Good comment.

Just saw a headline on 9…
“Andrew Forrest promises millions of dollars to help Ukraine clear land mines”
Seems Twiggy believes clearing land mines is safer investment than RA.

No need to merge. League doesn’t need to buy into the mess that is Australian Rugby Union. It just has to wait a bit longer for professional union to implode.
.
League has already won the war, union is in its final death throes and it will be lucky to hold where it has fallen to now, let alone get back to its golden past.
.
The rugby battle for Australian hearts and minds started more than 100 years ago when league poached from union the greatest player of his time, Dally Messenger. He was so good league named the player of the year award after him. He was just the first, with converts from union to league were a regular occurrence since then, with the cream of players being enticed away.
.
But even with the best players being taken to the league code, union has shown glimmers of greatness since then, with its halcyon days starting with the ’77 schoolboys tour of UK and Japan, which led to the Grand Slam tour in ’84 – and Mark Ella scoring a try in each test.
.
For the next 20 or so years Wallaby rugby reached its international zenith with consistent wins in the Bledisloe Cup (’79, 80, 86, 92, 94, 1998-2002) but since 2002, nada.
.
As well the Wallabies since then taking the World Cup in ’91 and ’99 and just missing out in 2003.
.
It’s been pretty much downhill since then. Yes, there have been bumps upward, (WC runner up in 2015) but overall the trend is down and accelerating in the last 5 years, with miss-management and in-fighting.
.
Initially I though union going professional would allow union to fight back against league. And there were converts from league to union. But as well as the assault on good players by league, it also meant that good players were being coaxed away to Europe and Japan, something that wasn’t supposed to happen in the amateur days, although we all knew players were being paid, but it was covertly, under the table – we called shamateurism.
.
But now, many Australians are turning away from union, for many reasons. Going to games is expensive on many levels – entry, food & drinks etc. Australian are cancelling subscriptions and memberships and simply no longer watching or spending money on union. I am one of those people, as are several of my friends. Lost to union and now gone for good – and it’s not the wallabies poor success. The game has become slow, and a tedious bore fest.
.
For professional sport, no money = no future.
.
So, why would league want to buy into such a turgid self interested mess – private schools only concerned about their own incestuous competitions, state school rugby all but finished – (as far as I can make out, now only being played at Sports High schools. )
.
Clubs are only interested in their own shields or cups. Super teams supposedly representing states and never venturing outside the eastern suburbs.
.
Supporters not really interested into buying into any new competitions because as we all know, footy in all it’s guises – league, union, aussie rules, and soccer – is tribal at heart.
.
On top of all that any national competition in Australia is handicapped with the tyranny of distance. How much does it cost to fly and accommodate players on an interstate competition – it’s not a 3 hour bus trip.
.
Union is a mess. I don’t see why league would buy union or buy into a merger.
.
Instead, IMO, League in Australia could bang the final nails into the coffin of professional union, and finish professional union off once and for all and it will then be able to pick over the bones of the carcass that is Australian union.
.
All it would need to do allow any team — whether NRL or bush league — to buy one marque union player each year and that purchase is not included in their competitions salary cap.

Acually Muzzo.. British rather than Pom.

According to the Wikipedia entry on Meads;

In the 1971 New Year Honours, Meads was appointed a Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE) for services to rugby.
He was appointed a Distinguished Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit (CNZM) for services to rugby and the community, in the 2001 New Year Honours.
In the 2009 Special Honours, following the restoration of titular honours by the New Zealand government, Meads accepted redesignation as a Knight Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit (KNZM)

As far as I can make out, Meads has been “knighted” twice.

First with the British for the MBE and then knighted by New Zealand for KNZM.

(According to Wikipedia: New Zealand Order of Merit & There are a number of current (Sir) Knights and Dames with Kiwi honours that use the Sir and Dame titles.)

Anyway, the point is Australian Rugby prefers to select ‘hard men’ along the lines of marshmallows– rather than lifesavers. And Bristow was as hard as they come. It would have been an interesting match-up.

Cheers!

It’s interesting isn’t it….

New Zealand will knight its ‘hard men”, while in that same era, Australian Rugby hands out a life ban.

I have on occasion wondered what Australian rugby might have been ,if instead of giving a life ban to Tim Bristow, he’d been first picked in the Wallabies and given the opportunity to be Australia’s enforcer.

