HJH was pulled for a HIA by the independent doctor a couple of minutes later, which he ultimately passed – I think a vindication of having an independent party at the match with the power to have a player removed for a check.

Thanks for the article Charlie – some really good points raised. It has been a while since I graced the rugby paddock, but we used to have the Game Management Guidelines in Subbies that was aimed at curtailing aspects of that behaviour – sounds like the concept needs to be revisited and updated.

We need to remember some really important things at grassroots. There is no TMO. Assistant referees are often a member from each club running the line. No TV, no replay, just an interested and trained person in the middle making the call as they see it on in the moment. We aren’t going to get perfection, or even a neutral review and it is time to adjust accordingly as spectators and players. No ref goes out to ruin someone’s day on purpose, and they could spend their weekends doing something else if all they cop is grief for playing a part in the sport.

So, we may take a leaf from other codes. In baseball, an umpire can throw a spectator as well as players, and the club can be sanctioned if the offending spectator refuses to abide by the call. I have seen it happen precisely once at park level – but it certainly sent a strong message about targeting a referee/umpire. In soccer (Aus park level anyway), touching the ref, abusing them or disputing a call can be grounds for a yellow card (or red for second offence), which can also be applied to spectators. Maybe at Juniors/Subbies, giving the opportunity to sit offending players and spectators down for 5-10 mins can be a circuit breaker.

We also need clubs to take this matter seriously in terms of being active when the line is being crossed and addressing the sideline directly. It’s often the waiting grades or completed grades that form a good part of the sideline, and they should know better. It should not need special training to tell.

The old “offside” call or whatever is pretty normal – but if you start heckling every call, calling the ref a cheat and disputing everything you see – guess what – it’s time to take a breath, step away and get your sense of humour back. I have thought about becoming a ref, but after a couple of intro courses, quickly realised that I do not have the temperament or consistency of judgement to do it well, so my suggestion is if you find yourself arguing about the ref every weekend, register in the training, do the course, pick up a whistle and try and do better. It’s not as easy from the middle, and with a better understanding we just might start losing fewer referees (or heaven forbid, more volunteers to help out!).

Finally, I see that we now have streaming platforms such as Cluch being available for grassroots games. This might also be an opportunity for referee development – a random review for training purposes can help our referees to continue to develop, as well as affirm good decisions. It’s not multi angle, close up perfection, but better than the nothing we currently have.

As someone old enough to remember rugby before Super Rugby began, it needs to be pointed out the FTA appetite for Super Rugby has never really been tested. In the beginning, Seven had access to a delayed broadcast of a Super Rugby match of Foxtels choosing. It was played around 10:40pm, and never involved the team relating to the market (eg, Sydney never saw a Waratahs match even on delay).

Hardly grounds to suggest there has never been interest from FTA – it never had a chance to actually be tested.

It was a long enough post without going deeply – but I will stand by some main points.
Rebels may want to reach into SA, but again, they need to walk before they run. Build a substantial base in VIC before looking to expand – something they do not have (one of the deeply wounding points of cutting the Force – WA rugby had poured resource into building their playing base across the state and it was working – unlike the Rebels). Pushing into disinterested geographies before building your own base is why the NRC bleeds so much cash. They need to do the foundation work first, which involves engaging with the state based club competitions and leveraging the supporter base.
$25 tickets to sit behind the goal posts is not improving the match day experience in my view, and those areas haven’t sold out either – so back to the concept of reducing margin per seat to put more bums on seats still holds up.
Certainly, SA has a very different cost base, and Super Rugby faces it’s challenges there as well – whilst the accountants say we can afford more to sustain the higher cost of doing business, they are, in my view, reaching a point where the opportunity cost outweighs the joy of going to the game. Hence the call to improve the match day experience, rebuild the fan base with better pricing, and you can still fund the higher cost base by attracting more bums on seats, even if each bum is lower margin.
Well aware Kayo is Fox – it was put up amongst other streaming platforms as evidence of the utility of that area to grow both revenue and eyeballs on the game – streaming is no longer niche, which is where it sat the last time a broadcast deal was negotiated.
Something needs to change if RA want to retain a Super Rugby competition, and in my view, bending to Foxtel’s desire to manage their costs without considering alternatives is the worst possible outcome. Let Super Rugby go, we need to develop an alternative competition above the state based club competitions if we want to be competitive at the international level.

