The Current State of Rugby
-
@nzzp To be honest he was right about that game, but it's only news if it's negative isn't it? As you say NZZP you only watch a game a fortnight, so IF it doesn't clash with whatever you watch, so perhaps you miss plenty of good games. I watching plenty that I enjoy.
-
@Dan54 there have been weak signals for a while. But when Wayne Smith really can't be bothered watching a game, and it's the first time he's turned off at halftime, that is a loud signal.
Look, people move on, but I had tickets to Saturday and couldn't be bothered going. Am finding other ways to spend my discretionary time ... may change if I refind my mojo, but the quality of rugby at the moment is dire. Refs are at the centre of too much, penalties are everywhere, cards follow, it appears almost impossible to legally defend, and refs only want to watch the defensive side - basically I can't be bothered with it most weeks. A massive change from watching all the rugby I could get my hands on a few years ago
-
@Dan54 said in The Current State of Rugby:
@nzzp To be honest he was right about that game, but it's only news if it's negative isn't it? As you say NZZP you only watch a game a fortnight, so IF it doesn't clash with whatever you watch, so perhaps you miss plenty of good games. I watching plenty that I enjoy.
I think the point he’s trying to make isn’t that all games are like that but that current rulings, laws and coaching have created an environment where that is possible in a game that is actually sold as entertainment.
That is a threat to the product just as if something you manufacture is throwing out an occasional dud which is undermining sales.
Those laws were made with good intentions but have been explored and studied to a conclusion that isn’t great.
The conclusion to the Blues v MP was another situation that the outcome and happenings where at odds to what most punters want. I don’t know the solution for this one but currently a transgression can lead to downward spiralling further rulings and eventually a PT. Removing a forward for entering the side of a maul on defence (when attackers are allowed to do so at will) then depowers the scrum leading to almost unavoidable further penalties and repeated “offending”. -
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Dan54 said in The Current State of Rugby:
@nzzp To be honest he was right about that game, but it's only news if it's negative isn't it? As you say NZZP you only watch a game a fortnight, so IF it doesn't clash with whatever you watch, so perhaps you miss plenty of good games. I watching plenty that I enjoy.
I think the point he’s trying to make isn’t that all games are like that but that current rulings, laws and coaching have created an environment where that is possible in a game that is actually sold as entertainment.
That is a threat to the product just as if something you manufacture is throwing out an occasional dud which is undermining sales.
Those laws were made with good intentions but have been explored and studied to a conclusion that isn’t great.
> The conclusion to the Blues v MP was another situation that the outcome and happenings where at odds to what most punters want. I don’t know the solution for this one but currently a transgression can lead to downward spiralling further rulings and eventually a PT. Removing a forward for entering the side of a maul on defence (when attackers are allowed to do so at will) then depowers the scrum leading to almost unavoidable further penalties and repeated “offending”.Which penalties did you think weren't actual offenses?
If a team consistently gives away penalties to prevent a team from scoring, they put themselves in the refs hands. I would argue that "most punters" don't want to seen cynical play, and correct penalties given.
This was a sign of good refereeing, not caring that it was the 81st minute and making a tough call. We've seen plenty of refs swallow a whistle under pressure, this guy should be lauded for the stones to do that.
-
On a more general note, as I stated at the beginning of the searon after the early rounds, I'm really enjoying the rugby I'm seeing. Some really good games, Drua finding their feet in particular is a positive.
Speeding up the game is the key IMO, they need to really stick with that and we'll slowly tranistion out of large mass monsters lumbering around for 45mins then getting subbed.
-
@nzzp said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Dan54 there have been weak signals for a while. But when Wayne Smith really can't be bothered watching a game, and it's the first time he's turned off at halftime, that is a loud signal.
