As a veteran (according to The Australian) rugby journalist, I have waged a constant battle against the rugby bureaucracy, whether internationally or nationally.
The NZRU, ARU, SARU, SANZAR and the IRB have all been lined up from time to time for shots across the bow.
It is with relief and some pleasure (in anticipation, perhaps) that I can applaud the initiative of the ARU in constructing what looks to be a much-needed, viable and necessary third tier for Australian rugby.
This is an important achievement. The National Rugby Championship format, which spreads the nine teams around Australia, is about the proportion of support for rugby around the nation. There is scope for growth in the number of teams if the format is successful.
This is an important consideration. The former provincial tournament, devised by Gary Flower when he was the ARU’s chief executive, was unsustainable. It would have bankrupted the ARU if it had been allowed to continue.
John O’Neill is frequently criticised for ending this format. But if the Flower model had been kept on for a number of years, the ARU would not have been in the position it is now – able to put in place a national provincial tournament, with much of the risk carried by private or non-ARU investors.
Flower has, commendably, shown his confidence in the Bill Pulver format by assuming the chairmanship of the North Harbour Rays (Manly, Warringah, Gordon and Norths).
Judging by early comments on The Roar, the main issue with the new format is where the NSW Country team will play its matches and the role of the two great Sydney eastern suburbs clubs, Randwick and Easts, with the NSW Country team (if any).
Fox Sports has guaranteed to televise one match a week live. Presumably, some or all of the other matches will be played on Fox Sports after the event. And presumably, too, all the finals will be played live when there will be no Super Rugby to fill the schedule.
There may be scope, too, for the ABC to get involved in broadcasting some of the matches, as an addition to its coverage of club rugby. If not the ABC, then SBS.
SBS spends huge amounts of money on football coverage, presumably on the grounds that migrant and ethnic communities follow the code. There are huge British, South African, New Zealand, Islander and South American populations that follow rugby, a game played in over 100 countries, and SBS needs to consider the interests of these populations.
In announcing that the NRC will start in August and finish in early November, an 11-week tournament, Pulver said he was interested in rugby fans suggesting “law changes and match day innovations that could form part of this new competition”.
It may surprise some administrators (though this excludes Pulver), but rugby journalists are fans, too. So I am taking up the offer.
The NRC should be played under the full experimental law variations, with a view to getting these reforms adopted in total after Rugby World Cup 2015.
There should be a time-out while scrums are being set. This idea comes from Greg Growden and has a lot of merit, as scrums now consume more match time than penalties. Halfbacks should be allowed to feed the scrum immediately after it has set. If a side holds the ball in the back of a scrum to force a penalty and the ball doesn’t come out, for whatever reason, the feeding side should lose the ball under the ‘use it or lose it’ mantra.
At the 75th minute of the match, the clock should be stopped during all stoppages. This would give sides coming back into the match the time, which could be up to 10 minutes of running time, to get in front in a close match.
I wouldn’t mind, either, the trial of a new scoring system of five points for a try, two points for conversions and penalties, and one point for a field goal.
****
On the last round of the 2014 Super Rugby tournament, a pattern is emerging to suggest the Australian conference might be the strongest of the three.
The Western Force showed they can live up to their name with their victory over the surprisingly flat Chiefs. The Waratahs were impressive in defeating the Rebels, which raises the question of what has happened to the Rebels side that started the season so impressively against the Cheetahs.
For their next match, against the Force, the Rebels made six changes to their starting line. They were monstered and have not been able to recapture their first-round careless rapture.
Round 6 also showed the power of the home advantage, with all of the home sides winning. I wish I had considered this matter before making my picks.
The two most impressive wins were the Brumbies against the Stormers and the Bulls scoring two tries to one against the previously unbeaten Sharks at the bullpit of Loftus Versfeld.
The Brumbies are maturing into a formidable side. They have retained the forward power and precision Jake White instilled, while adding the Stephen Larkham aggression in attack and defence in their backline. They are now more like those great Brumbies sides under Rod Macqueen and Eddie Jones that could defeat opponents in the backs and in the forwards.
The Waratahs get their chance at the weekend to show whether they are the real deal when they play the Sharks at Kings Park, and the Chiefs will be more than tested by the rampant Bulls.
Will the home ground advantage be too much for the visitors’ pretensions to the 2014 Super Rugby championship?
