Australian Rugby / RA

[Finsbury Girl]

But perhaps some rule changes may sway some League people.



Lets say RA said all U18 rugby is to be played under the rules played at the the recent U20 world cup.



Principally no contact above the nipple line. And the tackler must bend at the waste.



These rules are aimed to make the sport safer and reduce injuries.



We are beginning to differentiate our game (vs League) and make it more appealing to mothers and parents and schools who are concerned about player welfare. We get more people playing the game, and growth leads to stronger grass roots clubs, more interest in the game etc

Couldn't give two shits attracting mungos to the game. They already have a dumbed down version of football to watch. Why should we change the laws to pander to non rugby fans?

Ditto GRR nonsense. Apart from what Cyclo is saying re the application of the laws, the game is fine, if you don't like it find another sport.

Seems every 5 mins we have someone saying more tries = better games. What absolute nonsense.

 

[Finsbury Girl]

We've also got the best credentialed Wallaby coaching team assembled in the professional era.



Maybe Castle was part of the solution and not the problem?

Er what? You're having a giraffe.

 

[Slim 293]

Er what? You're having a giraffe.

How so?

 

[wamberal]

How so?

It is a well-known fact that Rugby Australia has NEVER done anything good.

 

[Slim 293]

It is a well-known fact that Rugby Australia has NEVER done anything good.

Not signing Latrell Mitchell was another Castle failure.........

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

BH, do you see it as a problem if we have 5 teams playing regularly against NZ's five? I'm just wondering if one of the drawbacks of a TT comp is that it might restrict us to 3-4 teams max to be sufficiently competitive because of our lack of depth.

The real solution to this would be for NZR to pick test players from non-NZ teams, but it's always been in their best interests not to. What are your thoughts on this?

I've asked it before but I'll ask it again:

Other than the very top players (e.g. Beaugan, Lurch) who can command marquee player mega-bucks, why do people think anyone else in or close to the AB setup would want to play for an Aus side esp one that's not travelling so well? And....

If the answer is "not many/ if any", what then?

 

[KOB1987]

Not signing Latrell Mitchell was another Castle failure...

whilst this isn't a dig at her, if she had to put that on her CV she'd be struggling for achievements. The bloke wasn't re-signed and couldn't get a gig at any NRL club despite being a SOO player and in the previous season's premiership side. Logic would suggest his issues were widely known.

 

[KOB1987]

I've asked it before but I'll ask it again:

Other than the very top players (e.g. Beaugan, Lurch) who can command marquee player mega-bucks, why do people think anyone else in or close to the AB setup would want to play for an Aus side esp one that's not travelling so well? And..

If the answer is "not many/ if any", what then?

View attachment 11444

In the existing format where you have to play for a NZ side to get selected for the All Blacks, then none. But Joe's context is that they are opening the boundaries up so to speak so that any player can get selected for national duties from within the competition, like the NRL do with SOO as an example. I'm not advocating for it though, I'd rather Aussies play for Aussie teams and NZers play for their own too.

 

[Derpus]

I've asked it before but I'll ask it again:

Other than the very top players (e.g. Beaugan, Lurch) who can command marquee player mega-bucks, why do people think anyone else in or close to the AB setup would want to play for an Aus side esp one that's not travelling so well? And..

If the answer is "not many/ if any", what then?

Hah i see wot you did

 

[wamberal]

whilst this isn't a dig at her, if she had to put that on her CV she'd be struggling for achievements. The bloke wasn't re-signed and couldn't get a gig at any NRL club despite being a SOO player and in the previous season's premiership side. Logic would suggest his issues were widely known.

I think that was tongue-in-cheek. Signing Latrell Mitchell? It is impossible for me to think of a worse signing. With all due respect to Latrell, of course. But I think he is much better suited to the other code.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

In the existing format where you have to play for a NZ side to get selected for the All Blacks, then none. But Joe's context is that they are opening the boundaries up so to speak so that any player can get selected for national duties from within the competition, like the NRL do with SOO as an example. I'm not advocating for it though, I'd rather Aussies play for Aussie teams and NZers play for their own too.

What Joe actually wrote, and several others have written variations of, was "The real solution to this would be for NZR to pick test players from non-NZ teams, but it's always been in their best interests not to......"

Note I'm not having a crack at Joe, or anyone else who's made the same suggestion over what is now quite a long period of time. I just find it really strange that anyone would think that opening up AB eligibility to guys playing for non-NZ teams is some kind of solution to the current actual or perceived imbalance in strength between NZ & Aus sides.

So again my questions are: if NZR were to open AB eligibility up to guys playing for non-NZ sides why would anyone other than those in the marquee player class (of which I'd suggest there's about six or eight, tops) want to? And if none or only a handful, what's Plan B? Because it seems to me it has to be either paying ridiculous amounts of money for journeyman players, in which case your teams likely don't improve that much but go bankrupt in the attempt, or some kind of forced draft which is IMO unworkable & probably unlawful.

