Arguably the best advertisement for rugby league in 100 years or so was the 2007 rugby union World Cup.
For the most part, the rugby was ponderous; ball-in-hand attack virtually non-existent in some key games and the refereeing was beyond appalling. The officials, at the undoubted urging of the IRB, latching onto the school-masterly approach so prominent in the British and Irish game.
In the last few years the ELVs, despite their flaws, were a breath of fresh air for anyone wanting to see rugby played at pace and in an overtly positive style. But the rule experiments were anything but perfect, providing the little bit of fuel critics needed to shut the door on the much-needed tweaking of the modern game.
So now we’re back to playing the game the gin and tonic set, the fatboys and the rugby establishment’s blindly loyal fourth estate gatekeepers declare to be the original and the best.
A match that evens the gap between the most athletic players and the lesser so — where the contest isn’t about scoring tries but rather establishing field position and getting on the good side of the referee.
To their credit, the Springboks are unmistakably, proving to be the best in the world at this form of the game. They may well be the best rugby team in the world too, but the way the Tri-Nations is being played and officiated we’ll probably never know.
Rugby union, as we are constantly reminded by the ‘purists’, is not rugby league. There are more layers to the game — it’s a game for all body types, a contest of strength skill and speed, but also guile and vision.
Some of that conjecture is on the money, but a good slab of it steaming horseshit, a defensive reaction to the fact that on occasion over the last 40-years or so league has been a vastly more skillful and entertaining game. Its officiating has been more consistent, its players more athletic, its strategies (in defense and attack) often-times more intricate and innovative.
Being a mungo admirer is not rugby treachery. Additionally, it doesn’t ignore some of the inadequacies of league, including its lack of complexity or diversity through the phases of play.
But watching the Tri-Nations armed with a love of rugby — union first, league second — and a loathing of over-officious officiating, it is becoming clear that rugby union is again poised to disappear up its own enormous derriere.
South Africa is a wonderful team and while the Boks are winning, all murmurs of dissatisfaction with the way they are playing the game will be put down as sour grapes or mindless whining from daft Wallabies supporters (moi) or those pesky New Zealanders.
That’s fine. Winners are grinners. And sure, for all the drivel about the Wallabies wanting to play running rugby, they would likely play a not hugely dissimilar style if they could get their hands on the ball or stop drifting off to sleep for crucial slabs of matches.
But don’t ignore the wider implications of the game reverting to a style of play that empowers the referee, again, to be the most crucial person on the field.
Lengthy discussion about the ELVs will send us off in the wrong direction, however it should be said, under those experiments the ref could make a blinding error or two in adjudicating, especially at the breakdown without it largely changing the momentum of games or undermining the conspicuous rugby superiority of one side over another.
Referees have too much to do and too much power (the full-arm for virtually every infringement). At every contest there is the potential for blowing up play for multiple infringements — we all know that — and the scrums are a lottery: front rowers, especially know that.
What has been happening this season (and in most games in British competition) is the official ends up ‘refereeing’ one team more than the other, perhaps because if he pulled up every infringement, he’d be blowing the pea out of the whistle.
It’s no so much what the ref is getting wrong, but what he’s selecting to get right.
That’s not to infer overt bias or cough up excuses for losing teams (Australia, for example, has has both benefited and suffered at the hands of officious refs this year), rather it’s a reflection of the on-going problems with the game the ELVs tried and failed to address in the brief time they were on show.
For some rugby lovers, it’s not about making union more like league, but less like the rugby that used to be played semi-seriously in a couple of countries by a bunch of white, former private school kids.
The complexity of the game does not need to be watered down, its traditions need not be interfered with, but in the professional age, rugby’s credibility as a viable global spectator sport for people who value athletic brilliance and occasional audacity is at risk.
