Ideas for NRC 2015

[Braveheart81]

And not all rugby diehards prefer the 3/5/7 points system. It's not just fringe fans and rugby league supporters that don't like to see so many penalty goals in a game of rugby. From all the feedback I read on the facebook pages of teams it seemed to me that the rule changes, and particularly the change in points system, was very well received.

Also, there are many people that don't mind rugby, but hate all the penalty goals. The NRC was practically invisible in 2014 to the general sporting public. I know rugby people that barely heard about it. It will take time and a greater promotional effort to get people to give the competition a go and ultimately to care about it. But taking away a major frustration a lot of people have with the game can only be a positive in my mind.

I'm not convinced that facebook comments are a good thing to follow for direction of the game. I don't think they reflect a certain portion of the fanbase rather than provide a general reflection of the fanbase (much like an internet forum like this one shouldn't be viewed as a general reflection of the fanbase).

As an example, yesterday there was a post from Foxsports or the Wallabies about David Pocock returning and there were heaps of comments about him being reinstated as Wallaby captain. The fact that he only captained one game when we were essentially resting the normal captain and we lost in a boilover (partly due to bad decisions by Pocock) is to me an indication that there isn't a whole lot of knowledge or forethought from many who comment on facebook.

You're basically saying if the NRC didn't generate any revenue then the ARU would have lost money. You could say that about anything. The fact is it did generate enough revenue to cover the costs.

No, what I am saying is that a couple of big supporters of rugby in Australia paid well above the odds to make the competition viable in its first year or two. I don't think that is sustainable and able to be relied upon in the longer term. If those two benefactors didn't come to the party I think the sponsorship/broadcast revenue would have been a fraction of what was received.

 

[Wilson]

I don't think the rule changes really effect the value in selling the comp over seas, at least not significantly. In most cases it will be sold like the itm cup and Currie cup are, relatively cheaply for the buyer but as free money for the seller who don't have to do anything other than send the feed over. I doubt the rule changes negatively impact foreign interest to change this amount. If anything they may help in the sale - a punter in the other side of the world might not care about the fates of some 3rd tier Aussie sides, but seeing how rugby might play under different rules could peak their interest.

 

[Dave Beat]

I'd like to see more games kicking off in the afternoon.
It would improve family attendance.

 

[Braveheart81]

I'd like to see more games kicking off in the afternoon.
It would improve family attendance.

Weren't pretty much all the games except the Thursday night TV game afternoon games?

 

[Highlander35]

I'll admit I was focusing primarily on the Rising games, but weren't nearly all the games afternooners, if they weren't the Thursday ones. Albeit I think the Rays had 3 or 4 Thursdays, which fucked them a little bit.

 

[Dave Beat]

Weren't pretty much all the games except the Thursday night TV game afternoon games?

I saw more night games at Brookie than Arvo games.

 

[Dave Beat]

I'll admit I was focusing primarily on the Rising games, but weren't nearly all the games afternooners, if they weren't the Thursday ones. Albeit I think the Rays had 3 or 4 Thursdays, which fucked them a little bit.

fairly put

 

[Omar Comin']

No, what I am saying is that a couple of big supporters of rugby in Australia paid well above the odds to make the competition viable in its first year or two. I don't think that is sustainable and able to be relied upon in the longer term. If those two benefactors didn't come to the party I think the sponsorship/broadcast revenue would have been a fraction of what was received.

New ventures always require an investment that may take a while to yield a return. You can't sell a product before it exists, what gets sold is the vision. Potential growth is priced into the value. I mean there's a lot of public companies in the world that don't make a cent that have huge market caps. Many of them will fail, some of them will create strong long term returns.

Fox Sports paid $1.5 million for the NRC. This is not a huge sum. Matches involving Australian teams in Super Rugby average about 80,000 viewers. If the NRC can build to a point where matches average at least half that then it will be worth more than $1.5 million. And I don't see that as being impossible in the near future.

 

[Dave Beat]

• Kids rugby games before hand brings family, and mates.
• Playing 5 minute highlights of these games on Foxtel may generate more viewing.

