Rugby’s future is at the crossroads
Roar Guru
By Rickety Knees, 19 Aug 2009 Rickety Knees is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- bonus points, ELVs, Rugby Union, running rugby
114 Have your say
Two divergent schools of thought are set to clash. The clash has its origins in the acrimonious relationship that England has with its disowned, convict, bastard offspring – Australia – which underpins much of the antipathy in rugby relations between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.
The power brokers of the Northern Hemisphere champion conservative rugby – where games are won by camping in the opposition half, imposing unrelenting pressure, forcing penalties and having an excellent goal kicker.
A proven successful formula which won it its only World Cup, it does not award bonus points for scoring tries and condemned the ELVs without trialling them. It views any initiative from the Southern Hemisphere with great suspicion.
Historically, it has championed tradition and conservatism.
The Southern Hemisphere has a preference to play running rugby. It has a bonus points system that encourages scoring tries. The Stellenbosch Experiment (ELVs) originated in South Africa and have been successfully trialled.
The most controversial law change was short arm penalties for technical infringements, which effectively took the referee out of having a direct influence on match results, sped the game up and encouraged running rugby.
Historically, it has been the pioneers – looking for better ways of doing things – and in doing so, have shown scant respect for the North.
The Southern Hemisphere ELV trials are now over. The Northern Hemisphere has had its way. The long arm penalties for technical infringements have returned.
The referee has once again returned to have a direct influence on the outcome of the game, which has brought howls of protest, especially having watched the full ELVs in action.
Television commentators, print journalists and sporting blogs in Australia are voicing their disapproval. The spectacle has been appalling. Viewers are voting with their remote controls and spectators with their feet.
Rugby’s future is at the cross roads.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (173)
- The real story of how John O’Neill turned Manchester City down (70)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (65)
- Australian teams at Super disadvantage (58)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (29)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (18)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Explore:
- bonus points, ELVs, Rugby Union, running rugby
ThelmaWrites said | August 19th 2009 @ 2:10am | Report comment
Rickety Knees
Unfortunately, on the basis of having watched some 6 Nations, Lions Tour, and 3 Nations this year, I’d say the Northern Hemisphere teams are the ones that have played running rugby.
Knives Out said | August 19th 2009 @ 2:32am | Report comment
Yawn. More antiquated lies and stereotypical inaccuracy. Australia has long been one of the most conservative teams in world rugby. It’s nobodies fault that Australia is particularly mediocre at the moment, least of all the North.
Rickety Knees said | August 19th 2009 @ 2:06pm | Report comment
What lies?
Knives Out said | August 19th 2009 @ 9:09pm | Report comment
‘The power brokers of the Northern Hemisphere champion conservative rugby’
‘condemned the ELVs without trialling them.’
‘It views any initiative from the Southern Hemisphere with great suspicion.’
‘The Southern Hemisphere has a preference to play running rugby.’
‘The most controversial law change was short arm penalties for technical infringements .. which.. encouraged running rugby.’
‘Rugby’s future is at the cross roads.’
There you go.
Rickety Knees said | August 19th 2009 @ 10:50pm | Report comment
KO – with humble respect – head back to your champers old chap and enjoy the social occasion and when you have a moment take a look at what is actually happening in the game
Knives Out said | August 19th 2009 @ 11:24pm | Report comment
I am, and judging by the responses so are a lot of other people. You are living in the past and perpetuating bland stereotypes about the boring North and the free-flowing South. It’s total myth. The Wallabies have long been one of the most conservative teams in world rugby, as has SA. Yet funnily enough I don’t recall you complaining when the Lions had those bizarre scrum calls called against them in the 1st test, nor do I recall you complaining when Australia had a successful European tour playing such a defensive brand of rugby. This whole article stems from a loss. Your arrogance is astounding. World rugby does not need Australia, frankly. Rugby is blossoming in every country yet as soon as the Wallabies reveal how mediocre they are then allegedly the whole rugby world is doomed. Wake up. The ELVs were an utter joke, from their conception to their management and Australia hasn’t won anything in years. That is nobodies fault but people like you who presume to seek solutions everywhere but reality. Wake up from your slumber and read over some of the responses this thread has elicited. I think you’ll find that you’re in the minority.
Rickety Knees said | August 20th 2009 @ 9:41am | Report comment
And so two divergent schools of thought have clashed. NH plus SA believe that all is well with the game. Australia and to some extent NZ believe the game is at the cross roads.