In my view, there is a confluence of events, and some serious restructuring that RA needs to negotiate with their selected broadcast partner. Firstly, glad to see the back of the conference system. It has been a mess from the outset, and is no surprise that loss of traction of the tournament within each geography in terms of match attendance and general interest has come about. No clarity for the “new” spectator and a belief that unless the tournament winner faces Team X or Y, then they aren’t the real champion… Just a mess. The round robin is straight forward and easy to follow.

Now for the fun bits. RA needs to publicly call Foxtel’s bluff. Both NRL and AFL have a FTA component as well as the allegedly “value added” coverage behind the paywall. Therefore, they are not necessarily destination sports to build the subscriber base. Rugby, on the other hand, can only be found on Foxtel. Should Foxtel walk away, how many subscribers can they afford to bleed, given the competition from streaming platforms already damaging their business model. There are a decent number of subscribers I know that only retain Foxtel for the rugby – the rest of the content they can replace readily for less money. Arguably, RA should be discussing how they distribute via a range of platforms – streaming, FTA and behind a paywall, in order to maximise any deal, and Foxtel will need to pay a premium for exclusivity. Foxtel have a massive problem on their hands – they are not attracting new subscribers and are arguably at the maximum market penetration with their current model – hence their need to cut costs as they are not growing their revenue base.

So, RA need to rethink the NRC strategy. Teams from each state, played in the relevant states to get bums on seats at the ground. No more Melbourne vs Sydney played in Adelaide. By all means, play the games regionally, but not out of state for both sides. Promote it properly and make it FTA (preferably locked in with a FTA deal for Shute Shield in NSW, and Premier Rugby in QLD etc etc for continuity) – it should become a natural follow on from the club competition and be broadly available to drive it to profitability. Then consider a match of the week on FTA for Super Rugby – relevant to each state of broadcast, with a premium offer of all Super Rugby matches via streaming and/or pay TV. If Fox don’t want to come to the party, start selling season subscriptions for Super Rugby via a streaming service. The market penetration of Netflix/Stan/Kayo et al is significant – it is time for RA to look at monetising these new avenues to market. It can be risky – but the 25 year partner is prepared to walk away, as they face commercial challenges – so be prepared to engage with distribution channels that threaten the traditional partner.

Finally, improve the at-the-game experience. I went to SA last year and caught two Super Rugby matches whilst there (Loftus and Kings Park). $100 ZAR for ticket in the stands ($10AUD), $30 ZAR for a beer ($3 AUD) – bars and food don’t close just after half time etc etc. Right now in AU, there is a better match day experience to be had with a Foxtel subscription and night at home. Better view, less hassle, don’t have to stress about how many drinks and how to get home, and certainly for significantly less expense than trying to get to each home game once everything is taken into account. Sell more tickets at a lower price point will give the critical mass to get an atmosphere at the ground. I went to the Tahs v Sharks match at Bankwest this year. Three tickets in reasonable seats set me back just under $200, and these weren’t the most expensive option. Put some drinks on top, we took our own food, and we were still looking at a pretty hefty night out. Is it any wonder the sport is struggling? If RA want growth, get bums on seats – even if margin per bum is reduced, the total margin can be increased by lifting the average match attendance. With engagement for home games, you will increase eyeballs on screens for the away games, to the benefit of your broadcast partners.

Be prepared to put more revenue into development officers with the local clubs, and you turn disenfranchised and angry participants into engaged partners actively growing the game (but that is another lengthy post for another day).

I can dream anyway.

Couple of points to make with regards to the impression of the draw dudding Tier 2 nations.

Without stealing information, a writer on another rugby site has taken the breaks between games and laid them out by pool and by team – shows that 16 out of 20 teams face either a 4 day or 5 day turnaround at some point of the tournament. It would appear to be more of a product of needing to keep the pool stages of the tournament moving so the RWC doesn’t take an age to complete. In fact, of 13 teams facing 4 day turnarounds, 8 could be considered Tier 1 teams – specifically New Zealand, France, England, Wales, Scotland, Italy, Argentina and South Africa. It’s an issue that exacts a toll on teams, but it leads to my second point.

The draw has been known for some time. Each team with a 4 day turnaround knows what, and who, they are facing with time to plan accordingly. 12 changes and a lack of cohesion has to do with a lack of preparation on the training paddock. Fiji arrived in Japan with 16 days to prepare for this fixture, and John McKee would have had a reasonable idea of how he wanted to attack the tournament, and should have reflected this in the final preparation. Fiji is a team of largely professional players – this should have been ample time to work out some of the errors we saw yesterday.

