Rugby is for players, not fans. I don’t just mean the top professional players. I mean the millions of players registered globally – from school kids to colts, to subbies and grade players – who pull their boots on, just for the love of the game.
People complain that the rules ruin the spectacle, that five tries shouldn’t lose to two or that professional sport needs to entertain. But these arguments miss the point, that rugby really only needs to be fun to play.
Hopefully it is fun to watch as well, but that shouldn’t be the primary focus.
Certainly I’ve had quite a few mates who have played both union and league comment that they prefer to watch league but preferred playing union.
I think rugby, by its nature, is harder to understand than many of the codes it competes with in its role as a spectator-sport entertainment.
Backs frequently claim not to understand what goes on in rucks and mauls; only props really know what is happening in the front row.
A lack of understanding means fans lack enjoyment in those areas of the game that aren’t understood.
I wonder whether rugby and facets within rugby are inaccessible to those who haven’t played. My gut feel is that rucks, mauls and scrums in particular are much harder to understand and enjoy if you haven’t piled into quite a few of them.
Does this mean that the vast majority of rugby fans are current or ex-players? Is this a critical hurdle to the growth in popularity of the game?
I’m curious whether union is more heavily weighted in this regard, compared to other codes?
Some sports flag their simplicity as a badge of honour. This makes them highly accessible even if you have not played them to a serious level.
Regardless of whether a game is simple or complex, it is easy for the uninitiated to enjoy a well-struck goal in soccer, a mighty six in cricket, a huge shoulder charge in league, a flying dunk in basketball or a spectacular pack-mark in Aussie Rules.
It is harder for the uninitiated watching those same codes to appreciate the offside trap, tight line-and-length bowling, a well-executed kick-chase, players blocking out to secure a rebound or hard running into space off the ball.
Rugby, meanwhile, almost trumpets its complexity; the number of laws is almost a badge of honour.
Players and spectators alike recognise that a referee could blow for any number of penalties at the breakdown.
People who understand the game intrinsically get why the laws are the way they are; it must be very confusing to people who haven’t played as to why the game is the way it is.
If rugby is to grow in popularity, is its key path through increasing playing numbers at the junior and amateur levels?
Am I wrong? Are there mountains of fans out there who love rugby and yet haven’t played?
Do all sports draw the majority of their fans from those who have played or is rugby more weighted in this regard?
Do the rugby powers just need to focus on making the game as fun as possible to play and then work on getting more people playing it?
Should rugby not worry about becoming more popular as a spectator sport and just focus on keeping its players happy?
I’m still enjoying playing the game, despite the frequent complaints about rugby as a spectacle and the need to change the rules.
enzopitek
Guest
Rugby was not invented for Rupert Murdoch to make more money ... And even a world champion started rugby at grassroot level.
Bakkies
Guest
Yes you should get enjoyment out of it as a rank amateur. There is a fair amount of effort involved with combining work, organising, training and playing plus getting the kids to their own matches on a weekend. The juniors is an interesting one as the element of players having fun is drummed constantly in to the kids, players, referees and coaches. Each country has their own philosophy and culture in regards to this but a lot of unions miss the point that coaches and referees play an important part in game and personal development. They don't realise that mini rugby even at under 9s level is very physical and competitive. Coaches want to teach the kids about playing the rugby, some take it more seriously than others. To me spending each week in the winter out with the kids I would want the kids to learn as well rather than play piggy in the middle for entertainment. The union bosses don't see the matches every week. and underestimate the kids knowledge and what they want to get out of the game (adults don't want to know the score but the kids do for instance). Rugby is quiet well thought of because it's ethos of respect, ethos and sportsmanship by people outside of the game and is attractive to potential to newcomers who weren't brought up on the game (which is common in Australia and Ireland for example). In Ireland a lot of parents get their kids in to as much organised sport as possible but don't pay much attention to what goes on apart from ferrying the kids around. In Australia kids might play rugby on sat and league on a sunday but they wouldn't be tied in to playing soccer and/or hockey as separate winter sports. Music, drama (if they are in to that) and/or study (the amount of homework kids get in Australia is ridiculous) gets precedence.
jeznez
Roar Guru
Well Pete it isn't a scientifically proven statement........
peterlala
Guest
Jeznez, you say "mums wont let their little boys play rugby if rucking remains". How do you know that?
jeznez
Roar Guru
Minz, it is stories like yours I am most interested in. What got you into the game since it wasn't playing? Has your enjoyment of the game changed since you played?
jeznez
Roar Guru
I completely agree the game is already fun to play. That is why as I near my 39th birthday I am still running around in the Thirsty Thirds. Your point about ice hockey, basket ball etc is something I was trying to address in the article - most sports are simpler than rugby so easier to get a handle on. With regard to women supporters I do take your point. I have three sisters and one of them is hugely passionate about the Wallabies. I've got a mate running a tipping comp and last year his sister, wife and mum were occupying the top three positions ahead of forty other punters (most of the rest of us were current or ex-players). There are certainly many people of both genders who follow the game without having played. In Australia I suspect we have fewer non-player fans than some other countries. Certainly I've got league mates who complain about rugby's stop start nature - they consider the game stopped every time the ball goes into a breakdown. I on the otherhand look at league as a stop start game due to the play the ball. These mates and I each think our game is the continuity one and we'll probably never agree. That is one of main the catalysts for this post though and that is, at least in Oz, there are many people who won't watch rugby because they hate the pile up that occurs during the breakdown as they think the game is stopped. Further the 'chief rugby correspondent' for the main rugby paper in Sydney devoted a major article to the collapsing of scrums this year and suggested things to do while they occurred. Scrums have actually been really good this year. The Aussie conference sides are almost all stepping up to the plate yet this guy went on a whinge due to one poor set of scrums in a single game. It is when I hear things like this I start thinking sod the 'fan' lets keep it for the players.
