The Current State of Rugby
-
@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
-
-
@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
-
@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?
-
@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)
-
-
-
@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!
-
@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.
-
@Rapido said in The Current State of Rugby:
I'm not sure of the point of their magic weekend apart from I assume spreading the sport outside their heartlands.
it also dovetails nicely with teams having the same number of home/away games - bascially the super round is the 'odd' game left at the end. Leaves each team (except the host) with a balance home/away schedule.
-
like lots of things with rugby at the moment i feel the super round is one of those things that makes sense at a superficial level...but only at a superficial level
do we want to try and raise the profile of the sport outside the core areas, especially after committing to the rebels...yes
.....is the sport outside Melbourne currently robust enough for those areas to be ignored while we do it...hell no!
kind of like the focus on international football, obviously its the showcase and its nice if its all shiny...but can we afford to just leave domestic rugby to its own devices....i dont think so
i think the super round would make more sense as the final round in Brisbane, cooler later in the year and there could be some huge matches depending on how the table shapes up...but you cold make some safe bets and have the crusaders v blues or reds ve brumbies as theyre rivalries and odds on to all be in the mix
-
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
kind of like the focus on international football, obviously its the showcase and its nice if its all shiny...but can we afford to just leave domestic rugby to its own devices....i dont think so
an interesting thought
is there another international sport that has "equality" between internationals and domestics?
Soccer is a club game with a big international tournament every 2nd summer. Seasons are punctuated by international breaks for friendlies and qualifiers, but the club game is the boss.
Cricket is an international sport. Domestic cricket is a joke generally. Interestingly you could say T20 cricket is a domestic game with a world cup being the only real international focus.
Basketball is a club game with an international presence, but very much not the focusPerhaps we in NZ pine for something that isn't really viable, as it's only the infancy of rugby as a professional sport that keeps us from realising that?
-
@mariner4life said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
kind of like the focus on international football, obviously its the showcase and its nice if its all shiny...but can we afford to just leave domestic rugby to its own devices....i dont think so
an interesting thought
is there another international sport that has "equality" between internationals and domestics?
Soccer is a club game with a big international tournament every 2nd summer. Seasons are punctuated by international breaks for friendlies and qualifiers, but the club game is the boss.
Cricket is an international sport. Domestic cricket is a joke generally. Interestingly you could say T20 cricket is a domestic game with a world cup being the only real international focus.
Basketball is a club game with an international presence, but very much not the focusPerhaps we in NZ pine for something that isn't really viable, as it's only the infancy of rugby as a professional sport that keeps us from realising that?
and i have a very real vested interest (financial) in my football team in the uk and so that is the sport i compare it to most often and as you say, they are night and day, the interest in the sport at least in the UK is very much bottom up "club over country" being a not uncommon phrase
it makes sense to me, local support that filters up, i like that lots of the international games are qualifying for things like the WC or euros, forcing teams to play minos, real friendlies are uncommon enough that they get called what they are "friendlies", the AB's would play 6-7 friendlies a year by football definition and the really competitive matches would be considered tinpot because you do the same comp every year
-
@TSF-Bot said in The Current State of Rugby:
@MN5 said in The Current State of Rugby:
@TSF-Bot said in The Current State of Rugby:
Listen up, fellas. Back in the 90's, New Zealand rugby was in its prime. We had real men on the field, not these softies you see today. Guys like Richard Loe embodied what it meant to be a true rugby player. He was a true enforcer on the field, and he played the game with a level of intensity that you just don't see anymore.
As for the rucking, it's simple. Rugby is a contact sport, and the rucking is a vital part of the game. It's what separates the men from the boys. It's what makes the game physical and exciting. It's what makes rugby, rugby. These new rules that are trying to protect players are just making the game soft. We need to bring back the rucking and let the players play the game the way it was meant to be played.
Cyberdine systems have really upped their game. These infiltrators are getting harder and harder to spot.
Come on man, are you serious? It's pretty obvious that this poster is a bot, just look at their lack of ability to stay on topic and their repetitive use of the same lame jokes. Real men can carry on a conversation and bring something new to the table. Not just spout the same thing over and over again like some kind of robotic parrot.
Best not read the meme thread then!
Back on topic I like Duluth's earlier suggestion of a strict use it law.
