NRC Law Variations - have your say

[Omar Comin']

The thing that annoys me about these discussions is that people who want drastic changes to the rules harp on about rugby being the 4th most popular sport here and Australian spectators don't enjoy the game as it is etc etc.

Well, just go and make your own game that you think will excite your fellow Australians and maybe a few other people around the globe and play that..you've already got 2 of those. But please leave this game free of the majority of your rule changes.. this is rugby and most of the rugby world quite like it.

I'd bet you a billion monopoly dollars that rugby would be bigger everywhere in the world if kick the ball away and force penalties style rugby was not an effective way of playing the game.

You might be disappointed when it's announced the NRC will involve rules designed to reduce penalty goals and time wasting, while promoting enterprising attacking play.

Braveheart, people do develop interest in new sports and lose interest in others. Rugby has without any doubt lost interest in Australia over the last 10 years. Core fans have become fringe fans, fringe fans have stopped watching. If people aren't entertained consistently they switch off.

Rugby needs to broaden its supporter base in Australia, not just appease the core. But hey, the core are also frustrated by penalty goals and negative tactics. Just look on the Wallabies Facebook page and have a read of the comments responding to the ARU's call for law suggestions.

 

[Bullrush]

The RWC is the 3rd biggest sporting event on the planet....I don't knw that rugby will ever be bigger than soccer or the Olympics!

Especially when one of those events has score lines of 2-3 and you can only score by kicking the ball between two posts.....wait a min....


Sent from my iPhone

 

[Omar Comin']

The RWC is the 3rd biggest sporting event on the planet..I don't knw that rugby will ever be bigger than soccer or the Olympics!

The RWC isn't really the 3rd biggest sporting event on the planet. But even if it was it's still got a large runway of growth ahead of it. Just imagine how much bigger it might be if instead of having a snorefest final like in 2007, the finals regularly featured the sort of rugby we saw in the 2000 Bledisloe, the 2009 Lions series or last year's final South Africa v NZ test.

 

[Bullrush]

The RWC isn't really the 3rd biggest sporting event on the planet. But even if it was it's still got a large runway of growth ahead of it. Just imagine how much bigger it might be if instead of having a snorefest final like in 2007, the finals regularly featured the sort of rugby we saw in the 2000 Bledisloe, the 2009 Lions series or last year's final South Africa v NZ test.

It's not because you say so?? Officially, it is.

Every sport has boring games just like boxing regularly has boring fights....people still love it.

Hell, if you asked me, one of the most boring sports in the world is soccer yet it's the biggest game on the planet. You know soccer?! That game where the aim is to kick a ball between two posts?!

What is it u don't like about rugby again??


Sent from my iPhon

 

[Omar Comin']

It's not because you say so?? Officially, it is.

Every sport has boring games just like boxing regularly has boring fights..people still love it.

Hell, if you asked me, one of the most boring sports in the world is soccer yet it's the biggest game on the planet. You know soccer?! That game where the aim is to kick a ball between two posts?!

What is it u don't like about rugby again??

Officially? What official body ranks the size of sporting events? The IRB have carefully selected statistics that would rank the RWC as the 3rd biggest non-annual sporting event in the world. Though I don't think there's many statistics that would put the RWC ahead of the European Cup in soccer. The cricket world cup would also destroy rugby for global television ratings for obvious reasons. If you include annual sporting events then the Super Bowl, tennis grand slams, NBA finals series, European Champions League etc are bigger events by many global commercial and popularity measures. Don't forget rugby is a minor or almost non-existent sport in North America, South America, Asia, most of Europe and most of Africa.

Every sport does have boring games. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to limit them. Professional sport is in the entertainment business. Bad games should only occur from poor execution or a mismatch...not because two teams are afraid to use the ball.

And yeah there's a big difference between kicking the ball between the posts in soccer and in rugby from a penalty goal. One results in screams of joy or despair, the other results in polite clapping. Tries are the rugby equivalent of goals in soccer, and you know that. I also haven't said I want to get rid of goal kicking. Just penalty goals.

Soccer is a game where the ball goes end to end throughout the match, is highly skilful and is simple to understand. It's also spread to all parts of the world over the last 100+ years and become part of the culture of many countries. There are very few countries where rugby is part of the culture. But perhaps it can become part of the culture in more countries in the future.

That will only happen if people find it fun and consistently enjoyable to play and watch. It's always fun to play, and it's often fun to watch. But the type of games people generally like to watch could be more frequent with some simple rule changes. And the types of games that people really don't enjoy could be reduced or even eliminated entirely. I am talking about kick the ball away and force penalties style rugby. I'm not trying to suggest we create rugby league II where teams don't contest for the ball and every team plays the same way.

