By SF
October 27th 2009 @ 1:28am
Loading ...Make rugby a better game to watch and the rest will follow
Kurtley Beale of NSW (left) is tackled by Queensland's James Horwill during the Super 14 match between the Queensland Reds v New South Wales Waratahs at Suncorp Stadium, Brisbane, Saturday May 17, 2008. AAP Image/Dave Hunt
There have been a lot of “solutions” put forward on the Roar to solve rugby’s current dilemmas in Australia: the Wallabies winning more, a national domestic comp, getting rugby on FTA TV, more junior development, and so on.
While not wanting to detract from the importance of the discussion surrounding these topics, surely one of the key issues that needs to be brought up more often is rugby as an actual product.
There is much to commend rugby.
I am still of the opinion that rugby (out of all the codes) can be one of the most exhilarating and dynamic sports to watch.
The problem for rugby (in the general public’s eye) is that these moments can be too few and far between the bland periods. People want to know that they are going to get their entertainment fix if they are going to commit to watching something each week.
Any law changes need to help rugby to be more consistent at delivering this as a product. The simple fact is, a football code in Australia, needs to be consistently entertaining to thrive in the professional era.
While rugby is booming in many countries around the world, someone might assume that the desire to adjust the laws of rugby is just something unique to Australia so that rugby can compete on an entertainment level with the other football codes in their country.
However, the IRB’s trial of the ELV’s shows that this isn’t the whole story.
In any case, the ELV’s showed the IRB is at least open to experimenting (however poorly this was done) with new laws.
Here are some future suggestions:
Make rugby more about ball retention and less about field position. In other words, more running and less kicking. Running rugby is an attitude, but this attitude needs to be nurtured, rewarded, and supported by the laws:
1. If the attacking team kicks from outside their own 22, and the ball is caught on the full by the opposition anywhere on the field, it can be taken as a mark. This discourages players from starting a game of aerial ping-pong, unless their team is willing to take the risk in the hope of regaining the ball themselves.
2. If the ball is kicked out (not on the full) behind the oppositions 22, the kick is treated as being kicked out on the full in general play, and a line-out is given to the opposition from where the ball was kicked. This encourages the attacking team to hold on to the ball, rather than simply kicking it out in the opposition’s corner, hoping to put pressure on the opposition’s line-out.
3. A penalty goal can only be taken when the penalty is awarded within the oppositions 22. Let’s see some more kicking for touch (and attacking line-outs) instead.
4. Reduce the value for a penalty goal and a field goal to 2 points each. Tries should (usually) determine who wins the game. Even when a team is awarded a penalty within the opposition’s 22, they may see more benefit in kicking for touch and going for an attacking line-out instead.
At this point I use to think that the ref should make more use of the yellow card if the defending team then decided to purposely prevent the ball from coming out more often at the breakdown – in the hope of preventing a try when it was looking likely.
After all, if a penalty goal was only worth two points then why wouldn’t you purposely infringe more often?
Therefore, one warning and your off!
However, I have since (tentatively) changed my opinion on this.
If a defending team can legitimately slow the ball down, or even win the ruck, then this is all well and good. If it’s a fair contest then we can’t complain. But the problem is when the defending team illegally use their hands in the ruck to do this. Not only is this an infringement, but it also gives the defending team an unfair advantage in the ruck, and hence the frustration for the attacking team (and their fans) when they are on a roll close the opposition’s try-line.
However, what if this was no longer an infringement and the unfair advantage was taken away? See below.
5. Allow hands in the ruck for any player on their feet. Nobody wants to hear the referee’s whistle except for offside, foul play and playing the ball off your feet. In other words, the rucks need to be cleaned up and the laws simplified. Infringements at the breakdown have become too technical and too subjective.
If the TV commentators don’t even understand why a penalty was given, it makes a mockery out of rugby as a professional sport. With rucking no longer allowed, this law helps the players to once again determine the outcome of a ruck rather than the referee.
No longer will the defending team enjoy a frustrating advantage by using their hands in the ruck to slow the ball down and prevent it from coming out when the attacking team is close to their try line.
Now the attacking team can also use their hands in the ruck to secure the ball too.