I hate the rugby league footy show, but, i reckon if wives and kids know a boy who is going to be on the wives and kids stay up and watch Da Big Maarn segment.

 

[BDA]

I enjoyed the NRC but like others, as it wore on I became a bit less interested and watched more ITM Cup games than I did NRC games.

BH, this was surely due to the quality of the teams, rather than a result of the law variations. The quality in the first year of the NRC was really hit and miss. Some were shithouse. The good matches were great though. One of the semi final games (cant recall which one) was a thriller. It's a reflection on where Aus rugby is at (as compared to NZ rugby) and why we were/are in desperate need of this third tier. Over time I think we'll see a huge improvement in the consistency and quality of games. But generally I think we are on the right track with minor law changes which promote a faster game with more ball in hand.

 

[Braveheart81]

BH, this was surely due to the quality of the teams, rather than a result of the law variations. The quality in the first year of the NRC was really hit and miss. Some were shithouse. The good matches were great though. One of the semi final games (cant recall which one) was a thriller. It's a reflection on where Aus rugby is at (as compared to NZ rugby) and why we were/are in desperate need of this third tier. Over time I think we'll see a huge improvement in the consistency and quality of games. But generally I think we are on the right track with minor law changes which promote a faster game with more ball in in hand.

I agree. The point I was trying to make that I worded poorly was that in the end the interest or not at least for me, came down to the quality of the rugby rather than the law changes or points scored.

The semi final that was awesome (except that my team lost) was Brisbane City v NSW Country Eagles. Country Eagles had a big break that could have won them the game right at the death. It was a real nail biter.

At the end of the day, I think penalty goals, scrums and any other things that are regularly perceived as boring have little impact on whether a game is exciting or not. It is the quality of the contest and the tension of the match. It's just easy to point the finger at those things when you consider something to not be entertaining.

 

[Scoey]

I presume you are referring to scrum resets? That is a completely separate issue. For the record, I am also not a fan of watching scrum collapses and resets. But my perception was that this wasn't an issue in most NRC matches. And most penalties resulted in a kick for a lineout. Even if the scrums had been more of a problem that's not an argument against the change in points system.

No I wasn't referring to scrum resets. The particular instance that I spoke of, from memory went something like, penalty awarded, kick for touch, lineout, knock on at the back of the lineout immediately blown up, scrum, penalty awarded from the scrum, kick for touch, lineout (not straight), scrum and finally the ball is won and immediately cleared by the defending team with play restarting on half way with a lineout. All of that took 4 and a half minutes from memory. Not one single pass, run or tackle. Just a lot of players wandering around and getting set up for a lineout or scrum.

The thing with the NRC is that there is always going to be a big gap in the range of skill sets in the players. S15 and sometimes Wallaby players running around with a lot of all so rans. Regardless of the laws the game was played under, there was always going to be more gaps, more tries scored and essentially more 'action' for want of a better term. This is plainly evident in the ITM Cup where the same situation exists. Some of the most exciting games you will watch are played in this comp under the normal scoring system.

My points can be summed up as this:
1. You can't attribute the more open and expansive Rugby played in the NRC to a change in the points system as there were more significant factors at play. All the change did was eliminate penalty goal attempts; and
2. The elimination of penalty goals did not automatically translate into more 'rugby being played' regardless of the perception of some viewers. I believe that people were watching a different looking game and were predisposed into thinking that it must be better where often the converse was the case, as in the example I provided above.

 

[Scoey]

And not all rugby diehards prefer the 3/5/7 points system. It's not just fringe fans and rugby league supporters that don't like to see so many penalty goals in a game of rugby. From all the feedback I read on the facebook pages of teams it seemed to me that the rule changes, and particularly the change in points system, was very well received.

Also, there are many people that don't mind rugby, but hate all the penalty goals. The NRC was practically invisible in 2014 to the general sporting public. I know rugby people that barely heard about it. It will take time and a greater promotional effort to get people to give the competition a go and ultimately to care about it. But taking away a major frustration a lot of people have with the game can only be a positive in my mind.