 

[Derpus]

What Joe actually wrote, and several others have written variations of, was "The real solution to this would be for NZR to pick test players from non-NZ teams, but it's always been in their best interests not to.."

Note I'm not having a crack at Joe, or anyone else who's made the same suggestion over what is now quite a long period of time. I just find it really strange that anyone would think that opening up AB eligibility to guys playing for non-NZ teams is some kind of solution to the current actual or perceived imbalance in strength between NZ & Aus sides.

So again my questions are: if NZR were to open AB eligibility up to guys playing for non-NZ sides why would anyone other than those in the marquee player class (of which I'd suggest there's about six or eight, tops) want to? And if none or only a handful, what's Plan B? Because it seems to me it has to be either paying ridiculous amounts of money for journeyman players, in which case your teams likely don't improve that much but go bankrupt in the attempt, or some kind of forced draft which is IMO unworkable & probably unlawful.

No All Black would want to play outside of NZ but it's possible players looking to 'make it' who aren't in the frame would go abroad as there is less competition - which would assist with depth.

Not advocating for it - just spitballing.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

No All Black would want to play outside of NZ but it's possible players looking to 'make it' who aren't in the frame would go abroad as there is less competition.....

By "less competition" I assume you mean home-grown competition? So if, say, Boshier gets a gig with 'tahs what does e.g. Hanigan do?

.....which would assist with depth.....

Who's depth? NZ's? Yours? Both?

EDIT: paying a Beaugan or a Mo'unga stupid amounts of money might give you some short-term gain results-wise & if you're lucky bums-on-seats- & memberships/ merch-wise, but long-term the Beaugan or Mo'unga is the only winner & once they've gone you guys are likely back to here you were.

Apologies for hijacking the thread, this probably belongs on Where To For Super Rugby? but I can't reply to one thread in another. But if the thread fairies can dump the last few posts into that one......

 

[KOB1987]

By "less competition" I assume you mean home-grown competition? So if, say, Boshier gets a gig with 'tahs what does e.g. Hanigan do?



Who's depth? NZ's? Yours? Both?

EDIT: paying a Beaugan or a Mo'unga stupid amounts of money might give you some short-term gain results-wise & if you're lucky bums-on-seats- & memberships/ merch-wise, but long-term the Beaugan or Mo'unga is the only winner & once they've gone you guys are likely back to here you were.

Apologies for hijacking the thread, this probably belongs on Where To For Super Rugby? but I can't reply to one thread in another. But if the thread fairies can dump the last few posts into that one..

TBH, in that example, although you’ll never admit it, Boshier and Hanigan are probably on par with each other. I’d give Boshier the edge but both are great Supe players hoping to take the next step. If they’re pitted against each other, then yes it helps with depth. You’re arrogantly making the assumption that the Kiwi player is always better.

 

[Dismal Pillock]

TBH, in that example, although you’ll never admit it, Boshier and Hanigan are probably on par with each other. I’d give Boshier the edge but both are great Supe players hoping to take the next step. If they’re pitted against each other, then yes it helps with depth. You’re arrogantly making the assumption that the Kiwi player is always better.

I'll have what you're smoking mate cos Ned Flanders Hanigan is not on the same fucken planet as Lachlan Boshier

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

TBH, in that example, although you’ll never admit it, Boshier and Hanigan are probably on par with each other.....

Absolutely, that's why I chose them.

?...I’d give Boshier the edge but both are great Supe players hoping to take the next step. If they’re pitted against each other, then yes it helps with depth....

Who's?

?....You’re arrogantly making the assumption that the Kiwi player is always better.

No, I'm not. I said "IF, say, Boshier...." were to get the gig ahead of Hanigan, nowhere did I say that in a either/ or scenario Boshier WOULD, much less SHOULD, get the gig.

If anyone wants to address the actual questions........

 

[KOB1987]

I'll have what you're smoking mate cos Ned Flanders Hanigan is not on the same fucken planet as Lachlan Boshier

Boshier is a great ball runner but he’s a klutz and a penalty magnet. Anyway, that’s for another thread.

 

[Quick Hands]

It is a well-known fact that Rugby Australia has NEVER done anything good.

A comment which NOBODY except for you has ever made. It's one of your old faithful posts when you can no longer argue the case you are making at the time.

 

[KOB1987]

Absolutely, that's why I chose them.



Who's?



No, I'm not. I said "IF, say, Boshier.." were to get the gig ahead of Hanigan, nowhere did I say that in a either/ or scenario Boshier WOULD, much less SHOULD, get the gig.

If anyone wants to address the actual questions....

Probably the only failing with using them as an example is that Boshier is a cemented on starter whereas Ned hasn’t played a minute of footy yet. However, say it was Pete Samu v Boshier. It’s probably unlikely that a club would use their cap on both, but of course that helps with depth, both ways.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^

"If anyone wants to address the actual questions...."

1. Why would e.g. Boshier WANT to play for NSW?
2. What if he DOESN'T want to?