Finally, in the week when the last two unbeaten sides were defeated, some gossip from my snouts in New Zealand. It appears John Kirwan is no longer enchanted with Benji Marshall’s potential magic. Marshall has picked up the vibe, apparently, and is looking for a contract to play Super League in Britain.
clarkeg
Guest
The halfback is required by law to stay behind the ball in the scrum. However this is just one other area of the game that is mostly ignored by referees.
Sam Starr
Guest
Cant wait for the NRC to start should be entertaining and I hope they put more money and effort into promoting it this time. Its a shame they wont have any of it on free to air
Katipo
Guest
Re drop goals. The drop goal is a great option for converting territory in to points and keep the pressure accumulating against an opposition. Its under utilised. As a Tahs supporter it's long pained me how fellow NSW supporters are so anti-field goal. Even to the extent of booing Mat Dunning for his spectacular goal all those years ago. I was at the game. Waikato had nothing on that game and the 'Tahs needed a 4 try bonus point to make the play-offs. Because the 'Tahs refused to take any 3 point options the Chiefs stayed in touch on the score board and their defensive line held firm. In my opinion, if the 'Tahs had knocked over 3 or 4 penalties and drop goals the Chiefs heads would have dropped along with their defence and the 'Tahs would have run in those 4 tries. Simple stuff. But a lot of rugby players aren't that smart! Drop goals are a good thing. I'd like to see more drop goals and less place kicks that's for sure.
Chan Wee
Guest
@ clarkeg : too true. MIB have always been about running rugger. I remember reading DC saying that in 2011 he had been practicing drops , that MIB realize the value of turning the scoreboard over. IMO it may be their "beliefs" that as "All Blacks" they have the power and skills to score trys once in opposition 30m :) As for the points system it is fine now that a try has 5 points (used to be 4) ; if at all it is the penalty that needs to be reduced to 2 points, to make teams try to play rather than kick. IMO the individual skill of dropping is less important than the teams' preparation for the drop. there needs to be a lot of thnking about angles distance wind number of players commited / free, etc to manufacture a drop. when a fly half or the designated kicker , drops back and gets set the opposition need to realize what is on (which the OZ did not do in that final). but there are snap kicks by players on the go, like a scrum half (or even a prop , which i saw in sri lanka), there is nothing one can do. IMO one reason for the scarce use of DG may be that when an attacking team is in the opposition 30m, which IMO happens to be the ideal distance for drops, team would think of 7 points rather than 3. another mitigating factor may be, when hitting the line in search of a try, the attacking team may get the defenders to commit a foul, which would earn a penalty and 3 points. so it is a decision between going fr 7 points and maybe get 3 OR just look for 3. the first option is more rational, UNLESS ur at the death and the margin of defeat and victory (or draw ) is 3 !!! another reason may be that drop is an individual effort and decision. if it goes thru fine; if not then there will be many saying a pass and run at the line would have been the better option. so there may not be many fly halves or centers who want such weight on their heads. IMO drop is a valuable option going upagainst very defensive teams. in any tournamnet there are porous defences and tight defences. if u know getting a try is hard then it is always better to go t their 30 and come away with 3 points if u have a DG specialist :)
Archer
Guest
I think difficulty is irrelevant. It's not had to make up difficult things to do in a rugby pitch. It's really a question of how you want a drop goal to function in the game. Most people see it as a way of breaking deadlocks and for that one point seems enough. Four points and it could change how the game is played. You wanna see more drop kicks then make it plus one point if you use one for kicking what would ordinarily be a place kick. Scoring tries just that little bit closer in would be really worth it.
Buk
Guest
Katipo - good idea. Would open up game, and exactly what skilful addition to the game is being able to push/shove/get in the way of an opposition halfback while he is going for the ball? At the same time have touch judges much more involved in policing the off-side line at rucks, mauls, scrums etc. Its a joke watching all the cribbing forward that takes place behind the ref's back, that robs back play of another yard or so of room.
Oscar
Guest
How about the rebels stop taking Kiwi players and find some young up and coming Aussies
clarkeg
Guest
The point I am trying to make is that a dropped goal is well worth the 3 points and the present points system is fine as it is. Achieving a "manufactured" goal (using your word) requires more than just having an individual player capable of kicking one. That All Black team of 2007 had little idea of how to go about it. As you suggest, the use of the dropped goal as a means of scoring was not part of their game plan. In regard to Zinzan Brooke. I didn't mean to imply that the particular drop goal you refer to had anything to do with field position or team effort. ( I assume we are talking semi final NZ vs Eng 1995) These types of field goals from open play are individual but spectacular. Another noteable Brooke drop goal was in 1996 3rd test against South Africa. This was more of a "manufactured" goal.