For those that don’t know, or have never heard of Tim Bristow, “Big Tim” was larger than life, and he was a genuine ‘hard man”, and a whole lot more. He was not a man to mess with.

Tim Bristow was given the life ban for knocking out 8 forwards on the opposing team. All 8. I’m unsure as to what the game was — whether it was a Gordon club game or a rep game. I believe the ban occurred in ’62 – which was the same era as Sir Colin “Pinetree” Meads.

As a hypothetical, I doubt that ‘Piney’ would have ridden roughshod over the Australian team in quite the same fashion if the Wallabies had an enforcer like Bristow and more importantly, may well have set an entirely different tone for Australian rugby going forward. But we’ll never know.

PS… My first comment… I was being facetious. 🙂

Hi Brendan, you mention “have his minutes managed”. Its a good point as it is minutes not games the discussion should be about.

There was once a time when over a season, every person who played a full game had exactly the same minutes.

For example, a team in a 12 team comp played 22 games in the home and away. Every player played 1,260 minutes. 22 games x 80 minutes. (I am not including for those few minutes after full time – which both teams on the field would have played. If there was an injury the reserve would have already played 70 minutes.)

Now there is a large difference between players in any given team with 8 fresh substitutes often coming on shortly after half time while 7 players on each team play out the full game, often doing that week on end.

It seems to me that the players who don’t get the luxury of a 50 minute game are playing a considerable amount more rugby (than the subs) – almost twice as much. The game is out of balance.

Do you have any idea of the on-field minutes of all the players these days?

Cheers!

Maybe they should just have another 7 players on the bench and everyone plays half a game, just like the forwards do now.

What the f*** is that!

The Bush… re weather.

unless the rain would have been on the 5th day – then a 4 day test would be a bonus 😉

Dennis Denuto

I wonder if the 6s have something to do with the ball being knocked out shape more often when hit onto the concrete… or maybe the Dukes ball is just soft.

That ball swap at the oval resulted in a completely different ball..

Should they adopt 4 day tests then it becomes even more important that the full days 90 overs are bowled.

But regardless, there is a problem regarding over rates, where teams seem happy to ignore the 90 overs minimum per day. And it’s a minimum 90 per day.

Umpires should be given some say in teams slowing the game down, such as if the ball is not bowled, or the bowler has not commenced a run in, in a set time allowance, then a no ball is called on the delayed ball and the batter gets all the advantages of a now ball.

Or if batters are wasting time the bowler can just run in and bowl. Of course we’ll then have flies in eyes, or objects in line of sight around sightscreens with batters standing up when the bowler is 5 strides from delivery. If it happens too often then the umpires can apply a full can of Aerogard.

I would suggest that batting and bowling teams might be a little more keen to get the over rates up, if time of day for stoppages became less importance and that each session is made up of an minimum of 30 overs . (This of course would annoy TV programmers no end). In otherwords, they stay out until the overs are bowled, batters not gardening, changing gloves and have conversations to kill time.

In theory there should be 15 overs per hour or an average of 4 minutes per over.

With this in mind, should 32 overs be bowled in the first session, then 2 could carry over and 28 would be the minimum in the second session and this would carry over to the next session with a minimum of 90 total by the set finish time. This might ensue they work harder early in the day to get a few overs in credit.

If they are short of overs they continue batting on after the finish time, with lights if necessary. And if the light is bad and the umpires say no fast bowling, then the bowling team still has to finish out the 90 minimum overs with slow bowling.

Should umpires decide to leave the field for light, and the day is still short of overs, then the teams return and start earlier the next day to make up for the lost overs. Regardless of the number of overs short, they start half an hour early for 7 overs – to make up and or get a few in credit for the day remaining.

Of course, if they leave the field for rain, then the session would be reduced by the appropriate amount, 1 over for every 4 minutes off the field.

I’m not sure how it might work, but something needs to be done as fines don’t seem to work.

Rowdy re Statistics
.
What impact have the bigger heavier bats and the shorter rope boundaries had on stats?

