The Current State of Rugby
-
The game at the top level is a contest, but it’s not prioritising entertainment enough. The games are slow and too dominated by debates between the officials.
In Europe and the UK soccer dominates. In Australasia and the Pacific it’s NRL and in the USA it’s NFL and NBA.
Rugby with its slow games and baffling decisions is getting less and less of a look in.
It’s only really South Africa and Ireland where the game seems to be growing.
-
World Rugby won't grow the game by chucking money and token games at tier twos, it will grow by making a better product. Professional sport is entertainment, sucking all Joie de vivre out of the game to engineer a result is only going to keep only a certain sect of diehards happy.
-
There should be a big conversation about head shots among other things. The reffing of head shots has been inconsistent all tournament and world rugby got the perfect storm in the final, two head shots reffed differently resulting in losing a player for 60 odd minutes and one for 10.
Before the tournament both would have been red, in the first week, both would have been red, then the interpretation became more desperate to keep players on the field. As far as the latter stages go, I wasn’t surprised by either decision. It’s a really horrible problem to solve, as they have to stop head shots, but unless they fundamentally change the tackle height law these things are going to happen.
On the style of the game itself, someone mentioned in the game thread that we will be turning new spectators off, well, my dad who’s watched rugby for 80 odd years and played a high standard can’t really be fucked with it anymore. So many technical interpretations, so much reward for up and unders, and so much risk in holding onto the ball and being tackled behind the gain line, so many opportunities for teams to maintain a defensive intensity through slowing the game down and swapping out players around the ruck. Need to have a look at the sub laws, there are too many and too much gaming of them. Bongi did not go off for a tactical sub, how on earth could that decision be allowed. Also, too much reward for having a better scrum, you don’t get a penalty awarded against you anywhere else for not being as good at a technical skill, trouble is, if you remove the jeopardy then you encourage an extra three loose forwards on the pitch further reducing the space for attacking play. Again, reducing subs feels like a better option than solely changing the punishment.
The TMO is a weird problem, once you involve tech, then accepting bad decisions becomes harder and harder, as a result you have TMOs going back to intervene in phases leading up to tries etc - if you don’t though, you have huge complaints afterwards that the wrong decision was made in the build up.
I don’t know how to solve most of these, but rugby is risking eating itself and losing fans left right and centre.
-
@Dodge said in The Current State of Rugby:
There should be a big conversation about head shots among other things. The reffing of head shots has been inconsistent all tournament and world rugby got the perfect storm in the final, two head shots reffed differently resulting in losing a player for 60 odd minutes and one for 10.
Before the tournament both would have been red, in the first week, both would have been red, then the interpretation became more desperate to keep players on the field. As far as the latter stages go, I wasn’t surprised by either decision. It’s a really horrible problem to solve, as they have to stop head shots, but unless they fundamentally change the tackle height law these things are going to happen.
On the style of the game itself, someone mentioned in the game thread that we will be turning new spectators off, well, my dad who’s watched rugby for 80 odd years and played a high standard can’t really be fucked with it anymore. So many technical interpretations, so much reward for up and unders, and so much risk in holding onto the ball and being tackled behind the gain line, so many opportunities for teams to maintain a defensive intensity through slowing the game down and swapping out players around the ruck. Need to have a look at the sub laws, there are too many and too much gaming of them. Bongi did not go off for a tactical sub, how on earth could that decision be allowed. Also, too much reward for having a better scrum, you don’t get a penalty awarded against you anywhere else for not being as good at a technical skill, trouble is, if you remove the jeopardy then you encourage an extra three loose forwards on the pitch further reducing the space for attacking play. Again, reducing subs feels like a better option than solely changing the punishment.
The TMO is a weird problem, once you involve tech, then accepting bad decisions becomes harder and harder, as a result you have TMOs going back to intervene in phases leading up to tries etc - if you don’t though, you have huge complaints afterwards that the wrong decision was made in the build up.
I don’t know how to solve most of these, but rugby is risking eating itself and losing fans left right and centre.