Once again it’s a fair contest, with the attacking team having the slight advantage as they do in legitimately contested rucks ATM.
6. If the ball doesn’t come out, the team going forward gets the ball. This should usually be the attacking team. However, all well and good for a defending team if they can win the ruck as well.
This gets forwards to drive over as a priority. Driving over is actually the best way to win a ruck anyway.
Here are two more radical changes (for the more progressive rugby followers), designed to speed the game up and reward running rugby:
7. Reduce the amount of players (i.e. forwards) per team by 1 or 2. No, this won’t make rugby look more like league or sevens! But it will encourage teams to run the ball more if they know that tries are slightly easier to come by with 1 or 2 less defenders on the field.
A couple more tries per game would be good for the spectators too! 1 or 2 less forwards also keeps the breakdown from being too cluttered.
8. Replace scrums with a five-meter tap. There, I’ve said it!
I know rugby scrums are what help rugby fans sleep at night when they compare them to league scrums. But while there’s a real effort to push in union scrums, as opposed to league scrums, do they really achieve much more. It’s hard to argue that they are much of a real contest for the ball.
And although they display forward domination, so would an arm wrestle! I know it’s a sacred cow in rugby, but believe it or not, they weren’t part of the origins of the game.
The general public are finding it frustratingly hard to watch a scrum being packed after it has collapsed three times already. And not even the referee really knows whose fault it is!
They have to keep scrums in league to get the forwards out of the backline.
But in union, with a 5 meter tap, the forwards would naturally be committed to the breakdown and out of the backline anyway. Imagine seeing more big collisions or crafty play with more 5 meter taps.
OK, so 7 and 8 may be a little too progressive for the near future. And obviously, not all these suggestions need to be taken together.
But hey, why not at least see what they look like before a decision is made?
It may be what rugby in Australia needs to take it from survival mode to a thriving national sport! And if the laws can be trialled at some level, then it may bring the best out of rugby rather than ruin it.
And maybe others will be convinced once they see it working in action. What does rugby have to lose?
In any case, if the rugby product itself becomes absolutely compelling, then surely, the other issues I mentioned above would fall naturally into place.
Going to the Waratahs v Brumbies blockbuster at ANZ Stadium, Saturday 24 April? If you're keen to meet up with other Roarers, register you interest and we'll keep you informed on the place to meet. Register now.
Get Australia's best Rugby opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(42)
Ian Noble said | October 27th 2009 @ 2:02am | Report comment
SF
I have read your piece with considerable interest and I think what you have to realise that OZ is probably the only place where rugby is under pressure as a spectator sport. I have just seen the latest figures from the Guinness Premiership and yet again the attendances at games are up by 3% in spite of the current economic recession. Throughout the world it is growing at rate which is hard to match overthan football (soccer) and the growth of international tournaments for the 15 a side game in Asia, Africa, South America et al is impressive. (See http://www.irb.com)
Perhaps the answer is for OZ to declare UDI and have it’s own set of rules. I am not saying all is perfect but you tinker with a worldwide game at your peril and in spite of the games imperfections it has it’s own momentum. Perhaps it is those imperfections that make the game more interesting for the keen fan.
By the way, I have just seen Canterbury v Southland on the internet, no trys just penalty goals yet a gripping, tense game of rugby between two teams who desperately wanted to win the Shield; very enjoyable and congrats to both teams for such a full on game.
Skip said | October 27th 2009 @ 7:07am | Report comment
Ian,
The game in england is obviously healthy. However I think it is a bit simplistic ti claim that Rugby is healthy in Europe or Globally
Scotland is having great difficulties in attracting crowds and Wales crowds are poor. Whilst the game is growing in some areas it is declining in others. You only have to look at the growth of Rugby league and AFL in the pacific Islands to see that even those who love the game are looking for more entertainment. This is also amaking it difficult to attract new fans.
The fact is that Rugby is a beautiful game when played well. Unfortunatley as SF says this is becoming far to irregular.
