The problems with Rugby Union - Part II

yes to me there has to be something about numbers at the breakdown rather than just speed at going for the ball. For a while it seemed that if you didn't get the ball in the initial second then there was no point at all being in the ruck. As I have said in part 1, i think the recent resurgence of counter-rucking may change this though, we have to wait and see.

I suppose I see the try as the most important score because it usually involves a lot more team work to achieve. I am not saying that getting awarded a penalty doesn't involve pressure from the team (ie teamwork) but kicking goals from the halfway line is all down to the skill of one person - the kicker

Severin, I do not believe that the attack has to evolve at all. I strongly believe that the rules have to be changed so that forwards are once again committed to the breakdown and then the attacking side will have more room to move. The defensive forwards do not commit because they have very little chance of stealing possession and that is exactly how the law makers want it to be. Getting the defence to commit will also create greater urgency and speed. The breakdown at present is little different to a League play the ball and much of the time even slower. The game is ailing.

It's a deliberate, common tactic to keep men out of the pile to stay in the defensive line. You can say the rules allow or encourage it, but whatever reason the forwards are getting in the way, it's effective. The defensive and attacking lines are so much closer to each other now than 20 years ago, and there are fewer tries. These are measurable indicators that defense has improved. I think what you're really saying is that modern attack needs to evolve further to cope with the improved defense, Jock, and I agree with you there a fair bit. Nothing is the same under the sun. Remember the mid to late 90s running into that 98 WC, when Australia had awesome attacking centres Horan, Little and Dan Herbert, but South Africa were picking big, hard tackling guys who stuffed our momentum through the 12/13 channels and put us right under pressure? A lot of good rugby judges thought the likes of creative ball runners like Horan and Little were gone, that it was time for Nathan Grey style physical intimidation. McQueen responded by changing the point of attack, sending bigger back rowers to attack through the fringes of the ruck, and draw some of that steam out of the defense before asking the backs to run into the teeth of it. Continuity. Innovation. Look at how the Wallaby backline has attacked in this tri series. Some of the moves on first phase have been complicated, but many are not. Brisbane against the Boks was one of the first times Australia used multiple decoy runners, a second line of attackers running behind the first guys, anything to make the defender have to choose between 2 players, not just give him a one out pass to an easy target. Deans also adapted the so called "pod" tactic and put forwards on the other side of the field from our lineout to secure the ball. Continuity. Innovation. They still have a heap of improvement in that area. If they ever get a combo together that can call plays on the fly, and actually ask questions of the defense on phase ball, I think it's possible creative, attacking rugby can regain some momentum back. That will especially be the case if refs police the breakdown at the World Cup very strongly, not like they did in the first half of the tri nations. I still think the full ELVs or some other rule changes are needed, but there’s no reason to completely shut up shop in the meantime.

I do not believe that the defence has improved as such. What I believe has happened is that there is a defensive wall of forwards getting in the way because thay are not committed to the breakdown. If we could set up a game between two very good teams that had been given some time to train under the rules pre professionalism and then they played against each other, the weakness' in today's game would be very obvious. It is a soul less repetitive contrived uninspiring debacle.

Firstly, it isn't 2 or three that held up the elv,s it was all 5 home unions plus France and SA weren't that keen. A common media thread here is that the 07 world cup wasn't that great, but if you read everywhere else except NZ, the reaction is opposite, and again I agree. My point of league is they identified that tries are attractive so the whole game is geared towards it, whereas rugby is a constant territory struggle to earn points. Australians judge rugby by league standards, and we are alone in this complaint.

Rugby league games can be won by scoring tries,conversions, penalties and drop goals - the same as union. However rugby league realised early that the game needs a fine balance between attack and defence and thus gradually changed the laws to facilitate that. Union for many years didn't bother with defence (in fact it didn't much bother with coaches for a long time) so when the various teams started to look at working on defence it became apparent that the rules of union weren't entirely suitable to keeping a balance between attack and defence so it became possible to win games by not trying too hard to score a try, just keep the ball amongst the forwards, wait for mistakes or cheating and kick penalties. of course no every union game is like that, some teams do make an effort but it is all too easy to just play safe and wait for the other team to mess up.

How can you say that, Dimebag? The ELVs were help up by 2 or 3 of the northern unions. Everyone else was on board, including France and SA. It's not just Aussies who want to see tries and running rugby. I want proper, hard test rugby, with strong set pieces, rolling mauls, kicking, it's all part of the game.. I also want teams to be able to run the ball and be able to win, and that has been made too difficult as modern defenses have improved so dramatically since professionalism. It's not being against traditional, conservative rugby. It's about restoring a balance to the game so that it's possible to win the big tournaments without looking to give the ball away, bash the opposition when they're dumb enough to try to run it, and make your kicks from the inevitable mistakes that arise from that pressure.

