Rugby terminology is becoming Americanised

On the subject of Americanisms in rugby: Do you think we can get commentators to stop using the expression "touch down" (eg "so-and-so got the touch down") when what they really mean is a try? By calling it a touch down they are showing their profound ignorance of the game of rugby football. The term touch down *is* already a term in rugby and it is NOT a substitute for the word try. Quite the opposite in fact. Under Law 22.5(a) a "touch down" occurs where a DEFENDING player first grounds the ball in his OWN in-goal and results not in five points but in either a 22 metre drop-out or a five metre scrum. And while we're at it can we get commentators (and others) to start saying "attack" and "defence" (emphasis in each case on the second syllable) instead of "offense" and "defense" (in each case emphasis on the first syllable)? (Oh and before someone comments, the American misspellings there were deliberate on my part).

Some news.. USA 7's on FTA on NBC.. "Rugby gets moment in sun Updated 16h 22m ago= Americans will get a glimpse of players who might comprise the 2016 U.S. Olympic rugby team this weekend at the 2010 USA 7's Collegiate Rugby Championship. Rugby 7's will be in the 2012 London Olympics as a demonstration sport before becoming a medal sport for the 2016 Rio de Janeiro Games. "This is a great opportunity to show off rugby to a national audience," tournament director Dan Lyle says. "A lot of these guys playing will be Olympians in 2016." Six games will be shown on NBC on Saturday and Sunday (4-6 p.m. ET each day) and will feature teams from perennial college powers in traditional rugby such as Ohio State and California. This is the first time Rugby 7's has been shown live on network television, says Matt Paget of Rogers & Cowan, the firm handling public relations for the tournament. The seven-on-seven format (traditional rugby has 15 players a side) blends the running of soccer, the contact of football and the pace of hockey on a field roughly 110 yards by 75 yards. "The beauty of Rugby 7's is the structure of the game," says John Miller, NBC executive vice president of sports. "The halves are only seven minutes and are continuous. It is a great testament to the athleticism of the players." Says Ohio State coach Tom Rooney, "Rugby 7's is such a fast-paced sport that once you watch it, you appreciate how much endurance and skill it takes to play the game."— Mike Foss" http://www.usatoday.com/SPORTS/usaedition/2010-06-04-rugby04_ST_U.htm?csp=34

Shouldn't it be "Americanized"?

The most annoying by a long shot is hearing captains in post-match interviews referring to their D, or their dee-fence. I thought only basketball people were Chuckspeakers.

As is everything - 'becoming Americanised' i.e.

So I am Hombre, But you can not deny they were all originally known by those names. And my points are right the NZRU changed the names due to the Fans not connecting with the names they were given. The NZRU had to concede to the Monikers as most fans outside of the big cities and provinces either outright refused to call them by the Original registered names or just used the Nickname as it was easier.

that's wrong - it was the NZRFU who instigated the dropping the regional identifiers - there are no such teams as the one's you've listed

the use of "sack" has slipped in over the last couple of seasons as well - I'd argue that the use of red zone has slipped in more from league using it and being picked up from there

Well if you want to get technical the teams are actually registered as the following. Auckland Blues Waikato Chiefs Wellington Hurricanes Canterbury Crusaders Otago Highlanders It is the Fans that have lead to these teams been known as there nicknames so to speak because as has been pointed out on numerous occasions the make up of the teams do not just comprise of players from the City or Province within their name!!

Well, I'll be honest with you, I don't care whether people in Melbourne or Adelaide know where overseas teams are from. You don't become a rugby fan by knowing where the sides are from. If they're interested in the game they'll pick it up. It's the same with the laws, the conference format and anything else you care to mention. First time viewers are going to be confused no matter how simple it is. The idea that everything should be simolified for the fickle masses is rubbish, IMO. This is an article about how rugby terminology is becoming Americanised yet do Americans have a problem understanding their sports? How is rugby any less complicated than NFL? Could the NFL's global audience place all 32 teams on a map of the US? Probably not. It's like the old "my wife can't understand where the sides come from" argument. 99% of all wives are still uninterested when you explain. 99% of folks from Melbourne or Adelaide won't care either. Rugby will become popular in Victoria if the Rebels are successful.

It's really not that Americanised in my mind otherwise they'd be talking about the Crusaders being the winningest team in Super 14 history. I do hate how they call the 22 the red zone, however.

Another term the yanks use that we have unfortunately picked up, "winning ugly". Please help me rid the world of this unfortunate phrase. While we are at it "going forward" instead of later on "a raft of changes" I am sure there are more that I can not think of

So how do you expect a bloke in Northland or North Harbour to connect to Super rugby if they scrapped the blues and just called them Auckland .... ditto those people in Manawatu, Hawkes Bay and Taranaki with a re-badged Wellington team .... it just won't happen .... as OJ has pointed out the NPC showed last year growth in viewership in the regions only ... the major centres are showing nil growth or in fact regressing and that's in both NPC and Super 14 ... rename the super teams with only one province and those feeder provinces won't bother supporting at all and viewership will drop further ... This S15 format is going to be interesting .... I can see the S15 format being far more receptive to kiwis as they'll switch on to watch the home game rounds - but I certainly can't see kiwis flicking on to watch the Aussie conference - some may recored the SA games - but overall this new format will certainly polarise viewership ... overall the SA and NZ derby games have generally produced intense and watchable games .. however the Australian derby games have been on the whole horrible to watch - they regularly produce error ridden affairs like this years NSW v ACT game - that's not going to get people switching on ... throw in the fact that Australia hasn't won a super rugby title since expansion and they are the only ones expanding again - then the lack of on-field success may impact on the current supporter base

