• 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.

Herald Sun Article - Rugby boring

Status
Not open for further replies.
redstragic

redstragic

Alan Cameron (40)
I just read the Harris article. I know we don't play the man here but I really think there is something broken inside Brett Harris. It is almost like an evil doppelgänger has replaced him from an alternate dimension or he has Romnesia or something equally as weird.
 
Blue

Blue

Andrew Slack (58)
Bowside said:
I don't necessarily think you are correct.
Click to expand...

Then find me newspapers and forums in those countries where there are constant attacks on the "problems" in the game from other codes and discussions on things like not enough tries etc etc.

You may find some journos in other countries complaining here and to fill a column, but very little. It's not a constant thread.

There are to some extent issues with smaller crowds (although apparently Heineken Cup this year is back up there) but that is probably a greater economic issue.

Right now Ulster, Leinster, Munster, Ospreys, Leicester, Northampton, Toulouse, Toulon, Clermont, Canterbury, Waikato, Sharks, Stormers and many other fans love their teams and the way they play (Stormers fans are delusional but let's leave it at that).

These fans might complain about their national teams but largely that they suck. Nothing to do with laws except the odd gripe over breakdowns. Every game on the planet has something that fans and the media will complain about.

In other countries there just isn't this constant need for Rugby Union to justify its existence. That is uniquely Australian because of competing big fish in a small pond and a ridiculously petty class divide between two games.
 
exISA

exISA

Fred Wood (13)
Dropping the value of a penalty kick from 3 to 1 will not solve anything. All it will mean is teams will infringe at the ruck even more than now cause they are only giving away 1 point. What needs to happen is, a team can only take a shot at a penalty goal if the penalty is given *within* the 22. The kicker can take the kick from outside the 22 if he wants, but the infringement must happen in the 22. This would stop these 50m shots at goal constantly.
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
exISA said:
Dropping the value of a penalty kick from 3 to 1 will not solve anything. All it will mean is teams will infringe at the ruck even more than now cause they are only giving away 1 point. What needs to happen is, a team can only take a shot at a penalty goal if the penalty is given *within* the 22. The kicker can take the kick from outside the 22 if he wants, but the infringement must happen in the 22. This would stop these 50m shots at goal constantly.
Click to expand...

Or just reintroduce leather footballs.
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Sully said:
I believe there is a bloody good case for leather balls in dry weather

Sent using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Agreed on the dry weather part. That was really the time when leather footballs really caused the game to fall apart because they do become like cakes of soap.

I'd be interested to see how far people like Dan Carter and Frans Steyn could accurately kick a penalty goal with a leather football. I'd be surprised if they could land them from 40m straight in front on a consistent basis.
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
I doubt any changes in the balls would be well received too well considering the uproar over the balls at the world cup which were not great for goal kicking.
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Train Without a Station said:
I doubt any changes in the balls would be well received too well considering the uproar over the balls at the world cup which were not great for goal kicking.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's never going to happen.

It's interesting when technology changes a sport.

To go off on a tangent, I think technology advances are interesting in how they affect sports and sometimes are detrimental.

I think the sport where it has been most detrimental is tennis. Racquet improvement has pretty much removed serve/volleying from the sport which I thought was the most exciting part of tennis. Now you can hit the ball much harder and make returns that would be impossible with an inferior racquet.

Golf has recently started reversing technology advances by making them illegal. There are now limits on the grooves in golf club irons because they were getting so deep that golfers could still get spin out of the rough. It was effectively making smaller courses obselete for top golfers because they could just bomb it long and there was little drawback from playing from the rough.

Cricket bats are now so much more powerful than they used to be (even 10-15 years ago). It has effectively made all cricket grounds much smaller. Whilst it probably makes the game more exciting from a crowd perspective because there are more big hits, it has shifted the balance towards the batsman.
 
liquor box

liquor box

Peter Sullivan (51)
Scoey said:
I have no idea why but I started reading that and the ignorance displayed is simply staggering! Apart from making me physically ill, I am certain I am dumber for the experience of reading that garbage. It reminded me why I don't read FoxSports articles. I swear they get paid a commission for each comment they get on their article. It is always sensational rubbish designed to outrage or cause controversy.
Click to expand...
my understanding is they try as hard as they can to get pages viewed as they can then charge more for advertising, it does not matter on the content, the fact that more people click on the article makes them money. This is why online news sites have so many article headings that are designed to catch your attention.

