me if it's just repetitive one-out hit-ups, over and over again.

Rugby league ball in play stats would be more accurate if you stopped timing for a couple of seconds between each tackle before the ball is played.

 

[chibimatty]

That's a bloody good point actually.

 

[Strewthcobber]

What happens if you drop the ball during those few seconds?

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[wamberal]

Stats don't really make any difference at all when we are looking at the drawing power of the several competing codes.


If you want to know why one code is preferred to another, ask the audience.


Their reasons might or might not be supported by statistics. So what?

 

[Slim 293]

For all this talk about stoppages, duration of ball not in play, and regular not always easy to follow penalties...........

I give you......... NFL.

 

[chibimatty]

For all this talk about stoppages, duration of ball not in play, and regular not always easy to follow penalties.....

I give you... NFL.

Where anything can happen on any play. Canadian football even moreso.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

For all this talk about stoppages, duration of ball not in play, and regular not always easy to follow penalties.....

I give you... NFL.

Yes, and the league experienced a drop in viewership in the season just passed. A survey identified the length of the games and lack of actual play being a major issue.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

IIf you want to boost ball in play then adopting all the NRC variations would help. It averaged 50 mins a game last season.

 

[Strewthcobber]

An interesting debate to be had as to why the Superbowl now easily outrates any Super Rugby game in Australia

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[BAR]

As a relative newcomer to Rugby, I find this discussion fascinating. It's so negative about what is a great product.

I grew up on Rugby League. I was a member of my NRL club for many years and would go to as many games as I could. My son started his conversion from League to Rugby a few years back. When he started playing Rugby he preferred it to League immediately. My conversion quickly followed. I now haven't attended a League game in almost two seasons but I watch all the Rugby I can (junior rugby, Shute Shield, I've been to a few Waratahs games - as unfulfilling as that can be - and I record anything on free-to-air).

The simple fact is that League has become stale and boring. Just about all the things complained about above about Rugby apply to today's League. But, from a recent convert's perspective, Rugby still offers so much that League has removed from its product. Real scrums, quick taps, stripping the ball are part of a whole range of random/contested acts that bring interest to a game. Even advantages are managed poorly. League is a series of set plays with practically no potential for anything interesting to happen unless there's an error.

I take the points being made about rugby but the fact is that all sports are more structured than they used to be. However, you can blame "safety first" coaching for that as much as you can blame the officiating. Junior sports (whatever the code) is often more entertaining simply because it's not professional and the skill/discipline level of all involved can be so much more variable.
Personally, I think Rugby is a great product and some glass half full thinking is called for.
PS Strewthcobber, I also like American football, but that's because it's on during Summer and tennis and cricket are almost as boring to watch as [insert a round ball game of your choice here].

 

[Slim 293]

Yes, and the league experienced a drop in viewership in the season just passed. A survey identified the length of the games and lack of actual play being a major issue.

It's still insanely popular though, and unlike rugby it now gets several matches a week broadcast on FTA in Australia.........

But in regards to rugby - the excuse that it's the current laws of our game that's driving away people doesn't fit as the current laws are certainly no more complicated than they were when the game was thriving.

In fact, over the past decade we've seen an introduction of laws to promote more attacking rugby and keep the ball in play more, and yet the game has still gone downhill in Australia and is less popular than the Jakeball years when there was more kicking, the scrum hit created more resets and negative breakdown interpretations were the norm.

The downward trend in support is clearly more related to factors such as the lack of on field success, the Super Rugby debacle, the continued insular private school nature of the game, lack of grassroots/junior initiatives, and poor marketing during a time when the other 3 major football codes have really flourished.

 

[papabear]

As a relative newcomer to Rugby, I find this discussion fascinating. It's so negative about what is a great product.

I grew up on Rugby League. I was a member of my NRL club for many years and would go to as many games as I could. My son started his conversion from League to Rugby a few years back. When he started playing Rugby he preferred it to League immediately. My conversion quickly followed. I now haven't attended a League game in almost two seasons but I watch all the Rugby I can (junior rugby, Shute Shield, I've been to a few Waratahs games - as unfulfilling as that can be - and I record anything on free-to-air).

