• 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.

Super Rugby 10's tournament

Status
Not open for further replies.

wamberal

Phil Kearns (64)
There is a Sevens tournament already. Why would any entrepreneur worth the name want to put money into a format which is already being done to death?


I used to love Sevens, since the days in the late seventies when I was living in Hong Kong.


Now I record it, and watch the highlights.

I would certainly watch a lot if there was a stand-alone weekend TEN's tournament comprising the local Soup teams from here and over the ditch.

I reckon a lot of people would, assuming that it is on FTA.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
There is a Sevens tournament already. Why would any entrepreneur worth the name want to put money into a format which is already being done to death?


I used to love Sevens, since the days in the late seventies when I was living in Hong Kong.


Now I record it, and watch the highlights.

I would certainly watch a lot if there was a stand-alone weekend TEN's tournament comprising the local Soup teams from here and over the ditch.

I reckon a lot of people would, assuming that it is on FTA.

Ah, because it's an Olympic sport and it's actually not done to death in Australia.

But we don't need you to watch it, you're already a rugby fan - the only people who will watch 10s are the people who already watch 15s, because "it's more like rugby" with lots of stoppages, scrums, rucks, mauls and lineouts and plenty of referee impact. All the things which you usually rail against.:confused:
 

qwerty51

Stirling Mortlock (74)
10s is too demanding and will require too many forwards who need to have their workloads managed. 7s is perfect: relatively injury free, mainly for backs (where workload is less of an issue) and more of a spectacle for the casual fan.

7s could invite some NRL or AFL players to see how they go, considering it's now an Olympic sport.
 
T

TOCC

Guest
Give the proposal intends to draw on players from super rugby teams, I would prefer to watch a 10's tournament over a 7's..

I don't mind 7's, but it'll never be a sport il sit down all day and watch, rugby 10's on the other hand is something I feel I could watch all day especially if it involved many of the super rugby players, a little bit tighter, a little bit more traditional but still designed to explosive and entertaining.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
You don't have to sit down and watch it all day, in fact if it was 7s it would be on at night in prime time starting at 7 and finishing about 10pm - just like a T20 cricket match. 168 mins playing time and it's all over.

Who other than a rusted on rugby nut would sit and watch 10s all day in summer in Australia?
 
T

TOCC

Guest
It was metaphorically speaking, it's just like how I watch the cricket all day whilst also cleaning the house, having a bbq and whatever else one does during a test match.. Point stands I would personally rather watch a 10's tournament featuring super rugby players then I would a 7's tournament


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
T

TOCC

Guest
This discussion is going nowhere, people oppose the concept, others are impartial and others think it could work out pretty good..

No amount of arguing or presenting hypotheticals is going to sway people the other way so I think it's about time we agree to disagree..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Pfitzy

George Gregan (70)
Money making is great. But is it going to change anything?

The NH lot are perfectly happy with 15 man rugby. That's where the money is for them. So great, 10s.

Aren't we just missing the forest for the trees here? Rugby competes with League as a 15 man game against a 13 man game. OK maybe 10-man, 1-domestic violence specialist, 2 drug-dealer game.

My point stands: the others are just a distraction.

Though it was interesting to read Wayne Smith in the NYT talk about low attendance in NZ and how they need to do something about the whole package, including scrums.
 

wamberal

Phil Kearns (64)
Not sure what your point is, other than to say that our future is in the hands of a bunch of people who do not give a shite for our problems.


It seems pretty inevitable to me that the choice is a simple one. Either the IRB flys in the face of the fogeys of the Home Countries, and makes radical changes both to the laws of the game and the way the game is refereed (which is extremely unlikely), or we, the Kiwis, and the Pacific Nations take matters into our own hands. Argentina would probably join us, and the Saffers would whinge, whine, and prevaricate and join us too.

The game here has to change or die. I have been around long enough to be certain of that, the long, slow, sweep of history cannot be denied.

On the Pulverisation thread I point out how our main rivals are killing us in the media, by the simple strategy of controlling and enhancing exposure of their codes, through the employment of their own media empires. 150 in the case of the AFL. Considering the inbuilt advantages they already have, that is genuinely frightening.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
Money making is great. But is it going to change anything?

The NH lot are perfectly happy with 15 man rugby. That's where the money is for them. So great, 10s.

Aren't we just missing the forest for the trees here? Rugby competes with League as a 15 man game against a 13 man game. OK maybe 10-man, 1-domestic violence specialist, 2 drug-dealer game.

My point stands: the others are just a distraction.

