Where to for Australia beyond Super Rugby?

Just get club rugby sorted and the rest will take care of itself. 80s and 90s style

Spoken like a true New South Welshman! How bout you guys win one before you go calling it redundant. Means plenty to me and most people I know.

Agreed

But free to air also gives much broader exposure, something which is currently lacking.

As always Sheek, you make so much sense. Pity the rabble can't see beyond their own prejudices.

DB, I like changes 3and 4 I think the first two are nugatory.

Question = You make Aus sound enlightened What is Aus doing to change the laws? Or experiment with new ones? By the way with rule changes and experiments you cant just do things unilaterally.You need some form of IRB sanction. Dally M talked about the ELVs which were conceived piloted near Cape Town (conception was with people from outside SA as well) Now we are trying some changes to our Varsity Cup (which gets about 100k TV viewers per game) * Penalties are 2 points, conversions 3. * If any player catches a ball from an opposing kick BEFORE it touches the ground, the referee will play free kick advantage. Time to kick the kicking habit and get to running the ball all the way to the try line. * Two refs on the field. * Special prop jerseys to aid binding Now some of these rules wont work but you dont know till you try them What is Aus doing to move the game forward?

Again Red Dog that is a step back for us. Basically what Aus is saying is they want the 1st prize which is more access to playing NZ sides and thereby relegating SA to play with themselves. I understand why Aus would want this but is no good for us. From 2014 our Currie Cup is already expanded to 8 sides anyway (from 6) Our problem is that the Super Rugby tourney is a little too long and we need a little more time to involve the Boks for say the 2nd half of the tourney. We dont have a big rugby country close to us so we can't expand our Currie Cup anymore, Besides the Currie Cup doesnt need much change except for access to the Boks a little more. Its a tribal tournament, province against province... it works. The idea of anyone (apart from Namibia and Zimbabwe) having a side in the tourney makes no sense. Those 2 country's would struggle to field a side in the 4th tier. Of course Aus dont have the next level because they havent tried to build it yet... It didnt take NZ a few years to build their provincial tournament and it took SA over a 100 years to take the Currie Cup where it is today Sure with NZ's help Aus can kick SA out of Super Rugby. However once that is done that's it you cant say what we should do at home. Sadly we will go North. No Super Rugby cross conference play off stages (because we wont have a conference) . The Rugby Championship comes under risk too because we have to fit it into a calendar. It could signal a return to the occassional tour by NZ to SA and vice versa... which is the one silver lining. I would hate for the above to happen. But the notion of an Eastern Conference of NZ/Aus sides may be good for Aus. BUT I know it is terrible for SA and I dont think it is good for NZ either (but thats for a Kiwi to say). But the structure you guys are banging on about is a result of Aus' failure to build a domestic tournament. Sadly I think the split will come one day. I dont think it will be in 2016 but I reckon 2021 will be the last year of our partnership.

Wag Not sure what you are on about. Scoring through penalty goals is part of the rugby scoring system. So what makes the AFL and A League so much enjoyable to watch? Afterall both of these sports rely on scoring goals by kicks to win the game. In regards to changing laws to allow a return to try-scoring and running rugby the laws of the game have been changed to improve the game and the scoring system has been increased to encourage the scoring of tries. Australians can still play running rugby within the existing laws but this is totally the decisions of the coachs and the attitude of the players. Afterall Aussie won 2 World cups with running rugby and under outdated laws.

Simon, The world is changing, & I'm not at all sure that I think all that change is good or even right. They say you can't stop progress. I just wish that progress showed some deeper purpose occasionally, other than simply "show me the money."

You can't lump SA in with the aversion to law changes. The ELV's were first trialled at Stellenbosch University.

I BELIEVE THAT WE ARE ALL MISSING ONE MAJOR POINT, AS FAR AS AUSTRALIAN RUGBY IS CONCERNED. Because of the competition from the 3 other codes, most Australian sports-watchers simply refuse to watch a game that is marred by incessant whistle-blowing and scores such as 7 penalty goals defeating 5 penalty goals, with maybe the odd try tossed in for good measure! To say nothing of the collapsed scrums and endless stacks-on-the-mill pick and drives near the try line (that will one day result in very serious spinal injury). The Aust. public want to see a return to try-scoring and running rugby. That can come about only if there are substantial changes to the Laws of the game. Unfortunately for Australia, the IRB, the Northern Hemisphere countries, and to a lesser extent, SA have no desire to make changes to the Laws to improve the game as a spectacle. I remember the time when teams gained ground by kicking out on the full from ANYWHERE on the field. The ARU saw the folly of this, and restricted such kicking to the (then) 25. Perhaps the only way forward is for Aust. (with the support of NZ??) to implement Laws for Super Rugby & domestic competitions that will once again make the game worth watching. { I realise that we would then be at a disadvantage, initially, when the Wallabies face England etc.} But I firmly believe all this talk above of tinkering with the FORMAT of Super Rugby is useless as far as Australian supporters are concerned ----- unless the game here can compete with the other 3 codes AS A SPECTACLE !

Absolutely agree that Sheek's suggested structure is the best.

Agree, leave SOO where it is.

Pay TV provides a quality rugby coverage with all games, no ads and multiple repeats. It's much better product than free to air will provide. Whatever the future structure is (web or cable or whatever) paid subscription will always give a better coverage. Free to air is substandard.

Emric Football was a basket case at NSL or national level ... at park level it has always been well managed ... I must get on people nerves about park teams and local district structures but they are the future of any sport...

Hi Sheek, I agree with you that the only way forward for Australian rugby is to get away from the SANZAR pay TV contracts. It is capping the value of Australian rugby and restricting its growth. The real growth, and I am mainly thinking of the money, is in the Asia Pacific region is in specifically North, South America and Asia. One has to think big as this region is huge and will require deep pockets. It is very difficult from a logistics point of view if you try and include Africa. I think Africa should be left to the South Africans. If you combine the forces of NZ and Australia to drive the growth in the Asia Pacific region, then you will have an organisation that will be big enough and generate enough capital to take control of its own destiny. Australian rugby will benefit from this type of structure as it will be a partner, co owner and have huge income streams to draw upon to combat Soccer and the AFL. I am assuming the NRL will get wiped out / side lined because all of its best players will be cherry picked by Asia Pacific rugby because of the huge salaries being paid to the stars.

We are in agreement Midfielder, however we also know that football Australia was a basket case until a few years ago as well, the fact that football has risen once again from the ashes (ahh well the phoenix will win it next year), and turned into what looks like from the outside a very well oiled machine, says there is hope if some good decisions can be made. i don't know why are moderating you.. I've never read anything offensive you've posted.

You say SA has broken ranks by selecting for the Boks those players that have chosen to play in Europe while Aus and NZ only select from those playing in S15.You fail to mention those players Aus recruits from SA and elsewhere .SA is in many ways a country of emigrants and Aus the opposite .Something not lost by administrators in this country.Aus Iif they could would select Potgieter for the WBs - if they could .SA players have to contend with unique circumstances eg quotas and thus many go overseas.

So ARU wants to leave because its making a loss. If NZ can have all teams at least break even/ and some make a profit as is now the case then Aus needs to look at their cost structure. It is time they enforced a breakeven on the supersides. Oh and a moments silence on Friday, god bless all those soldiers who did so much for our countries and helped give us the luxury of playing or watching the game we love in security.