Why rugby union must innovate or die: Part III

I think Australian rugby fans appreciate all those things. A good rolling maul, a steal at the lineout, huge intensity at the breakdown, big defence, a try saving tackle, a dominant scrum. What people don't want to see is endless scrum collapses, countless shots at penalty goal for minor, subjective infringements, persistently unimaginative play or time wasting. No genuine rugby fans want to get rid of forward play, kicking or good defence, but you can't only have those things. Rugby also needs to be thrilling and get you out of your seat on occasion because you can't believe the piece of skill or the great move you just saw. And that should be the case in every game. What people don't like to see is negative, dour play for an entire match. At the moment that sort of play is rewarded too greatly. It's easier for teams to force penalties than construct tries so that's what so many teams set out to do. While that's the plan A of so many teams (because it works) the laws of rugby can be improved. It's such a straw man argument to say Australian rugby fans want to turn the game into rugby league.

There is a genuine in places like England, etc that Australians want the game to be exactly how they prefer it. The other is that people like O'Neill will turn the game in to another version of League. The full set of ELVs were rejected because the pundits, fans and administrators in Europe saw that there was nothing wrong with the game. How about we develop coaches as I mentioned above that focus more on player skills and positive play instead of turning them in to robots, rather then changing the laws constantly or banging on about product. Focus on the actual aspects of Rugby play rather then marketing and product selling. As I said there are too many poorly skilled pro players that's we get a lot of bad games full of errors. A lot of pro players can't think on their feet either. That's not the laws fault or the IRB's.

Of course people like attacking play however there are fans who appreciate forward play, good kicking and strong defence just as much. Three aspects of the game that have been neglected since our last successful period under Rod Macqueen. We loved it when the Wallabies were winning games off the back of other aspects of play besides attack but when teams like SA, France and England do it we consider it boring. You can't have it both ways.

and Aussie Rules is a hugely popular sport world wide...

Bakkies, I guess without stats we're both speculating on the psycology of Australian fans, but honestly do you believe that Australian rugby fans and those around the world see the game completely differently? Which countries prefer negative kick/chase tactics and endless scrums collapses, which are only interupted by penalty shots at goal from dubious referreeing decisions? I can't name a single one, maybe Georgia... My general understanding of Australian complaints about the game are that conservative play and matches won by penalty goals, rather than tries, is a negative. As a New Zealand fan that's exactly how I feel too! People might bang on about rucks and scrums and the importance these aspects have on the fabric of the game, but those people forget how much this area has dramatically changed in only the last 17 years since professionalism. It is now at the stage where the original point has almost been lost! The original game of rugby was a fairly fluid affair with a lot of errors/knock-ons and a heap of kicking for position. Scrums/lineouts set quickly, were barely controlled by the ref at all and were more organised chaos than repetitive clockwork. The modern game has become more like American football, where everything has to be set up perfectly and the letter of the law is so strictly adhered to that people are advocating mutliple referees/assistants and an all seeing video eye that reviews everything from foul play to whether a player picked his nose with the correct finger. I don't think any comments I've read from Australian fans suggest they want scrums removed or kicks at goal to be consigned to the history books. They just want a little more excitement and endeavour from all teams and a set of laws which encourage (not discourage) that attitude. With the 2012 test schedule now complete I'd be interested to know which matches you've found entertaining Bakkies, or other Roarers? Which games did you enjoy the most and see as the best advertisement for the sport if you were to be promoting it?

Bakkies The popularity of Aussie rules is proof positive of that point.

I disagree with that. In any sport more attacking and skilful players or teams are thought of as more entertaining than the more conservative and defensive. This is pretty much universal.