Mike
Guest
True, The FIFA Big Count Report in 2006 claimed that China had 711,000 registered amateur and youth players. This is somewhat less than England, from a population over 30 times as large. Indonesia didn't make the cut - the report showed the 20 largest countries in terms of registered players - Iran was No. 20 with 450,000 registered players, so Indonesia must be smaller than that. There are said to be a large number of EPL fans in China, although I suspect the exact number is conjecture. The problem for soccer in China is that Chinese fans like foreign football teams and they like kicking a ball around the park - but they don't much like their own teams, and they aren't interested in registering with the Chinese Football Association!
True Tah
Guest
Woody futbol is massive in both China and Indonesia, China would have over 100m registered players, and the EPL is estimated to have over 500m supporters alone in China. Pretty much every single Chinese male would have an EPL jersey. Indonesia, futbol is the only sport of note there. Again I suspect virtually every Indonesian male will own EPL jerseys. Please do not confuse the fact they both nations are poor and are not strong nations as being not futbol nations.
Mike
Guest
Woody Many thanks. The Putting Rugby First report makes a number of good points, and the chiefs in Dublin know they are under scrutiny. "The next World Cup in NZ could have audience as low as 10 million". If you mean the whole RWC, then I rather doubt that – as we have discussed, a single game (the final) in 2007 had a (home viewers only) audience of 33 Million, so the entire RWC2011 is likely to have far more. I agree that viewing numbers for the final in 2011 will depend on who is playing – if the final is e.g. NZ v South Africa, then the TV audience will be down. But it will be made up by the quarters and semis: Basically, viewers in France, Ireland, Japan, Great Britain etc will tune in whenever their team is playing. So one way or another, there will be plenty of TV audience over the entire RWC. "NZ &South Africa’s Tri-Nations have barely rated in the NH countries." I can well believe that, and after all, why should they? We in Australia, NZ, South Africa are used to thinking that the Rugby world revolves around us – many decades ago, perhaps it did. But now, viewers in Italy, France etc are far more interested in the Six Nations. Then, there are another 36 test teams that contest the European Nations Cup, and I expect each of them are far more interested in their own pool than an obscure competition in the southern hemisphere. Take the top two in division 1 for instance - Georgia v Russia has now become a vicarious substitute for them shooting at each other (which is no bad thing). Then, we can head out to Asia where there are already a very large number of fans (by western standards), but they are more far interested in seeing whether Kazakhstan or Korea can knock Japan off its pedestal, than whether ABs can beat the Boks!
Woody Warambel
Guest
Thank Mike. I tend to agree with you that soccer's popularity is vastly overstated. The game is certainly popular in Europe & Central & South America & a few countries in Asia & Africa. It is not all that popular in China, India, the USA & Indonesia. These countries have more than half the population of the world. I was reading somewhere that the EPL 's TV viewing rights in China has been sold to a Digital Pay TV operator who have (up to a couple of years ago) have only 40,000 subscribers. However, Soccer will have at least a game or tournament in the Top 10 Lists every year. RU can only achieve that in a World Cup year. The next World Cup in NZ could have audience as low as 10 million . It depends who the finalists are of course. Australia. NZ &South Africa's Tri-Nations have barely rated in the NH countries. 100,000 or so for a NZ v South Africa test is all they got in the UK. You might be interested in this: http://www.puttingrugbyfirst.com/home.php Big Kev I went to the RLWC Final & my ticket cost over $100. I would think RL Internationals could attract bigger crowds if GB became competitive.
