The Current State of Rugby
-
Thought I would join the other long time lurkers and re-enter the fray.
World rugby has created a no win scenario with the way they want dangerous contact officiated.
Refs can't win if they give a red they ruin the match. Which costs a small fortune to go and watch. They don't they're not being consistent and as we have seen over a 3 match series they can cost a team the series.
Ireland would most likely not have held on with 14 men in the 3rd. The All Black's had almost no chance in the second with 14. Those are just the realities of top flight rugby at this level. Now it looks like whoops we got it wrong oh well you're good sports take it on the chin and move on.
If Foster goes because a ref made the wrong call that seems pretty shitty for him. I say that as someone who was never for his taking the top job.
I think where we went wrong was when we adopted the card system. Hear me out as I roll back the years.
Back in the day rugby was a bit like ice hockey, there was a code and if you deliberately tried to hurt someone there were consequences. You would get filled in sooner or later. Normally sooner. Dirty play existed but was dealt with outside the framework of the match. Kind of like fighting in hockey. You can cross check someone to the face. But the Piper is going to come calling and you're going to pay for it
Then TV got good, and this stuff was being spotted and it needed to be stopped. So we looked around and thought Football (soccer for those so inclined) has discipline all figured out, let's adopt their card system. So yellows and reds. But yellows are kind of bullshit. They can be for anything from smashing a guys cheekbone accidentally, not being good enough to hold up your side of the scrum, fucking up an intercept, doing the same dumb shit over and over again despite being told not to. With reds held back for real foul play, punching, biting eye gouging sort of thing. Because we didn't want players dealing out discipline to each other. But in football a red card is not a death knell. If you're leading or drawing park the bus. If losing you can still score most games are decided by 1 or 2 goals. You don't score in multiples.
Then head injuries became a focus point and reds started being applied for all sorts of things, jumping in the air to catch a ball but not getting it, not jumping and having someone who is land on you head clashes of any sort. Stuff that may have had no ill intent at all.
So now games and even test series are frequently spoiled by red cards.
Okay so history lesson over. What's the solution?
How about we look at the other big money sports? If we don't want to go the ice hockey route fine I get that.
But the NBA and the NFL don't fuck over the Superbowl because some one has a brain explosion and tries to decapitate someone. They give the team offended against a decent penalty then they kick the offender's sorry arse out, continue the match and fine them into oblivion. The team gets fined as well. Normally a lot more then the player. Money fucking matters, so that stops teams sending out hitmen to take out players.
So my proposal keep yellows for repeat offending or cynical play. It's within the construct of the game. But for filth, 7 points and the player is ejected. If you get it wrong the player is cleared at judiciary and a 7 point advantage isn't enough that the game is out of reach. Players will stop that shit we saw in England Aussie real quick when they are writing 5 figure cheques.
Final thoughts, Barrett in the first test and Aki in the 3rd were far better candidates for trips to the judiciary then Ta'avao and Porter. Their actions had intent they lined up players unable to defend themselves and smashed shoulders into them. Yet both not even looked at it. That makes literally no sense. Oh WalesOnline I am still waiting for your write up about Akis "sickening" challenge. Just kidding what you do can hardly be considered writing.
That series could have gone either way. Honestly we were robbed from ever knowing the real outcome by officiating, that's not acceptable.
-
@MiketheSnow said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Steve said in The Current State of Rugby:
@MiketheSnow that's awfully simplistic mate.
The decisions left an awful sour taste. how can you watch the second test and then be supposed to swallow what happened in the third.
It's a disingenuous sleight of hand to suggest otherwise.
Peoples careers are on the line here. Cane could lose the captaincy and by extension his place in the team. Foster could lose his job. etc etc.
This 3 test series was reffed with an infuriating inconsistency.
Agreed 100%
And it was still high drama and high skills
Thrilling
From one side...if we had played well and lost, I'd agree, we played poorly, some contentious reffing decisions and bam, not that great of a Rugby spectacle, occasion, absolutely a great occasion for Ireland, they played some great rugby, but was one sided.
-
Taking protecting the head is a given permanent reality. Examining what are the reasons for it;
- player safety, and
- money (protecting game from lawsuits, and from general poor image).
I can accept that, I do accept that. I'm not in the same point on the accepting that scale as WR referees. Stuck to a rigid yellow then red outcomes for their inflexible process. But, I am somewhere on that scale.