Okay mate, Didn't mean to rattle your cage. As mentioned earlier, this is a very commendable effort. Attitude is critical to everything. You can have the worst set of rules imaginable, but attitude will overcome them. Alternately, you can have the best set of rules imaginable, but lack of attitude will scupper the. Back in 1992, the IRB increased the try from 4 to 5. initially, there was a spike in tryscoring, but once teams snuffed out how to circimvent the new rules, play once again became bogged down. The problem with introducing any new rule, is "unintended consequences." This always requires a great deal of thought - anticipating how human nature will find a way to negate the intended improvement of a new rule.

''the logic is sound that if something is generally more entertaining for Australians then other countries will also find it entertaining too.'' There is the problem. What Australians consider to be entertaining is completely different to everywhere else. That's why other unions don't want Australians running the IRB.

Again as I said it was a bunch of students playing not fully seasoned results driven pros. Plus it will lead to more scrummaging and line outs. The point scoring system is fine as it is.

Matt I actually agree with you in the cold light of day. Pro sport is a business, let's be honest people and making money is no 1. And how can you make seriously big money out of countries with populations the size of Samoa 185,000 Tonga 105,000 Financially almost impossible. Unless these countries become serious global brands, and act like the Harlem Globetrotters and play all there matches overseas. Which they basically do, and set up homes bases in Australia/NZ, which i'm not sure if the ARU or the NZRU want, as this will hurt there brand awareness. -Samoa's national stadium only has 15,000. 15,000 people no corporate boxes it's nothing, a total financial disaster to host rugby championship matches if samoa was admitted to the RC and allowed to play games in Apia. When you think Homebush hold 80,,000 or the MCG 100,000 people , the MCG has almost the entire population of all of Tonga, gives you an idea how small Tonga is, and how impossible it is to stage test matches in Tonga. And Matt is right with Samoa being helped big time by NZ. 15 born kiwis of Samoan heritage in the Samoa RWC 2011 squad says it all, in the cold light of day doesn't it. But and this is the big but. On an individual level Samoa, Tonga produce great rugby players, who help Japan and Europe clubs immensely. The IRB have academies and high performance centres set up in these countries to help with pathways to pro clubs. I think the IRB will continue to do this as the playing talent is so big, and handy, but I wonder long term if the IRB will bail on the national teams of Samoa/Tonga. And out of that population I have said not all of that is urbanised making it even smaller population sizes. So economic facts are very small. Fiji has about 860,000 people. About 50% are Indian, and rugby is not big amongst the indian population of Fiji. And Fiji has so many political problems too that harm the national team's progress. Either way the only way forwad i see for these 3 teams is to survive they need to play more test matches in Aust/NZ as a satellite base. Or in Europe as a satellite base.

This will probably be controversial, but I'd advocate that we should all but forget about the Pacific Islands for the time being, something which the IRB is possibly already doing... I personally can't see how Samoa, Fiji or Tonga can ever become genuine Tier 1 nations without massive internal changes to their counties or through massive expansion to the game globally. These countries unfortunately lack both the population base and finances to grow on their own in what is becoming a game controlled by high finance. At present the reason for Samoa's success is actually the fact that most of their playes are born/raised in NZ and learn their trade through that Rugby nursery system. They've then gone on to play professionally in either Europe or New Zealand and therefore have enough financial security as players to miss out on club payments in order to represent their country. It is a simialr situation for Tonga, who also have strong links to New Zealand. Fiji on the other hand is more independent and therefore struggle due to a lack of foreign trained stars. Essentially the present Samoan side has Island heritage but is powered by European and predominantly Kiwi rugby. The problem then is that once these professional retire, back to NZ or Europe, they take their money with them and don't place Samoan rugby in any better long term position. They aren't making the nation or the Union wealthier and they aren't earning the game itself more money. When France lose to Tonga it doesn't generate more money for the IRB to invest, in fact it does the opposite. For Rugby to grow it needs BIG countries, with BIG populations and BIG financial markets to exploit. It needs countries like the USA, Brasil, China, Russia and Japan to become Tier 1 teams who compete for trophies. This will make the World Cup bigger, earning more money to re-invest and it will also provide more Pro Club spots (as Russia and Japan currently prove) so that Samoans, Fijians and Tongans can make money from the game somewhere else. I do agree that things are unfair for the Pacific Island countries, who contribute and have contributed hugely to the game for a long time. But to actually make these naitions into genuine Tier 1 contenders I think the IRB needs to instead bring more money into the game from non-traditional markets to make up for the financial shortfall in the Pacific. And to their credit I think this is exactly what the IRB is trying to do. It just takes time though, but in another 20years I think the USA and Russia will be Tier 1 sides with their own domestic leagues and this will mean more spots for Pacific Islanders to earn a living from the game and create a sustainable platform for continued success.

