The Current State of Rugby
-
@Kiwiwomble Probably not in Aussie , but that's what it is. I see no reason to lose sleep over it.
@Dan54 purely to spark conversation, not an argument because in general i agree, but....is that going to hinder rugby in NZ...just because NZ isn;t really big enough and our nearest neighbour is losing ground quickly. Maybe im misremembering but i thought league was really on the back foot in the 2000's but seems to have very much turned things around
-
-
@taniwharugby Fuck some of those early engages had some power behind them. Remind me of two of those deers banging horns.
-
This article could go in the NZ U20s thread but it applies to NZ rugby in general.
@Bovidae said in The Current State of Rugby:
This article could go in the NZ U20s thread but it applies to NZ rugby in general.
That was a weirdly somewhat positive NZ rugby article.
-
@mikedogz said in The Current State of Rugby:
He's right
I'm watching maybe a game every fortnight if it doesn't clash. Plenty to improve in the sport, but some big alarm bells have been sounding for a while
-
@mikedogz said in The Current State of Rugby:
He's right
I'm watching maybe a game every fortnight if it doesn't clash. Plenty to improve in the sport, but some big alarm bells have been sounding for a while
@nzzp To be honest he was right about that game, but it's only news if it's negative isn't it? As you say NZZP you only watch a game a fortnight, so IF it doesn't clash with whatever you watch, so perhaps you miss plenty of good games. I watching plenty that I enjoy.
-
@nzzp To be honest he was right about that game, but it's only news if it's negative isn't it? As you say NZZP you only watch a game a fortnight, so IF it doesn't clash with whatever you watch, so perhaps you miss plenty of good games. I watching plenty that I enjoy.
@Dan54 there have been weak signals for a while. But when Wayne Smith really can't be bothered watching a game, and it's the first time he's turned off at halftime, that is a loud signal.
Look, people move on, but I had tickets to Saturday and couldn't be bothered going. Am finding other ways to spend my discretionary time ... may change if I refind my mojo, but the quality of rugby at the moment is dire. Refs are at the centre of too much, penalties are everywhere, cards follow, it appears almost impossible to legally defend, and refs only want to watch the defensive side - basically I can't be bothered with it most weeks. A massive change from watching all the rugby I could get my hands on a few years ago
-
@nzzp To be honest he was right about that game, but it's only news if it's negative isn't it? As you say NZZP you only watch a game a fortnight, so IF it doesn't clash with whatever you watch, so perhaps you miss plenty of good games. I watching plenty that I enjoy.
@Dan54 said in The Current State of Rugby:
@nzzp To be honest he was right about that game, but it's only news if it's negative isn't it? As you say NZZP you only watch a game a fortnight, so IF it doesn't clash with whatever you watch, so perhaps you miss plenty of good games. I watching plenty that I enjoy.
I think the point he’s trying to make isn’t that all games are like that but that current rulings, laws and coaching have created an environment where that is possible in a game that is actually sold as entertainment.
That is a threat to the product just as if something you manufacture is throwing out an occasional dud which is undermining sales.
Those laws were made with good intentions but have been explored and studied to a conclusion that isn’t great.
The conclusion to the Blues v MP was another situation that the outcome and happenings where at odds to what most punters want. I don’t know the solution for this one but currently a transgression can lead to downward spiralling further rulings and eventually a PT. Removing a forward for entering the side of a maul on defence (when attackers are allowed to do so at will) then depowers the scrum leading to almost unavoidable further penalties and repeated “offending”. -
@Dan54 said in The Current State of Rugby:
@nzzp To be honest he was right about that game, but it's only news if it's negative isn't it? As you say NZZP you only watch a game a fortnight, so IF it doesn't clash with whatever you watch, so perhaps you miss plenty of good games. I watching plenty that I enjoy.
I think the point he’s trying to make isn’t that all games are like that but that current rulings, laws and coaching have created an environment where that is possible in a game that is actually sold as entertainment.
That is a threat to the product just as if something you manufacture is throwing out an occasional dud which is undermining sales.