Look, people move on, but I had tickets to Saturday and couldn't be bothered going. Am finding other ways to spend my discretionary time ... may change if I refind my mojo, but the quality of rugby at the moment is dire. Refs are at the centre of too much, penalties are everywhere, cards follow, it appears almost impossible to legally defend, and refs only want to watch the defensive side - basically I can't be bothered with it most weeks. A massive change from watching all the rugby I could get my hands on a few years ago
In the mid 90s when flatting I wouldn’t miss a Super game. We’d even get up at 3am to watch the SA games sometimes. Those days are well and truly gone. I’ve probably watched about half a Hurricanes game this year.
Life moves on and priorities change but the officiating and constantly changing the competition isn’t helping attract general viewers.
It is World Cup year though, that will definitely get me tuning in.
-
@Kirwan said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Dan54 said in The Current State of Rugby:
@nzzp To be honest he was right about that game, but it's only news if it's negative isn't it? As you say NZZP you only watch a game a fortnight, so IF it doesn't clash with whatever you watch, so perhaps you miss plenty of good games. I watching plenty that I enjoy.
I think the point he’s trying to make isn’t that all games are like that but that current rulings, laws and coaching have created an environment where that is possible in a game that is actually sold as entertainment.
That is a threat to the product just as if something you manufacture is throwing out an occasional dud which is undermining sales.
Those laws were made with good intentions but have been explored and studied to a conclusion that isn’t great.
> The conclusion to the Blues v MP was another situation that the outcome and happenings where at odds to what most punters want. I don’t know the solution for this one but currently a transgression can lead to downward spiralling further rulings and eventually a PT. Removing a forward for entering the side of a maul on defence (when attackers are allowed to do so at will) then depowers the scrum leading to almost unavoidable further penalties and repeated “offending”.Which penalties did you think weren't actual offenses?
If a team consistently gives away penalties to prevent a team from scoring, they put themselves in the refs hands. I would argue that "most punters" don't want to seen cynical play, and correct penalties given.
This was a sign of good refereeing, not caring that it was the 81st minute and making a tough call. We've seen plenty of refs swallow a whistle under pressure, this guy should be lauded for the stones to do that.
Whoosh.
I'm using it as a example to continue Wayne Smith's comments that if the game gets into a series of ever escalating penalties it becomes a game played out by the whistle rather than the readily visible skilled actions of the players. An 8 on 7 or 8 on 6 scrum isn't that skillful.
Never said the penalties weren't warranted although, in a general sense, the reffing of mauls is one sided. It is a notable occasion when an attacking side player gets pinged for joining ahead of the last man, yet a YC one for a defender.
We have seen these scenarios over and over and I agree that I would have rather seen either team win by either getting over the line or great defence.
Earlier in that game the end situation was reversed and MP played an advantage from a defensive scrum where they smashed the Blues. They managed to score under advantage so the penalties didn't escalate further but it could have ended up with another player in a bin, another smashed scrum and a penalty try. The way things go the could have been cynical and forced that situation.
Personally I don't like the way that one transgression can escalate into a sequence of them because of a weakened scrum. It becomes self fulfilling. A try may as well be awarded back at the maul.
As I said, I don't know the solution but for neutrals watching the game the excitement factor drops.
Maybe scrums must be kept 8 on 8 but you have to lose a back? -
@Crucial penalties weren't falling from the sky, it is possible to defend without infringing. And it's in the realm of possibility to defend with seven (plus a back like what MP did) in the scrum.
Blaming the laws for players actions is an unhelpful take, whatever intepretations we end up with players and coaches will try to find the edge of allowed play. Fatigue is also a factor, and MP were out on their feet and the Blues were able steamroller them because of it.
And that's what we want to see in Rugby.
-
@Kirwan said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial penalties weren't falling from the sky, it is possible to defend without infringing. And it's in the realm of possibility to defend with seven (plus a back like what MP did) in the scrum.
Blaming the laws for players actions is an unhelpful take, whatever intepretations we end up with players and coaches will try to find the edge of allowed play. Fatigue is also a factor, and MP were out on their feet and the Blues were able steamroller them because of it.
And that's what we want to see in Rugby.
Forget that game for a moment. It is no use us using it as an example if you are going to see it from the view of a supporter of one side.
What Smith was talking about was a general scenario where a penalty raises the possibility of another penalty and I agree that is fair comment.