There needs to be a behaviour shift to lower initial tackles. Carrot and stick.
-
The 'stick' has already been discussed plenty over years.
An interim card, 20 mins reds etc.
I don't really need to add much here. Except I will also pull this back to the motivating factor 2 above. Money. Here is where I'd want WR to balance potential money lost to lawsuits, and money lost to disappearing fan income via TV rights and tickets sales. It's hard to get a global view on this. As in NZ rugby has been in decline for 20 years anyway, how do you seperate out that from 'the game is being ruined' viewpoint to people just not following it anymore due the shrinking of the professional game to just 5 franchises and the All Blacks, plus an incredibly weak FTA TV culture. -
The 'carrot'.
Behaviour shift to lower initial tackles.
How can you make it a no-brainer instinct for a tackler to go for the waist beyond just the risk of punishment we a re currently implementing?
Why are they coached to go high? to wrap up the ball as long as possible. b) the held-up turnover rule.
Why? a) Because the tackler can hold on to it for ages, place it back. Christ, he can even pass it off the ground.
Make the ball carrier release the ball immediately once he is on the ground. This isn't a rule change I am proposing. It is the actual bloody rule. Has been for 150 years, ignored only for the last 25.
Next part of this ruling. Allow the ruck arrivers to compete, and do not punish them so harshly if their legal initial attempt ends up with him off the ground on the wrong side.
Need a carrot that creates ball on the ground contestable situations. You need to make the players WANT to chop them around the knees to get it to the ground. Need to make this the BEST option. Need contesting to be a better option than slowing.
Might also, need to reverse the 1992 rule change re: held-up turnover rule. I haven't given this as much thought. It has come to me while I was typing this post ... I reckon this would be a tough one to convince people on. I guess, at least it proves fans like turnovers ...
-
@mooshld said in The Current State of Rugby:
How about we look at the other big money sports? If we don't want to go the ice hockey route fine I get that.
But the NBA and the NFL don't fuck over the Superbowl because some one has a brain explosion and tries to decapitate someone. They give the team offended against a decent penalty then they kick the offender's sorry arse out, continue the match and fine them into oblivion. The team gets fined as well. Normally a lot more then the player. Money fucking matters, so that stops teams sending out hitmen to take out players.
Just on this part. The examples you have given are from closed leagues. This would only really work in a competition with single pots of money. So, wouldn't really work in a bilateral series like the NZ v Ire one just been. But especially in an example like a Georgia v Italy or Fiji v France game with huge gulfs in finances, and no revenue sharing.
It would be good to introduce in the professional leagues. E.g. Super Rugby, Top14, Premiership etc etc
By doing that, you would hope the behaviour changes would stick when playing at the different levels..It could also be done in international tournaments. Like RWC, TRC, 6 nations etc. With some level of pooled money control.
-
@Rapido said in The Current State of Rugby:
@mooshld said in The Current State of Rugby:
How about we look at the other big money sports? If we don't want to go the ice hockey route fine I get that.
But the NBA and the NFL don't fuck over the Superbowl because some one has a brain explosion and tries to decapitate someone. They give the team offended against a decent penalty then they kick the offender's sorry arse out, continue the match and fine them into oblivion. The team gets fined as well. Normally a lot more then the player. Money fucking matters, so that stops teams sending out hitmen to take out players.
Just on this part. The examples you have given are from closed leagues. This would only really work in a competition with single pots of money. So, wouldn't really work in a bilateral series like the NZ v Ire one just been. But especially in an example like a Georgia v Italy or Fiji v France game with huge gulfs in finances, and no revenue sharing.
It would be good to introduce in the professional leagues. E.g. Super Rugby, Top14, Premiership etc etc
By doing that, you would hope the behaviour changes would stick when playing at the different levels..It could also be done in international tournaments. Like RWC, TRC, 6 nations etc. With some level of pooled money control.
Cricket has fines. Why not rugby? It's a good question.
I guess that payment models in countries differ greatly but match fees probably exist.
In the case of a RWC there are massive participation payouts that could be tapped into. -
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Rapido said in The Current State of Rugby:
@mooshld said in The Current State of Rugby:
How about we look at the other big money sports? If we don't want to go the ice hockey route fine I get that.
But the NBA and the NFL don't fuck over the Superbowl because some one has a brain explosion and tries to decapitate someone. They give the team offended against a decent penalty then they kick the offender's sorry arse out, continue the match and fine them into oblivion. The team gets fined as well. Normally a lot more then the player. Money fucking matters, so that stops teams sending out hitmen to take out players.