Working Class Rugger said | October 27th 2009 @ 2:41am | Report comment
SF
There actually isn’t that much wrong with the game. It’s how our Professional teams in Australia have chose to play it. Too much emphasis on the kicking game and not enough ball in hand and skill. We are currently playing lazy, ultra conservative Rugby in fear of losing. Ironically it happens to be the very reason we are losing. Look at club rugby. Even though next season the ELV’s will be repelled at that level I suspect the pace won’t change. Why? Because every team is willing to give it a serious go. Currently both our Super teams and Wallabies have become gun shy about playing running rugby.
I do agree with your sentiment toward Rugby. It is a very dynamic game. And there are a range of different tactic to employ. Like Ian I too have watched the Canterbury vs Southland game. Very interesting match. Last week I watched the Stade vs Bath HEC game under the ‘old’ laws and it was fanastic. From an Australian perspective we need it to be flashy and fast. But elsewhere Rugby is growing immensly. Take Russia as an example. At the moment its growing at the rate of a new club a week. Why change a winning formula on the international scene.
Ian Noble said | October 27th 2009 @ 3:05am | Report comment
WCR
An interesting reaction by fans to the kick fest is increasing use of the slow hand clap and cat calling. The reaction from the players has been a noticeable reduction in aimless kicking. Power to the people!!
Working Class Rugger said | October 27th 2009 @ 3:14am | Report comment
Ian
And that’s how it should be. The public pay good money to watch there team run around. It all helps pay these guys salaries so they should be expected to play to the style the crowd wants. Call me a bad sport but I’m glad people are willing to jeer them for the aimless kicking duels that can raise their ugly heads in the game at the moment.
Skip said | October 27th 2009 @ 7:01am | Report comment
SF,
Good article with lot of thought. I dont particularly agree with less players and no scrums but it would be good to see it trialled.
A couple of additions when a yellow card is given it should be up to the opposing captain when that player should be removed from the feild. This could create a power play (for want of a better term) affect and add some strategy.
e.g you are attacking the opps line just before half time and you have 2 yellow cards in your favour you call for the players to be removed for ten minutes.
Alternatively you could make it that all players that have earned a yellow card are removed from the game for the last 10 minutes. If your team has 2 yellow cards against it you know that you will have to score tries because you will be at a distinct disadvantage for the last 10 minutes.
Change the value of a try to 7 points with no conversion.
My thoughts
anopinion said | October 27th 2009 @ 7:12am | Report comment
SF,
When you ask, “What does rugby have to lose?” I would answer spectators who call the game “a product”. I can not see much wrong with the game other than Australian sides are not playing it as well as NZ or SA teams. Go watch some school games or club games and see how they “entertain”. Points 4,5 and 6 I agree would encourage a more aggressive forward oriented attack, thus creating more room for backs when the time comes.
Grimmace said | October 27th 2009 @ 7:15am | Report comment
SF,
Very insightful, especially in reducing kicking. Although I don’t agree with point 8. Bring back rucking, that will solve a lot of problems at the break down.
True Tah said | October 27th 2009 @ 7:32am | Report comment
I have been watching a bit of Air New Zealand Cup and Currie Cup and it is better viewing than Super rugby.
How about getting say the Air New Zealand Cup on OneHD? They show German and Japanese futbol shows on OneHD, and if they are showing that, then I think they would be willing to show New Zealand rugby. They have games on thursday nights, which would perhaps be a good timeslot to have. And Im sure there are enough Kiwis in Australia to make it worthwhile?
Whilst it may not be Australian rugby, it is still rugby and excellent rugby at that. You had the smaller provinces really lift their game, with Southland winning a tough game against the Cantabrian superpower to regain the Log O Wood for the first time in 50 years!
katzilla said | October 27th 2009 @ 6:57pm | Report comment
Mate they show Car Auctions on One HD lol.
Plus i think the NZRU package NPC in with the Super rugby deal.
Firestarter Bob said | October 27th 2009 @ 7:54am | Report comment
Yawn. The rugby world is not going to change the game’s laws to prevent the demise of Australian rugby. Nor can Australia play by modified IRB Laws, as it can’t work at international or Super 14 level.
formeropenside said | October 27th 2009 @ 8:31am | Report comment
Simply bring back proper rucking and all will be well. Forwards will have to get physical and flood the rucks, or turn over the ball. This leads to fewer forwards out wide, and more holes in the defensive line. It also does away with forwards being able to rest in the backline, making fitness and bench management more important.