Mike
Guest
Link, While I am responding to Woody above, I may as well also throw this in. According to the ViewerTrack Report of Initiative Sports Future, the ten most watched sporting events of 2007 are listed below. Note that one soccer match (the UEFA Champions League Final) makes the list at Number 3, and the RWC Cup final comes in at Number 4. No other soccer or rugby events make the top 10. Whilst soccer is a much bigger world sport than Rugby, it is not nearly as big as a lot of soccer bodies try to make out. Rugby is definitely a world sport, and it seems to be growing much quicker than soccer or other sports. The top ten sporting events by viewing audience were: 1 American Football NFL Super Bowl (Chicago Bears vs Indianapolis Colts) 97 Million home, 142 million all. 2 Formula One Brazilian Grand Prix 78 million home, 152 million all 3 Soccer UEFA European Champions League Final (AC Milan vs Liverpool) - 72 million home, 148 million all 4 IRB Rugby World Cup Final (England vs South Africa) - 33 million home, 61 million all 5 IAAF World Athletic Championships Men’s 100 metres Final - 24 million home, 70 million all 6 Baseball MLB World Series (Game 4 Boston Red Sox vs Colorado Rockets) - 24 million home, 72 million all 7 Handball IIHF World Men’s Handball Championship Final (Germany vs Poland) - 23 million home, 56 million all 8 Golf US Masters (Final Day), 21 million home, 76 million all 9 Tennis Wimbledon (Men’s Singles Final, Roger Federer vs Rafael Nadal), 21 million home, 52 million all 10 Cricket, ICC World Twenty20 Championship Final (India vs Pakistan), 20 million home, 40 all.
Mike
Guest
Woody, See my response with figures and source. I find it amusing that soccer, which claims to dominate world TV sporting audience, had only one event in the top 10 for 2007! Also that sports like Handball, Athletics and Cricket were represented!
Mike
Guest
Woody, the figure you cite (33 Million) is correct, for the actual audience who watched the entire event on their own TVs. It does not include those who may tune in for part of it, nor does it include those watching e.g. on hotel TVs etc .That makes the 2007 Rugby World Cup final the 4th most-watched sporting event in the world for 2007. These of course are figures for the final only. It stands to reason that viewing would be dominated by the two countries in the final - England and South Africa. However, 24 nations from every continent contested RWC 2007, so the audience for the entire World Cup will be much wider when the other matches are taken into account. The source of the figure you quoted is the Initiative Sports Futures report for 2007. It is generally considered far more reliable than the spin emanating from the various sporting bodies (FIFA take note!). Here are the viewing figures for the top ten sporting events in 2007. The first number is estimate of home viewers who watched the entire game. The second number is estimate of all viewers. Note that the *potential* audience for any of these events is much larger and is not included in these figures. 1 American Football NFL Super Bowl (Chicago Bears vs Indianapolis Colts) 97 Million home, 142 million all. 2 Formula One Brazilian Grand Prix 78 million home, 152 million all 3 Soccer UEFA European Champions League Final (AC Milan vs Liverpool) - 72 million home, 148 million all 4 IRB Rugby World Cup Final (England vs South Africa) - 33 million home, 61 million all 5 IAAF World Athletic Championships Men’s 100 metres Final - 24 million home, 70 million all 6 Baseball MLB World Series (Game 4 Boston Red Sox vs Colorado Rockets) - 24 million home, 72 million all 7 Handball IIHF World Men’s Handball Championship Final (Germany vs Poland) - 23 million home, 56 million all 8 Golf US Masters (Final Day), 21 million home, 76 million all 9 Tennis Wimbledon (Men’s Singles Final, Roger Federer vs Rafael Nadal), 21 million home, 52 million all 10 Cricket, ICC World Twenty20 Championship Final (India vs Pakistan), 20 million home, 40 all.
The Link
Guest
big kev - i'd agree that the constant obsession with League is pointless. Its a shame you can't head your own advice. Your made a statement that I proved incorrect. Perhaps you'll be a bit more gun shy when using words like never. But I guess we post here to learn more about other sports. Take a slice of humble pie, Union is a nieche international game and a pimple on the backside of Football. If I want to watch an international game its not Union.
Woody Warambel
Guest
What were the others & have you got a reference? I believe the RUWC final had a world-wide audience of 33 million but 97% of that audience came from just 3 countries. That meas the rest of the world's audience was under 1 million.