I tend to see the other side of the coin Danoz. It's because Australians are subjected to such a competitive sporting marketplace that Rugby Union fans want the game to improve as a spectacle. I don't think they should feel ashamed for that fact either, they want the game to be better and the logic is sound that if something is generally more entertaining for Australians then other countries will also find it entertaining too. As a Kiwi there is no doubt that the NRL provides great entertainment week to week and that as a benchmark Rugby Union should aspire to much of the action and athleticism on show in this competition. I too am living in Europe and the fans here still seem to prefer adventurous attacking rugby more than grinding play, especially the Welsh and Irish. And recently the Italians too have shown that they can attack and the fans have loved it. I don't think anyone would say the game is perfect, but it has certainly improved since the amateur era in terms of the amount of action and the skills on show. BUT, it can go further and should do if it wants to expand around the world. Too often Rugby appears to be a game played by the guys who are too big/slow to play Football. Whereas we all know you need all body shapes to play the game and without the Cruden's, Hougards, O'Connors and Michalaks you'd have a wrestling game with a ball thrown in. Me personally, I don't think Rugby entertainment is so much linked to the number of tries scored, but more the intent of players to score tries and take risks. This is where the NRL tends to outperform Super Rugby, in the intent of players to try things and AIM to score tries. I think the main reason for this is that there is more space to attack with width and that there is a long standing culture in League to tap and go. It tends to be the same reason why NZ rugby is also entertaining, because the intent of the players and the whole mentality of players 1-15 is to have a crack and show off your skills. I hope, like many Australian rugby fans, that the game can generally improve in this aspect and that endeavour will overtake fear of failure in many countries mentality.

Agree with everything that you said. A genuine Rugby man who loves the game and moves to Europe for a short or long stint should get involved with Rugby in some capacity. Those armchair supporters who don't like how the game is played should get off their and get a coaching certificate. Then coach kids how they should play the game which they will bring to senior Rugby.

England are changing their mini Rugby structure before the RWC. In Ireland it's done on age grades. under 8-under 12 mini Rugby,no competitions, laws change gradually. Contested scrums, lineouts and proper kickoffs from under 11s on a half size pitch. At this age group it is 10 a side and same with under 12s. As far as I know there is no rep teams for these age groups. Under 13- Under 19 Youths full pitch, obviously the laws progress as they get older. There are club and schools rep sides. Ireland has a better structure in comparison for players not in the pro 12 or HEC squads. Each province has its own academy. A squad players play in the British and Irish Cup against Welsh clubs, Eng championship sides and Sco 1st division clubs. This is split in to pools of 4 and from memory it's home and away. They get competition fixtures, finals Rugby to prepare them properly. They also have inter pro fixtures and play club Rugby.