Firstly, we should not be trying to change Rugby to appeal to Rugby League fans. RL fans issues with Union, in my experience, is that it isn't Rugby League. Not the amount of penalties - that is just their current vehicle for their disdain. Get rid of penalties and RL fans will then deride the game for having unlimited tackles etc.
Secondly, feedback garnered from Facebook is generally not representative of the majority of people. So by all means, speak for yourself, but if Facebook comments are your source for general sentiment then try to avoid speaking for the majority fans.

 

[Brendan Hume]

Geez this thread's gotten weird.

To get back to the topic, one idea I'd like to see introduced would be a trans-Tasman match or a SANZAR match between the top NRC and ITM (and maybe Currie) Cup competitions.

As I mentioned in a previous post, the long term benefit of the competition won't be apparent for a while yet, but players being exposed to the next level will bring opportunities to either get into High Performance squads, or pick up contracts in overseas countries to further their development. Limited professional playing opportunities is a huge barrier to keeping talent in the sport.

 

[TOCC]

There is already a thread about rule changes... Take the 'rules' discussions there

 

[BDA]

I think any discussion on how to improve the marketability / viability / popularity of the NRC must include a review of the laws. Surely they go hand in hand.

They are integral to things like:-
1. How to improve the product itself; and
2. How to improve tv ratings by appealing to casual viewers.

 

[TOCC]

Obviously it's relevant, but it's such a broad and complicated topic.. Other people had some good suggestions in here not related to rules but that been buried in the rules debate.. That's why a dedicated thread was made, as to not flood other threads with talk on the issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Omar Comin']

No I wasn't referring to scrum resets. The particular instance that I spoke of, from memory went something like, penalty awarded, kick for touch, lineout, knock on at the back of the lineout immediately blown up, scrum, penalty awarded from the scrum, kick for touch, lineout (not straight), scrum and finally the ball is won and immediately cleared by the defending team with play restarting on half way with a lineout. All of that took 4 and a half minutes from memory. Not one single pass, run or tackle. Just a lot of players wandering around and getting set up for a lineout or scrum.

So play actually restarted about 15 seconds later, but there was a mistake. This is not an argument against reducing penalty goals. Sometimes you also get matches where it goes penalty, penalty goal, kick off, knock on, scrum, penalty, lineout, knock on, scrum etc. A match with lots of errors will be a bad match, regardless of the points system.

The thing with the NRC is that there is always going to be a big gap in the range of skill sets in the players. S15 and sometimes Wallaby players running around with a lot of all so rans. Regardless of the laws the game was played under, there was always going to be more gaps, more tries scored and essentially more 'action' for want of a better term. This is plainly evident in the ITM Cup where the same situation exists. Some of the most exciting games you will watch are played in this comp under the normal scoring system.

I never said you can't get a good, fast and open game under the normal scoring system. You obviously can. But under the current normal scoring system you do get some games where very little rugby gets played, and a hell of a lot of time is spent watching players take shots at goal. With the NRC points system you don't get those games. Playing for penalties becomes a lot less effective. In order to win teams must be able to break down the defence and score tries.

2. The elimination of penalty goals did not automatically translate into more 'rugby being played' regardless of the perception of some viewers. I believe that people were watching a different looking game and were predisposed into thinking that it must be better where often the converse was the case, as in the example I provided above.

Ball in play time was significantly increased compared to super rugby. According to Brett McKay games were regularly pushing 40 minutes ball in play. Super Rugby is generally 30-35 minutes.

Under the normal points system we lose about 10 minutes per match, on average, to penalty goals. Under the NRC points system those 10 minutes get spent on everything else.

 

[Omar Comin']

One idea I'd like to see introduced would be a trans-Tasman match or a SANZAR match between the top NRC and ITM (and maybe Currie) Cup competitions.

Yep, this is a good idea I think and would surely appeal to broadcasters. Just a match between the ITM Cup and NRC champions would be fine.

 

[qwerty51]

The issue for that is when? Players put everything into those finals and celebrate them well. I'm not sure they'd be up for another match.