Instead of having an article that says Quade Cooper likes watching League and thinks its player are skilled, the article would say Quade Cooper clims team mates are not as skilled as League players and guess which game he prefers?

The ultimate versions of this are the gossip style titles on NEWS.com.au which generally include some reference to Brittney Spears, Kate Middleton or lady Ga Ga and the word topless. It is a sure fire hit and makes them a fortune
 
The Red Baron

The Red Baron

Chilla Wilson (44)
Braveheart81 said:
Cricket bats are now so much more powerful than they used to be (even 10-15 years ago). It has effectively made all cricket grounds much smaller. Whilst it probably makes the game more exciting from a crowd perspective because there are more big hits, it has shifted the balance towards the batsman.
Click to expand...

Taking your tangent and running further with it, I was having a very similar conversation with my old man the other day about the merits of certain cricket bats. Both the old man and I have always used a light bat, mainly for strokemaking and the like (although the old bugger is 100 times the cricketer I am!). We both agreed that heavy bats have appeal, and it depends on what the batsmen is comfortable with. I personally find a thick bat quite uncomfortable.

However, getting to your point, you are right. Bats nowadays are thicker but lighter. I couldn't imagine a thick edge heading over the ropes 15 odd years ago like they do regularly now.

Anyway, it is quite interesting how technology changes a sport. I doubt some of the younger players even know what a leather rugby ball looks like!
 
qwerty51

qwerty51

Stirling Mortlock (74)
There's such a simple answer to penalty kicks and drop goals. If the ball goes dead or is grounded in goal from a place or drop kick the oppositions gets a free-kick back at the spot where it was kicked.
 
terry j

terry j

Ron Walden (29)
Sully said:
From the front page guys
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/is...league-a-reply/comment-page-1/#comment-256044
Click to expand...

Just logged in to say 'thank you' to your entry.

I too am bemused by the emphasis on try scoring, yes we love it but it is not essential for enjoyment.

I mean from a RL perspective, that is ALL there is. In any case, all too often in league (not that I have watched much in the last decade) it is a simple line break from ten metres.

Give me the contest.

I recall vaguely on the back page (?) some league guy lamenting over some high scoring SA game (prob cheetahs vs lions or sumthin) which was, dunno, 70 points each (a few years ago) which was bloody exciting and he dismissively said 'poor defense'. Cmon, what way do you want to cut the pie?

Well, you cut the pie in whatever way you need to to make sure 'your sport' comes out on top. And, when all you have at the end of the day for a spectacle is some silly ten metre tries that is what you end up concentrating on.

One thing that occurred to me whilst reading this thread....well we usually grow up with a code. I am from NSW, and went to a public school..what do you think the focus was on? MAYBE, in a summary on the news might have been some results from union. All the emphasis, all the footage was from league.

Slowly, and only really visible on hindsight, I grew dissillusioned with league. I'd 'watch' the state of origin, reading a book or magazine, listening to Roy and Hg to get some sort of interest, only glancing up from the magazine when a try was scored.

Stumbled on a test match of union (in those days you only ever saw the 'important games')...my god! What is THIS. Holy hell, this constant competing for the ball, the tactics.

So I fully endorse the point made in the article, what is needed is EXPOSURE. The last thing we want is to dumb down the game...well you'd end up with league so what is the point?

So rather than one page of union (if we are lucky) in the paper vs fifteen or so of league, and union only available on pay tv (the only reason I have pay tv BTW) we need exposure, we do not need a dumbing down of the game.

I wonder about the 'conversions'. I mean, how many convert from league to union and vice versa? I guess, by definition we would not hear of the 'I grew up with union and found league to be a better game' (they would not be on this forum) but my gut feel is that in terms of intrigue, tactics and 'thinking' it would be pretty well a one way street.

It's a bit like chess vs checkers, or tiddleywinks. A thinking, tactic laden spectacle against a one dimensional predictable borefest. The height of tactical thinking in league? Kick on the FOURTH tackle, that'll fool em!

Of course the 'constant kicking' was one of the things to beat the union game around the head with...till it was enshrined in the rules of league. At least in union it is *our* decision whether to kick, not because if we don't we lamely hand the ball over to the other side.

Anyways, that article mentioned a lot of the pet peeves of mine, thanks.
 
gel

gel

Ken Catchpole (46)
It's not that we aren't scoring tries. It's that we don't look capable of scoring tries.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top