Rugby without scrums is not rugby. Its the heart of the game, the most direct physical contest for possession there is.
Lee said | October 27th 2009 @ 8:32am | Report comment
They will never get rid of scrums, nor will they reduce the number of players in a team or the point allocations.
Kicking for the corner or kicking for territory is another aspect of rugby which will not go, if you want to get rid of the up and unders then remove the ELV not allowing balls passed back into the 22 from being kicked out on the full.
Free kicks turn the game into an unstructured helter skelter mess, just watch the super 14 games played with the sanction ELVs
I simply do not understand why laws need to be changed, it is an area where I think the IRB really dropped the ball. By allowing the ELVs, the IRB opened the door to the thinking that the laws are whats wrong with rugby, and that suggesting the laws be changed will ‘fix’ a game that doesn’t need fixing in a large proportion of the rugby playing world, and is growing already in other areas.
From reading the article I don’t think the author actually likes rugby because his/her suggestions seem to be removing alot of what makes rugby rugby.
Republican said | October 27th 2009 @ 9:57am | Report comment
I don’t believe Union has a problem outside of Oz and possibly NZ these days, who are becoming more and more influenced by the Australian diaspora, in this respect. The game should not be compromised simply because one culture does not engage that fervently with it.
Union will survive without Australia’scollective seal of approval and we will survive without having to embrace Union.
This debate has gone on ad nauseaum in this country and I believe it’s time for the supporters of the code to accept that Union will only ever derive a boutique market here, rather than ever boasting a profile as broad as Aust Footy, League or even Soccer.
Firestarter Bob said | October 27th 2009 @ 10:53am | Report comment
Hear hear! There are far greater gains to be made by the IRB and rugby from the USA, Asia and Eastern Europe. These areas ARE embracing the game.
Why should world rugby change itself just to give Australia a 2nd form of rugby lite/league?
sledgeandhammer said | October 27th 2009 @ 11:21am | Report comment
Interesting article – and let’s kill the old chestnut that rugby is booming around the world once and for all. Booming? Try reading any online Scottish newspapers and see if you can find one single reference to rugby. Often you can’t. The game is doing well in England, although I have read recent reports that crowds are dropping in the GP (please verify?). So if England’s doing so well, why is their close neighbour Scotland struggling? Surely they should be supporting their Celtic brothers, in the same way as Australian rugby needs to support the Islands.
I read an interesting blog on BBC rugby on scrums – it seems rugby followers around the world are concerned about the demise of the scrum. A couple of suggestions include letting the scrums engage first, then start the scrum. This could avoid collapse while still allowing a contest.
My suggestion is to reduce the numbers in the scrum. The union scrum is not a fair contest for the ball, and is mechanically a poorly constructed system which not even the best players can manage. It is also dangerous, with even seasoned professionals suffering scrum related injuries. The league scrum doesn’t work either. The only scrum that currently works is the 3 man 7s scrum. I would prefer a 3 man scrum to no scrum at all and if the 3 man scrum works, does the 5 man scrum work too? Worth a try.
Working Class Rugger said | October 27th 2009 @ 12:21pm | Report comment
Crowds for the GP are up 3% from the same time last year. Not a huge increase but one none the less.
Working Class Rugger said | October 27th 2009 @ 12:28pm | Report comment
Last year the Scottish RU released a report indicating a participation growth of more than 11%. Why do they struggle to draw crowds. Well, the two Scottish teams in ML have underperfomed until this season. Edinburgh is topping the League and even Glasgow are performing better. No one ever said Rugby was Scotland’s No.1 game. Its clearly soccer. But its not in as dire circumstance’s as you would portray.
