What rugby needs to do to get back to its roots and entertain customers.

[qwerty51]

They absolutely would ban the Wallabies if RA implement a non-sanctioned comp.

Pretty sure this is the same organisation that has tried to stifle league as much as possible in some countries.
They'd shut down any perceived threat they could.

 

[Adam84]

They absolutely would ban the Wallabies if Rugby Australia implement a non-sanctioned comp.

Pretty sure this is the same organisation that has tried to stifle league as much as possible in some countries.
They'd shut down any perceived threat they could.

The emphasis is then on WR (World Rugby) to sanction the competition and rule variations then isn't there.
There’s no rule against selecting NRL or AFL players for the Wallabies.

 

[Braveheart81]

This is my point, it is possible but isn’t happening, WR (World Rugby) are a bureaucratic mess of middle aged men from Europe that don‘t see the benefit in these variations for Australia.

I think we also need to consider that variations for the sake of variations aren't overly important and don't change much in terms of interest.

No one switched on to Global Rapid Rugby because they had power tries and no one watched NRC because there were 2 point penalties and 8 point converted tries.

Sure, they're fine to tinker with but I don't think they change the spectacle.

I'd really be focusing on things we think are core issues in the spectacle for rugby fans like time taken on the clock for various things and work on ironing those out.

I don't think there's any variation you can make where suddenly swathes of non-rugby watchers decide they want to become a fan.

 

[Adam84]

I think we also need to consider that variations for the sake of variations aren't overly important and don't change much in terms of interest.

No one switched on to Global Rapid Rugby because they had power tries and no one watched NRC because there were 2 point penalties and 8 point converted tries.

Sure, they're fine to tinker with but I don't think they change the spectacle.

I'd really be focusing on things we think are core issues in the spectacle for rugby fans like time taken on the clock for various things and work on ironing those out.

I don't think there's any variation you can make where suddenly swathes of non-rugby watchers decide they want to become a fan.

Global Rapid Rugby and NRC are a pretty poor sample size for arguing against rule variations. There was another 101 factors which influenced the popularity of those tournaments, namely no star players, fabricated teams, lack of coverage, lack of existing fans.

Mate this whole thread is about rule variations and changing the mess that is the rule book, you cant say variations to the rules wont improve the spectacle when penalties and rules are all people talk about after every rugby match these days.

 

[PhilClinton]

One of the key points that keeps getting brought up by non-fans or fans who have the shits is the card situation, lots of replays and any contact with the head resulting in stoppages.

I am not sure that is something which will be changing much over the next few years from a rulebook perspective, it's the way most contact sports have gone. It's more of a general coaching situation where players are going to be have to be more cognisant of their body positions.

It is fair to say if the game is going to slow down due to that issue, we need to find other areas to make it faster.

 

[qwerty51]

There are 3 key aspects to work on;

- Ball in play time
- Reduce amount of kicking, especially the high bombs which just lead to more scrums
- Scrum resets*

*This is always the biggest complaint from casual fans. People don't mind a scrum battle and driving maul I find, it's such a unique point of difference in our game and as long as it's not your own team getting destroyed from them people can appreciate them.

All stuff like changing penalty goals nature, power tries and score changes are rubbish, WR (World Rugby) will never change that so pointless. We can try to implement real change without those things.

 

[Rob42]

One rule I really want to see gone is the mark, so many times when a mark is called it ruins what could be a really good contest. It's another needless stoppage in play. Or at least make the kick has to have been taken in the opposition half, it really bother me when the team on attack takes a cross field kick and the defensive player calls a mark after catching the ball in a contest.

I disagree. If there's no mark, you encourage teams to put up a bomb that lands within the 22, allow the defender to catch it and then flood through to force a penalty or turnover - an easy (easier) way of gaining possession deep in the 22, no need to try to run the ball into that position. A recipe for even more box kicking.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I can't see anything being done about the spectacle of the game. It appears that the 6N unions like things the way they are and they have enough voting power to block anything innovative. Changing things to suit markets like ours because we compete against other football codes is not their concern.

 

[qwerty51]

I can't see anything being done about the spectacle of the game. It appears that the 6N unions like things the way they are and they have enough voting power to block anything innovative. Changing things to suit markets like ours because we compete against other football codes is not their concern.

Depressingly yes. Is anyone in Ireland voting to change the game... nah.

 

[Adam84]

Scrums are diabolical, as a former prop i love scrummaging but how they’re played out at Super Rugby and Test level now is pathetic. They serve to generate penalties these days and not their original purpose; which is a means of restarting play, and doing through a competitive means.