Just on this part. The examples you have given are from closed leagues. This would only really work in a competition with single pots of money. So, wouldn't really work in a bilateral series like the NZ v Ire one just been. But especially in an example like a Georgia v Italy or Fiji v France game with huge gulfs in finances, and no revenue sharing.
It would be good to introduce in the professional leagues. E.g. Super Rugby, Top14, Premiership etc etc
By doing that, you would hope the behaviour changes would stick when playing at the different levels..It could also be done in international tournaments. Like RWC, TRC, 6 nations etc. With some level of pooled money control.
Cricket has fines. Why not rugby? It's a good question.
I guess that payment models in countries differ greatly but match fees probably exist.
In the case of a RWC there are massive participation payouts that could be tapped into.Or a RL style report system. Guy gets a YC and put on report to suffer potential future punishment. RC should be reserved for clear cut filth or extremely reckless behaviour
-
@Crucial I've bought that up before, in NPC and up, there could be a financial component to suspensions, to the team and the player (this was more in response to those that said the 20 min RC would mean teams would target players not caring about being sent off, banned or anything...whereas a financial hit to the player and any management involed, plus the team would ensure this wouldnt happen - at club/school level, I'd leave red cards as they are)
Cricket uses a % of the match fee dont they, so it works regardless of how much the player earns?
-
@Rapido said in The Current State of Rugby:
Taking protecting the head is a given permanent reality. Examining what are the reasons for it;
- player safety, and
- money (protecting game from lawsuits, and from general poor image).
I can accept that, I do accept that. I'm not in the same point on the accepting that scale as WR referees. Stuck to a rigid yellow then red outcomes for their inflexible process. But, I am somewhere on that scale.
There needs to be a behaviour shift to lower initial tackles. Carrot and stick.
-
The 'stick' has already been discussed plenty over years.
An interim card, 20 mins reds etc.
I don't really need to add much here. Except I will also pull this back to the motivating factor 2 above. Money. Here is where I'd want WR to balance potential money lost to lawsuits, and money lost to disappearing fan income via TV rights and tickets sales. It's hard to get a global view on this. As in NZ rugby has been in decline for 20 years anyway, how do you seperate out that from 'the game is being ruined' viewpoint to people just not following it anymore due the shrinking of the professional game to just 5 franchises and the All Blacks, plus an incredibly weak FTA TV culture. -
The 'carrot'.
Behaviour shift to lower initial tackles.
How can you make it a no-brainer instinct for a tackler to go for the waist beyond just the risk of punishment we a re currently implementing?
Why are they coached to go high? to wrap up the ball as long as possible. b) the held-up turnover rule.
Why? a) Because the tackler can hold on to it for ages, place it back. Christ, he can even pass it off the ground.
Make the ball carrier release the ball immediately once he is on the ground. This isn't a rule change I am proposing. It is the actual bloody rule. Has been for 150 years, ignored only for the last 25.
Next part of this ruling. Allow the ruck arrivers to compete, and do not punish them so harshly if their legal initial attempt ends up with him off the ground on the wrong side.
Need a carrot that creates ball on the ground contestable situations. You need to make the players WANT to chop them around the knees to get it to the ground. Need to make this the BEST option. Need contesting to be a better option than slowing.
Might also, need to reverse the 1992 rule change re: held-up turnover rule. I haven't given this as much thought. It has come to me while I was typing this post ... I reckon this would be a tough one to convince people on. I guess, at least it proves fans like turnovers ...
Ball carrier holding on / delayed playing off the floor is one of the biggest problems
If the ball carrier has to pass before hitting the ground with one knee (definition of tackle these days it seems) and/or let go of the ball soon as he hits the ground then we’ll see less ruck batterings, more turnovers, and a quicker game overnight
It’s not rocket science
As an addition, Tomos Williams tackled a SA player around the ankles and brought him to the ground
And then got penalised for holding on even though the SA was in the floor and had made no attempt to release the ball, get to his feet , and regather possession
That interpretation of the tackle is nonsensical IMHO
-
@MiketheSnow i think you'll actually see more kicking
-
@mariner4life said in The Current State of Rugby:
@MiketheSnow i think you'll actually see more kicking
Possibly for a period of time
But good coaches will capitalise on any situation
-
@MiketheSnow said in The Current State of Rugby:
@mariner4life said in The Current State of Rugby:
@MiketheSnow i think you'll actually see more kicking
Possibly for a period of time
But good coaches will capitalise on any situation
professional coaches are above all else risk averse
they also absolutely hate chaos.
