The Current State of Rugby
-
Cockerills point has a flip side.
The only teams that like the maul are those equipped to take advantage of it.
Like @taniwharugby I think that only a few law applications are required to bring balance to the force.
No second shove. Straight driving only. Make it equitable to a scrum (which is what it is). Proper binding.
If I saw an opponent with the ball and finger tip connection I would run around and tackle them then hold the ref to account. The laws define a bind and fingertips aren’t that. I’d like to hear the ref dispute that.@Crucial not to mention attacking players don't seem to be required to join from the back, but yes a full bind in mauls and rucks would go a long way to mending some issues.
-
Cockerills point has a flip side.
The only teams that like the maul are those equipped to take advantage of it.
Like @taniwharugby I think that only a few law applications are required to bring balance to the force.
No second shove. Straight driving only. Make it equitable to a scrum (which is what it is). Proper binding.
If I saw an opponent with the ball and finger tip connection I would run around and tackle them then hold the ref to account. The laws define a bind and fingertips aren’t that. I’d like to hear the ref dispute that. -
Cockerills point has a flip side.
The only teams that like the maul are those equipped to take advantage of it.
Like @taniwharugby I think that only a few law applications are required to bring balance to the force.
No second shove. Straight driving only. Make it equitable to a scrum (which is what it is). Proper binding.
If I saw an opponent with the ball and finger tip connection I would run around and tackle them then hold the ref to account. The laws define a bind and fingertips aren’t that. I’d like to hear the ref dispute that.@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
The laws define a bind and fingertips aren’t that. I’d like to hear the ref dispute that.
it's a law they will ignore I suspect. Like touching the ball /rolling it on the ground in a ruck to make it playable - technically illegal, but let go by refs.
You are correct though; lifting a shoulder should be enough for the maul to be over. Or, technically, a scrum. Consistency from refs is critical here
-
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
The laws define a bind and fingertips aren’t that. I’d like to hear the ref dispute that.
it's a law they will ignore I suspect. Like touching the ball /rolling it on the ground in a ruck to make it playable - technically illegal, but let go by refs.
You are correct though; lifting a shoulder should be enough for the maul to be over. Or, technically, a scrum. Consistency from refs is critical here
@nzzp said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
The laws define a bind and fingertips aren’t that. I’d like to hear the ref dispute that.
it's a law they will ignore I suspect. Like touching the ball /rolling it on the ground in a ruck to make it playable - technically illegal, but let go by refs.
You are correct though; lifting a shoulder should be enough for the maul to be over. Or, technically, a scrum. Consistency from refs is critical here
It would simplify law application for scrums and mauls to be consistent. If the 8 in a scrum lifts a shoulder the scrum is over. Extra players can't join scrums. Scrums need to push straight (not roll deliberately). A scrum can't reform etc etc
On the other hand flankers will need to keep a full bind on the scrum until it is over (good thing)
-
@nzzp said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
The laws define a bind and fingertips aren’t that. I’d like to hear the ref dispute that.
it's a law they will ignore I suspect. Like touching the ball /rolling it on the ground in a ruck to make it playable - technically illegal, but let go by refs.
You are correct though; lifting a shoulder should be enough for the maul to be over. Or, technically, a scrum. Consistency from refs is critical here
It would simplify law application for scrums and mauls to be consistent. If the 8 in a scrum lifts a shoulder the scrum is over. Extra players can't join scrums. Scrums need to push straight (not roll deliberately). A scrum can't reform etc etc
On the other hand flankers will need to keep a full bind on the scrum until it is over (good thing)
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
On the other hand flankers will need to keep a full bind on the scrum until it is over (good thing)
or reward dominant scrums by letting flankers detach like the old days. Puts some risk reward - but you'd have to allow pushover tries, and reset scrums on the line, not 5 m out again. It's crazy how risk averse rugby is ins ome areas, while allowing weirdly flexible intepretations in others (contesting high balls, looking at you)
-
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
On the other hand flankers will need to keep a full bind on the scrum until it is over (good thing)
or reward dominant scrums by letting flankers detach like the old days. Puts some risk reward - but you'd have to allow pushover tries, and reset scrums on the line, not 5 m out again. It's crazy how risk averse rugby is ins ome areas, while allowing weirdly flexible intepretations in others (contesting high balls, looking at you)
@nzzp I try to think of things as simplifying the game for players, refs and punters without losing what makes rugby unique (range of body sizes and skills)
I think we can still keep skills and contest at scrums and mauls but just keep the rules simple and consistent. Powerful organised packs will still benefit but not at the expense of making the game look unfair or silly. -
We've all had a justifiable moan about delays in the game, pedantic reffing and players slowing the game down.
But credit to the Rugby authorities for the changes made this year - the SRP & 6N games so far have generally been outstanding
-
Why are these weeks Super Rugby games all taking place in Melbourne in front of looks like a few hundred people? Weird.
@sparky said in The Current State of Rugby:
Why are these weeks Super Rugby games all taking place in Melbourne in front of looks like a few hundred people? Weird.
Marketing. Who can work out their 4D chess?
-
Red card roulette is still a blight on the game. Jordie Barrett was properly "exoceted" by a lock square in the face yesterday during goal line defence at speed and from distance. It didn't merit a second look according to the officiators.
