Broadcast options for Australian Rugby

[dru]

@WCR All I'm saying is it does not have my interest.

I thought 7s was a wonderful tool at entry level school age and starting involvement with Women's rugby, but from there it is a mis-appropriation of valuable funding in my eyes. The bling of a concentrated weekend eg in Hong Kong - I could understand the appeal but it wasn't for me. I have a passing interest at the Olympics (but I don't watch it, prefer even the diving). 10's I did watch that one where it was contained in pre-season in Brisbane but it's a one off and I doubt I'll repeat it.

If they try to divert efforts toward a domestic competition to reduced numbers bastardisation of rugby, this will not have my support - whatever World Rugby are playing at. Possibly keep an eye on developing Red talent for the coming actual rugby season. Noting that this "season" is still silly 5 team TT with an unsupportive NZ. And apparently a death-knell for a domestic rugby comp. This is not a recipe to keep my interest. Not at all.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

@WCR All I'm saying is it does not have my interest.

I thought 7s was a wonderful tool at entry level school age and starting involvement with Women's rugby, but from there it is a mis-appropriation of valuable funding in my eyes. The bling of a concentrated weekend eg in Hong Kong - I could understand the appeal but it wasn't for me. I have a passing interest at the Olympics (but I don't watch it, prefer even the diving). 10's I did watch that one where it was contained in pre-season in Brisbane but it's a one off and I doubt I'll repeat it.

If they try to divert efforts toward a domestic competition to reduced numbers bastardisation of rugby, this will not have my support - whatever World Rugby are playing at. Possibly keep an eye on developing Red talent for the coming actual rugby season. Noting that this "season" is still silly 5 team TT with an unsupportive NZ. And apparently a death-knell for a domestic rugby comp. This is not a recipe to keep my interest. Not at all.

I'm not suggesting this should be our mainline competition. More as a replacement for the NRC if it never to return in its prior form. My first preference would be to build out our own domestic competition as our primary competition but it seems RA either are brave enough or keen. Which is something I feared would be the outcome when they appointed Marinos. A bloke who kept insisting on the old Super Rugby format even when it was evident that it was dead in the water.

I just don't think it's a bad idea to have a proving ground for new ideas and concepts within the game. And I still don't understand the issue with 6 fewer players on the pitch and how it would invalidate the game. All I can see it resulting in is a more fluid game.

 

[Dan54]

I'm not suggesting this should be our mainline competition. More as a replacement for the NRC if it never to return in its prior form. My first preference would be to build out our own domestic competition as our primary competition but it seems RA either are brave enough or keen. Which is something I feared would be the outcome when they appointed Marinos. A bloke who kept insisting on the old Super Rugby format even when it was evident that it was dead in the water.

I just don't think it's a bad idea to have a proving ground for new ideas and concepts within the game. And I still don't understand the issue with 6 fewer players on the pitch and how it would invalidate the game. All I can see it resulting in is a more fluid game.

Ok fair enough, I know I wouldn't be inetersted in such a game, like 10s never did anything for me, nut if it did actually mean a decent back up comp, I would say it not a bad idea.
Maybe just me , I don't see it being something that will last very long, I doubt whether we going to attract Leaguies etc to game by making game more like league, they already got a game to watch. Anyway it good that we got people with ideas !

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Ok fair enough, I know I wouldn't be inetersted in such a game, like 10s never did anything for me, nut if it did actually mean a decent back up comp, I would say it not a bad idea.
Maybe just me , I don't see it being something that will last very long, I doubt whether we going to attract Leaguies etc to game by making game more like league, they already got a game to watch. Anyway it good that we got people with ideas !

Are 7s or 10s like League?

 

[dru]

I just don't think it's a bad idea to have a proving ground for new ideas and concepts within the game. And I still don't understand the issue with 6 fewer players on the pitch and how it would invalidate the game. All I can see it resulting in is a more fluid game.

Did you play breakaway? Or in the pack? "More fluid" is League. Though I'd opt for NFL. Others would go to AFL. NFL and League both started as early versions either developed from Rugby or co-evolved with it depending on your view point. They both played with the stuff you are talking about. The experiment here is done, it's a different game. 6 fewer is a completely different game because the space is designed not created. Play with the reserve bench perhaps. I don't mind some of the experimental rules, but I draw the line at things that fundamentally change the structure of the game.

Perhaps I'd view with interest attempts to re-merge League and Union - though it will never happen.

I hear that you don't follow my reasoning, that's OK. Just do note that I would switch off. Doubt I'd be on my own. Perhaps the gains would outweigh the losses. But there would be losses. I have no interest in a defacto domestic "almost-but-not-quite-entirely-unlike-rugby" comp.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I've quite liked the idea of a Rugby version of the BBL for some time. I'd even like to see some tweaks involve particularly if it were to be scheduled later in the year. People will hate this but something similar to the concept for a Super Rugby reserve comp Pulver initially proposed. With reduced numbers (12 a side) and game play (30 min halves). Alongside initiatives designed to improve the over flow of the game. And no. I'm not suggesting removing any of the fundamental elements around structure and the contest for possession.