Let's say a couple of unfortunate injuries weaken a team's scrum. OK, injuries are part of the game. But at the moment there is a very easy way to take advantage of that situation by scrumming for a penalty, kicking for the line, rolling a maul, forcing another penalty for a borderline/technical call (because mauls are reffed very one-sided), rinse and repeat until the opposition either waves the white flag to avoid a card or gets carded.
Any card then just makes the situation even worse and the attacking team can fall into a pattern of continually forcing the issue and escalting the situation.
I don't want to watch that. I want to watch ball handling, running, forwards driving through tackles etc etc. Scrum, penalty, kick, lineout, maul, penalty, repeat isn't great product.
The ref and the laws get the blame.
To me rugby is about contest-ability. Fix the maul situation and that comes back.
I can't understand why mauls are treated differently to scrums. Attacking scrum teams aren't allowed to walk around, they have to push straight. That becomes a straight out strength and technique contest. If ball is available, you don't get three bites at the scrum, you are told to use it.
Get the ball back out into the open for punters to see. -
@Crucial What you will get is teams commiting penalties without any real consequences. Any of the play that you want to see won't happen because it'll be stiffled by offside player and other offenses.
The cards, combined with the new speed interpretation that makes cards have impact again, provide a real disincentive for constant infringements.
Somes teams haven't figured it out yet and and are paying the price. The onus is on the players to play less cynically, and some have a good decade of bad habits to deprogram.
We get through this peroid, we'll get more open play. Going backwards is a terrible idea.
-
@Crucial yes I'm not a fan of teams being penalised just for not being good enough, thats what the scoreboard is for.
It is incredibly frustrating to see teams scrum for penalties, and the ref allowing them to hold it in the back while waiting for the second shove to win the penalty.
Like mauls, refs need to be quicker to get teams moving the ball.
Mauls should be 1 stoppage, and IMO anything other than moving toward your intended goal line, is stopped, but yeah ref both teams, not just the defending team.
-
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial yes I'm not a fan of teams being penalised just for not being good enough, thats what the scoreboard is for.
It is incredibly frustrating to see teams scrum for penalties, and the ref allowing them to hold it in the back while waiting for the second shove to win the penalty.
Like mauls, refs need to be quicker to get teams moving the ball.
Mauls should be 1 stoppage, and IMO anything other than moving toward your intended goal line, is stopped, but yeah ref both teams, not just the defending team.
For scrums, that basically removes them as a contest for possession. You should be rewarded for a stronger scrum, or for wearing down another team that's perhaps gambled on a strong scrum but at the expense of the fitness to maintain it.
There aren't that many scrums in games anyway. If you really want to improve the game enforce the offside line at the ruck, or extend it to a clear one metre behind the last player in the ruck. Significantly more rucks in a game, and offside play effects more than a couple of scrum penalties.
-
@Kirwan said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial What you will get is teams commiting penalties without any real consequences. Any of the play that you want to see won't happen because it'll be stiffled by offside player and other offenses.
The cards, combined with the new speed interpretation that makes cards have impact again, provide a real disincentive for constant infringements.
Somes teams haven't figured it out yet and and are paying the price. The onus is on the players to play less cynically, and some have a good decade of bad habits to deprogram.
We get through this peroid, we'll get more open play. Going backwards is a terrible idea.
Not talking about offsides or cynical offences though. Talking about something like losing a forward from a technical penalty up field and the kick/maul/penalty/repeated penalty situation that comes from that.
Repeated penalties that escalate the situation but the root cause is one transgression, often well up field.
I can't see how creating a more even maul situation results in cynical fouls though (or have I misunderstood?).
Wayne Smith's suggestion to break the escalation sequence is at the lineout and not reward a penalty kicked for position. My suggestion is to tweak the maul interpretation so that the defending side isn't at such a disadvantage and risk of getting penalised again. Obviously still penalise 'cheating' fouls but reduce the likelihood of them happening accidentally.