BennO
Guest
The Barbarians are probably the closest thing to that idea but a little bit more authentic than the globetrotters.
warrenj
Roar Rookie
You have a point there. It never crossed my mind to think of the 7's as a counter argument to the lack of entertainment in XVs. It is an entertaining spectacle and has been used to sell rugby to the public hence it's inclusion in the Olympics 2016. But I was talking about faked and practiced moves a la WWE, but again, as I stated before, I doubt an idea like that would take traction or be feasible or even be logical.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
Isn't that kind of the point of sevens or do you literally mean fake choreographed matches?
Lorry
Guest
interesting points. Definitely American football is popular with people who don't play... As far as I know, most high schools only have a senior and junior team, and there isn;t really much american football at a club level as it requires such a posse
warrenj
Roar Rookie
I know, but you know what I mean. The Globetrotters entertain fans of the NBA with slick moves and choreographed moves, etc. I still wonder if that could translate into rugby?
ohtani's jacket
Guest
The Harlem Globetrotters aren't related to the NBA, though.
PeterK
Guest
yes they are, they are reffed totally differently. In amateur the ref does not turn a blind eye to constant infringements and the players dont cynically cheat anywhere near as much. So surprisingly the amateur game flows more and is only let down by basic lack of skills and fitness.
warrenj
Roar Rookie
I wonder if rugby codes should look into something the NBA has - the Globetrotters? Have a team or teams that train and choreograph plays, etc. I know it's an idea from left field, but if entertainment is the issue to be confronted, then an entertainment team could be an option? I know it's an idea that will never gain traction or support, but I believe that supporters want wins and trophies over entertainment. The All Blacks are happy with their World Cup win, but the score was 8 - 7. A very low score considering that both teams were known for flair and running rugby. It was an "ugly" rugby game, and won as an "ugly" test match should be won. This win could and did generate a lot of revenue for New Zealand and the spectators and supporters were happy (on the New Zealand side of the fence). This is one of many examples where the match was a gripping encounter but the 'entrainment' factor was found in the different technical elements of the game as opposed to the flair and backhanded passes of Super Rugby.
AndyS
Guest
Just to add though, the game already is fun to play. People play it for many reasons, but wouldn't do so if it wasn't enjoyable. But having it fun to play and enjoyable to watch aren't mutually exclusive. At the end of the day, in both instances what folk are after is a decent contest between two teams that is fairly and consistently adjudicated.
Minz
Guest
I enjoyed watching rugby well before I played it - started watching it as a little girl more than a decade before I lived in a place which had a rugby comp for women. Loved playing it, too. On the other hand, I find league rubbish to watch because it's simpler. There just isn't enough variation in the play to make it interesting for me. Each to their own!
Mango Jack
Guest
jeznez
Roar Guru
Camaraderie is a great point. I got back on Sunday from a rugby tour and it was one of the best ten days of my life. We are getting together again this Saturday night to reminisce only six days after the tour ended!
AndyS
Guest
Interesting stuff Jez, but I'm not sure I'd agree. There are a lot of women sitting in the crowd of most matches, the vast majority of them wouldn't have played, but (in my experience) they have extraordinarily sharp eyes for wickedness at the breakdown and you don't want to get into a laws argument with them. I certainly would agree that ex-players see the game in a different way, but that is not necessarily an advantage - a lot of ex-players can't seem to recognise that a number of the laws as they knew them have changed. It certainly doesn't mean that non-players don't enjoy it or can't understand it. The laws are actually pretty simple - it is the number of ways they can be broken that makes it complicated. My nine year old nephew knows the laws inside and out, even though most have nothing to do with the game he is playing as yet. I'm not sure Rugby does itself any favours constantly banging on about how complicated it is or how you had to have played. I don't think it is true - I don't have to have played ice hockey or basketball, or understand all the intricacies and tactics of the Tour de France in order to be able to watch them. Even total neophytes can recognise the physicality and skills involved in Rugby, and that includes multiple phases of pick-and-drive and the scrum. They may not fully understand all the complexities, but they can certainly watch and enjoy it. Usually until some mumping bastard starts whinging about how it was a crap game, the ref might as well have been wearing opposition colours and it is all s*** compared to the good old days.
jeznez
Roar Guru
MJ, I've tried it live and it just didn't work for me - to be fair I was with a bunch of rugby mates and we spent most of the game giggling at the very soft bumping into each other off the ball antics of the players. Might have been different if we had someone knowledgable about the game to help us focus on its finer points. That movement off the ball is certainly something that impresses though - those guys are so fit. Incredibly conditioned for a contact sport game.