If you take cricket how it has been successful is creating a number of different products which helps broader fan appeal, commercials and more pathways. I don’t have a problem with different products and indeed we have that but should always be seeking to innovate. Nature of competitive sports market with strong customer influence. Innovative or wither away and die.

To me everything should be on the table and I think world rugby is very much in tune with this as is RA as last sports package taking to broadcasters was presenting new products.

Successful sports organisations are ones who continually look at products in the portfolio and refresh, innovate existing products, create new products and kill of/replace the ones no longer relevant in face of customer / market demands.

Super rugby classic example of the latter of tired, out of touch product with customer needs. Problem is you still have organisations like RA and NZRU running their own agendas and not listening to the customer. Sadly this will not end well as we are in the age of the customer with lots of things competing for their time and spoilt for choice.

 

[Adam84]

Adam, with respect I have absolutely no interest in cricket, this is a rugby forum and I hadn't considered that would be an issue. Though I do understand that this can be considered, with some legitimacy, as anti-Australian from a sporting point of view. FWIW I have never watched big bash, rarely watch more than a couple of overs in any given test (and I have more interest in playing India than England). I have been to a total of one only day night game. It was entertaining. But it wasn't rugby.

I suppose I understand the concept of limited over v tests though I never understood tests that much either. Would not 7s be the equivalent of big bash? I have limited interest in 7s as well. But you might understand that I have no opinion on whether BBL is good for cricket and if I did it would be an opinion that had little merit.

Back to rugby. Rugby requires 15 people on the ground from each side. imho. Otherwise I would be following mungo. Which I don't. If they ever remove the breakaways, I will swap to NFL. If you want mindless hoopla entertainment, no-one does it better than the Yanks. Hard to call it sport, but it is entertainment.

i understand it isn’t rugby I was using it as an example of Australia another code which has generated a brand new broadcast product, similar to that what rugby union would like to achieve. You don’t have to watch it but tv ratings and crowd demographics suggest it’s a successful product that engages with both new and existing markets. So understanding why and how it has been successful would help us understand how rugby might do similar.

I don’t consider 7s to be the BBL version of rugby either, it’s simply a shorter version of the game tailored for TV, with added novelty flavour to appeal to the younger generation and get them interested in the sport. All the core skillsets remain the same and they crossover quite seamlessly to both one day and test match cricket.

We’re not taking about destroying the integrity of the game here, it’s about understanding how to do similar to what BBL did while still retaining the core 15s rugby.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

A couple of things. You don't think a format of the game that promotes free flowing play and ball in hand Rugby wouldn't attract interest? Because I do. It's why I supported the introduction of the 50/22 - 22/50 variation. And the goal line dropout. They sought to improve on the overall flow of the game.

People aren't attracted to a sport because of the number of players on a team. They want to see a game played with fluency and skill. How many players on the pitch isn't a fundamental spent to that. Hell. It hinders it at times. Professional Rugby players are bigger, faster and fitter than ever. They can cover the field far better now than before. But we still cling to notions of if there are 30 blokes bashing each other on the pitch it isn't Rugby.

It's that kind of entrenched thinking that holds the game back while others (not just League by the way) are willing to make changes to appeal to broader audiences.

As for depth. I disagree. 12 a side would actually feature the core skilled positions needed in the game. With the bonus of focusing more on overall fitness and skill execution in my opinion.

Not really read all the posts on this but we have 7s and 15s. Had brief flirtation with 10s, and hey now here talking about 12s. Maybe Hamish with his bbl background has decided to create a bbl 12s as our nrc pathway. Like I said everything on the table.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Did you play breakaway? Or in the pack? "More fluid" is League. Though I'd opt for NFL. Others would go to AFL. NFL and League both started as early versions either developed from Rugby or co-evolved with it depending on your view point. They both played with the stuff you are talking about. The experiment here is done, it's a different game. 6 fewer is a completely different game because the space is designed not created. Play with the reserve bench perhaps. I don't mind some of the experimental rules, but I draw the line at things that fundamentally change the structure of the game.

Perhaps I'd view with interest attempts to re-merge League and Union - though it will never happen.

I hear that you don't follow my reasoning, that's OK. Just do note that I would switch off. Doubt I'd be on my own. Perhaps the gains would outweigh the losses. But there would be losses. I have no interest in a defacto domestic "almost-but-not-quite-entirely-unlike-rugby" comp.

Mate, I was a tighthead prop. I don't get your reasoning. Exactly how would it fundamentally alter the game? The core element of Rugby is the constant contest for possession. That would remain in every element. Powered scrums, rucks, lineouts and mail's would all still be preserved. All that would be present would be, yes, more space by design. But that's not a bad thing.

 

[Braveheart81]

BBL is successful because it packages up a product that takes just over 3 hours to complete so it works well for a night time slot.

We don't really have that issue in rugby. A full game is already shorter than that.

The issue rugby has in this area is that players can't back up particularly quickly in any sort of sustainable way.

A BBL style 7s event would require a lot of players. I'd suggest that if we were going to go for a BBL style comp at some point of the year it would be with the aim of having a game on most nights, not trying to have a substantially different product.