At the moment if the attcking side roll the maul the risk of a defender being judged as coming in the side is high. You can't delibeartely roll a scrum, so why a maul? -
@MN5 said in The Current State of Rugby:
@nzzp said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Dan54 there have been weak signals for a while. But when Wayne Smith really can't be bothered watching a game, and it's the first time he's turned off at halftime, that is a loud signal.
Look, people move on, but I had tickets to Saturday and couldn't be bothered going. Am finding other ways to spend my discretionary time ... may change if I refind my mojo, but the quality of rugby at the moment is dire. Refs are at the centre of too much, penalties are everywhere, cards follow, it appears almost impossible to legally defend, and refs only want to watch the defensive side - basically I can't be bothered with it most weeks. A massive change from watching all the rugby I could get my hands on a few years ago
In the mid 90s when flatting I wouldn’t miss a Super game. We’d even get up at 3am to watch the SA games sometimes. Those days are well and truly gone. I’ve probably watched about half a Hurricanes game this year.
Life moves on and priorities change but the officiating and constantly changing the competition isn’t helping attract general viewers.
It is World Cup year though, that will definitely get me tuning in.
As I've mentioned in other threads, that couldn't be helped for the most part.
When I was back in NZ, after being constantly told young people aren't watching rugby in the media/forums, I was genuinely surprised when picking up my niece for dinner that her student flat was watching the rugby. This was in arty farty Wellington too.
On the maul, it is great but it has all ways been broken (removes a contest for the ball if setup to do so) and is always reffed poorly. I think it's the only area of rugby that clearly favours one side over the other. I wouldn't want to see it go though, just tighten the reffing (especially around stoppage, going backwards, moving sideways and attacking team players joining ahead of the ball).
-
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Kirwan said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial What you will get is teams commiting penalties without any real consequences. Any of the play that you want to see won't happen because it'll be stiffled by offside player and other offenses.
The cards, combined with the new speed interpretation that makes cards have impact again, provide a real disincentive for constant infringements.
Somes teams haven't figured it out yet and and are paying the price. The onus is on the players to play less cynically, and some have a good decade of bad habits to deprogram.
We get through this peroid, we'll get more open play. Going backwards is a terrible idea.
Not talking about offsides or cynical offences though. Talking about something like losing a forward from a technical penalty up field and the kick/maul/penalty/repeated penalty situation that comes from that.
Repeated penalties that escalate the situation but the root cause is one transgression, often well up field.
I can't see how creating a more even maul situation results in cynical fouls though (or have I misunderstood?).
Wayne Smith's suggestion to break the escalation sequence is at the lineout and not reward a penalty kicked for position. My suggestion is to tweak the maul interpretation so that the defending side isn't at such a disadvantage and risk of getting penalised again. Obviously still penalise 'cheating' fouls but reduce the likelihood of them happening accidentally.
At the moment if the attcking side roll the maul the risk of a defender being judged as coming in the side is high. You can't delibeartely roll a scrum, so why a maul?I don't have a problem with mauls. Not joining from the side is not a difficult concept, even for props.
I'd concede having two warnings dropped to one would be an improvement, but I wouldn't change anything else.
It really is a case of "get good". Work on defending a maul, don't conceed penalties in the first place. Many are avoidable, and it's a team pattern to be cycnical. Bad luck, here's the cost.
Tweaking the laws to reduce the cost for penalties is how you completely ruin the game.
-
@Kirwan said in The Current State of Rugby:
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial yes I'm not a fan of teams being penalised just for not being good enough, thats what the scoreboard is for.
It is incredibly frustrating to see teams scrum for penalties, and the ref allowing them to hold it in the back while waiting for the second shove to win the penalty.
Like mauls, refs need to be quicker to get teams moving the ball.
Mauls should be 1 stoppage, and IMO anything other than moving toward your intended goal line, is stopped, but yeah ref both teams, not just the defending team.
