The Current State of Rugby
-
@Crazy-Horse
I don’t mind players getting ejected from the game.But the way whole process works isn’t just stupid...it’s INSANE!
Firstly, it is very easy to get sent off now days, all it takes is an ever so slight miscalculation.
And then the dumb shit starts…
The game stops for five minutes. Thousands in the crowd, and many more watching TV, look at the screen.
The foul play is highlighted—some poor bastard getting smashed in the head. Watching in super slomo, high definition, from umpteen different angles, repeated repeated repeated.
What a way to promote the game! F’wits.
Then the ridiculous sanctions are imposed. Sanctions that have decided the sports last two world championships.
There are plenty of other ways to handle the process. Just look at what other sports do. And it’s very obvious they don’t do this. Officials still administering like its amateur sport, instead of what it is at the top level, the business of entertainment.
For example.
Ice hockey; a player gets sent to the box and his team is a man down. But as soon as the other team scores, he’s back into the game. Is that not a simple, sensible penalty?
As for players getting ejected from the game permanently. They have to be replaced. At the elite level, a team a man down cannot compete. With no competition the entertainment is pretty much over.
Just get another beer, chat to your mate, look at your phone…
And suspend the miscreant for life at the tribunal on Monday night!
-
@Nepia said in The Current State of Rugby:
Cards are ruining the game, not in and of themselves but because of the interpretation of them which can often be baffling and guesswork. The 20 minute red card minimises their impact while still punishing the offender and their team.
I think 20 minute Red cards are just turd-polishing - though an improvement. There's just too many cards in the game, full stop.
Keep Red cards as they are but limit them to deliberate dangerous and foul play - e.g. kicking someone in the head, stiff-arm and deliberate spear tackles - and not for failing to lower your body enough.
Make stuff like failing to wrap your arms around the ball carrier enough a Yellow and tweak the thresholds for yellows so stuff like deliberate knock-ons are more biased towards become penalties.
-
A antipodean referenced this topic on
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Nepia said in The Current State of Rugby:
Cards are ruining the game, not in and of themselves but because of the interpretation of them which can often be baffling and guesswork. The 20 minute red card minimises their impact while still punishing the offender and their team.
I think 20 minute Red cards are just turd-polishing - though an improvement. There's just too many cards in the game, full stop.
Keep Red cards as they are but limit them to deliberate dangerous and foul play - e.g. kicking someone in the head, stiff-arm and deliberate spear tackles - and not for failing to lower your body enough.
Make stuff like failing to wrap your arms around the ball carrier enough a Yellow and tweak the thresholds for yellows so stuff like deliberate knock-ons are more biased towards become penalties.
Oh yeah, I agree 100% reds should be for deliberate foul play only, I was just discussing it in terms of those options in the article.
-
I was quite enjoying the France U20 game. A penalty with about 6 minutes to go needed to get in front, drama, tension....but no, TMO says "can we just go back, etc". Moment ruined. Fast forwarded to see who won after that. Fortunately I did stop just in time to see the real last minute penalty kick, and waited to see if he actually got to take the shot. He did. It went over but wasn't awarded. Then it was. At least in the end they got that right.
Point being that it is hard to get excited about a try (or anything else) when it is likely to be called back or changed.
-
@Snowy said in The Current State of Rugby:
Point being that it is hard to get excited about a try (or anything else) when it is likely to be called back or changed.
Schrodinger's score. It's like in cricket - celebrate ... but you're waiting for confirmation. It sucks ... but it's the price for better decision making (generally).
I do not know how to fix this.
-
It feels very different in cricket because at least you have seen what happened. In rugby it can be for something that was unnoticeable when watching it yourself (or some bullshit call by a pedantic knobhead that thinks he's watching tiddlywinks). Cricket is all in slow motion or replay anyway, the actual action is about 0.5 seconds long for the ball to get from one end of the pitch to the other, plus the few seconds after that. It is also designed to take 5 days to complete (which is why the shorter versions get progressively more shit as they get shorter).
-
Reason number, i don't know, shit loads, why our rugby season structure sucks.
We have these huge gaps where absolutely nothing happens. And not in summer, in the middle of fucking winter. Rugby's main competitors are charging at the moment, League coming off Origin and running in to finals, AFL at the pointy end.
What's rugby doing? Jack shit. And won't for a couple of weeks yet. Then we'll play for a couple of weeks, then we'll have another 3 weeks off. There is just no momentum. And any casual that watches a test and thinks "oh that was pretty cool, maybe I'll watch some more" has nowhere to turn.
-
@mariner4life agreed, obviously ideal would be pro competitions running all season but they powers that be could do SOMETHING
why wasnt the club comp pushed back a week or two, cant imagine it having a great influence on anything...and then have a big push for poeple to get down and watch finals
-
@Kiwiwomble I think NPC pre-season starts this weekend, so you dont want club finals overlapping that with provinces likely pulling some players from teams?