Though it was interesting to read Wayne Smith in the NYT talk about low attendance in NZ and how they need to do something about the whole package, including scrums.

Scrums unfortunately have become a blight on the game, rather than a positive point of difference. At some point in the last 15 years referees (at the behest of administrators ??) have turned scrums from a ball winning contest to a penalty winning contest. NH comentators even talk about scrums earning a penalty as if it's some achievement.

The best of the NH internationals this year was the game which had its first scrum at the 38 minute mark (IRE v SAF I think, but not sure), there was an NZ super match this year which had the same thing. What a great game we have when the 30 players are actually playing it. Note the "Object of the Game" as described in the laws:

The object of the Game is that two teams, each of fifteen players, observing fair play, according to the Laws and in a sporting spirit should, by carrying, passing, kicking and grounding the ball, score as many points as possible.

http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?charter=2

Scrum officianados have been allowed to corrupt the object of the game by skewing the importance of the scrum out of all proportion to its part in the game.
 

wamberal

Phil Kearns (64)
QH,


I disagree that the scrum should be about "winning the ball". A scrum occurs because one side has made an error from which the other side has not gained an advantage.

So the "advantage" is played out as the entitlement to place the ball into the scrum and hook it back. Unfortunately, the potential advantage following the error often becomes an advantage TO the side that made the error in the first place.

That is bollocks of the highest order. The advantage accruing to the side that did not make the original error should be, if not automatic, at least relatively easily converted into good, usable, possession.

At the moment, one can envisage a side like the Dodgers deliberately knocking the ball on so as to get us into a scrum.

If that is not fuckwittery, what is?
 

Brendan Hume

Charlie Fox (21)
QH,


I disagree that the scrum should be about "winning the ball". A scrum occurs because one side has made an error from which the other side has not gained an advantage.

So the "advantage" is played out as the entitlement to place the ball into the scrum and hook it back. Unfortunately, the potential advantage following the error often becomes an advantage TO the side that made the error in the first place.

That is bollocks of the highest order. The advantage accruing to the side that did not make the original error should be, if not automatic, at least relatively easily converted into good, usable, possession.

At the moment, one can envisage a side like the Dodgers deliberately knocking the ball on so as to get us into a scrum.

If that is not fuckwittery, what is?
It's IMO one of the fundamental aspects of the game - the ball is always available in a contest for possession. Ruck, maul, tackle, scrum, line out - each presents their own opportunity for a contest, which is why the game has so many diverse positions. If the Poms are great scrummagers because they pick fat blokes who are shite around the pitch, all praise to them. If it doesn't pay off, the opposition takes an advantage in other aspects.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

I like to watch

David Codey (61)
Good points BH,and unarguable when the game is played in the right spirit.
However in these days of professional/cynical coaching,it not an even contest when refs go into games with pre conceived ideas on the relative strengths of the respective packs.
When I see deliberate illegal binding in scrums that are rewarded with penalties,it sours the game for me.
I don't have a solution, but I don't like it.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
QH,


I disagree that the scrum should be about "winning the ball". A scrum occurs because one side has made an error from which the other side has not gained an advantage.

So the "advantage" is played out as the entitlement to place the ball into the scrum and hook it back. Unfortunately, the potential advantage following the error often becomes an advantage TO the side that made the error in the first place.

That is bollocks of the highest order. The advantage accruing to the side that did not make the original error should be, if not automatic, at least relatively easily converted into good, usable, possession.

At the moment, one can envisage a side like the Dodgers deliberately knocking the ball on so as to get us into a scrum.

If that is not fuckwittery, what is?

According to the laws, (and also how rugby was played for over 100 years), is:

The purpose of the scrum is to restart play quickly, safely and fairly, after a minor infringement or stoppage.

http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?law=20

Nothing more, nothing less. You may disagree, but you've fallen for the trap that the scrum is something more than it was ever meant to be.

The pu
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
It's IMO one of the fundamental aspects of the game - the ball is always available in a contest for possession. Ruck, maul, tackle, scrum, line out - each presents their own opportunity for a contest, which is why the game has so many diverse positions. If the Poms are great scrummagers because they pick fat blokes who are shite around the pitch, all praise to them. If it doesn't pay off, the opposition takes an advantage in other aspects.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How many scrums are actually a 50/50 contest for possession?

Don't most scrums go with the team putting the ball in?