As for the game elsewhere. Well, I could provide you witrh alot of info regarding the growth of the game internationally but I’ll leave you with this. LAst weekend Malaysia won the 3rd leg of the Asian 7s series. Which was no mean feat. Along with the A5N concept the game in Asia is moving forward at a great pace.
ohtani's jacket said | October 27th 2009 @ 11:47am | Report comment
Well, if Australians could ever figure out that not every Test is going to be like the 2000 Sydney Bledisloe Test, there wouldn’t be a problem. But since your other codes are all hyped up, quasi-American drivel where the commentators repeat “Aww, how good is this?” ad nauseam, the average Australian can’t appreciate how much tougher and difficult rugby is than the other codes.
True Tah said | October 27th 2009 @ 11:52am | Report comment
True words OJ, I guess the issue is Australians want instant gratification and we have attention spans of small children these days. Maybe NSW school kids these days are only taught to count to six?
ohtani's jacket said | October 27th 2009 @ 12:07pm | Report comment
Who knows? A lot of what goes on in Australia is only relevant in its own backyard.
Anyway, the biggest eye opener I had this year was watching the NRL Grand Final and comparing it to the Brisbane Wallabies/Springboks Test, which had an appalling first half and a tough second half, and realising that rugby is just so much more engrossing. The average Aussie would watch it if it were more like league, but if it were more like league it wouldn’t be rugby.
Working Class Rugger said | October 27th 2009 @ 12:20pm | Report comment
TT
We are becoming an increasingly McDonald’s and Reality TV society. It got to be flashy and as basic as possible to appreciate. Which is rather unsettling. Read and article recently that predicted the fall of mankind in a frighteningly short time period due to the decrease in intelligence ( or at least the decrease in intelligent people having children) within society. According to the writer, worst case scenario it could happen within 3 generations. I dismissed it as alarmist drivel at first but just look how we approach things like sport these days.
True Tah said | October 27th 2009 @ 12:45pm | Report comment
I just hope we dont go down the UK route, where it seems an alarming number of schoolgirls are falling pregnant, and the number of unemployed is at its highest.
LT80 said | October 27th 2009 @ 12:39pm | Report comment
“Quasi-American drivel”? Are you talking about cheerleaders, using made-up names and calling clubs “franchises”. Yeah, that’s totally absent from rugby union………
Redb said | October 27th 2009 @ 1:14pm | Report comment
Stormers, Hurricanes, Force, Chiefs, et al…
chess is an engrossing game.
Republican said | October 27th 2009 @ 1:07pm | Report comment
Ohtani’s jacket
Thats a fairly predictable Kiwi response and quite arrogant especially considering that the Super 14 is the epitome of hype.
All elite sport feeds off the ‘American’ style hard sell in order to promote the product for want of a better word, to the lowest common denominator, which in turn helps broaden any respective code patronage, as fickle as that may often be.
Union is NO exception in this respect and NZ are extremely opportunistic in embracing this formula to their advantage. I see the All Blacks relationship with the HAKA as a marketing tool in enhancing the popular ‘brand’ to this end. I would not be too pious in your crit of other codes and countries OJ since NZ and Union are well and truely integral to this culture.
The game of Australian Footy which is steeped in tradition, is valued as much for that as Union is.
Cheers
ohtani's jacket said | October 28th 2009 @ 11:32am | Report comment
The Super 14 is crap just like the NRL and ARL. It was an Australian idea and is further being propagated by Australians to drag us down the path of the popular codes in Australia. I don’t want more Super rugby. I don’t want rugby to resemble league in any way, shape or form. If the Wallabies can’t play an attractive style of rugby for the Australian public, it’s because they’re not bloody good enough. You can change the laws and they still won’t be good enough.
If you honestly think New Zealand hypes anything to the degree that Australia does then you truly are living in that bubble you’ve created for yourself.
Republican said | October 27th 2009 @ 1:21pm | Report comment
P.S.
I do agree in essence with the sentiments expressed here, regards the lack of appreciation of subtlety in audiences the world over these days. The instant grat syndrome that sees quantity win over quality is certainly changing the face of the sporting landscape.
This is an evolution that I find extremely difficult to take including when watching my beloved code of Aust Footy, which is a victim of this scourge also. I just dont believe Union, Cricket or for that matter any sport these days is ammuned from this – sadly.