What is true is that Rugby is struggling in Australia, and yes we have been guilty of playing conservative Rugby in the past. Unfortunately we have had a taste of what could be with the ELV’s. With the decision to revert back to long arm penalties Australian teams have gone back to playing 10 man Rugby, The net effect is that this style is now called “playing ugly” and has driven crowds away. No crowds = no revenue = game struggles.
Just a reminder that this is an Australian website and yes the game is at the crossroads.
pothale said | August 20th 2009 @ 11:12am | Report comment
Rickety – “The power brokers of the Northern Hemisphere champion conservative rugby – where games are won by camping in the opposition half, imposing unrelenting pressure, forcing penalties and having an excellent goal kicker.”
Which power brokers are you talking about have championed this style of play. I do not recognise it for Ireland, France or Wales, nor post Jonny Wilkinson have England.
The point is that you’re allowing three games of rugby out of hundreds this year to declare that rugby has arrived at this style of play for everyone. I haven’t seen what you describe as playing ugly being a dominant part of the leagues and comps I’ve watched this year. It has applied to Australia and New Zealand in their games against SA. that’s it. Or are you saying the S14 earlier this year under the free-kick ELVs was the same? Magners, GP, Top 14 wasn’t.
So why the sudden doom and gloom?
Viscount Crouchback said | August 19th 2009 @ 3:53am | Report comment
Rickety Knees ought to read Wayne’s Smith’s excellent article in The Australian. He observed that nobody in Australia was complaining when a counter-punching Wallabies outfit kicked its way to victory at Twickers last year in a game in which England played all the rugger.
This debate is tedious. No one cares about entertaining rugby when their team is winning; it only gets spoken about when their team is losing. KO is quite right. Australia is whinging (and losing faith in rugger) because its team is mediocre, not because the game itself is becoming less entertaining.
Rickety Knees said | August 19th 2009 @ 2:09pm | Report comment
Perhaps you don’t but I certainly do. The worst game of Rugby I have seen was when Australia beat South Africa under John Connolly a couple of years ago – an absolute shocker.
Bonza said | August 19th 2009 @ 3:53am | Report comment
RK – You must have missed this years S14. The crowds were running away back in February as virtually every franchise struggled for supporters and this was with the ELV’s in place. Apart from the Semis and final there was not alot to cheer about. If the Southern Hemisphere is playing running rugby then what are South Africa and Australia doing? The only running I am seeing is them chasing their own kicks – The Crusaders and the Bulls have done the most kicking in Super rugby for the last 5 years and guess what they are the only ones to win it in this time. We need to start accepting a little reality and then start looking at the reason. Teams will run the ball more if they have the confidence that they can retain the ball at the tackle contest/ruck – its that simple. This ad hoc law the IRB threw in at the last moment that allows the first arriving player to contest and keep contesting for the ball was not part of the ELVs that were test and has been arbitrarily extracted and added – the net result is teams will keep kicking; The Macqueen era was very successful as were the Brumbies as they could confidentially play phase after phase and they did – games were won by 80 points – people said it was like basketball and the brakes have been applied ever since; Kicking is a by product of your teams confidence to retain the ball – there is no confidence at the moment, guys like Brussow and Steyn have a massive influence in the game so teams will choose to play at the other end. It actually makes sense and is an intelligent response, just not popular with the people who dont have their jobs/careers on the line
Pippinu said | August 19th 2009 @ 9:35am | Report comment
My take on it is that this is not a Southern v Northern hemishere clash – but Australia v the rest of the rugby world clash.
It’s primarily in Australia that these sorts of views get espoused.
And the real reason for it is that it’s in Australia where we have the extremely rare occurence of League overshadowing Union – it doesn’t happen anywhere else in the world.
It’s this odd juxtaposition of the two rugbies that is at the heart of Australia being at odds with the rest of the rugby world because we have a very unique perspective (and set of issues) that no other part of the world shares by nature of a quirk in sporting history.
Grandpabhaile said | August 20th 2009 @ 4:55am | Report comment
I thought the reason was because Australia had so many other sports competing for its audience’s attention. Now it’s narrowed down to just rugby vs league? And league is dominant, therefore rugby union loses out?
Why is it one code has such a dominant influence as opposed to all sports?
Mr Grumpy said | August 19th 2009 @ 10:04am | Report comment
RK,
Did the Australian side that won the world cup in 1999 play great running rugby? No.