Shop
Guest
Rhino, I most admit to watching the Larkham drop goal over and over. Perhaps not one of your favourites though.
Tane Mahuta
Guest
Awesome, more send offs. I know a better way to stop teams from infringing, penalties worth 3 points. This isnt league.
Tane Mahuta
Guest
The points scoring system is perfect.
Bakkies
Guest
What needs to be noted is that Wilko kicked that off his weak foot (as he is left footed). He has gone on to kick more right footed drop goals. An example to young 10s in the youths why they should practice with both feet.
In Brief
Guest
The ELVs were fantastic, I would love to see them adopted again.
foriz
Guest
More rule changes: * allow props in scrums to put their hand on the ground. It only stabilizes theScrum and gives no advantage. * use rugby league's shepherding laws where penalty is only given when a tackler is actually obstructed, not for accidental collision with your own player. * more protection of rolling maul,the only reward for a team committing players to the ruck - drop truck and trailer rule. This frees up backline space for backs. * no penalty shots at goal from scrums. * Shorter ingoal areas. No deeper than 15 metres.
LukeR
Guest
Yes I know that's who they're technically supporting, but who should I support? Like I said above, I don't feel any emotional connection to a team called NSW Country because I'm a city boy, and spent all of my high school years playing sport against people from the country.
Rugby stu
Guest
Seriously, I'm excited about the NRC but not so much the Queensland teams they sound very, very 'meh' its just sounds like they are choosing Queensland A and Queensland B. I thought there was going to be a North vs South rivalry created. Hearing that the Queensland country team is really the Gold Coast team takes away a bit. Queensland's rugby heartland is in parochial Brisbane not the Gold Coast why bother the Gold Coast has clearly been established as the mirage of Australian sport. I would have liked a Brisbane Norths/GPS/UQ vs Brisbane South, Easts, Sunnybank, Griffith Uni and proper Queensland country team as a third that operates as a traveling roadshow to Sunshine Coast, Toowoomba, Rockie or Townsville (once off at GC could be alright I suppose). As I've said previously about the "one team town Syndrome" I'm sick of it and will probably go for the more underdog sounding "Queensland country" ahead of the blah "Brisbane city" even though I have lived most my life in Brisbane but than again I dunno...A or B hmmmm
Bobby
Guest
Time out on a scrum when it goes down and has to be rest. Keep rhe current points scoring system. For field goals...go for your life but you miss you bring the ball back from where it was kicked. Too many times teams go for posts knowing if they miss 99% of the time they will get the ball back from a 22 drop out.
Johnno
Guest
Well Paul, great then under your ideas of cutting points back for penalties. Here's what would happen under your rugby model. -Penalties per game would go up and you know what that equals "more stoppages and less rugga". The only sound we'd here all match is the "music of the ref"s whistle". Not any big hits noise, or crowd hearing or boos. Only boos from the ref. -If the team knows it will only lose 1 or 2 point for a penalty goal, far more likely to do a cynical penalty. And then we'd have more kicking not less, endless line-outs. -Rugby league teams sometimes just give away a cynicial penalty to have a breather and a rest. Knowing they will only conceed 2-points. And the RL goal-kickers are not as good as penalty points are worth less. The defensive team gives a penalty away, kick for touch a little rest. Great cut back the fittness levels for rugby union too. In rugby you don't want to give away a penalty, as you know so many good goalkickers can put 3 over anywhere within 50m now. So proffessional fouls get cut down. I would support though a shot-clock which i think they now have, and time off after goal is kicked and play re-starts.
Seamus Murphy
Guest
Dear Spiro, You seem to have listed all the relevant emigrant communities bar the Irish, there's plenty of them in Oz following rugby. Seamus
Katipo
Guest
Great. Lets make all kicks at goal drop kicks (field goal, penalty and conversions ) and worth 3 points. That'll reduce the time taken for place kicks at goal.... But seriously the main rule I would change is at scrum time - stop the defending half-back coming around and interfering with ball. They aren't allowed to do that at lineouts or breakdowns, because it's offside, so why at scrums? It's hard enough to get a platform these days without the defending halfback interfering with the ball - stay behind the last feet son like the rest of your back line. While I'm at it if lineouts are non-contested the lineout shouldn't be pulled up for technical infringements eg not straight or numbers. Contest the ball or lose the rights to win it.