The simple fact is that League has become stale and boring. Just about all the things complained about above about Rugby apply to today's League. But, from a recent convert's perspective, Rugby still offers so much that League has removed from its product. Real scrums, quick taps, stripping the ball are part of a whole range of random/contested acts that bring interest to a game. Even advantages are managed poorly. League is a series of set plays with practically no potential for anything interesting to happen unless there's an error.

I take the points being made about rugby but the fact is that all sports are more structured than they used to be. However, you can blame "safety first" coaching for that as much as you can blame the officiating. Junior sports (whatever the code) is often more entertaining simply because it's not professional and the skill/discipline level of all involved can be so much more variable.
Personally, I think Rugby is a great product and some glass half full thinking is called for.
PS Strewthcobber, I also like American football, but that's because it's on during Summer and tennis and cricket are almost as boring to watch as [insert a round ball game of your choice here].

Which rugby league team do you support.

 

[papabear]

It's still insanely popular though, and unlike rugby it now gets several matches a week broadcast on FTA in Australia...

But in regards to rugby - the excuse that it's the current laws of our game that's driving away people doesn't fit as the current laws are certainly no more complicated than they were when the game was thriving.

In fact, over the past decade we've seen an introduction of laws to promote more attacking rugby and keep the ball in play more, and yet the game has still gone downhill in Australia and is less popular than the Jakeball years when there was more kicking, the scrum hit created more resets and negative breakdown interpretations were the norm.

The downward trend in support is clearly more related to factors such as the lack of on field success, the Super Rugby debacle, the continued insular private school nature of the game, lack of grassroots/junior initiatives, and poor marketing during a time when the other 3 major football codes have really flourished.

tbh I think this is the best comment for the last couple of pages.

I also think all contact sport is going to be on the nose in future years as the world becomes more santised.

 

[BAR]

Which rugby league team do you support.

Not sure of the relevance but Roosters...

 

[tragic]

It's still insanely popular though, and unlike rugby it now gets several matches a week broadcast on FTA in Australia...

But in regards to rugby - the excuse that it's the current laws of our game that's driving away people doesn't fit as the current laws are certainly no more complicated than they were when the game was thriving.

In fact, over the past decade we've seen an introduction of laws to promote more attacking rugby and keep the ball in play more, and yet the game has still gone downhill in Australia and is less popular than the Jakeball years when there was more kicking, the scrum hit created more resets and negative breakdown interpretations were the norm.

The downward trend in support is clearly more related to factors such as the lack of on field success, the Super Rugby debacle, the continued insular private school nature of the game, lack of grassroots/junior initiatives, and poor marketing during a time when the other 3 major football codes have really flourished.

The laws haven't changed a great deal but the interpretations have.
Endless penalties and cards for "dangerous play" that would not have rated a mention in past eras. I'm all for safety but some of the calls this year have been just plain ridiculous.
Changing the interpretations around the maul has resulted in the ludicrous legal obstruction that is currently referred to as a rolling maul.
Changing the scrum feed in an unplayable maul from the team moving forward to the defending team has meant that a maul in general play is too high a risk of turnover. So in the most part teams don't maul except from attacking line outs. Which means multiple extra defenders in the defensive line.
The way the game is played has changed considerably even if the laws haven't.

 

[Slim 293]

I don't recall any significant changes to the maul laws (except for EVL's which were canned)?

Was there ever a time when the attacking team retained the ball from a collapsed maul? If there was it was before I played the game 20+ years ago.........

All contact sports have been applying new laws in recent years to protect the safety of players.......... rugby is certainly not alone here.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I don't recall any significant changes to the maul laws (except for EVL's which were canned)?

Was there ever a time when the attacking team retained the ball from a collapsed maul? If there was it was before I played the game 20+ years ago...

All contact sports have been applying new laws in recent years to protect the safety of players.... rugby is certainly not alone here.

Use it or lose it law for mauls came in in 1992. Was the same as rucks before that.

They actually tried it with rucks to but changed those back in 1994

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[Slim 293]

Use it or lose it law for mauls came in in 1992.

There you go - that's the year I started playing.