I have posted this elsewhere, but 2 weeks ago Etzebeth ran in and gave Atonio a flying headbutt but only got a yellow card. This week, and Cane gets a red for something less dangerous. Were the rules applied equally from week-to-week, Cane would have been on the sidelines for 10 mins or Etzebeth would not have been playing in that match. In either case, you can accept it because at least everyone knows where they stand from week-to-week. But the current situation is farcical.
-
Rugby seems to have a bob each way on the head knocks. At least League is slightly transparent about where and when it will go all State of Origin on selectively enforcing the rules...
Changing from week to week - or hoping that concussion symptoms and CTE dementia can also magically recognise "mitigating factors" in head knocks - isn't going to do much for either players or for spectators....
-
Two weeks after the greatest weekend of rugby ever, this match, unfortunately, demonstrated almost everything that's wrong with modern rugby:
- From the very first penalty, where Frizzel gets cleaned out by Kitshoff onto Bongi's leg and gets carded.
- Bongi then gets "tactically" subbed, which apparently means he can come back on (but Wayne never mentioned under what circumstances he could).
- Cane gets a red card for something less dangerous than what Etzebeth (yellow card) and the Argie bloke (not even a penalty) did 2 weeks ago.
- Barnes pings Savea, then accepts that he was wrong to do so, but does not change his decision.
- Kolisi gets yellow carded for another flying headbutt (consistent with the Etzebeth call 2 weeks ago I guess).
- The game in the second half largely devolves into 2 teams trying the box kick their way to victory in the hope that the opposition will drop the ball and gift them the trophy.
- Multiple interventions by the TMO, not just for foul play.
- A try scored off what at first glance appears might be a knock on but which the TMO - who's already made a dozen interventions - doesn't appear to check.
- A ref who decides to swallow his whistle in the last 10 mins resulting in some inconsistent breakdown interpretations, which will always favour the defending team.
- Water breaks for tired props, and the associated invasion of the pitch by "medics" all mic'd up to the coaching box.
The only thing missing were the scrum and maul penalties, but that was mainly because we scrummed and mauled well.
-
@junior said in The Current State of Rugby:
Two weeks after the greatest weekend of rugby ever, this match, unfortunately, demonstrated almost everything that's wrong with modern rugby:
- From the very first penalty, where Frizzel gets cleaned out by Kitshoff onto Bongi's leg and gets carded.
- Bongi then gets "tactically" subbed, which apparently means he can come back on (but Wayne never mentioned under what circumstances he could).
- Cane gets a red card for something less dangerous than what Etzebeth (yellow card) and the Argie bloke (not even a penalty) did 2 weeks ago.
- Barnes pings Savea, then accepts that he was wrong to do so, but does not change his decision.
- Kolisi gets yellow carded for another flying headbutt (consistent with the Etzebeth call 2 weeks ago I guess).
- The game in the second half largely devolves into 2 teams trying the box kick their way to victory in the hope that the opposition will drop the ball and gift them the trophy.
- Multiple interventions by the TMO, not just for foul play.
- A try scored off what at first glance appears might be a knock on but which the TMO - who's already made a dozen interventions - doesn't appear to check.
- A ref who decides to swallow his whistle in the last 10 mins resulting in some inconsistent breakdown interpretations, which will always favour the defending team.
- Water breaks for tired props, and the associated invasion of the pitch by "medics" all mic'd up to the coaching box.
The only thing missing were the scrum and maul penalties, but that was mainly because we scrummed and mauled well.
I'd suggest we scrummed and mauled extremely well in the circumstances.
-
The very fact we’re having this conversation about the increasingly restricted tactics in rugby union at this level and the increasingly high-profile role of the adjudicators tells you there is something rotten in the state of Dublin.