Brendan, you said:

The defense would smoother the ball before the quick tap could be taken. In Rugby we play advantage so defenses would have plans to stop it. If a player put his hand on the ball in a ruck why let go until your team is set just like league does
See 20 Penalty and free-kick part 15: “The opposing team may not do anything to delay the kick”

Another tactic is you have a player back ten whose sole purpose is to run up as soon as the ball is kicked thus quickly bringing people onside.
Please check out the Laws. This tactic definitely cannot be done.
See 20 Penalty and free-kick parts 12, 13, 14: Opposing team at a penalty or free-kick

12. When a penalty or free-kick is awarded, the opposing team must immediately retreat 10 metres towards their own goal line or until they have reached their goal line if that is closer.

13. Even if the penalty or free-kick is taken quickly and the kicker’s team is playing the ball, opposing players must keep retreating the necessary distance. They may not take part in the game until they have done so.

14. If it is taken so quickly that opponents have no opportunity to retreat, they will not be sanctioned for this. However, they may not take part in the game until they have retreated 10 metres from the mark or until a team-mate who was 10 metres from the mark has moved in front of them.

15. The opposing team may not do anything to delay the kick or obstruct the kicker, including intentionally taking, throwing or kicking the ball out of reach of the team awarded the penalty.
Sanction: Second penalty or free-kick, 10 metres in front of the original mark. The second penalty or free-kick must not be taken before the referee has made the mark.

Furthermore, there are many more options than taking the quick tap:

All it takes is a skerrick of imagination and an ability to read the play. Several taps done that are the same, and when the defense thinks they have it covered there would be a minor variation. What we used to call the “money move”

Here’s a quick 10 without having to think too much.

~Kick a garry owen
~kick to the corners in the 22 (regather or force a kick out for a lineout throw)
~kick across field to a winger

~tap kick and kick a garry owen
~tap kick and kick to the corners in the 22 (regather or force a kick out for a lineout throw)
~tap kick and kick across field to a winger

~tap kick and give it to a forward
~tap kick and pass to the backs.
~tap kick and pass to the back, who put on a backline move.

Close or in the 22 and in front?
~ tap kick and pass to a forward who takes the tackle, and forms a ruck, win ruck, pass out/back for attempted field goal…
(NB. The team in possession cannot directly score a goal from the free kick itself, nor score a dropped goal until the ball has become dead or an opponent has touched the ball or tackled a ball carrier.)

Or tap and put on a rehearsed move. You don’t even need a skerrick of imagination. Here’s a few, you’ll have to c&p the link and remove the space.
youtu. be/E-ZWteaLrNI?si=ocUcGF2NFT_w8oS7

(Note: Ball up the Jumper, and all the forwards charging at once “Cavalry Charge” (5:30) are now illegal.

(I had to re-do this as the first time the post disappeared.)

Brendan, Another tactic is you have a player back ten whose sole purpose is to run up as soon as the ball is kicked thus quickly bringing people onside.

Nope. Cannot. Must retreat the full 10.

Law 20 Penalty and Free kick.

12. When a penalty or free-kick is awarded, the opposing team must immediately retreat 10 metres towards their own goal line or until they have reached their goal line if that is closer.

13. Even if the penalty or free-kick is taken quickly and the kicker’s team is playing the ball, opposing players must keep retreating the necessary distance. They may not take part in the game until they have done so.

Furthermore… Doesn’t have to be a quick tap and go. There are many, many options, depending upon how good the attack reads the play, and it would be nothing at all like league restarts. A skerrick of imagination is all it takes.

First stop and wait for the defending team to retreat 10 m
~ Kick a garry owen,
~ Tap and kick a garry owen
~ Tap and kick to the corners
~ Kick to the corners
~ Tap and pass to a forward charging in on the run.
~ Inside the 22? Tap and pass to a forward charging takes a tackle, win the ruck, drop goal attempt. (must have a tackle or touch before attempting a drop goal)
~ Crossfield kick to a winger out wide.

~ Or put on a rehearsed tap move:

Includes the now illegal attempt at a ‘stick it up the jumper.’ Note all the forwards running at once (at 5:39) is called a Calvary Charge and is now illegal

And the same with scrums

Terrence, re Scrum, below a comment I made a few weeks back: It still ties in with your concept of reducing penalties, but also to reduce the overall number of scrums, like calling a scrum on a penalty or free kick. Otherwise, we;; see a reduction in penalties and an increase in scrums..

