The Current State of Rugby
-
@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.
-
Saw an article somewhere where someone was complaining about "fresh legs" subs being run out at pretty much every stoppage in the last 20 minutes and disrupting the game and slowing it down - and I thought "Yeah".
If you're going to run on fresh legs, maybe you should have to do them in bulk at the first stoppage after the 50th, 60th and 70th minutes.
-
@Chris-B said in The Current State of Rugby:
Saw an article somewhere where someone was complaining about "fresh legs" subs being run out at pretty much every stoppage in the last 20 minutes and disrupting the game and slowing it down - and I thought "Yeah".
If you're going to run on fresh legs, maybe you should have to do them in bulk at the first stoppage after the 50th, 60th and 70th minutes.
I can see it from an overall game time management perspective, but I don’t like it. One it takes away some of the skill of coaching and knowing when to sub someone off or on. Plus some substitutions later in a game are largely influenced by injury replacement that occur earlier in the match. Taking away that flexibility/autonomy of coaches to manage those scenarios doesn’t sit right.
-
@Bovidae said in The Current State of Rugby:
Parsons was implying that quite a few Kiwis flew over to Melbourne for the games (as he did). I can't imagine it was a significant number, so you are tapping into the local rugby fans (including Kiwis) to be the crowd.
Parsons is full of shit.
-
@KiwiMurph said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Bovidae said in The Current State of Rugby:
Parsons was implying that quite a few Kiwis flew over to Melbourne for the games (as he did). I can't imagine it was a significant number, so you are tapping into the local rugby fans (including Kiwis) to be the crowd.
Parsons is full of shit.
Well, he is from Auckland
-
@mariner4life said in The Current State of Rugby:
@KiwiMurph said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Bovidae said in The Current State of Rugby:
Parsons was implying that quite a few Kiwis flew over to Melbourne for the games (as he did). I can't imagine it was a significant number, so you are tapping into the local rugby fans (including Kiwis) to be the crowd.
Parsons is full of shit.
Well, he is from Auckland
Palmerston North, originally.
-
@Bovidae said in The Current State of Rugby:
Parsons was implying that quite a few Kiwis flew over to Melbourne for the games (as he did). I can't imagine it was a significant number, so you are tapping into the local rugby fans (including Kiwis) to be the crowd.
Did they go shopping instead of going to the games?
-
im not sure where to look this up so asking the question, anyone know what the red/yellow card situation has been after the first 3 weeks of super rugby compared to the past?
-
-
@Steve said in The Current State of Rugby:
Decent video here highlighting the in-game and week to week inconsistencies the sport is facing via overzealous and in some cases incompetent refereeing.
Its card roulette and we are all taking turns getting shafted by it.
I have been anti cards for a long time now, they ruin the game for me. I have found myself turning off games when a card is dished out.
I also hate the controversy caused by cards or lack of cards. Take the Blues Crusaders game for example. The lack of cards given out to the Crusaders was a big talking point in the thread and it took away from the game itself. People feel aggrieved when their team gets one and aggrieved when the other team doesn't. It's a no win situation.
Maybe it's time to think of alternative punishments. Take the cards dished out and not dished out in the Crusader Blues game for example. They were not for dangerous foul play, rather they were for deliberate fouls to stop the other team scoring a try. Just thinking aloud here, but what about making the punishment the equivalent of conceding a try? That way there would be no point in defending teams conceding penalties deliberately if the outcome was going to be the same anyway. As it stands I think teams are sometimes willing to sacrifice a defender and hope they can hold out anyway.
-
@Crazy-Horse said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Steve said in The Current State of Rugby:
Decent video here highlighting the in-game and week to week inconsistencies the sport is facing via overzealous and in some cases incompetent refereeing.
Its card roulette and we are all taking turns getting shafted by it.
I have been anti cards for a long time now, they ruin the game for me. I have found myself turning off games when a card is dished out.
I also hate the controversy caused by cards or lack of cards. Take the Blues Crusaders game for example. The lack of cards given out to the Crusaders was a big talking point in the thread and it took away from the game itself. People feel aggrieved when their team gets one and aggrieved when the other team doesn't. It's a no win situation.
Maybe it's time to think of alternative punishments. Take the cards dished out and not dished out in the Crusader Blues game for example. They were not for dangerous foul play, rather they were for deliberate fouls to stop the other team scoring a try. Just thinking aloud here, but what about making the punishment the equivalent of conceding a try? That way there would be no point in defending teams conceding penalties deliberately if the outcome was going to be the same anyway. As it stands I think teams are sometimes willing to sacrifice a defender and hope they can hold out anyway.
I just think we have talked ourselves into this probably since O'Driscoll/Umaga and the slippery slope has now avalanched.. The discourse and "climate" to use Jaco Peypers terminology is just one of hysteria around every bloody tackle. Twitter absolutists with unwavering positions lacking in nuance or empathy for a collision sport. "lead with elbow" "smashed in face".