Those laws were made with good intentions but have been explored and studied to a conclusion that isn’t great.
The conclusion to the Blues v MP was another situation that the outcome and happenings where at odds to what most punters want. I don’t know the solution for this one but currently a transgression can lead to downward spiralling further rulings and eventually a PT. Removing a forward for entering the side of a maul on defence (when attackers are allowed to do so at will) then depowers the scrum leading to almost unavoidable further penalties and repeated “offending”.@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Dan54 said in The Current State of Rugby:
@nzzp To be honest he was right about that game, but it's only news if it's negative isn't it? As you say NZZP you only watch a game a fortnight, so IF it doesn't clash with whatever you watch, so perhaps you miss plenty of good games. I watching plenty that I enjoy.
I think the point he’s trying to make isn’t that all games are like that but that current rulings, laws and coaching have created an environment where that is possible in a game that is actually sold as entertainment.
That is a threat to the product just as if something you manufacture is throwing out an occasional dud which is undermining sales.
Those laws were made with good intentions but have been explored and studied to a conclusion that isn’t great.
> The conclusion to the Blues v MP was another situation that the outcome and happenings where at odds to what most punters want. I don’t know the solution for this one but currently a transgression can lead to downward spiralling further rulings and eventually a PT. Removing a forward for entering the side of a maul on defence (when attackers are allowed to do so at will) then depowers the scrum leading to almost unavoidable further penalties and repeated “offending”.Which penalties did you think weren't actual offenses?
If a team consistently gives away penalties to prevent a team from scoring, they put themselves in the refs hands. I would argue that "most punters" don't want to seen cynical play, and correct penalties given.
This was a sign of good refereeing, not caring that it was the 81st minute and making a tough call. We've seen plenty of refs swallow a whistle under pressure, this guy should be lauded for the stones to do that.
-
On a more general note, as I stated at the beginning of the searon after the early rounds, I'm really enjoying the rugby I'm seeing. Some really good games, Drua finding their feet in particular is a positive.
Speeding up the game is the key IMO, they need to really stick with that and we'll slowly tranistion out of large mass monsters lumbering around for 45mins then getting subbed.
-
@Dan54 there have been weak signals for a while. But when Wayne Smith really can't be bothered watching a game, and it's the first time he's turned off at halftime, that is a loud signal.
Look, people move on, but I had tickets to Saturday and couldn't be bothered going. Am finding other ways to spend my discretionary time ... may change if I refind my mojo, but the quality of rugby at the moment is dire. Refs are at the centre of too much, penalties are everywhere, cards follow, it appears almost impossible to legally defend, and refs only want to watch the defensive side - basically I can't be bothered with it most weeks. A massive change from watching all the rugby I could get my hands on a few years ago
@nzzp said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Dan54 there have been weak signals for a while. But when Wayne Smith really can't be bothered watching a game, and it's the first time he's turned off at halftime, that is a loud signal.
Look, people move on, but I had tickets to Saturday and couldn't be bothered going. Am finding other ways to spend my discretionary time ... may change if I refind my mojo, but the quality of rugby at the moment is dire. Refs are at the centre of too much, penalties are everywhere, cards follow, it appears almost impossible to legally defend, and refs only want to watch the defensive side - basically I can't be bothered with it most weeks. A massive change from watching all the rugby I could get my hands on a few years ago
In the mid 90s when flatting I wouldn’t miss a Super game. We’d even get up at 3am to watch the SA games sometimes. Those days are well and truly gone. I’ve probably watched about half a Hurricanes game this year.
Life moves on and priorities change but the officiating and constantly changing the competition isn’t helping attract general viewers.
It is World Cup year though, that will definitely get me tuning in.
-
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Dan54 said in The Current State of Rugby:
@nzzp To be honest he was right about that game, but it's only news if it's negative isn't it? As you say NZZP you only watch a game a fortnight, so IF it doesn't clash with whatever you watch, so perhaps you miss plenty of good games. I watching plenty that I enjoy.