… some of the reasons a scrum can be called are inconsistent with the purpose of the scrum: The purpose of a scrum is to restart play with a contest for possession after a minor infringement or stoppage..

Reasons to call a scrum would be simplified and made consistent with the above statement. I take minor infringement to mean ‘knock on” or ‘unplayable. ”

As mentioned there are 16 reasons to call a scrum. And there are 20 scrum infractions. So, for the scrum:

A. Scrums only awarded for following 5 reasons (not 16)

1. A knock on. (Infringement)
2. A player takes the ball into their own in goal and is made dead. (stoppage)
3. A restart after the ball is unplayable. (tackle, ruck or maul) (stoppage)
4. A reset scrum, where the ball has not been put into the scrum. (stoppage)
5. A restart after the ref calls a halt. (eg For injury or contact with the ball or any other reason.) (stoppage)

B. Abolish all technical scrum penalties so they become free kicks, there would still be all the same sanctions, but there would be 19 free kicks, one scrum and one penalty for deliberately collapsing a scrum. (and foul play)

Free Kicks:
1/ All current technical scrum penalties: eg hand knee on the ground, popping a front rower, losing the bind etc..
Penalties:
2 / Dangerous play: Collapsing or attempting to collapse a scrum
3 / Penalties for foul play (in a scrum:) Punching, kicking, biting, head-butting etc..

There are other areas to look at as well, such as scrum offside v lineout offside

In keeping with 10m for a lineout, offside for a scrum should be moved to 10m from scrum centre aka line of touch, (not 5m from #8s feet.)

It is therefore consistent with the lineout and means that defending backs would be back 10m for a scrum free kick (as they are in a lineout) and could move forwards without having to retreat before being onside. Currently most defending inside backs would be offside should a quick tap be taken from a scrum free kick.

I did say,
, but if the attacking team runs a quick tap, and the defending team infringes the offside again by not retreating 10, then that would be considered foul play and a penalty and possible yellow card would apply.

In your case, if defense coaches encourage their players to take a chance on cheating on a quick free kick, then they’re also punting on losing a player for 10 minutes for cynical / foul play. And then, in that case there is 30 seconds to take the penalty which give plenty of time for the carded player to trundle off the field. Not sure how that would make the game any slower than it already is.

As as far as league goes, let’s for arguments sake say it takes 5 seconds from tackle for a slow ‘play the ball’ (and union is 2-3 seconds for fast ruck ball), the league defenders have to retreat 10m where the union defenders retreat maybe 1-2 metres — to the last man’s feet. Which code is really is really slower? The players who retreat 10m in 5 seconds– before advancing again — or the players who move 1 or 2 metres in 2 seconds?

Defense has come on loads

As far as tackle stats go, now, there are maybe only 6 forwards in a ruck and another 10 standing out in the backs, so I’m not sure it’s a fair comparison for 20 years ago when all 16 forwards were committed to a ruck. Its a lot harder to break a defensive line when there are 5 extra players defending it.

OTOH, maybe if referees actually enforced the offside law to the letter of the law, the defense wouldn’t have it quite so easy. (Even in the early days of league they recognized the offside in union of last man’s feet was too easy. Both teams had to be 5 yards from the ruck.)

Of course if they enforced to the letter of the law, then there’d be a penalty at every single ruck, because invariably some where along the offside line usually one of the forwards is too bushed to retreat that 1 metre behind the last man’s feet

So, I tend to think it’s defense that has the special treatment.

You’ll find no argument from me. For me, the game has become a tedious scrum for penalty borefest.

Agreed, but, I’d make penalties only for foul play.

But, to encourage a more running game, offsides would also initially be free kicks, (with the option to take a free kick anywhere behind the mark,) but if the attacking team runs a quick tap, and the defending team infringes the offside again by not retreating 10, then that would be considered foul play and a penalty and possible yellow card would apply.

I’d also be happy with penalty kicks at goal only being allowed if the penalty occurs inside the 22 when on attack.

Problems in Australian rugby goes way deeper than the coach.

Me too! at the TG Milner

Receive pass at waist height, (and pass as though passing a tray of drinks from one side to the other.)

“On the burst!”

“I think we need to build out a coaching structure that plays in the Australian way,” he said (Waugh)

Define “Australian way.”