Well before the game starts they have a map of the country and where the teams come from...maybe you just miss the start of the games. I do feel that you are doing the Australian schooling system a great injustice but hinting at the idea that the Australian public are illiterate and unable to understand the graphics that represent the various countries and where the teams are from. Having said that I believe it is only Australia battles with brand equity. The South African teams directly correspond with the currie cup teams and if you have half an interest in the game whilst you watching the commentators constantly refer to stadium, the area that they are playing in and the location of the teams i.e, "The men from cape town are playing well today". Having said that I do feel that the New Zealand teams have to build on their traditional values that they have set-up over a hundred years. Australia needs to invent new traditions as its only the waratahs and reds that have any really tradition in rugby. I think a good example of a team building a tradition is the brumbies. They have only been operation for 15 years (yes I know rugby has been played there for a while) and have developed a band of loyal followers (even though the team tries its damnedest to lose those supporters through some pretty average performances on the field.)

OJ, super rugby fans knows where the crusaders come from yes. But how about those newbies in Melbourne? Or a tennis fan watching S14 on cable TV in Adelaide do they know where the crusaders come from? I'll answer the question for you. No most of them do not. Indistinct names are damn confusing and it is an obstacle to super rugby's growth beyond the traditional rugby supporter. You are right when you say that the naming issue isn't the main thing holding rugby back. The on-field product etc is the most important thing to get right I agree with you there. Let's not get this out of perspective but if you want a new audience to connect with rugby it makes sense to keep things simple and easy to understand: on the field and off the field as well. Rugby's rules are difficult enough without confusing people by calling a team The Blues when there are already several sporting teams in different codes called the blues. The bigger concern is that the professional administrator has become slow to change. So this naming thing, its not a huge deal but its indicative, fans have stated the obvious for many years - like getting a return to tours and mid-week games which took way too long. The administrators are not really listening to the market, nor are they flexible or quick to act. That's the problem (Too many meetings. Too many committees. Too many stakeholders in sanzar) Another looming example is the convoluted super 15 format which is clearly the result of compromise. It isn't a clean and easy to understand tournament. Try explaining the rules of rugby to a non-rugby person. Then explain S15 finals qualifying system while explaining where the teams come from, see how you get on. See if they pick it up quickly or look at you blankly. In saying that I think it had got so bad on the field that things had to change this year and they have. Hence a lift in crowd numbers at super rugby. It has been much better to watch. I'd like to think that rugby has a momentum as a sport, that things will ultimately work out for the better, because so many people love playing and watching the sport... the next generation of administrators might say 'hey that was a good first attempt at professional rugby but it could be better. Let's try something else. Where is the brand equity? Perhaps re-visit rugby's amateur history & traditions. After all that's why rugby was popular in the first place'. Let's hope so.

Better make sure Andy Haden doesn't find out.

i think katipo was referring the politically incorrect connotations of the crusaders theme. i guess given that no one has ever really complained about it just goes to show how irrelevant super rugby is in the scheme of things.

the only organic nicknames in thes15 (i.e dreamt up by supporters rather than marketers) are blue bulls and waratahs. of the invented nicknames i think only the brumbies ,highlanders and sharks actually suit their region. everything else is terrible. stormers, force and hurricanes are the worst. blues and reds are too generic ( and up untill this year the reds wore maroon). surely someone in nz could have come up with a cool maori term instead of "chiefs"??? surely the cheetahs could have adopted someting afrikaans like melie farmers?

Everyone knows who the Crusaders are and where they come from because they've won the tournament so many times. That's how a name goes from being odd to becoming iconic. Does anybody really have a problem with calling the Crusaders "the Crusaders"? Surely it's better than calling them Canterbury. People talk about how difficult it is to explain where sides come from but how many people outside of NZ know where Canterbury is? What does Christchurch mean to overseas audiences? Nothing. People in NZ (the primary audience) know where the Crusaders are from and associate them with Canterbury either directly or indirectly. The names aren't holding us back -- it's the content. NZ'ers simply aren't entertained by Super rugby. Many of them claim to prefer provincial rugby yet that's not supported in the main centres either. Nowdays people just wait for the Test matches to begin and that constitutes the rugby season for people who aren't involved in the game at the club/grassroots level. Considering the NZRU gives folks 15 Tests a year that's more than enough rugby for the average person. Again, I don't think it has anything to do with the names. The Bulls are the Bulls having one the two three times in four years. Hell, their union is called the Blue Bulls union. Their supporters haven't forgotten where they've come from nor where they play. Life is much easier when you're a winner. I'm so sure of myself that I'd guarantee that the Cheetahs and Lions would become completely different propositions if they won the Super 15. Right now they're stupid sounding franchises but if they won the dynamics would completely change.

i think you should make the site fully flash..... and make an android app