-
@sparky said in The Current State of Rugby:
Why are these weeks Super Rugby games all taking place in Melbourne in front of looks like a few hundred people? Weird.
Marketing. Who can work out their 4D chess?
@antipodean said in The Current State of Rugby:
@sparky said in The Current State of Rugby:
Why are these weeks Super Rugby games all taking place in Melbourne in front of looks like a few hundred people? Weird.
Marketing. Who can work out their 4D chess?
The key question must have been Where is the worst possible place for us to schedule six games of rugby in one weekend
-
@antipodean said in The Current State of Rugby:
@sparky said in The Current State of Rugby:
Why are these weeks Super Rugby games all taking place in Melbourne in front of looks like a few hundred people? Weird.
Marketing. Who can work out their 4D chess?
The key question must have been Where is the worst possible place for us to schedule six games of rugby in one weekend
@Donsteppa isn't it the TV money that is important, meaning bums in seats, while not a good look is largely irrelevant?
I mean for so many teams to give up a home game to be in Melbourne must be a good sized carrot.
-
@Donsteppa isn't it the TV money that is important, meaning bums in seats, while not a good look is largely irrelevant?
I mean for so many teams to give up a home game to be in Melbourne must be a good sized carrot.
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Donsteppa isn't it the TV money that is important, meaning bums in seats, while not a good look is largely irrelevant?
I mean for so many teams to give up a home game to be in Melbourne must be a good sized carrot.
I don't see how TV money is relevant to that topic? Same time zone and markets as if the games were being played in their normal cities.
I'm assuming this is an attempted replica of the superleague 'magic weekend'?
I'm not sure of the point of their magic weekend apart from I assume spreading the sport outside their heartlands. Unless an aim is also the 'soft' feelgood/festival factor. Surely it isn't ticket sales as double/triple headers are surely false economics? Selling 3 games for the price of 1.
Did SRA get paid a fee by Melbourne or Victoria government - from their Events type fund? Is that what you're suggesting by the carrot?
-
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Donsteppa isn't it the TV money that is important, meaning bums in seats, while not a good look is largely irrelevant?
I mean for so many teams to give up a home game to be in Melbourne must be a good sized carrot.
I don't see how TV money is relevant to that topic? Same time zone and markets as if the games were being played in their normal cities.
I'm assuming this is an attempted replica of the superleague 'magic weekend'?
I'm not sure of the point of their magic weekend apart from I assume spreading the sport outside their heartlands. Unless an aim is also the 'soft' feelgood/festival factor. Surely it isn't ticket sales as double/triple headers are surely false economics? Selling 3 games for the price of 1.
Did SRA get paid a fee by Melbourne or Victoria government - from their Events type fund? Is that what you're suggesting by the carrot?
@Rapido said in The Current State of Rugby:
Did SRA get paid a fee by Melbourne or Victoria government - from their Events type fund? Is that what you're suggesting by the carrot?
It's funded by the Victorian gov. Not sure if SR overall gets money but the teams giving up home matches get a fee (last year was $320k, it was lower this year)
-
I wasn't quite sure where best to put this, but things have changed in contact sports in a lot of ways:
@Donsteppa said in The Current State of Rugby:
I wasn't quite sure where best to put this, but things have changed in contact sports in a lot of ways:
At least he didn't make a throat slashing gesture, otherwise he would have been cited!
-
@Donsteppa isn't it the TV money that is important, meaning bums in seats, while not a good look is largely irrelevant?
I mean for so many teams to give up a home game to be in Melbourne must be a good sized carrot.
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Donsteppa isn't it the TV money that is important, meaning bums in seats, while not a good look is largely irrelevant?
I mean for so many teams to give up a home game to be in Melbourne must be a good sized carrot.
i disagree, whilst the TV deal is one in the very simple money in v money out argument...when we're talking enthusiasm for the game i think crowd number are important...trying to get people interested and you watch a game...and no ones there...doesn't exactly catch a new fan as something others and therefore they should be excited about
and it flows into the peripheral aspects, most people aren't going to buy new jerseys and hats/scarfs if they're watching at home....and those things flow into the sponsorship and merchandise/apparel deal the teams can strike
-
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Donsteppa isn't it the TV money that is important, meaning bums in seats, while not a good look is largely irrelevant?
I mean for so many teams to give up a home game to be in Melbourne must be a good sized carrot.
i disagree, whilst the TV deal is one in the very simple money in v money out argument...when we're talking enthusiasm for the game i think crowd number are important...trying to get people interested and you watch a game...and no ones there...doesn't exactly catch a new fan as something others and therefore they should be excited about
and it flows into the peripheral aspects, most people aren't going to buy new jerseys and hats/scarfs if they're watching at home....and those things flow into the sponsorship and merchandise/apparel deal the teams can strike
@Kiwiwomble I dont disagree, a few years ago when I had a close relationship with someone high up at Northland Rugby, I suggested that they only open the main grandstand at Okara Park where the cameras look majority of the time, leaving the embankment side closed, so it gives the illusion of more people...
My point was more the fish heads at HQ worry about the $$$'s and the bigger part of this is generated by TV...and I expect the teams that gave up a home match to play in Super round, must surely have been incentivised by the $$$, particularly as it would impact thier own sourcing of sponsorships for thier jersies, grounds, corporate boxes etc.