T20 cricket is a lot closer to other forms of cricket than 7s is to 15s in my view (or 10s or 12s). I don't feel like there is any benefit of creating a 12s competition or something just to have something different. I don't think it would be a more exciting product and I don't think we need to make a shorter product than a regular game.

 

[Rob42]

Hey, how about we keep this thread for discussions around broadcasting/TV rights/etc, and save the Third Tier discussions for one of the multiple other threads on that topic?

 

[Tomikin]

BBL is successful because it packages up a product that takes just over 3 hours to complete so it works well for a night time slot.

We don't really have that issue in rugby. A full game is already shorter than that.

The issue rugby has in this area is that players can't back up particularly quickly in any sort of sustainable way.

A BBL style 7s event would require a lot of players. I'd suggest that if we were going to go for a BBL style comp at some point of the year it would be with the aim of having a game on most nights, not trying to have a substantially different product.

T20 cricket is a lot closer to other forms of cricket than 7s is to 15s in my view (or 10s or 12s). I don't feel like there is any benefit of creating a 12s competition or something just to have something different. I don't think it would be a more exciting product and I don't think we need to make a shorter product than a regular game.

We could do a summer league mid-week games at night 7:30 pm kick off, games on Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday... Have teams have to submit to be in take the top 8, which would be the 5 franchises and 3 others, smash out a good few rounds with the winner named the summer cup champions.

15 a side, with a bunch of law variations (maybe unlimited interchanges, or a super sub which can be a any player brought on at anytime even if they have been taken off earlier.

That would be more Big Bash style.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

We could do a summer league mid-week games at night 7:30 pm kick off, games on Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday... Have teams have to submit to be in take the top 8, which would be the 5 franchises and 3 others, smash out a good few rounds with the winner named the summer cup champions.

15 a side, with a bunch of law variations (maybe unlimited interchanges, or a super sub which can be a any player brought on at anytime even if they have been taken off earlier.

That would be more Big Bash style.

We need more content and more opportunities for players to show their wares. San Diego has just announced Syd Uni player Rohan O'Reagan as a signing and while not earth shattering it demonstrates a growing squeeze within the game on talent that we need to address before it become a significant issue.

 

[mst]

BBL is successful because it packages up a product that takes just over 3 hours to complete so it works well for a night time slot.

We don't really have that issue in rugby. A full game is already shorter than that.

The issue rugby has in this area is that players can't back up particularly quickly in any sort of sustainable way.

A BBL style 7s event would require a lot of players. I'd suggest that if we were going to go for a BBL style comp at some point of the year it would be with the aim of having a game on most nights, not trying to have a substantially different product.

T20 cricket is a lot closer to other forms of cricket than 7s is to 15s in my view (or 10s or 12s). I don't feel like there is any benefit of creating a 12s competition or something just to have something different. I don't think it would be a more exciting product and I don't think we need to make a shorter product than a regular game.

I believe the NZ NPC has shown teams can play 3 games in a fortnight if its s shortened comp. I think the full games as they are would work; albeit with some rule tweaks if desired. One being around subs to better manage player workload. BBL has the free wicket keeper replacement (via injury) and X factor players, AFL has injury replacement player and "live" substitutions akin to AFL (for those that understand it and how tricky it can be to manage) add a tactical challenge and help manage players better.

We might not get the game every night but we certainly could have an 8 team domestic comp with around 10-12 games a fortnight. You could run it run it in parallel with a women's comp with as double headers or separate so you have about 20 games a fortnight.

 

[RugbyReg]

But guys like O’Regan and Poidevin are never going to be super players let alone test players. It’s a blow for Club rugby but they’re whole role is to keep players coming.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

But guys like O’Regan and Poidevin are never going to be super players let alone test players. It’s a blow for Club rugby but they’re whole role is to keep players coming.

Players like Poidevin provide a base for talent to develop around. They may never crack it here but if the likes of MLR targets more and more guys like them. Good club footballers while not quite being Super Rugby level then it leaves a lot of turnover that can lessen the overall development of players we want to keep involved.

 

[RugbyReg]

I don’t get that argument at all.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I don’t get that argument at all.

Something that has been argued in favour of club rugby as a pathway in the past has been the presence of experienced players who while not professional level provide enough of a challenge for younger up and coming talent to test themselves early in their career. They provide a talent base to build from. Allowing younger players to measure where they are coming into grade.

 

[RugbyReg]

Ok. That makes sense. Still. Not a massive factor in player development I would have thought.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

We could do a summer league mid-week games at night 7:30 pm kick off, games on Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday... Have teams have to submit to be in take the top 8, which would be the 5 franchises and 3 others, smash out a good few rounds with the winner named the summer cup champions.

15 a side, with a bunch of law variations (maybe unlimited interchanges, or a super sub which can be a any player brought on at anytime even if they have been taken off earlier.

That would be more Big Bash style.

Geoff Parkes wrote an article on The Roar (yes, yes I know) about a 7s competition he called the Sevens Smash. While I'm not suggesting using the name or 7s. It did outline a basic format that would follow pretty much what you've suggested. Had both men's and women's which I thick would be a solid option.