If so, it's not really a contest for possession at all.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
Good points BH,and unarguable when the game is played in the right spirit.
However in these days of professional/cynical coaching,it not an even contest when refs go into games with pre conceived ideas on the relative strengths of the respective packs.
When I see deliberate illegal binding in scrums that are rewarded with penalties,it sours the game for me.
I don't have a solution, but I don't like it.

One solution is that once a team have won possession of the ball, they have to use it and not play for a penalty. It's totally contrary to the spirit of the game.

Deliberately playing for a penalty is not tolerated in any other aspect of the game except the scrum.

Anyone who believes that scrums as conducted at the moment are a 50/50 contest for possession would have received a visit from a gentleman from the North Pole last week and is ticking of the days until the arrival of a rabbit bearing eggs.;)
 

Pfitzy

George Gregan (70)
Not sure what your point is, other than to say that our future is in the hands of a bunch of people who do not give a shite for our problems.


It seems pretty inevitable to me that the choice is a simple one. Either the IRB flys in the face of the fogeys of the Home Countries, and makes radical changes both to the laws of the game and the way the game is refereed (which is extremely unlikely), or we, the Kiwis, and the Pacific Nations take matters into our own hands. Argentina would probably join us, and the Saffers would whinge, whine, and prevaricate and join us too.


No, they absolutely wouldn't.

Let me first make this assumption: you're suggesting that we form some kind of breakaway international competition. There are so many things that are completely decrepit in this line of thinking I barely know where to start.

But let's work our way backwards through your fantasy world:

South Africa has too many ties to European club rugby - up to half its playing squad - to cut that off. It would probably be the straw that breaks that particular camel's back in terms of their part in SANZAR. South African provinces can be huge drawcards in a European competition, where the financial stability of the Super teams can compete with even the richest French club owner.

The time zone fits perfectly for prime time, and the flight time also compares favourably. Its about the same from Jo'burg to Perth as it is to London or Paris. Not to mention that the European broadcasters - paying in pounds or Euro, are going to get very favourable exchanges rates for their end of the deal. And South African rugby suits the 6N style of play down to the ground.

For the same reason - club links - Argentina would baulk at any suggestion they join a breakaway competition that threatens the status of their international players outside a defined World Rugby window. They're not going to bite the hand that feeds, just because the quality of rugby is "better".

New Zealand wouldn't have a pot to piss in once sponsors decided that exposure to 10 million people in a trans-Tasman competition is worth fuck all globally. They are absolutely zero chance of dissolving SANZAR for the same reason Argentina is: its their cash cow. The All Blacks are the only profit-making enterprise and if you take them out of the defined global sphere then their value crashes and it threatens the game in that country.

Remember that NZ sat on its hands and said very little during the Super Rugby expansion talks about Singapore or Japan, because they wanted to see which way the wind blew. South African were vocal about travel times, but NZ didn't care as long as their slice of the pie grew accordingly.

And then of course there is us. I've no doubt that a trans-Tasman + Pasifika system would be of great benefit to us and the Pacific nations. But fuck, if NZ doesn't join (and they wouldn't) who is going to sponsor this pipe dream you've come up with?

What you're essentially suggesting is we create the NRL in rugby form, but without any of the available capital from a small group of broadcast networks who are already invested across several sporting arenas, haemorrhaging money in their current enterprises, and barely interested in the Wallabies as-is.

Having typed that last paragraph, I'm less than surprised, given your well-documented leanings toward the NRL on this forum.

FFS.


Here's what we SHOULD do, from the graduate course I've running at the Pfitzy Institute of Stop Pissing About (PISPA):
  • Put a serious fucking scrum school together
  • Tell all the fucking school systems that they're fucked, and get all the GPS / ISA / CHS / ABC / DoReMi all fucking playing together for schools rugby
  • Tell the 435 fucking Unions that are set up in this fucking country to sort their fucking shit out and start reading from the same fucking playbook
  • Once they do, dissolved about 400 of the fuckers
  • Tell RUPA that if rugby stops, they stop, so they'd better start pulling their fucking head in on player salaries.
  • Put a broom through the ARU management and get someone in there who knows sport
  • Get someone like BarTV to start broadcasting games with suitable commentary
  • Hold over every ***t in the mix the threat of of Government funding withdrawal unless they stop being political arseholes about everything*
  • If players or their agents threaten to go overseas or to the NRL, then fuck it - let them. The game is bigger than that, and there is enough talent to fill the gaps.
There is probably more but the institute only got going this year.


* The irony will be delicious - politicians telling people to stop being political because it turns people into arseholes. It insults both the rugby people and the politicians. I'm a thinker.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top