There’s nothing wrong with the Boks, but this style of play is what the rules produces. Constant box kicks, up and unders, scrum infringements, kicks to the corner and rolling mauls, and an emphasis on rolling mauls, are what wins games. Of course, all of those tactics are completely legitimate and well done SA for perfecting them. But there’s a clear imbalance there. And that’s a result of the stultifying rules that elevate defence over attack. As for the yellow and red cards, the rule-makers have lost their way. A completely understandable desire to protect players against head injury has resulted in a lottery in which there is no consistency - not only from one game to the next, but within games. Referees are not sovereign anymore. There is a constant voice in their ear second-guessing their judgement. I don’t think they can go on like this, but I have been saying that for years
-
Agree with so many of the above.
To be clear though, I don't think the problem is with the Boks. Rugby has always been about pushing the limits and what you can get away with, so good on the. The problem is world rugby and the officials doing nothing about it.
When Barnes was informed it was a tactical sub, he should have said. Right, come and listen to me. That was an injury sub, you know it, I know it so cut the bullshit. I'm not going to stand for it.
Instead he accepted it and moved on.
Its the end of the game as we know it, unless big changs are made.
-
I don't have a problem with the Boks style, and they have backs that can and do carve teams up at times. But @junior's post hit's the nail on the head with the inconsistency in the reffing.
How are fans, let alone players, expected to take it on the chin when a ref awards a penalty (which turns out to be a winning one) to a team, realises his mistake, but can't reverse the decision (or could he have)? Meanwhile a TMO can rule out a try from a play a long time before or decide one head shot is less dangerous than another even when it has the same outcome of hitting a player in the head?
Anyway, best take my drunken arse to bed or I'll just be anger typing all night.
-
@Nepia said in The Current State of Rugby:
I don't have a problem with the Boks style, and they have backs that can and do carve teams up at times. But @junior's post hit's the nail on the head with the inconsistency in the reffing.
How are fans, let alone players, expected to take it on the chin when a ref awards a penalty (which turns out to be a winning one) to a team, realises his mistake, but can't reverse the decision (or could he have)? Meanwhile a TMO can rule out a try from a play a long time before or decide one head shot is less dangerous than another even when it has the same outcome of hitting a player in the head?
Anyway, best take my drunken arse to bed or I'll just be anger typing all night.
The only way to resolve the issue around head contact is to treat every head contact the same. Otherwise, you get the farcical situations we had on the weekend - which probably caused Ardie a broken nose for a flying headbutt and De Groot a broken nose from a swinging arm, but Kreel no damage from a shoulder to the jaw - are all treated differently.
-
@His-Bobness said in The Current State of Rugby:
The very fact we’re having this conversation about the increasingly restricted tactics in rugby union at this level and the increasingly high-profile role of the adjudicators tells you there is something rotten in the state of Dublin.
There’s nothing wrong with the Boks, but this style of play is what the rules produces. Constant box kicks, up and unders, scrum infringements, kicks to the corner and rolling mauls, and an emphasis on rolling mauls, are what wins games. Of course, all of those tactics are completely legitimate and well done SA for perfecting them. But there’s a clear imbalance there. And that’s a result of the stultifying rules that elevate defence over attack. As for the yellow and red cards, the rule-makers have lost their way. A completely understandable desire to protect players against head injury has resulted in a lottery in which there is no consistency - not only from one game to the next, but within games. Referees are not sovereign anymore. There is a constant voice in their ear second-guessing their judgement. I don’t think they can go on like this, but I have been saying that for years
The TMO situation is a lottery and the impact of a red or two yellows is more than the gap between top teams at most levels.
It needs a professional, possibly non-rugby, review.
That ought to include:
When and how TMO intervenes;
How ordinary play is monitored (at one extreme do we have have a team of say five each reviewing different feeds or do we have one or two but eg only focus on breakdowns or a limited menu); and
Are only penalties involved, or re knock ons and offsides?
The aim ought to be a workable system where we can be confident that all incidents of the prescribed type are reviewed, in particular dangerous play, but outside that TMO only involved if referee asks for assistance.
Maybe one Captain’s review per half, and no other requests to be considered.
Not sure World Rugby is sufficiently competent to get there, but the games urgently needs it.
I don’t want Tom Foley’s name in the trophy ever again.
-
Have no problms with differing styles and actually admire Rassie's innovation. And I'm not sure the reffing is the issue - it's the constant changes to the mythical guidelines which is the problem. And then there's the rule changes - I just can't keep up with all the year-on year changes.