I just wish he would get a gig commentating the Super 14. Kearns, Marto and the other bloke just don't do it for me. They're too biased and don't have the ability raise the volume without sounding whiney and high pitched.

Can i just ask something. Why are tries the most important? League is where the game is to score tries, but rugby is the game where you continually compete to score points to win, whether its tries, drop goals or penalties. This gives many ways to play the game. Just remember, we are the only country that complains about running/ tries etc like this. The rest of the rugby playng world thinks there is nothing wrong, and i agree. We judge rugby by league standards

Mitzter, the problem with reducing the 3N games (I agree with you) is that it's all about revenue to SANZAR. The rules also need to be cleaned up, because as you point out there are to0 many grey areas. Argentina, do need to be involved in a series but logistically (travel times ect) the 3N will be too hard the IRB should expand the 6N to 7 nations. Instead of seeing the Tahs travel, I would like to see the 15th Super side play some games over here in Adelaide...yes Adelaide. The rugby 7's is extremely well supported here and they would def get people to the games and hopefully build up kids interest which would get them playing and hopefully a few future Wallabies. On the commentators, well let's just say they do provide some humour especially the Fox sports team... Well done to the Wallabies for beating the Boks so convincingly on the weekend, I hope the Boks bounce back next week and win the 3N in style!

Glad someone agrees with me! I remember being impressed with him when Sunday Rugby was on the ABC back in the 80s. I also remember the dark years when David Fordham was commentating when the tests were on channel 10 I think. Thank god Gordon got the gig back because I agree with you, I do think he is one of the best (if not the best) commentators of either rugby code in Oz. And not having fox sports available to me, I really wish Channel 7 would devote time to post match analysis so we could hear more of Gordon's genius, well, at least his insightful comments.

True but apparently NSW doesn't even stretch that far. It's confined to the Eastern suburbs of Sydney.

I agree with you in the commentators, Rugby is confusing enough without incorrect calls from the box, how many of them have level 1 accreditation? I agree with your 3N comments ( especially becase I am a PUMAs fan) and I think we need to remind the NSW waratahs that NSW is not just Newcastle Sydney Woolongong.

Gordon Bray is the best. He is the Richie Benaud of rugby commentating. If somehow we could get a Gordon Bray clone so that we could have two Gordon Bray's commentating at once I would be in rugby listening heaven. As it stands, we have to listen to the other two know-nothing commentators about 66% of the time..... cruelty. And no I am not Gordon Bray or related to him in any way.

The current rules are a disaster-the modern game is vastly different to the game I played and I am losing interest and wonder whether it is able to be salvaged. The corporates saw a money making opportunity in the game,siezed control and then promptly changed the rules. As as a result the game we have today is not professional Rugby at all but merely a half breed which sits between the two Rugby codes. Sports such as Tennis,Golf and Soccer have switched to professionalism without undermining the integrity of their games through tampering with the rules.For instance the Soccer Federations have resisted calls to award more points for a goal or to make goal scoring easier. The removal of the competition at the breakdown under the premise of producing a free flowing spectacle has ruined Rugby. We need to go back to the pre professional era and play under those rules and then be reminded of what the game was all about.

O'Neill didn't side with the clubs to kill the ARC, that decision was made by the ARU board purely for financial reasons. And considering what's happened to world financial markets since early 2008 it was the correct decision. When a viable proposal is developed we'll see a third tier national rugby competition in Australia. But not before.

I agree but I have always thought Gordon Bray is a pretty good commentator. I don't think much of Horan or Crowley, but old Gordie's alright isn't he? Regarding the tests, I agree two each for the Tri-Nations but crikey bring in Argentina - it will certainly secure Southern Hemisphere dominance of the game! But we definitely need three for the bledisloe, four is a joke.

Mitzter, Agree about too many games in 3N, & Argentina should make it 4N. Sounds full of contradictions, but we know hat we mean! I have a basic view we need to alter our structures if we want the game to be successful into the future. I argue one of the reasons why the Wallabies win-loss record continues to yo-yo wildly up & down, is due to lack of depth, & the wrong playing structures. To wit, we must have a national comp, which also means jigging around with other things, like changing the format of the super series. If I can be bothered, I'll put a post out on it, but sometimes I think I'm beating my head against a brick wall.

An ammendment to this article, on Shute shield on saturday they had a apology of sorts from this incident last week (where they claimed a tackle didn't need to be held)