Redb said | October 27th 2009 @ 1:27pm | Report comment
both rugby with Sevens and cricket with Twenty20 are prime examples.
Republican said | October 27th 2009 @ 1:37pm | Report comment
Yes, good examples Redb.
Netball also have embarked on a truncated and dumbed down version of their game to try and attract the attention of a potential pleb audience.
Redb said | October 27th 2009 @ 1:56pm | Report comment
Republican,
The problem is the diehard rugby types read the game very well and understand it technicially, however they cant possibly expect the average person to know the game that intimately.
Many rugby coaches would get a huge shock if they stepped into an AFLcoaches box on match day and watched for example Mick Malthouse set up 18 man on man match ups and adjusted them constantly and tacticially throughout the ebb and flow of the game. Most AFL fans dont realise what is going on half the time, except the diehards and that is the point.
Redb
Republican said | October 27th 2009 @ 2:35pm | Report comment
I have grown up on the fringes of the Union culture despite my preferred code being Aust Footy, attending a Union school in the ACT, so I do appreciate the games nuances and typically Brittish quirks that can often render it technically inaccesible – bar the purist i.e.
There is a snobbery that is ingrained in Union that assumes technical superiority above all other codes amongst other things. I feel that the technical needs to be balanced with accessibility because quite frankly, if this were your overidding criteria to promoting your preferred code then why not just follow summo wrestlers playing chess.
I must say I have lost interset in Union over the years for many reasons, but the main one is to do with it’s culture. I am far more at home surrounded by a mob of Australian Footy punters on any given day than at any Union fixture. All codes have their distinctive culture, so each to their own in this respect.
Cheers
ballboy said | October 27th 2009 @ 2:42pm | Report comment
An 8 point plan to get the punters back. I don’t think so. You can’t do away with scrums. I’m an ex-back but I still love to watch a good contest when two packs are sizing off against each other. Here’s a dumbed down version of SF’s.
1. Bring back the ruck and allow the players a bit more leway in getting rid of annoying players lying on or near the ball.
2. Limit the amount of kicks each team has in a game. If they each get 10 in their own 22 and 5 outside their 22 then it becomes a resource to be used at the right time.
3. Drop kicks for goal are limited to 3 a side – regardless of whether they go over or not.
4. I agree that penalties should be reduced to two points and more yellow cards behanded out if a team repeatedly offends.
I also like the idea of all yellows having to leave the field at the 70th minute. that could make for an explosive 10 minutes from 60-70 minute mark and another explosive final 10.
sheek said | October 27th 2009 @ 3:55pm | Report comment
We don’t live in isolation in this world, & sooner or later we have to learn to live with the rest of the world.
Rugby union can perhaps live happily in relative isloation in most of the countries where it swims along a clear second behind football. And because it’s not deemed a threat to football, it’s left alone.
Not so Australia – 4 codes fighting each other for players, fans, sponsors & exposure. RU is at the rear of the pack, & in danger of falling off.
So without further ado, I’m going to let loose the bull into a china shop.
How sacrosant is the edict, “continous contest for possession” underpinning the reason why RU exists?
I’m beginning to think this should be changed to “continuous contest for penalty kicks”. If RU can’t make the game a better spectacle under the current laws, then it will have to eventually consider alternatives. Or perish…..
Anyway, with all due respect, I don’t really care for the answers, except that I’ll read them with amusement. I know some answers will be despatched with great indignation (how dare I……, etc).
A ’ship of fools’ heading for rocks, blithely unaware of the impending disaster.
netrug said | October 27th 2009 @ 4:29pm | Report comment
I think American football has the scoring right. Rugby should have the same, 6 points for a try, 1 for a conversion and 3 points each for a penalty goal and a drop goal.
The rucking should be allowed. A shot at goal should be only allowed for dirtyl play and professional fouls, not for offside or other law infringements.
My big one is, what is wrong with a knock-on, the player has to scramble to retrieve it and allows the defence time to tackle him. What is wrong with a forward pass if the player was onside when the ball was passed, he has to run further and faster to catch it. In both these situations, then play-on.