 

[Bullrush]

So many things I want to point out in your post but just can't be bothered.......as I said, this is rugby and most of the rugby world like it. We don't have some kind of identity crisis where we''re trying to be more popular than someone else. We're good as we are thanks.

BTW

I'd bet you a billion monopoly dollars that rugby would be bigger everywhere in the world if kick the ball away and force penalties style rugby was not an effective way of playing the game.

The Chiefs and the AB's have already shown that there is a more effective way to play (and win) then kicking the ball away and forcing penalties. It's up to teams and coaches on how they want to play.

 

[Omar Comin']

Well personally I would like to see the rugby world become much bigger. And I'd like to see rugby in Australia become much bigger. I think it has a huge amount of untapped potential. I don't get you guys in the 'don't touch it, it's fine as it is' camp. Sure it is fine and at it's best rugby is amazing. I love the game. But it could be better and there's no harm in trialling some changes in a competition like the NRC. If a new rule doesn't work then it can be scrapped. Plus, trying new law variations will add an element of intrigue to the competition which will help boost the interest in it.

Agreed that teams and coaches should decide how to play. And there should be multiple ways how to play. Kicking the ball away and forcing penalties to receive a near automatic 3 points each time just shouldn't be one of them.

I don't mind that you and others here disagree with me. Everyone's entitled to their opinion. But the NRC will involve law variations to promote more consistent attacking style rugby. It's going to happen. And it will very likely include some sort of reduction in the impact and frequency of penalty goals. I look forward to it.

 

[Pusser]

Well personally I would like to see the rugby world become much bigger. And I'd like to see rugby in Australia become much bigger. I think it has a huge amount of untapped potential. I don't get you guys in the 'don't touch it, it's fine as it is' camp. Sure it is fine and at it's best rugby is amazing. I love the game. But it could be better and there's no harm in trialling some changes in a competition like the NRC. If a new rule doesn't work then it can be scrapped. Plus, trying new law variations will add an element of intrigue to the competition which will help boost the interest in it.

Agreed that teams and coaches should decide how to play. And there should be multiple ways how to play. Kicking the ball away and forcing penalties to receive a near automatic 3 points each time just shouldn't be one of them.

I don't mind that you and others here disagree with me. Everyone's entitled to their opinion. But the NRC will involve law variations to promote more consistent attacking style rugby. It's going to happen. And it will very likely include some sort of reduction in the impact and frequency of penalty goals. I look forward to it.

It won't become bigger in Australia if Australia keeps losing which we surely will if we discourage the development of decent kicking skills. We still struggle to select a reliable kicker in our best 23 and we don't seem to be able to produce kickers in the class as NZ, South Africa or England. The chiefs and the Hurricanes not only play running rugby but have punishing kickers. By all means promote laws that encourage speeding up the set plays but don't develop rules which desk I'll our players in rugby as played in the rest of the world. They are not going to change because they seem to have kickers.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Omar Comin']

It won't become bigger in Australia if Australia keeps losing which we surely will if we discourage the development of decent kicking skills. We still struggle to select a reliable kicker in our best 23 and we don't seem to be able to produce kickers in the class as NZ, South Africa or England. The chiefs and the Hurricanes not only play running rugby but have punishing kickers. By all means promote laws that encourage speeding up the set plays but don't develop rules which desk I'll our players in rugby as played in the rest of the world. They are not going to change because they seem to have kickers.

The fact the popularity of rugby in Australia is so reliant on the Wallabies is another problem. It won't become sustainably bigger while that is the case. But I digress.

I don't think 8 games with less or no penalty goals (or drop kicks instead of place kicks) is going to destroy players goal kicking abilities. Perhaps with greater emphasis on attacking rugby and no penalty goals our players would become more skilful, fitter and technically better at the breakdown than players from anywhere else. That would be a much bigger advantage for Australian rugby.

The other thing is if changes we make work spectacularly well at NRC level it will create much more impetus for change at SANZAR and IRB level.

 

[Pusser]

The other thing is if changes we make work spectacularly well at NRC level it will create much more impetus for change at SANZAR and IRB level.

You might be right but I don't see why the other countries would follow our lead seeing that they have no need to make their rugby more attractive and their kicking makes it more attractive to have penalties. I can't see SA wanting to surrender their advantage, NZ Seems to combine flowing rugby and good kicking and would not want to surrender and the Northern hemisphere thrives on scrum penalties.

Personally I don't think taking penalties is an issue. It is the constant scrum resets, the rolling maul and the excessive referrals to the video because refs are scarred of making a mistake. Limit how many replays can be made by the ref and ban Fox from showing more than the Video ref. If it appears to be a try no need to over analyse it by slow mo after slow mo for millimetre accuracy.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Omar Comin']

You might be right but I don't see why the other countries would follow our lead seeing that they have no need to make their rugby more attractive.

