Ideas for NRC 2015
- Thread starter Hugh Jarse
- Start date
- Status
T
TOCC
Guest
I wouldn't want to see a NRC/ITM final for some time, leave the cross-tasman competition for the Super Rugby and Test teams. ITM Cup teams have had years to establish themselves, they have an entrenched development and representative pathway, they have had coaches and players playing at a higher level for years. I don't think NRC teams would be competitive with the top ITM Cup Teams, give it a few years and it might be different.
There is very little to gain but a lot of respect to lose, i don't see it been a necessary addition to the playing schedule for some time.
There is very little to gain but a lot of respect to lose, i don't see it been a necessary addition to the playing schedule for some time.
Brendan Hume
Charlie Fox (21)
I'd hope that one of our four finalists could match it with an ITM Cup winner. That's the point of the competition. Whether it happened next year or not, I just think it would be interesting and good to see. Maybe if the NRC Champion was flogged it would allow us to review and improve our development pathways.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Dave Beat
Paul McLean (56)
Interesting thought this one - yes one would hope they would - and I'm sure they would. But I'm thinking will it benefit us, and how?
I'd like to see a Japanese side actually fielding a side in the NRC, and bring with it some yen and I think it would also bring added interest in TV rights.
What is Higgers getting paid? Does anyone recall what Dan Carter is going to earn?
With the next RWC being held in JPN i think they like to expose their players to a higher level of rugby.
I believe by building a relationship with Japan it may reduce the players exodus in various ways.
Brendan Hume
Charlie Fox (21)
Agree completely with the relationship with Japan.
The benefit of a trans-Tasman match is probably only publicity and having your next tier exposed to another quality game of footy. And it wouldn't be overly expensive. Get Peter Cosgrove to commission a trophy.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The benefit of a trans-Tasman match is probably only publicity and having your next tier exposed to another quality game of footy. And it wouldn't be overly expensive. Get Peter Cosgrove to commission a trophy.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Scoey
Tony Shaw (54)
I think everyone would hope we could match them but the reality is that at the moment, there is daylight between the NRC and ITM Cup in terms of competition.
If something was to be set up now, I would suggest that the NRC would be at a similar level to the Heartland Championship.
Great idea and it would be popular with the punters but realistically an NRC v ITM Cup game would be a while off and probably not a priority for us at the moment.
Dave Beat
Paul McLean (56)
I agree.
Scoey
Tony Shaw (54)
The (full strength) Rising aren't really representative of the level of skill in the NRC though are they. I would say that the Premiership Teams and most of the Championship teams in the ITM Cup would beat all the NRC (with the exception of the Rising) teams comfortably. The point being that generally speaking, there is a significant gap between the two competitions at the moment, so in the immediate future (2015) any discussion of a cross competition challenge is probably a bit premature.
HighPlainsDrifter
Jimmy Flynn (14)
I think that (the Rebels trio absence) was the great unsaid of the NRC Comp ....But having said that the other teams were shaping up well towards the end and well done to Brisbane City .... the excitement of the players to win further validated the competition for me .
Highlander35
Andrew Slack (58)
Bluntly, everybody contracted for a Super Rugby season should be playing in the respective NRC, as the kiwis do.
An additional 15 or so professional players in the comp would certainly have further improved the standard.
An additional 15 or so professional players in the comp would certainly have further improved the standard.
Eyes and Ears
Bob Davidson (42)
Average ball in play for the NRC was 34:25. There was only 1 game above 38 minutes. Be careful what you read. IMO, the increased ball in play time did not justify the significant increase in PKs and the huge increase in yellow cards compared with both Super Rugby and Premier Club Rugby.
Interesting in the Asian Cup (football), the AFC (Asian Football Confederation) are promoting "Don't Delay, Play. 60". Basically it was an encouragement from the head of the tournament (kind of SANZAR) for the teams to stopping delaying the game by certain tactics, and aim for 60 minutes of ball in game time (apparently this tournament is traditionally 8 or so minutes less of game time than the World Cup, or most international friendlies).
Not sure how successful will be as a strategy, but its interesting signage to see at all the games.
Omar Comin'
Chilla Wilson (44)
Well I was just going by what Brett McKay wrote on the Roar. How do you have this figure? And what is the average in Super Rugby and Club rugby?
IMO the justification is not just in added ball in play, but more action inside the 22's. At least that is my impression. Would be good to see a comparison of that, i.e. time the ball is inside the 22's NRC vs Super Rugby vs test rugby. And extra time in the 22's might be the main reason for the increase in penalties and yellow cards. More detailed statistical analysis would have to be undertaken.
The increase in penalties wasn't even noticeable IMO. It's like in 7's. You get a lot of penalties (a lot more penalties per minute than any 15's game), but as they tap and go or kick for touch it doesn't really grate like a penalty leading to a penalty goal where everything just stops for a couple of minutes before play goes back to neutral territory. I'd rather see 25 penalties and a yellow card with no penalty goals than 20 penalties, 5 penalty goals and no yellow card.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
The time taken with scrums, and the ensuing time that the ball is out of play, far outweighs the time lost through penalty kicks. And when the scrum turns into a penalty it's even worse - often we get another scrum or a penalty goal.
World rugby making penalty goals drop kicks rather than place kicks would speed things up, as would the removal of the scrum option at PK and FK. I don't advocate these changes in NRC though without universal change.
World rugby making penalty goals drop kicks rather than place kicks would speed things up, as would the removal of the scrum option at PK and FK. I don't advocate these changes in NRC though without universal change.
Omar Comin'
Chilla Wilson (44)
It's not that much more. These stats are from Super Rugby in 2012, but the average amount of time spent on penalty goals was 10.55 minutes. Average time spent setting scrums was 13.49.
T
TOCC
Guest
Are you saying the rule changes lead to an increase in the number of scrums, is this represented statistically?
Given scrummaging is the achilles heel of the wallabies i would have thought the more scrummaging the better.
Omar Comin'
Chilla Wilson (44)
Would mean games could go a lot longer. Plus I guess it would make it even easier for teams to slow down play and get a breather. Rugby has become more and more of a power game as it is.
I'm with Qwerty and think that the simplest solution is just to stop the clock when kicks at goal are being taken or when the scrum resets. It will add a bit of time to each game but shouldn't be anything dramatic. In Super Rugby for example, there's enough time between the back to back matches that it shouldn't stuff around the broadcaster with their scheduling.
I still think pointing the finger at scrums and penalty goals as being the reason rugby is 'boring' is just an easy target rather than being an accurate portrayal of what makes a game less interesting.
Refereeing in such a way that the attacking team is favoured at the breakdown is important to encourage ball in hand rugby and I think that has happened well in the last few years.
At the end of the day it mostly comes down to skill execution and positive intent. Nothing is more frustrating than constant dropped balls or botched lineouts etc. It's all well and good to kick for the corner from a penalty but then when the lineout gets stuffed up it is a big negative in terms of the quality of a game.
I still think pointing the finger at scrums and penalty goals as being the reason rugby is 'boring' is just an easy target rather than being an accurate portrayal of what makes a game less interesting.
Refereeing in such a way that the attacking team is favoured at the breakdown is important to encourage ball in hand rugby and I think that has happened well in the last few years.
At the end of the day it mostly comes down to skill execution and positive intent. Nothing is more frustrating than constant dropped balls or botched lineouts etc. It's all well and good to kick for the corner from a penalty but then when the lineout gets stuffed up it is a big negative in terms of the quality of a game.
- Status