Were you lamenting the absence of tries in the Wallabies semi-final win against the South Africans that year? I bet not.
How about the great backline play that scored Australia’s try against New Zealand in the 2003 semi-final? I doubt it.
The British and Irish Lions have played the most attractive rugby this year, so attractive rugby is not hemmed in at the equator.
The Waratahs have been the most conservative Australian side during the past five seasons, yet they have been the only local side to play in the Super finals.
The ELVs in penalising teams for constant infringements were a joke.
If Australian rugby needs to be entertaining, then teams should work on the tactics and the skills to do so. The most entertaining side of the past five years, the All Blacks between 2004 and 2006, played their great rugby under the pre-ELVs era.
It is time for Australian fans and administrators to stop moaning about the laws and be innovative.
Todd Day said | August 19th 2009 @ 10:11am | Report comment
The Australian rugby fraternity need to understand that if Australia walked away from world rugby tomorrow not too many people would care that much. On the other hand if SA, NZ, Wales or England walked away it would be disasterous. Running rugby is cyclical, 10 years ago we in the southern hemisphere were accused of playing a cross between basketball and rugby, who cares at the end of the day its our game and we have to respect it. Let the leaguies and the other sports here continue to make a mockery of themselves publically, lets focus on getting our game right. O’Neill had it right 6 years ago and self serving morons saw fit to remove him and threw us back 10 years. Given the right chance O’Neill will get us right again, then we can get our game sorted out, then we can start on the road to becoming a real threat not a johnny come lately who won a couple of world cups and did little else. Don’t ever forget the US won the Olympic gold 90+ years ago. We need a footprint a little longer than 20 or 30 years to consider ourselves the true ambassadors of world rugby. Talk to anyone from NZ and they’ll all tell you the Bledisloe is important but the real battle is the Yappies, they are after all the only ones close to the AB’s in terms of win/loss and the real enemy the English, purely because they are English. We need to realise where we currently sit and do something to push forward from there before we worry about everyone else.
Mitch (in Valencia9 said | August 20th 2009 @ 3:23am | Report comment
Todd Day, sorry mate, but I nearly vomited on my key board when I read that if Wales walked away from rugby, it would be “disastrous”. I’d nearly say the same about England, but they keep alot of retired aussies and bout half the pacific islands in a rugby job. But to be honest, I would like to think that any country could walk away and the rest of the world would make do and swallow up the difference.
Knives Out said | August 20th 2009 @ 4:04am | Report comment
You’re probably right, Mitch. Bloomin’ Poms. What retired Aussies play in England, btw?
Grandpabhaile said | August 20th 2009 @ 4:57am | Report comment
Rocky elsom – he played for an English team – Leicenster wasn’t it?
Knives Out said | August 20th 2009 @ 6:09am | Report comment
Leinster. An Irish province that incorporates Dublin.
Grandpabhaile said | August 20th 2009 @ 6:27am | Report comment
Same thing really.
Twat Merchant said | August 19th 2009 @ 11:15am | Report comment
Why not extend the movement towards forming one controlling body for rugby league in Australia to include the ARU?
The leaguies & News Ltd are probably prepared to modify their playing rules to make sure it happens.
Smart move given the rising threat of AFL and soccer. It will bring both rugby codes in Australia to to the table, especially once the ARU realises it’s no hope of changing the rugby rules via agreement with the Northern hemisphere.
So it’s either merge with the NRL or become a minor sport. Not much of a choice.
Temba said | August 19th 2009 @ 11:49am | Report comment
Yet another whinge from an Aussie.
Keep em coming lads, if you keep moaning the rest of the world will conform, change the laws and make it easy for the Wallabies to run the ball.
Just start watching RL
Temba said | August 19th 2009 @ 12:27pm | Report comment
Twat, then they should merge it with soccer and AFL to make a super football code. After about 10 years they can combine that with Cricket and hold a new world cup including only Australia and some poor island nation.
Surely being the only one to play a sport means Australia always wins and that is the real problem… losing?
Australia should isolate it self from international sport completely if losing is such a big problem.
Previous Wallaby teams have won playing your attractive style and done it well. Yet again for the 100th time, its not the rules or the refs or the IRB. Play your style, play to your strengths and you will win again.
League stands to win far more from the merge then Union, it’s a ridiculous suggestion and one that a union supporter should never consider.