But agree with @mariner4life big old gap of nothing really, more so when you consider the exhibition game last weekend too.
-
@taniwharugby i guess, sounds pretty lame though "pre season" for a competition largely ignored. kind of feel those guys involved in finals could just roll in to the NPC team next week
I'd personally prefer that over another exhibition game
Thereal thing is why didn't we role straight into the RC?
-
@Kiwiwomble but for the club guys, club finals and playing for thier province is the highlight, pre-season might be thier only provincial run for some?
-
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Kiwiwomble but for the club guys, club finals and playing for thier province is the highlight, pre-season be thier only run for some?
might be right
i guess more an indictment of there is always going to be the lulls when transitioning between competitions and so it kind of sucks for those of us that follow club>NPC>Super>international
most other sports players kind of only play one of the first 3 and then maybe the last and so the competitions are designed to last the whole "season"
-
@Kiwiwomble I think as @mariner4life has alluded to plenty of times, particularly about the NRL how everything is concurrent, whereas Rugby has thier seperation of comps.
Although do we usually have a gap like this prior to TRC? Does seem unusual?
-
@taniwharugby i think its most sports, rugby in NZ is the only one i can think of that fits different levels at different times and has players playing in all of them
it does feel unusual....but it also feels like it slightly different every year
-
Yes. Is unusual.
An AB is actually a member of 4 teams at 4 different levels club/province/super/national. And could play at every level in one season.This does not happen in any other pro football code. They play in 2 at most. Usually their club and national team.
The spanner in the works is Super Rugby. For those who dont know, it was originally a preseason comp for the PUs. And that is why it is played at the start of the season, not at the end, where you'd think it naturally would fit.
SR was controversial right from the start! It didn't include all the PUs. Organised by the Auckland/Wellington/Canterbury PUs (not the NZRU) it shut out all the others. Who were pissed off, and right to be as it turned out.
When they game went pro in 95 it was used by the establishment (led by Jock Hobbs) as an alternative to a non-establishment comp being organised (by Kerry Packer if I remember correctly).
In retrospect.....probably better off if we went with Packer. Would have had a full season Super comp, with regular national team breaks.
-
@mohikamo said in The Current State of Rugby:
SR was controversial right from the start! It didn't include all the PUs. Organised by the Auckland/Wellington/Canterbury PUs (not the NZRU) it shut out all the others. Who were pissed off, and right to be as it turned out.
That was a completely different competition than the pro Super Rugby that started in 1996.
-
What I recall happened was....
Before 1996 SR was sanctioned by the NZ/SA/Aus NUs, but the PUs organised it themselves.
In latter 1995, after the World Cup, there was a battle between the establishment and outside investors over who was going to control the new pro rugby game. The outsiders proposed a super comp combining the Currie Cup and NPC with some Aus teams. The Establishment led by Hobbs won.
After the rugby war was over, the national unions took the SR comp over. The amateur SR comp has never been seen since.
The only real difference being 2 extra NZ teams, with all the NZ PUs were now involved. Which has echos down the decades with the current struggle for the control of rugby in NZ.
AND THE PLAYERS WERE BEING PAID!
I have not checked, but the actual team lists from 95 season to 96 season would probably have been very similar. SA and Aus teams would have been nearly indentical.
For example, the amateur Auckland/Wellington/Canterbury PU teams of 95 would have been very similar to that of the pro Blues/Hurricanes/Crusaders 96.
-
@mohikamo said in The Current State of Rugby:
What I recall happened was....
Before 1996 SR was sanctioned by the NZ/SA/Aus NUs, but the PUs organised it themselves.
In latter 1995, after the World Cup, there was a battle between the establishment and outside investors over who was going to control the new pro rugby game. The outsiders proposed a super comp combining the Currie Cup and NPC with some Aus teams. The Establishment led by Hobbs won.
After the rugby war was over, the national unions took the SR comp over. The amateur SR comp has never been seen since.
The only real difference being 2 extra NZ teams, with all the NZ PUs were now involved. Which has echos down the decades with the current struggle for the control of rugby in NZ.
AND THE PLAYERS WERE BEING PAID!
I have not checked, but the actual team lists from 95 season to 96 season would probably have been very similar. SA and Aus teams would have been nearly indentical.
For example, the amateur Auckland/Wellington/Canterbury PU teams of 95 would have been very similar to that of the pro Blues/Hurricanes/Crusaders 96.
Before pro Super Rugby there was the Super 10s, the Super 6, the SPC, and the CANZ series.
There's a clear dividing line between those comps and the pro Super 12 introduced in 1996 - unless you're a Queenslander or Transvaalian and want some extra wins in your column.
The Blues team of 1996 would likely be similar to the 1995 Auckland team, I daresay not so much the Crusaders and Canterbury.