At the game on the weekend, everyone in the crowd was completely perplexed what the penalties at scrum time were for. At least on TV you have the referees feed on what happened and replays, not suggesting that is the solution for live rugby just highlighting the issue.

 

[PhilClinton]

Scrums are diabolical, as a former prop i love scrummaging but how they’re played out at Super Rugby and Test level now is pathetic. They serve to generate penalties these days and not their original purpose; which is a means of restarting play, and doing through a competitive means.

At the game on the weekend, everyone in the crowd was completely perplexed what the penalties at scrum time were for. At least on TV you have the referees feed on what happened and replays, not suggesting that is the solution for live rugby just highlighting the issue.

Yep but I do feel like this issue has come about for the professional game only for whatever reason, maybe over analysis of opposition players.

In the good old days and still today in clubland, a scrum is interesting. For amateur front rowers it's good way to get a feel for your opposition. It takes a few scrums to workout their weaknesses etc.

These days for the pros, the scrum coaches spend hours doing analysis on the opposition and specifically train to counter that.

 

[Adam84]

Agree scrums are still quality at amateur level.

I’d love to see the % of scrums that finish in a penalty or reset across Club, Super Rugby, and Test level.

At Super Rugby/Test level there’s just too many collapses, a simplistic take is they’re engaging too low, props feet are too far back. Somehow the props feet need to be brought closer in and force the height of the scrum up.

 

[PhilClinton]

Is it possible the modern professional rugby player is just too well trained, both in strength and technique (as well as the coaches analysis as mentioned above) to make consistent scrummaging viable at the top level? And instead we need to be making sure they're just made faster and moved on.

There is a lot of weight coming through those things and scrum stability has been an increasing issue for years now.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Is it possible the modern professional rugby player is just too well trained, both in strength and technique (as well as the coaches analysis as mentioned above) to make consistent scrummaging viable at the top level? And instead we need to be making sure they're just made faster and moved on.

There is a lot of weight coming through those things and scrum stability has been an increasing issue for years now.

Potentially yes. There's a lot of gamesmanship at scrum time in the professional game that is directly impacted the flow of the game that needs to be mitigated as much as possible.

 

[KevinO]

I can't see anything being done about the spectacle of the game. It appears that the 6N unions like things the way they are and they have enough voting power to block anything innovative. Changing things to suit markets like ours because we compete against other football codes is not their concern.

The game is not a broken record over there, most test matches are sold out. 6N and November, European games get large crowds and league games still get more then Super Rugby do.

 

[Braveheart81]

Is the Southern Hemisphere really pushing a lot of changes that the North is pushing back on? Aside from 20 minute red cards, most of the law variations have ultimately been accepted.

I don't think there are vast changes that we need or want. It's mostly minor changes that address a few key issues.

I'm also not convinced there are "changes to suit our market" that would really have any substantial impact.

 

[KevinO]

I disagree. If there's no mark, you encourage teams to put up a bomb that lands within the 22, allow the defender to catch it and then flood through to force a penalty or turnover - an easy (easier) way of gaining possession deep in the 22, no need to try to run the ball into that position. A recipe for even more box kicking.

So making teams to develop a new strategy to keep the ball in play in there own 22 rather then mark and kick it out 25-35 meters down the field is a bad thing? It's keeping the ball in play without a stoppage once sides get use to the change. A mark is a waste of 1 to 2 minutes currently,

Mark, wait for players to walk back behind the mark, kick the ball out, slowly walk up to line out. This is why I want it removed.

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

Part of the issue with the comparison to league is basic stats they use. Tackles/runs etc all just favour league as they miss huge portions of player effort in rugby.

Imagine if you compared a league game with union stats? Ruck involvements, maul involvements, lineout wins, scrums you actually pushed in. Two completely different games.

We need to get commentators/media to look at and report better level statistics.

 

[Dan54]

Wouldn't WR (World Rugby) bar us from participating at test level if we tried to otherwise break away?

Think you can have different rules etc in a local doestic game, but not if it involves cross border games where it has to be International laws?

 

[Dan54]

I have sad a few times I watch a lot of 2nd div club rugby, and really enjoy it. The game is played much more like it was when most of thought rugby was really enjoyable to watch at top level. Ok no way would I say players that good, but they all play to seemingly best level they can (good skills etc , fitness a little iffy) and scrums , lineouts etc etc are all competed at a good pace, reckon a lot more ball in time than tests etc, even with the extra dropped ball etc.
And best of all, no TMOs butting in, and no specialised defence coaches FFS, teams seem try to score more than opposition, rather try and stop other team scoring as many as them, if you undrstand what I mean.
I really think defence coaches are the bain of test rugby as much as anything!