I think the point he’s trying to make isn’t that all games are like that but that current rulings, laws and coaching have created an environment where that is possible in a game that is actually sold as entertainment.
That is a threat to the product just as if something you manufacture is throwing out an occasional dud which is undermining sales.
Those laws were made with good intentions but have been explored and studied to a conclusion that isn’t great.
> The conclusion to the Blues v MP was another situation that the outcome and happenings where at odds to what most punters want. I don’t know the solution for this one but currently a transgression can lead to downward spiralling further rulings and eventually a PT. Removing a forward for entering the side of a maul on defence (when attackers are allowed to do so at will) then depowers the scrum leading to almost unavoidable further penalties and repeated “offending”.Which penalties did you think weren't actual offenses?
If a team consistently gives away penalties to prevent a team from scoring, they put themselves in the refs hands. I would argue that "most punters" don't want to seen cynical play, and correct penalties given.
This was a sign of good refereeing, not caring that it was the 81st minute and making a tough call. We've seen plenty of refs swallow a whistle under pressure, this guy should be lauded for the stones to do that.
@Kirwan said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Dan54 said in The Current State of Rugby:
@nzzp To be honest he was right about that game, but it's only news if it's negative isn't it? As you say NZZP you only watch a game a fortnight, so IF it doesn't clash with whatever you watch, so perhaps you miss plenty of good games. I watching plenty that I enjoy.
I think the point he’s trying to make isn’t that all games are like that but that current rulings, laws and coaching have created an environment where that is possible in a game that is actually sold as entertainment.
That is a threat to the product just as if something you manufacture is throwing out an occasional dud which is undermining sales.
Those laws were made with good intentions but have been explored and studied to a conclusion that isn’t great.
> The conclusion to the Blues v MP was another situation that the outcome and happenings where at odds to what most punters want. I don’t know the solution for this one but currently a transgression can lead to downward spiralling further rulings and eventually a PT. Removing a forward for entering the side of a maul on defence (when attackers are allowed to do so at will) then depowers the scrum leading to almost unavoidable further penalties and repeated “offending”.Which penalties did you think weren't actual offenses?
If a team consistently gives away penalties to prevent a team from scoring, they put themselves in the refs hands. I would argue that "most punters" don't want to seen cynical play, and correct penalties given.
This was a sign of good refereeing, not caring that it was the 81st minute and making a tough call. We've seen plenty of refs swallow a whistle under pressure, this guy should be lauded for the stones to do that.
Whoosh.
I'm using it as a example to continue Wayne Smith's comments that if the game gets into a series of ever escalating penalties it becomes a game played out by the whistle rather than the readily visible skilled actions of the players. An 8 on 7 or 8 on 6 scrum isn't that skillful.
Never said the penalties weren't warranted although, in a general sense, the reffing of mauls is one sided. It is a notable occasion when an attacking side player gets pinged for joining ahead of the last man, yet a YC one for a defender.
We have seen these scenarios over and over and I agree that I would have rather seen either team win by either getting over the line or great defence.
Earlier in that game the end situation was reversed and MP played an advantage from a defensive scrum where they smashed the Blues. They managed to score under advantage so the penalties didn't escalate further but it could have ended up with another player in a bin, another smashed scrum and a penalty try. The way things go the could have been cynical and forced that situation.
Personally I don't like the way that one transgression can escalate into a sequence of them because of a weakened scrum. It becomes self fulfilling. A try may as well be awarded back at the maul.
As I said, I don't know the solution but for neutrals watching the game the excitement factor drops.
Maybe scrums must be kept 8 on 8 but you have to lose a back? -
@Kirwan said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Dan54 said in The Current State of Rugby:
@nzzp To be honest he was right about that game, but it's only news if it's negative isn't it? As you say NZZP you only watch a game a fortnight, so IF it doesn't clash with whatever you watch, so perhaps you miss plenty of good games. I watching plenty that I enjoy.