The end game here, is more and more whinging at refs, sexton-esque head holding and arm waving to buy a penalty and disgruntled fans bickering about who did and didn't get sanctioned.
That video below is a series of gaffes just from THIS 6 nations. Look how random the sanctions are.
The Lions series "we have a deal" and the recent Irish series are the cherry on the cake for me. SBW rightly saw red (he knew what he was doing), but Mako Vunipola fore arm smashed a prone Beauden Barrett in the face and didn't see red. Similarly Sean O Brian concussed Naholo out with a swinging arm in a ruck. HE played no further part in the series. No sanction.
As for the Irish series....I didn't want Ta'avao sent off, but when Porter broke Retallicks eye I thought "here we go, whats good for the goose is good for the gander". Now I didn't want a red for Porter either, but I bloody expected one based on what I had watched the week before.
I was incredulous at what happened. "Absorbing tackle" says Barnes, a phrase heretofore not uttered in the Rugby circles. The series was essentially decided on one decision and one non decision. And that's not to mention Aki getting away with breaking Ofa with an Illegal clean out too.
The game has no credibility when that stuff happens.
At least back in the day when there was no player protection everyone got shafted the same!
-
@Steve I don't blame you for thinking that way. I do too a lot of the time and it's taking away from my enjoyment of the game to the point where I am not watching as much as I used to. I am sure I am not the only one finding other things to do than watch rugby. I don't want to be pissed off at home. I get enough of that at work.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Steve first and foremost...whoever made that video can fuck off with the bloody text all over the screen!
...but....yeah, some very damning footage and not even NH v SH...came comp and same round even?
He’s a saffer I believe so to be fair to him he had no skin in the game in this tournament (bar all his countrymen playing for Scotland).
-
@Crazy-Horse said in The Current State of Rugby:
The lack of cards given out to the Crusaders was a big talking point in the thread and it took away from the game itself. People feel aggrieved when their team gets one and aggrieved when the other team doesn't. It's a no win situation.
Good post but I take issue with this - that's not the case at all and neither of those teams are my team. The win would be to be consistent - I would've been happy with no cards, or cards for both teams. I would feel the same if the card situation was flipped. If both teams suffer the same consequences, it takes a huge amount away from the "distraction".
-
@Bones said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crazy-Horse said in The Current State of Rugby:
The lack of cards given out to the Crusaders was a big talking point in the thread and it took away from the game itself. People feel aggrieved when their team gets one and aggrieved when the other team doesn't. It's a no win situation.
Good post but I take issue with this - that's not the case at all and neither of those teams are my team. The win would be to be consistent - I would've been happy with no cards, or cards for both teams. I would feel the same if the card situation was flipped. If both teams suffer the same consequences, it takes a huge amount away from the "distraction".
Yeah I agree about consistency and any alternative to cards would need to solve the consistency issue too.
Even though I mentioned the Saders and Blues in the previous sentence I was being generic when I was talking about aggrieved fans. Poor writing on my part.
-
@Crazy-Horse said in The Current State of Rugby:
Yeah I agree about consistency and any alternative to cards would need to solve the consistency issue too.
My solution is to reduce the incidence of red cards handed out on the field. Go back to when they were handed out for acts of filth and place everything else on report for a judiciary to review. Admittedly judiciaries aren't immune from baffling decisions, but at least a game isn't ruined for the playes and spectators.
As we can see from the ongoing use of cards, the premise that it's to protect players is faulty. Players are still making errors and the cards are retrospective which means no player was protected. The egrigious act has already happened.
If they want to amend player behaviours, hand out genuinely long suspensions, which can only be served by WR sanctioned events at the level they were incurred. No "game of three halves" or some third grade club game so a player is quickly back playing Tests.
-
@antipodean said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crazy-Horse said in The Current State of Rugby:
Yeah I agree about consistency and any alternative to cards would need to solve the consistency issue too.
My solution is to reduce the incidence of red cards handed out on the field. Go back to when they were handed out for acts of filth and place everything else on report for a judiciary to review. Admittedly judiciaries aren't immune from baffling decisions, but at least a game isn't ruined for the playes and spectators.
As we can see from the ongoing use of cards, the premise that it's to protect players is faulty. Players are still making errors and the cards are retrospective which means no player was protected. The egrigious act has already happened.
If they want to amend player behaviours, hand out genuinely long suspensions, which can only be served by WR sanctioned events at the level they were incurred. No "game of three halves" or some third grade club game so a player is quickly back playing Tests.
Thats an excellent solution. On top of it, I'd also take a look at how much slow motion is used.
-
@Steve said in The Current State of Rugby:
Decent video here highlighting the in-game and week to week inconsistencies the sport is facing via overzealous and in some cases incompetent refereeing.
Its card roulette and we are all taking turns getting shafted by it.
Thats actually a really good video - unsurprising when it's made by a neutral.
You can't expect 100% consistency. But on actions there shouldn't be variability between nothing and a red card. Yellow/Red .... Penalty/Yellow ... Yes. Penalty/Red .... arguable. No Sanction / Red. This shouldn't' be possible.