I think it's in the interests of all professional rugby organisations and unions for rugby to be more consistently entertaining. They all want to grow.

 

[Scoey]

Your view on penalty goals and what constitutes entertainment is quite insular I have to say. As plenty of others have said, most of the major Unions would not be supportive of a change that removes penalty goals.
The conditions of a lot of the NH games are played in dictate that kicking for points is fairly important and removing the option wouldn't suddenly result in open running rugby. Also, a lot of NH supporters think that games that have score lines that go up in threes are thrilling.

I get that in Australia there is an element of the supporter base that want to see more tries and less penalty goals but in my view this element would be in the minority. Here's some homework for you. Go and watch the Reds vs Brumbies game at Suncorp in 2013. This is a good example of what happens when you remove the option for penalty kicks. One of the most frustrating games I have ever watched. The result was not running rugby, the result was not an increase in tries, the result was loads of cynical play, two yellow cards and a lot of yelling and swearing at a TV at my house and one of the least enjoyable Rugby experiences of my life.

 

[Braveheart81]

It would seem to me that in most sports, the amount of points scored isn't the determinant of what makes a good game.

Good sport is about intent and execution. Across every sporting code, teams play with wildly different styles but there is a common theme that teams that play in a positive style and execute their skills well are the best to watch.

I agree that 8 NRC games with less goal kicking isn't going to ruin goal kicking in Australia, but there also needs to be careful consideration that the NRC needs to provide good rugby that appeals to the diehard fans (because that is the audience that will be watching). A big requirement of the NRC is that it survives and thrives. It can't afford to alienate fans in the first year.

 

[Braveheart81]

The fact the popularity of rugby in Australia is so reliant on the Wallabies is another problem. It won't become sustainably bigger while that is the case. But I digress.

The pinnacle of every sport is what attracts the casual fans. In Australian rugby, that is the Wallabies.

I don't think it's a worry for Rugby League that their biggest event is the State of Origin?

 

[Omar Comin']

The pinnacle of every sport is what attracts the casual fans. In Australian rugby, that is the Wallabies.

I don't think it's a worry for Rugby League that their biggest event is the State of Origin?

The state of origin is like the icing on the cake for rugby league. The actual cake is the NRL. Over a million people watch it every weekend for something like 30 weeks of the year. Most of those weeks contain 7 or 8 games. Without state of origin rugby league would still be massive because it provides so much weekly content that many people are invested in.

Without the Wallabies rugby would struggle to exist as a professional sport. And the Wallabies are 1 team that play 6 home tests a year. Sure, if they go through the next 10 years winning the Bledisloe 7 times, a world cup or two and achieve an overall 80% win rate playing attractive rugby then all will be great. But I don't think you can have that as your strategy for growing the sport.

Soccer used to be the same. Now the socceroos are their icing on the cake and the A League is killing it. Even cricket is diversifying from its national team with the Big Bash. At least rugby is now doing something with the NRC. Given the uncertainties around the future of super rugby it's so critical that it's a success, which is why trialling innovative rule changes to make the games consistently entertaining is a good thing in my opinion.

I'd also really like to see a domestic sevens series in the summer. Sevens has been an opportunity missed so far in Australia.

 

[Omar Comin']

Go and watch the Reds vs Brumbies game at Suncorp in 2013. This is a good example of what happens when you remove the option for penalty kicks. One of the most frustrating games I have ever watched. The result was not running rugby, the result was not an increase in tries, the result was loads of cynical play, two yellow cards and a lot of yelling and swearing at a TV at my house and one of the least enjoyable Rugby experiences of my life.

The Brumbies kicked 4 penalty goals in that game and missed 2 others. Sounds like a good example of a game where one team kicks penalty goals and the other team doesn't.

Not an example of a game where neither team can kick penalty goals. The Reds scored 3 tries to 1 and drew. That would frustrate me too.

Referees should just be very harsh on cynical (intentional) penalties with yellow cards. Cynically killing the ball by diving into the ruck or lying all over the ball when the other team is hot on attack is a professional foul and should be a yellow card without any warnings.

The problem is now if someone cynically kills the ball in that situation the team gets about 3 or 4 chances to do it again before someone gets carded. The other team kicks 3 points and the same situation might not occur again for several minutes. After maybe the 3rd penalty the referee might give a yellow card warning and on the 4th there might be a yellow card. Then the count starts all over again.

 

[Dan54]

I think everyone has to remember, whatever laws are used in NRC still have to be allowed by IRB. To be honest if the laws are used where where there are no penalties or a hell of a lot less, and more yellow cards are used, stick it up your jacksie, I don't want to end up watching 13 against 12 in a rugby game. I doubt whether there will be very little changes, well I hope so as I would like to get interested in the comp, and won't if it's not rugby being played!!