I think the point he’s trying to make isn’t that all games are like that but that current rulings, laws and coaching have created an environment where that is possible in a game that is actually sold as entertainment.
That is a threat to the product just as if something you manufacture is throwing out an occasional dud which is undermining sales.
Those laws were made with good intentions but have been explored and studied to a conclusion that isn’t great.
> The conclusion to the Blues v MP was another situation that the outcome and happenings where at odds to what most punters want. I don’t know the solution for this one but currently a transgression can lead to downward spiralling further rulings and eventually a PT. Removing a forward for entering the side of a maul on defence (when attackers are allowed to do so at will) then depowers the scrum leading to almost unavoidable further penalties and repeated “offending”.Which penalties did you think weren't actual offenses?
If a team consistently gives away penalties to prevent a team from scoring, they put themselves in the refs hands. I would argue that "most punters" don't want to seen cynical play, and correct penalties given.
This was a sign of good refereeing, not caring that it was the 81st minute and making a tough call. We've seen plenty of refs swallow a whistle under pressure, this guy should be lauded for the stones to do that.
Whoosh.
I'm using it as a example to continue Wayne Smith's comments that if the game gets into a series of ever escalating penalties it becomes a game played out by the whistle rather than the readily visible skilled actions of the players. An 8 on 7 or 8 on 6 scrum isn't that skillful.
Never said the penalties weren't warranted although, in a general sense, the reffing of mauls is one sided. It is a notable occasion when an attacking side player gets pinged for joining ahead of the last man, yet a YC one for a defender.
We have seen these scenarios over and over and I agree that I would have rather seen either team win by either getting over the line or great defence.
Earlier in that game the end situation was reversed and MP played an advantage from a defensive scrum where they smashed the Blues. They managed to score under advantage so the penalties didn't escalate further but it could have ended up with another player in a bin, another smashed scrum and a penalty try. The way things go the could have been cynical and forced that situation.
Personally I don't like the way that one transgression can escalate into a sequence of them because of a weakened scrum. It becomes self fulfilling. A try may as well be awarded back at the maul.
As I said, I don't know the solution but for neutrals watching the game the excitement factor drops.
Maybe scrums must be kept 8 on 8 but you have to lose a back?@Crucial penalties weren't falling from the sky, it is possible to defend without infringing. And it's in the realm of possibility to defend with seven (plus a back like what MP did) in the scrum.
Blaming the laws for players actions is an unhelpful take, whatever intepretations we end up with players and coaches will try to find the edge of allowed play. Fatigue is also a factor, and MP were out on their feet and the Blues were able steamroller them because of it.
And that's what we want to see in Rugby.
-
@Crucial penalties weren't falling from the sky, it is possible to defend without infringing. And it's in the realm of possibility to defend with seven (plus a back like what MP did) in the scrum.
Blaming the laws for players actions is an unhelpful take, whatever intepretations we end up with players and coaches will try to find the edge of allowed play. Fatigue is also a factor, and MP were out on their feet and the Blues were able steamroller them because of it.
And that's what we want to see in Rugby.
@Kirwan said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial penalties weren't falling from the sky, it is possible to defend without infringing. And it's in the realm of possibility to defend with seven (plus a back like what MP did) in the scrum.
Blaming the laws for players actions is an unhelpful take, whatever intepretations we end up with players and coaches will try to find the edge of allowed play. Fatigue is also a factor, and MP were out on their feet and the Blues were able steamroller them because of it.
And that's what we want to see in Rugby.
Forget that game for a moment. It is no use us using it as an example if you are going to see it from the view of a supporter of one side.
What Smith was talking about was a general scenario where a penalty raises the possibility of another penalty and I agree that is fair comment.
Let's say a couple of unfortunate injuries weaken a team's scrum. OK, injuries are part of the game. But at the moment there is a very easy way to take advantage of that situation by scrumming for a penalty, kicking for the line, rolling a maul, forcing another penalty for a borderline/technical call (because mauls are reffed very one-sided), rinse and repeat until the opposition either waves the white flag to avoid a card or gets carded.