Without trying to sound controversial, but have we considered that part of the problem with rugby is our interpretations as Australians as to what it should be? Time and time again its reported in the media and more and more spoken in public about how boring rugby is because not enough tries are scored, there is too much kicking, the breakdown is slow etc… but in all honesty is this not rugby? Have a look at European rugby, and even South African for that matter, it very similar in style. Lots of kicking, lots of forward play, scrumming and set piece. When the track dries out, there is more running and open style of play. But importantly no one over here (I have been in Europe 8 years now and have changed my thoughts about the style of game) finds it boring. They get good crowds, people appreciate what rugby is and how it is played. Sure they love it when it opens up and tries are scored, but they also love it when you have big forward battle and slug out a win through penalties. I don’t disagree with many of the suggestions to improve the game, as innovation is always required, but I am not sure we need to innovate for TV ratings purposes for an Australian market. What about more simple things likes like lowering ticket prices to go see a game. It is crazy how expensive it is to go and watch the Tah’s play. How can the majority of families afford to go out as a family to watch a game? What about stop trying to criticise and promote Rugby as something it cannot always be. You are not going to get into a state of free flowing tries one after the other every game like people are expecting more and more. Things are not helped in Australia where the domestic comp (is it still called the Shute Shield) is not very well promoted, we have a lack of player depth in positions, and currently there appears to be some basic skill issues with passing and handling in general. This I admit makes it hard to be attractive, but just because we don’t score 3+ tries a game, doesn’t mean it is dull. The Engalnd v Aust game was a tense match, especially in the grounds at Twickenham with 82,000 supporters there. The Wales Australia game was down to the last seconds and had you on the edge of your seat. Anyway don’t get me wrong, I think there needs to be some changes, but I also think the way the media advertises what rugby should be and this constant battle to get TV ratings are issues, as wells ticket prices to go see a game. Make it more realistic and accessible, and large part of the problem will be solved. My humble opinion of course.

The problem with the IRB are they want to test laws on semi professional or amateur teams like a Varsity team basically is and then think it will work on the highest level with professionals. I will give you a example of such a mistake in rugby today and that is the scrum especially the bindings of it.

klestical a good series you put together very worthwhile , keep up the good work. I will ay this to all roarers out there. The ARU have a website, i have sent them my views on a number of things and they have goon back too me, with a thank you and saying i made some good potions and will forwad to relevant departments so you send the ARU stuff. And George Gregan is on twitter,. Gregan if you don't know is on the ARU board, so he obviously has some function when discussing major issues in aussy rugby. Ewan Mckenzie is on twitter too, as is Jake white they have got back to me before, TIm Horan and Matt Burke are on twitter and have got back too me. But George Gregan is on the ARU board so has some scope of what's going on. Tweet him he has responded to me before. But Tim Horan and matt Burke have a few times. and Greg Peters the SANZAR ceo has on twitter, a very good bloke he has responded to me many times about my various questions on aussy rugby. Ultimately though the ARU have more say than SANZAR on aussy rugby matters but hay can help. The IRB cep Brett Gosper is on twitter to, and Brett Gosper is Australian so he knows the aussy scene a lot. So make a difference people tweet away or write way to the ARU/IRB/SANZAR they all want feedback , and are on twitter, and have websites with contacts area. Get our opinions out there to relevant people. And RUPA has a twitter site, and website. I have tweeted to Rupert Murdoch too , as news limited owns fox sports and gave him my opinions on changes that need to be made to super rugby, as the media moguls have a massive say as they are the one who invest in the game. So get there people and tweet away, I have done lol.

Hi Neuen - fair point. I didn't see the after 'four rounds' part. I agree, not really a good sample there. However, I did put in my Rugby Institute Part: for it to be "investigated further". I would be interested to see the final results. I might have a look around. And yes, you could be right about the varsity cup entertaining at all costs - so it has most likely skewed the results.

Billy bob what was that group or fans group formed int he 1990's anyone remember what it was it came up in Andrew Logans article can't remember the name of the group was it green and gold group. Big worry now in the private schools with AFL coming in, and actually being very helpful and proactive in these schools with subsiding gear, and other things etc. We need ot organise a fan forum or a rich bussinessman try and come in and pressure the ARU. Soccer Australia disbanded, and formed the FFA. If the ARU keep stuffing up, we need a Frank Lowy to come in and help. And mining magnetes out there want to help, twiggy forest, tony sage, and old uncle Clive lol