 

[Omar Comin']

You would never get 13 vs 12 because teams wouldn't want to get yellow cards so wouldn't cynically kill the ball in their own 22. They do so now because they're likely to concede only 3 points and then kick the ball down the other end of the field.

The IRB allowed the Varsity Cup in South Africa to trial 3 points for conversions, 2 points for penalty goals, 2 referees on the field, special grips on the side of prop jerseys and the ability to call marks in any part of the field.

The NRC wouldn't involve anything more radical than that and so I doubt the IRB will get in the way.

 

[Scoey]

The Brumbies kicked 4 penalty goals in that game and missed 2 others. Sounds like a good example of a game where one team kicks penalty goals and the other team doesn't.

Not an example of a game where neither team can kick penalty goals. The Reds scored 3 tries to 1 and drew. That would frustrate me too.

Referees should just be very harsh on cynical (intentional) penalties with yellow cards. Cynically killing the ball by diving into the ruck or lying all over the ball when the other team is hot on attack is a professional foul and should be a yellow card without any warnings.

The problem is now if someone cynically kills the ball in that situation the team gets about 3 or 4 chances to do it again before someone gets carded. The other team kicks 3 points and the same situation might not occur again for several minutes. After maybe the 3rd penalty the referee might give a yellow card warning and on the 4th there might be a yellow card. Then the count starts all over again.

Did you watch the game? The reds turned down countless shots at goal which would be in essence the same result if penalty goals were removed from the game. It was so obvious that the Brumbies almost infringed at will and backed their defence to hold the Reds out knowing that if they infringed they wouldn't concede 3 points. This resulted in very ugly Rugby. The ref issued two yellow cards but this did not have a material effect on the game. The infringing continued because the Brumbies knew that the Reds singleminded plan was to not take 3 points.

This would be a very common outcome should the option for penalty goals be removed.

You would never get 13 vs 12 because teams wouldn't want to get yellow cards so wouldn't cynically kill the ball in their own 22. They do so now because they're likely to concede only 3 points and then kick the ball down the other end of the field.

At first I thought this was a joke but then I realised that you were serious. It is so naive that it's not funny.
Again going to the Brumbies v Reds game as an example, the ref did issue yellow cards but the cynical play did not stop. Teams do choose to be cynical and if they do then you will have games that are 13 v 12. Your statement is just wrong.

As others that have said earlier, there are plenty of beautiful games of Rugby played under the current laws. The fact that there are games played that are less than beautiful says more about the teams involved than it does about the laws of the game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Omar Comin']

Did you watch the game? The reds turned down countless shots at goal which would be in essence the same result if penalty goals were removed from the game. It was so obvious that the Brumbies almost infringed at will and backed their defence to hold the Reds out knowing that if they infringed they wouldn't concede 3 points. This resulted in very ugly Rugby. The ref issued two yellow cards but this did not have a material effect on the game. The infringing continued because the Brumbies knew that the Reds singleminded plan was to not take 3 points.

This would be a very common outcome should the option for penalty goals be removed.

First of all, using one game, where you have a biased viewpoint is not enough to make overall conclusions.

You also assume that if the Reds had been kicking penalty goals the Brumbies would have played differently. Have you watched the Brumbies the last 2 years? That's how they always defend when the other team is hot on attack. Usually teams just kick the 3 points, and then the Brumbies have a chance to change the momentum around, and play the ball down the other end where they want it.

Secondly, they kept infringing because it currently takes a number of cynical penalties to be awarded a yellow card. Once there is a yellow card it takes another 3 or 4 for another one. If it didn't, and if they knew that it didn't, they wouldn't intentionally infringe because the chances of a yellow card would be extremely high. Teams learn quickly.

You speak as if the Reds lost the game easily. They drew the game. And they scored 3 tries to 1. In a game without penalty goals and quicker use of yellow cards for cynical play they would have won the game if the Brumbies had played the same way. Actually they probably would have won very easily because the Brumbies would have lost players to the bin sooner.

At first I thought this was a joke but then I realised that you were serious. It is so naive that it's not funny.
Again going to the Brumbies v Reds game as an example, the ref did issue yellow cards but the cynical play did not stop. Teams do choose to be cynical and if they do then you will have games that are 13 v 12. Your statement is just wrong.

You're just not thinking it through. It's the legitimate threat of 13 or 12 players that will stop the cynical infringements when the other team is hot on attack. It doesn't happen now because the threat doesn't really exist. As said, it takes a few penalties and a warning or two before a referee will issue a card. If it took one cynical infringement to be issued a card then teams wouldn't defend like the Brumbies did that night.