Law variations are the real killer of the NRC

Since they have flocked to such games in the past with plenty of penalty goals, then you would be right.

Because they did try to score tries. The defence was too strong for them. Its the same reason not many tries are scored in State of Origin - the most popular form of rugby league incidentally.

"The number rule change request provided to the aru for the NRC from the public by an overwhelming majority was lees points for penalty goals" No, not the overwhelming majority of the public. The ARU asked people who wanted rules changes to write in. If you did the same thing with Soccer you would also get plenty of people writing in, but that has no practical relevance to how to market the code here.

Its an assertion by Greg, not by me - have you not been following the thread? Greg wants players to not take shots for goal, and sees the new rules as designed to encourage them to do just that. In that respect I think he is clearly correct - but if you want to disagree with him, go right ahead. Now, on the assumption that Greg is correct on that point, I disagree that it is good for the game in Australia because our players are still going to have to play at test and S15 level under the current rules. Have you caught up with the rest of us now?

Sorry Yikes, but I have to call it as it is. If you think something I have asserted is unsupported, feel free to say so.

"or do we recognise that the game has always been adapting and needs to adapt to the idea of 2 point penalty goals, if for no other reason than to alleviate 20 minutes of boredom each game watching penalty goal attempts" Even if that HUGE assumption of your was correct (and it isn't), we do not set the laws of rugby. Just as Soccer in Australia does not set the rules of soccer. "Sorry to bring Darwin into it guys but no law is set in stone ..." Thank you for a statement of the bleeding obvious. "...alas another change that aims to foster the game in traditional and non traditional markets and to do that it needs to entertain." Rugby already does entertain - millions of people all over the world. And it is quite capable of doing it in Australia as it stands. The reason it does not do so is because most Australians never get to see it on a regular basis, not because of a silly points change. "Ten plus penalty goals a game I’m afraid won’t cut it..." Oh please, can we talk about reality instead of your attempts to rely on extreme cases? And don't waste my time with arguments that the public has to see heaps of tries or they won't be entertained, since that is obviously a rubbish argument - soccer entertains billions of people on the planet with no tries and very few goals; State of Origin league has very few tries in it, in most games.

Spanners, your post is mostly waffle and straw man arguments. "So by that argument you would prefer that rugby slow down even further? Maybe keep the ball out of play longer?" No. Kindly read posts and comprehend them before responding. And don't waste my time with straw man arguments which you know perfectly well are not my position. "I will state categorically that I prefer to watch that style of rugby" You can state whatever you like. Now, how about addressing the points I raised? "This congested market has left rugby with a tiny $25 million a year, and hence a $10 million black hole (annually)." No it hasn't. I have explained the reasons why rugby is in the position it is in (and none of it should come as a surprise to anyone with knowledge of this subject) and you simply haven't responded to them. Don't waste my time with further waffle unless you are prepared to respond to the arguments I have put forward,. "Who is to say some of the laws don’t get picked up by IRB for implementation in test matches?" Yes, and Brodie Retallick may take up full time flower arranging. Display your naivety on someone else's time, please. "“over half the matches have no relevance to Australians ” is just wrong. I love watching good teams play each other regardless of where they are from." No, its just right. You are not remotely typical of the Australian public that the ARU has to win over if it is to increase its revenue base. "Yeah that is completely wrong and shows your lack of knowledge on the formation of the NRC. Pulver has been spruiking law variations from day one. On February 25th 2013…" Did you actually read that article before posting the link to it? Obviously not. What I wrote in my original post was correct. "If the new laws were need as a point of difference to get the comp over the line with the broadcasters, so what." They aren't.

Completely disagree. What might get lost is if a team 2 points down at the end of the game and someone needs to step up and do a Bernard Foley. Unless a team is one point down, if so step up and have a shot. What will improve markedly is our mauling and maul defense. Our scrum when attacking the line and our scrum when defending it. Our quick tap options when attacking might have a place as they once did too. Our ability to play with continuity eg Tahs and there are 9 coaches whose responsibility it is to come up with ideas in how to break down defences and strengthen defences. Some of these ideas that work will filter up to Super and Wallabies and some will filter down to clubs, strengthening the base and the tip of the pyramid. To claim it a failure because lots of tries were scored is pretty ridiculous given how much time teams have had to get their defensive stuff down pat. Let the players learn eachothers names before you call the rules experiment the detriment of the tournament.

8 points for a converted try entices try scoring and I fully support it but try's in the corner are often as good, if not better than under the posts. Try's should be 6 conversions 2.

Who gives a damn about finding better talent. I want to be entertained and the first round of NRC matches or at least what I got a chance to see did that for me.

I'be been hearing that argument for the last 30 years. You cannot police laws that are unpolicable. Matches are too often decided on the back of nothing more than 50/50 call at scrum time, how ever long that may be these days and a 3 point penalty goal. It's simply not good enough.

Or mutton dressed up as lamb, being dated by a wolf who was once a public servant. Sorry. Just adding to the randomness of the other comments.

Or a Government of sheep, herded by wolves

Agreed! Completely. But you need to read the whole thread - I was quoting Terry.

Did you see the miss tackle stats from those matches? Absolutely horrendous. I suppose it's a positive due to tries being scored like sat morning when passengers in the Wallabies backline struggled to make tackles but let the ABs score tries to make the game attractive.

You are talking nonsense. The Wallabies have won just one significant trophy in a decade of underachievement even with Gregan, Larkham, Mortlock, Giteau, Smith, Moore, Cooper, etc in various sides. 13 years since the last win in NZ. If you look at the whole 20 years there has only been 5 years in total of Aus Rugby reaching it's true potential. Why's that? Well because they have been living off scraps most of the time and internal politics. Go back and watch saturday morning's match and look at the amount of points that were conceded by poor forward play.

A whole load of nonsense in that post. - Do you see France, SA, England, Ireland whinging about laws and going out to change them in proper pathway comps that funnel players in to the fully pro teams? Only France have brought realistic changes to the table not 3 point conversions, captains picking who gets carded, 2 point penalties. None of those countries will advocate for a reduction in penalty points so give it a rest. You don't see those unions whine about code wars and being threatened. They go out and focus on their own backyard. Plus they have grown their Rugby regardless of Soccer and the GAA (Ireland). Their Rugby coverage is far superior to Australia's even without being top dog. So what if Rugby isn't king you can still have vibrant comps, kids enjoying themselves and full stadiums. - I take it you don't watch the SA Super teams and the Boks. Non of those teams play helter skelter end to end running rugby that exist in lower levels so those fantasy laws there aren't helping the players that go on to cross border and test level. Very few 7s players succeed at Bok level it's a completely different game over there. Like Australia they have trouble with beating the ABs. - Rugby under threat from what exactly? Rugby's problem is from within not from outside forces. Incompetence, politics, backstabbing, dodgy tv contracts, corporate cowboys (see Europe). Nothing to do with league, soccer, AFL, GAA, etc. The issues in Wales and Australia are to be solved internally not by the IRB and other unions as it is not their problem. No one is going to change the laws for the sake of Australians. - Nobody is sitting still but you don't make changes for the sake of it.

Your favourite period of Aussie rugby in the 70/80's? Figures really...

Who says that can't happen in this comp Sheek?