I mentioned in another thread that this RWC was the flattest I can remember - despite the quarter-final games. Have been with generally sport-mad family this WE, and only one mentioned the rugby. That was my BiL, who has attended every Varsity match for the last 30-40 years at HQ, rightly moaning that it has now been demoted to "some suburban ground in Nth London".
That's telling.
-
@Nepia said in The Current State of Rugby:
I don't have a problem with the Boks style, and they have backs that can and do carve teams up at times. But @junior's post hit's the nail on the head with the inconsistency in the reffing.
How are fans, let alone players, expected to take it on the chin when a ref awards a penalty (which turns out to be a winning one) to a team, realises his mistake, but can't reverse the decision (or could he have)? Meanwhile a TMO can rule out a try from a play a long time before or decide one head shot is less dangerous than another even when it has the same outcome of hitting a player in the head?
Anyway, best take my drunken arse to bed or I'll just be anger typing all night.
We had a few of them yesterday
-
The state of the game is shit.
There have been good games this WC: Wales Fiji was a ripper, or at least would have been with a competent referee in charge - so it is still possible.
On the other hand, the Sth Africa England game is arguably the most boring piece of shit I've seen in years. The number of kicks was absurd. The tactics of both sides were incredibly negative. I just don't want to watch that. And for the fuck-bags out there try to pass off that sort of criticism as coming from bandwagon / casual fans, well just absolutely get fucked you arrogant fluffybunnies, it's coming from lifelong rugby people. That game wasn't a forward battle. Athletic Park '96 in the wet was a magnificent forward-oriented rugby game - there have been plenty of those over the years, and this was not one. This one was high kick after high kick waiting for errors, and was decided by a referee who ruled that the SA prop wasn't boring in, when that could easily have gone the other way. That's just not a decent sport to watch. The inconsistent cards have been done to death, but they decided the result of this game too. Literally the only thing the game had going for it was tension because it was close. If we want to watch people kick it all day and have tension from close games then why not just watch fucking football. -
Thanks to endless whining by losing coaches and fans, this is where we have got ourselves to
A TMO watching the game a phase behind and telling the ref everything he has missed. But not really everything, just some stuff, as some stuff doesn't matter.
The search for perfection in a game that is absolute chaos is a fruitless exercise. And yet here we are. For all that time taken by the officials on the weekend, is anyone happy? Is there less whinging? is there fuck.
Rugby adjudication is subjective, it can never be perfect. Timing matters, intent matters, and therefore decisions are made based on opinion, not fact.
The NRL's bunker system is far from perfect, but it's a shit load better than what rugby is serving up.
-
@mariner4life i kind of feel, yes we'll still complain about the ref missing things but at least point to the fact humans make errors in real time....and eventually move on
if we're going to bring in things like TMO and super slow mo replays, and loads if time to review etc...then it needs to be perfect...and its not
-
@nzzp said in The Current State of Rugby:
@junior said in The Current State of Rugby:
@nzzp said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Victor-Meldrew said in The Current State of Rugby:
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
Right now it feels like they are looking for something wrong in everything, which there is, often given how technical things have become.
You've nailed it for me.
And me.
Looking for reasons to get people off the field
The fact the solution in rugby is so often to remove people from the field simply supports the case for the existence of the 13 man code
We've been conditioned into accepting unintentional acts are evil.
Angus Ta'avao (edit: and the Portman/Retallick tackle of course)
Sam CurryThere's a bunch of people who get into a poor position and wind up smashing heads - it's clearly not a plan, but it's treated the same as someone who tries to take someone's head off with a swinging arm. I think rugby's trying to treat inadvertent contact the same as intentional contact, but only if the TMO looks at it - and only if there's not some random mitigation applied. It's just weird, and it sucks for the fans.
And the natural end point is the appeal to the ref for cards... the system's broken when you start having that as part of your gameplan.
This exactly. Intent has to be considered. If it is not obvious it is foul play then it's not.