With these, most of the stoppages would be eliminated and a better flow achieved. Od do players need or want stoppages so they can regather their breath?
ballboy said | October 27th 2009 @ 6:16pm | Report comment
Nutrug,
I see a number of flaws in your arguement. Me suspects you don’t know much about the game in practice.
Firstly, offside is a huge infringement as it allows a massive unfair advantage to the defensive team. If there was no real punsihment for offside you’d have the defensive line standing in the attaching line.
Secondly, the thing that seperates the game from NFL is that the pass has to go backwards. This gives a unique structure to the game and is the core ingredient to rugby (union or league).
If knock-ons were allowed teams would be knocking the ball through defensive lines and gaining advantage as they would be with the forward motion and turning teams on their heels.
Under your guidek\lines we may as well open the gates to the Colosseum, start selling albatros’ and stone all women spectators.
netrug said | October 27th 2009 @ 10:42pm | Report comment
ballboy
I have been involved in all aspects of Rugby for many years and do know a little about the game.
offside should be penalised with a free kick, not a kick at goal. Leaving a goal at 3 points is the deterrant.
The pass going forward should be allowed provided the person was onside just as when a player kicks the ball. A kick can go forward so why not a pass. the fundamental is not the direction of the ball but the being onside or offside.
It is not a knock-on if the ball is caught before it hits the ground so what is the difference if it is fumbled on the ground.
Already the law is in place to prevent throwing the ball forward over a defender and catching it. Theoretically, it is niot aknock-on as he caught it before it hit the ground but, of course, it cannot be deliberate. Also, a knock-on is given if the ball is hit out of a plyer’s grasp. The player did not throw it forward but is ruled as a knock-on.
Once again, everything is about interpretation. I don’t believe my suggestions change the fabric of the game. They are ways to allow the game to flow and prevent the endless and needless stoppages.
ballboy said | October 27th 2009 @ 6:45pm | Report comment
Sorry netrug, got your name wrong – typing has never bneen a strung point
macavity said | October 27th 2009 @ 6:45pm | Report comment
devils advocate time:
Is it any coincidence that the nation where RU is struggling is the nation where RL is a legitimate choice?
Pete said | October 27th 2009 @ 7:06pm | Report comment
Its also a nation where AFL is a legitimate sport as well. Australia is also unusually strong in other non global sports including
-surfing
-netball
-touch football
-lawn bowls
Don’t know about you but I think it maybe netball and lawnbowls holding RU back
No its not ‘devil’s advocate time “you’re indulging in “stirring time”
Dave said | October 28th 2009 @ 8:37am | Report comment
I, like many others of the time, was swept up in the spectacle of rugby during the late 90’s. The images of Larkham ghosting through gaps, Horan causing havoc in the midfield, and Ben Tune with his signature try scoring dive are what people in Australia think about when they remember the success of Australian rugby.
Yes there will be tense games that are decided by penalties – no problems there. Yet I noticed one post suggesting that Australians should stop thinking every game should be played like the 2000 Bledisloe. That is utterly stupid! Every time I watch a Bledisloe I wish to see a repeat of that match. Australia lost, but do you think anybody cared about that??? No. It was rugby at its best. No sporting fixture in the world could compare with that.
We know that rugby CAN be played like that, but coaches and players choose NOT to play in that spirit. If rugby wants to grow in Australia, then thats what we need to produce. We live in a country blessed with many high quality sporting options, and a climate that does not keep people stuck in doors all day and night. We need a product that can catch attention.
All rugby supporters know that rugby is the best sport in the world. The trouble is convincing non rugby people to watch. How can we do that when we are served the negative, boring matches that are standard at S14 and test level nowdays?
For this grandslam, we need to see images of a new Ben Tune on the news. Thats how we will get interest (by the way, I think Digby is capable of such play)
ohtani's jacket said | October 28th 2009 @ 11:39am | Report comment
You can’t reproduce the 2000 Bledisloe Cup Test in every single fixture, otherwise the 2000 Bledisloe Cup Test wouldn’t have been special. Right now, to play the way that the Australian public would like to see the Wallabies play, the All Blacks themselves would have to play pretty damn badly. That I’m afraid is the problem.