Any card then just makes the situation even worse and the attacking team can fall into a pattern of continually forcing the issue and escalting the situation.
I don't want to watch that. I want to watch ball handling, running, forwards driving through tackles etc etc. Scrum, penalty, kick, lineout, maul, penalty, repeat isn't great product.
The ref and the laws get the blame.
To me rugby is about contest-ability. Fix the maul situation and that comes back.
I can't understand why mauls are treated differently to scrums. Attacking scrum teams aren't allowed to walk around, they have to push straight. That becomes a straight out strength and technique contest. If ball is available, you don't get three bites at the scrum, you are told to use it.
Get the ball back out into the open for punters to see. -
@Kirwan said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial penalties weren't falling from the sky, it is possible to defend without infringing. And it's in the realm of possibility to defend with seven (plus a back like what MP did) in the scrum.
Blaming the laws for players actions is an unhelpful take, whatever intepretations we end up with players and coaches will try to find the edge of allowed play. Fatigue is also a factor, and MP were out on their feet and the Blues were able steamroller them because of it.
And that's what we want to see in Rugby.
Forget that game for a moment. It is no use us using it as an example if you are going to see it from the view of a supporter of one side.
What Smith was talking about was a general scenario where a penalty raises the possibility of another penalty and I agree that is fair comment.
Let's say a couple of unfortunate injuries weaken a team's scrum. OK, injuries are part of the game. But at the moment there is a very easy way to take advantage of that situation by scrumming for a penalty, kicking for the line, rolling a maul, forcing another penalty for a borderline/technical call (because mauls are reffed very one-sided), rinse and repeat until the opposition either waves the white flag to avoid a card or gets carded.
Any card then just makes the situation even worse and the attacking team can fall into a pattern of continually forcing the issue and escalting the situation.
I don't want to watch that. I want to watch ball handling, running, forwards driving through tackles etc etc. Scrum, penalty, kick, lineout, maul, penalty, repeat isn't great product.
The ref and the laws get the blame.
To me rugby is about contest-ability. Fix the maul situation and that comes back.
I can't understand why mauls are treated differently to scrums. Attacking scrum teams aren't allowed to walk around, they have to push straight. That becomes a straight out strength and technique contest. If ball is available, you don't get three bites at the scrum, you are told to use it.
Get the ball back out into the open for punters to see.@Crucial What you will get is teams commiting penalties without any real consequences. Any of the play that you want to see won't happen because it'll be stiffled by offside player and other offenses.
The cards, combined with the new speed interpretation that makes cards have impact again, provide a real disincentive for constant infringements.
Somes teams haven't figured it out yet and and are paying the price. The onus is on the players to play less cynically, and some have a good decade of bad habits to deprogram.
We get through this peroid, we'll get more open play. Going backwards is a terrible idea.
-
@Kirwan said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial penalties weren't falling from the sky, it is possible to defend without infringing. And it's in the realm of possibility to defend with seven (plus a back like what MP did) in the scrum.
Blaming the laws for players actions is an unhelpful take, whatever intepretations we end up with players and coaches will try to find the edge of allowed play. Fatigue is also a factor, and MP were out on their feet and the Blues were able steamroller them because of it.
And that's what we want to see in Rugby.
Forget that game for a moment. It is no use us using it as an example if you are going to see it from the view of a supporter of one side.
What Smith was talking about was a general scenario where a penalty raises the possibility of another penalty and I agree that is fair comment.
Let's say a couple of unfortunate injuries weaken a team's scrum. OK, injuries are part of the game. But at the moment there is a very easy way to take advantage of that situation by scrumming for a penalty, kicking for the line, rolling a maul, forcing another penalty for a borderline/technical call (because mauls are reffed very one-sided), rinse and repeat until the opposition either waves the white flag to avoid a card or gets carded.
Any card then just makes the situation even worse and the attacking team can fall into a pattern of continually forcing the issue and escalting the situation.