-
@mariner4life said in The Current State of Rugby:
@MiketheSnow said in The Current State of Rugby:
@mariner4life said in The Current State of Rugby:
@MiketheSnow i think you'll actually see more kicking
Possibly for a period of time
But good coaches will capitalise on any situation
professional coaches are above all else risk averse
they also absolutely hate chaos.
The good, creative players and coaches love it
Give them a chance to shape the game
Not the military medium war gamers
-
The leagues may be closed but the disparity in pay in those leagues is huge, not everyone is on a 30 million a year contract. So some scrub getting garbage time minutes isn't going to blow his yearly salary by polaxing Steph Curry. Again I am talking about real filth here not accidental head clashes that happen at high speed. They are by definition an accident.
Not sure who said it above but we should have been bleating about this stuff when we were a better team, now it looks like sour grapes. But honestly in the last 10 years I have lost a lot of passion for the sport at professional level. I used to follow my teams avidly and be really annoyed when they lost. Nowadays it seems like a match going 15 v 15 is not the norm and that puts too much power in the refs hands. Would love to see the stats on this. Its a test match not much of a test when there are only 14 on the pitch.
World Rugby have pulled the pin on a hand grenade. Imagine an accidental head clash in the first 5 minutes of a world cup final. I would hate to be that Ref, you only give a yellow and the team goes onto win, with the yellow upgraded to a red the following week. I am sure the losing team will be super cool with that. Or you give a red and the competition is over with a stadium full of people paying literally 1000 euro a seat prices. That red could then be reviewed at the judiciary and be declared a "Soaking tackle", which lets be honest is a bullshit term invented this week. So the losing team again is gona be super cool with that decision.
The only solution is to do everything we can to keep 15 players on the pitch. Otherwise the results just become a coin toss and I don't need to pay 10 euros a pint to watch a coin toss.
-
@mooshld Exactly. The more it can be 15 on 15 the better. Deal with the sanctions after the game in the cold light of day, use the same panel for every decision, and try to get some consistency in the decisions. They can be as harsh as fuck on foul play and stopping head impacts in that forum, I'd have no problem with that.
Wipe Porter out for 2 months, that was reckless and it has caused serious injury, and he clearly had time to go lower - he chose not to. But keep 15 on the field, because Ireland deserved that famous victory - either with Porter still there or he goes off but can be replaced.Get the RUs together and coordinate contract clauses which mean players who are suspended have their salary suspended, so they get hit financially and in proportion to their incomes.
And not take over an hour to watch a half of stop-start footy with a million shitty replays and TMOs making a theatre of transparency in decision-making and us still getting a shitshow of poor decisions with <20 minutes of ball in play.
-
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
@JC said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial It’s a legitimate point. When we hear Peyper saying that the tackler has the greater responsibility isn’t that presuming that the team in possession isn’t manufacturing the environment where uncontrolled collisions are more likely?
It's a bit like the old Brumbies Larkham days. Larkham would 'trick' players into having to decide if he had passed or not by turning his back.
I remember the ref telling him once, after being flattened from behind without the ball, 'you created that, you take it'Good ref.
-
@nostrildamus said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
@JC said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial It’s a legitimate point. When we hear Peyper saying that the tackler has the greater responsibility isn’t that presuming that the team in possession isn’t manufacturing the environment where uncontrolled collisions are more likely?
It's a bit like the old Brumbies Larkham days. Larkham would 'trick' players into having to decide if he had passed or not by turning his back.
I remember the ref telling him once, after being flattened from behind without the ball, 'you created that, you take it'Good ref.
My all time favourite was Andre Watson.
"Wrong side roll away"
"Roll away"
"Roll away!!!"
"Alright boys spit him out"At which point the player disappeared under a hail of boots.
-
-
-
It's just bizarre. Every decision ever made puts all of the onus on the defender to get it right. This impact caused a severe injury, but they are mitigating it because the defender didn't supply enough of the momentum? That's effectively saying it is Retallicks fault for running hard.
Despite the defender having plenty of time to go low, and deciding to go high on a 6'8" lock.
I give up.