At the end of the day, credit must go to Uruguay. They played for each other for the full 80 minutes and maximised every opportunity. They were energetic, smart and up for the challenge. Fiji struggled with kicking, which could have swayed the result, and failed to adjust consistently – leaving it too late when the front line replacements were trotted out to right the ship. Could-a, should-a, would-a – Uruguay were more accurate over the 80 minutes and deserved the win. To suggest they were unfairly assisted by the draw undermines the credibility of their win, and I think the evidence suggests Uruguay deserves full credit for their determination, preparation and execution of the match.

I am also wary of trying to extrapolate from the current exhibition series to what the full blown Global Rapid Rugby series will look like. I have been watching the games, and there are elements that I like, and some elements that I am wary of – but really need to hold fire on an opinion on the merits until we see another season.

Added to that is the question of how long Perth crowds can maintain attendance out of spite vs continual support of GRR. I actually want GRR to succeed as a long term proposition, and credit to Andrew Forrest for all he has invested into the game – I just hope he can make it return commercially.

Why is Israel “untouchable”?

The real question is actually “Why is this still news?”. His comments were not sharing any new information. Since inception, formal religion (particularly the three Abrahamic faiths of Judaism, Islam and Christianity) have been pulling big frowny faces at homosexuality along with a bunch of other behaviours – like lying or sex before marriage.

As a society, we have largely decided to ignore the big frowny face and get on with our lives. Israel’s real error was speaking up around the flawed plebiscite. It appears a sub group have decided that he should be hounded into silence instead of ignored into obscurity (you can’t tell me the original question that kicked off the whole saga wasn’t a straight up dorothy dixer to generate media attention)…. So we have this zombie saga that simply won’t die.

How far would this saga have gone if it died with Israel’s 123,000 followers. With all the attention, you could argue any potential harm has been amplified by the constant trawling of his feed looking for the next headline – expanding his audience into millions.

We could have left it lie with “we think your opinions aren’t worth a pinch of poo” after the initial tweet, and gone back to ignoring the information we don’t like or have time for, and spilt a lot less ink for no return.

I hate that I have finally been drawn out to comment – but it has become seriously tiresome. The overblown, protracted response has become a complete farce. His freedom of speech has not resulted in a freedom from consequence. Just because there is a group that feel the only appropriate consequence is to see him sacked does not mean nothing has happened.

The inclusion policy is a double edged sword – to put a guy out of the game for sharing a view point of theology is the same lack of inclusion for refusing to allow a person to play due to their sexuality. The key to the inclusion policy is Israel needs to be able to respectfully engage with the broader community, and contribute to a dressing room where a gay player will feel respected, safe and included in that environment. That is his real failure that needs to be addressed.

The best response I saw came from the captain of the team that won the Bingham Cup (apologies as I cannot recall the team name off the top of my head) – who invited Israel to training session with the team and the opportunity to learn about the impact of his comments. That, in my books, is entirely consistent with the intent of the inclusion policy, and showed tremendous empathy and respect to offer education over sanction as the first port of call.

I would be unsurprised if this is simply some signalling from SARU to remind SAANZAR that they have alternative avenues if their voice is not heard at the table. A not so subtle reminder that of all the partners, they actually have other options than having to support the Super rugby model.

What we haven’t heard yet is from PRO14 about how they see their competition evolving – could be egg on faces if the PRO comp say it wants to remain Euro centric, and there are no plans for additional participation from SA teams.

The challenge for SARU is that despite bringing a large number of spectator eyeballs and decent gate takings on offer, the strength of the EUR vs ZAR means they may not be able to bring enough money to the table (compared to Super rugby where the weight of audience compared to NZ and AUS audience overcome the currency issue).

Interesting times ahead – I would not discount seeing SA draw down their participation in Super rugby in preference to PRO based teams. Super rugby could be their “reserve grade” competition, whilst PRO14 becomes the “premier league”.

It makes me squirm inside to hear so many taking a Tahs win as a fait accompli.

The Blues have some quality players returning, the Tahs consistency is lacking. If we see the Tahs that came out against the Lions, we are going to be in trouble quickly. The Blues will be desperate to close out a match in their favour at last. In a weekend where not many upsets are tipped, this could blow up in the Tahs faces rather spectacularly.