Johann
Guest
Well, I'm a Bok supporter.. (and everyone at the AA says 'hi Johann, not everyone is perfect'), but I must say, the last few tests have been a tad boring. Yes, there is way too much kicking, the rucks.. well,the rucks.. But at long last I can smile a bit knowing that Brussouw is doing to you guys what Smith and Waugh did to us so many times (get the ball, get penalties). South African rugby will always be primarily based on a 10 man game. There are various reasons for this, but it can change. I love running rugby though, and a great example of that was last year during the 1st VarsityCup competition. Some of the best running rugby was showcased to the world (some of it even reminded me of the 2000 AB's vs. WB's games), it however doesn't get above that level due to the pressure to win the Currie Cup. Yes, the Free State (the running team of SA), has won or competed in the final of Currie Cup a couple of times now, but the big boys will still dominate the scene. earleir in this thread someone stated '..Dante’s Inferno looks like a nicer place to be than sitting in Cape Town with 50,000 Afrikaaners ..', well, I'm not too sure about the crowd being Afrikaaners.. 50,000 SOUTH Africans yes, Afrikaners, nope. But just in closing I'd like to say 'damn, it's lekker to be on the winning side again!'
Wal The Hooker
Guest
Mike You're definitely right about the referees as Retired Rucker mentioned in another thread.. I totally agree with you about preserving the various contests within the game for sure. But I believe under the current laws, unfortunately it does promote 10 man rugby and coaches can focus on a territorial game just to gain a penalty or drop goal. It doesn't have to be this way. League got it right to a degree apart from the points you made, agreed on that. At he same time though we've also seem some brilliant tries from that code. I think everybody concerned here just wants to see more open rugby, lets see these amazing athletes unleash all their skills in both attack and defence. I guess what I should've said is, the more skilful and fitter side will eventually win.
Katipo
Guest
Ah yes, interpretation at the breakdown. I hear a lot of negative interpretation... 'you can't do that. Penalty!' but does anyone know what you are allowed to do? Is there an instructional video that shows refs, players, spectators an example of the benchmark correct play. I'd love to see it if there is... Anyone know of such a video anywhere?
Hayden
Guest
Seems to me the solution lies not in adding more and more layers of rules, but getting rid of some. Just allow genuine competition at the breakdown, and remove any rule that allows forwards to seagull in the back line.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
You'd to adopt a simple rule that only penalties within the 22 are kickable at goal. If the penalty occurred outside the 22, the opposition would have to kick for touch, etc. Obviously, there's a skill to kicking a 45 metre penalty, and if you were to only make penalties kickable within the 22, you'd lose a lot of the artistry of goal kicking. There would also be controversy over penalties from 23-35 metres out, and perhaps sides would infringe sooner than they are now, so perhaps the ELVs were a better idea. What I didn't like about the ELVs was that if you were awarded a FK, you didn't get the throw if you kicked for touch. I thought that was stupid.
Pippinu
Roar Guru
...but it evolves slowly - a bit like a front rower on a 50 metre dash for the line.
Mike
Guest
Yes
Grandpabhaile
Guest
"A few good reasons for this: (a) The TV audience is worldwide - increasingly, SH audiences see NH matches, and vice versa. Why should they be distracted by different standards instead of concentrating on the game (b) Players are mobile - plenty of NH players do season(s) in SH and vice versa (c) RWC is the showcase of the game - vital that everyone is expecting the same standard of reffing. Make the top 20 refs professional and require them to attend regular conferences and debriefs with each other. Its the only way. (a) they do? Which ones? probably mainly the English Premiership. (b) There are plenty of NH players doing season in SH? Who? How many? (c) Agreed. Except it occurs once every four years. Over 80 different club games across 4 different leagues, 30 cup games across 6 different nations, and 15 test games across 6 different nations, and three different languages - that's just the NH. and you expect consistency?
Grandpabhaile
Guest
The Magners League and Heinken Cup are not British competitions as such. Magners sponsor the Celtic League involving teams from Scotland, Wales and Ireland. And Italy soon to join I understand. Heinken sponsor the European Cup which involves all six nations.
Mike
Guest
They are paid, Sorry, re-reading my post it is really unclear what I meant. I'll redo it!
Rickety Knees
Roar Guru
Are the top referees not professional?