Rickety Knees said | August 19th 2009 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
Temba – the essence of what I have written is about the NH putting results back into the hands of the referee. Take a look at : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SYO3tNit2c I don’t have a problem with the Wallabies losing, that is what sport is all about. When the result is directly affected by a WRONG system ie penalty instead of free kick based on a referees whim, then that power needs to taken out of the hands of referees.
I am sure that when William Webb Ellis picked up the ball and ran with it, he envisaged tries being scored not f(&king penalty goals being kicked!
Temba said | August 19th 2009 @ 12:49pm | Report comment
RK this argument has been going in circles for 3 weeks now, when William Ellis picked up the ball and ran with it, I am sure he did not envisaged the other team spoiling his chances of scoring a tri with infringement and penalties.
42 penalties in the last 3 games not including the 18 from the Springboks. Don’t tell me it’s all the refs fault? Negative rugby is not the fault of the ref. Kicking at goal is a result of your opponent breaking the law. Its not that hard guys.
I hear your pain but at the end of the day this problem/whinge is only located in Australia… yes yes you have to combat RL and AFL but this is not the north’s problem. They have full stadiums. Until SARU decided to push ticket prices through the roof South African stadiums where full too.
Pippinu said | August 19th 2009 @ 1:04pm | Report comment
I’ve been saying this exact same thing (in Temba’s last para) – that this is a problem because of the unique Australian context – one that is not shared by any other nation on Earth.
At the end of the day, it really does become a case of: you gotta join ‘em to beat ‘em.
Interestingly – and I have said this more than once on this forum in the recent past (and no one has ever said yay or nay in response) – if there is one nation on Earth who should be able to kick an oval ball better than anyone else – it’s Australia.
Why haven’t we produced our very own Jonny Wilkinson? Who can hit someone on the chest with either foot with a 50m kick? Or who can pop it over the dot from 55 m either foot with barely a glance at where the goals are.
That’s the real issue for me – not whether teams should or should not be kicking so much.
Rickety Knees said | August 19th 2009 @ 1:11pm | Report comment
I am not suggesting that it is the refs fault, who do the best that they can – just don’t provide the penalty option for technical infringement (rightly or wrongly interpreted). Peter Marshall (ex Test Referee) last week said “the good thing about the ELV’s was that it took game results out of the referees hands”.
Shahsan said | August 19th 2009 @ 1:59pm | Report comment
Isn’ the whole William Webb Elllis thing a myth anyway? That no such thing ever happened?
Warren said | August 19th 2009 @ 2:57pm | Report comment
Regarding William Webb Ellis and the rugby of “old”, never forget that a “try” was, in fact scored for the express purpose of having a “try” at kicking the ball throught the posts, ie the conversion.
That’s not quite what we’re after but neither is basketball. Rugby, for me, is about tactics, possession and smart exertion of pressure, not necessarily how many pairs of hands the ball goes through before a try is scored. A penalty kick is, and should remain a legitimate way of accumulating points.
I liked some of the aspects of the ELV’s but I reckon we saw too much helter skelter rugby.
pothale said | August 20th 2009 @ 11:24am | Report comment
Surely you are promoting the notion that it is the ref’s fault, since the You Tube clip you pointed to a number of times, is a clear indictment of Joubert’s inept performance?
pothale said | August 20th 2009 @ 11:21am | Report comment
Don’t agree with this either, Rickety. You’re barking up the wrong tree, in my view.
The point of this clip on You Tube seems to be that the ref made the wrong call, not that the wrong sanction was applied. In one clip, the author argues that it should have been a penallty to the Wallabies instead of NZ. He didn;t argue that it should have been a free kick.
In which case, Joubert is at fault, not the sanction. The result was affected by the referee is the conclusion that one reaches from watching this piece of selective editing and added commentary. Which the author is perfectly entitled to do.
Rickety Knees said | August 20th 2009 @ 4:06pm | Report comment
My point with the clip was that under the ELV’s the penalties would have been free kicks and you can probably live with inept refereeing. But those penalties virtually cost the Wallabies that match.
Knives Out said | August 19th 2009 @ 11:26pm | Report comment
‘Previous Wallaby teams have won playing your attractive style and done it well. Yet again for the 100th time, its not the rules or the refs or the IRB. Play your style, play to your strengths and you will win again.’
Spot on.
Was it the referees fault when George Smith knocked the ball out of Spies hands? Was that the fault of the North?