I don't want to watch that. I want to watch ball handling, running, forwards driving through tackles etc etc. Scrum, penalty, kick, lineout, maul, penalty, repeat isn't great product.
The ref and the laws get the blame.
To me rugby is about contest-ability. Fix the maul situation and that comes back.
I can't understand why mauls are treated differently to scrums. Attacking scrum teams aren't allowed to walk around, they have to push straight. That becomes a straight out strength and technique contest. If ball is available, you don't get three bites at the scrum, you are told to use it.
Get the ball back out into the open for punters to see.@Crucial yes I'm not a fan of teams being penalised just for not being good enough, thats what the scoreboard is for.
It is incredibly frustrating to see teams scrum for penalties, and the ref allowing them to hold it in the back while waiting for the second shove to win the penalty.
Like mauls, refs need to be quicker to get teams moving the ball.
Mauls should be 1 stoppage, and IMO anything other than moving toward your intended goal line, is stopped, but yeah ref both teams, not just the defending team.
-
@Crucial yes I'm not a fan of teams being penalised just for not being good enough, thats what the scoreboard is for.
It is incredibly frustrating to see teams scrum for penalties, and the ref allowing them to hold it in the back while waiting for the second shove to win the penalty.
Like mauls, refs need to be quicker to get teams moving the ball.
Mauls should be 1 stoppage, and IMO anything other than moving toward your intended goal line, is stopped, but yeah ref both teams, not just the defending team.
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial yes I'm not a fan of teams being penalised just for not being good enough, thats what the scoreboard is for.
It is incredibly frustrating to see teams scrum for penalties, and the ref allowing them to hold it in the back while waiting for the second shove to win the penalty.
Like mauls, refs need to be quicker to get teams moving the ball.
Mauls should be 1 stoppage, and IMO anything other than moving toward your intended goal line, is stopped, but yeah ref both teams, not just the defending team.
For scrums, that basically removes them as a contest for possession. You should be rewarded for a stronger scrum, or for wearing down another team that's perhaps gambled on a strong scrum but at the expense of the fitness to maintain it.
There aren't that many scrums in games anyway. If you really want to improve the game enforce the offside line at the ruck, or extend it to a clear one metre behind the last player in the ruck. Significantly more rucks in a game, and offside play effects more than a couple of scrum penalties.
-
@Crucial What you will get is teams commiting penalties without any real consequences. Any of the play that you want to see won't happen because it'll be stiffled by offside player and other offenses.
The cards, combined with the new speed interpretation that makes cards have impact again, provide a real disincentive for constant infringements.
Somes teams haven't figured it out yet and and are paying the price. The onus is on the players to play less cynically, and some have a good decade of bad habits to deprogram.
We get through this peroid, we'll get more open play. Going backwards is a terrible idea.
@Kirwan said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial What you will get is teams commiting penalties without any real consequences. Any of the play that you want to see won't happen because it'll be stiffled by offside player and other offenses.
The cards, combined with the new speed interpretation that makes cards have impact again, provide a real disincentive for constant infringements.
Somes teams haven't figured it out yet and and are paying the price. The onus is on the players to play less cynically, and some have a good decade of bad habits to deprogram.
We get through this peroid, we'll get more open play. Going backwards is a terrible idea.
Not talking about offsides or cynical offences though. Talking about something like losing a forward from a technical penalty up field and the kick/maul/penalty/repeated penalty situation that comes from that.
Repeated penalties that escalate the situation but the root cause is one transgression, often well up field.
I can't see how creating a more even maul situation results in cynical fouls though (or have I misunderstood?).
Wayne Smith's suggestion to break the escalation sequence is at the lineout and not reward a penalty kicked for position. My suggestion is to tweak the maul interpretation so that the defending side isn't at such a disadvantage and risk of getting penalised again. Obviously still penalise 'cheating' fouls but reduce the likelihood of them happening accidentally.
At the moment if the attcking side roll the maul the risk of a defender being judged as coming in the side is high. You can't delibeartely roll a scrum, so why a maul?