For scrums, that basically removes them as a contest for possession. You should be rewarded for a stronger scrum
but isn't the possession the reward, scrum is a contest for the ball with one team having a VERY minor advantage of knowing when the ball is coming in, we've already turned that into a big advantage by not making anyone put it in straight...but, its in and a dominant scrum has it...and can play...isn't that exactly what the reward is... teams turning a knock on into 3 point is madness
-
@Kirwan said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Kirwan said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial What you will get is teams commiting penalties without any real consequences. Any of the play that you want to see won't happen because it'll be stiffled by offside player and other offenses.
The cards, combined with the new speed interpretation that makes cards have impact again, provide a real disincentive for constant infringements.
Somes teams haven't figured it out yet and and are paying the price. The onus is on the players to play less cynically, and some have a good decade of bad habits to deprogram.
We get through this peroid, we'll get more open play. Going backwards is a terrible idea.
Not talking about offsides or cynical offences though. Talking about something like losing a forward from a technical penalty up field and the kick/maul/penalty/repeated penalty situation that comes from that.
Repeated penalties that escalate the situation but the root cause is one transgression, often well up field.
I can't see how creating a more even maul situation results in cynical fouls though (or have I misunderstood?).
Wayne Smith's suggestion to break the escalation sequence is at the lineout and not reward a penalty kicked for position. My suggestion is to tweak the maul interpretation so that the defending side isn't at such a disadvantage and risk of getting penalised again. Obviously still penalise 'cheating' fouls but reduce the likelihood of them happening accidentally.
At the moment if the attcking side roll the maul the risk of a defender being judged as coming in the side is high. You can't delibeartely roll a scrum, so why a maul?I don't have a problem with mauls. Not joining from the side is not a difficult concept, even for props.
I'd concede having two warnings dropped to one would be an improvement, but I wouldn't change anything else.
It really is a case of "get good". Work on defending a maul, don't conceed penalties in the first place. Many are avoidable, and it's a team pattern to be cycnical. Bad luck, here's the cost.
Tweaking the laws to reduce the cost for penalties is how you completely ruin the game.
So you don't think that the attacking team currently has an advantage in mauls? That would certainly colour your thinking.
I's say that most on here would agree that they do.
Yes, good teams can still defend them legally but the balance is wrong. You don't have to be as good as the attacking side as the defenders do. Refs, because of the situation in play watch the defenders for transgressions far more than the attackers as well. Attacking players seem able to join from the side with impunity. A ball carrier at the back is judged as bound with only a finger grab but a defender than does the same is judged as being unbound or swimming.
All of these things have been pointed out over and over on these boards yet it remains an area of the game that WR aren't interested in tidying. Smith is saying that s to the detriment of the watchability and I tend to agree. -
-
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Kirwan said in The Current State of Rugby:
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial yes I'm not a fan of teams being penalised just for not being good enough, thats what the scoreboard is for.
It is incredibly frustrating to see teams scrum for penalties, and the ref allowing them to hold it in the back while waiting for the second shove to win the penalty.
Like mauls, refs need to be quicker to get teams moving the ball.
Mauls should be 1 stoppage, and IMO anything other than moving toward your intended goal line, is stopped, but yeah ref both teams, not just the defending team.
For scrums, that basically removes them as a contest for possession. You should be rewarded for a stronger scrum
but isn't the possession the reward, scrum is a contest for the ball with one team having a VERY minor advantage of knowing when the ball is coming in, we've already turned that into a big advantage by not making anyone put it in straight...but, its in and a dominant scrum has it...and can play...isn't that exactly what the reward is... teams turning a knock on into 3 point is madness
A strong scrum should be rewarded, if you don't have the ball it's a great way to defend your line if you can contest that possession back to your team. Crusaders are particularly good at this.
-
@Kirwan said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial Adding "Wayne Smith thinks" doesn't make your posts more credible, just FYI.
I think some existing laws can be emphasised to tidy things up (bind with a full arm as you point out), but don't see a need for major changes.
Just keeping the discussion on track (comments were a follow on from his, nothing more). No need for the snide remarks.
So without the "tidy ups" do you think the attacking team has an advantage at mauls? No use talking about the current state of the game if you are making judgement based on a state that doesn't exist.
