Pretty much the core of rugby’s problems in Australia is part of Ben Alexander’s proposal to “fix” the sport. The failure to spread the game beyond its private school anchoring is central to its erosion and ongoing failure. The implication that supporters who advocate expansion “aren’t real fans” is typical of the condescension and classism that the entitled leather patch brigade have always used to defend their self-interest. Very few people who follow, understand, and support rugby want it to fade or disappear from private schools (although it is, and that has nothing to do with ambitions to make the game more inclusive). But some precious petals perceive expansion (AKA survival) is an attack on them. Guess what, exclusion isn’t the greatest policy when you need to expand interest in what you’re promoting. It is possible to support the health of rugby in its traditional strongholds and trumpet the need to make it relevant to the great unwashed. I should imagine Matraville High old boy Eddie Jones would be able to tell Ben a little about how outreach beyond the boater hat community can be a positive.

G’day Tone, Leckie has always been a lion in Australian colors. What a goal to cap an incredible all-round individual effort. Agree Baccus was a gem of a replacement, admittedly when Denmark was leaving space at the back when looking for the goal, but he was more than a nuisance. Could be an option to start the next game, though you’d imagine Arnold will reward Goodwin. A great win, one of the great Australian sporting moments, without a doubt.

Yep. I think the fresh round of referee whining from the weekend is evidence things are not going to improve. I agree it’s the multiple eyes on the game that is contributing to the discontent as much as officiating mistakes, but the bigger issue for me is the fact that these ‘indiscretions’ have always occurred — we now just see them (courtesy of video replay and the multiple eyes). Some people advocate getting rid of the replays and the multiple ‘refs’ but that doesn’t plug the source problems which are the excessively complex laws of the game and the excessive power of the referee given the subjective nature of many calls.

Yeah, I’d opt for both.

I get it, but targeting the individual as opposed to the dysfunctional process he operates in, is my issue. And I don’t think refs have to be answerable to coaches. Having said that, the administration should be more willing to accommodate requests for information and explanation. Again, Berry had an ordinary game, but you could easily malign the crap out of a bunch of refs if you wanted to sit down and frame a critique of specific performances. The more constructive approach is to seek an understanding of why that is the case.

I think it’s fairly accurate to say, if you’re bloody-minded enough, you could probably do a “Rassie” video of most every game. Admittedly, Berry had an ordinary game, but the unfortunate aspect of the Erasmus decision to highlight the bloody obvious is it condemns Berry with no acknowledgement of the fact that the adjudication structure is flawed.

Thanks for reading. To clarify, when I say de-power, I’m referring specifically to changing the ref’s need to make decisions that are acutely subjective, the most obvious recent example was Raynal pulling the time-wasting card out at the end of the Melbourne test. The issue isn’t just the number of laws, it’s their complexity and the fact that many of them are excessively interpretive, and that relates to the game’s history and elitist culture. You’re never going to take the ref out of the game — and you wouldn’t want to — but assessing the factors that contribute to the officials being the unwanted main contributors to a team winning or losing is a step in the right direction. As some of the comments have noted, what you really want from a ref is consistency and less intrusion. Obviously, the players have a role in making that happen but so too do the laws — their complexity invites the ref to take centre stage. In looking at this issue it may be that laws need to be changed, clarified or dropped, or it may be the consequences for infringing need to be realigned so not to interrupt the flow of the game. There is legitimate concern that if you don’t severely penalize a team (by offering the opposition a chance at 3 points, for example), they’ll keep offending or offend more. But what, for example, if the sanctions made it more likely the team taking the penalty would score a try (and perhaps in certain circumstances a six point try)? In one respect, I’m suggesting the approach becomes less directly and willfully punitive and instead facilitates an advantage to the nonoffending team that rewards swift, decisive attacking rugby? It’s all speculative and it’s unlikely the old school ties will ever loosen their control on the game but exploring ideas with the specific aim to put guard rails up against the ref’s omniscience is overdue.

I agree mate, and that’s where the development should be taking place: in a diverse and inclusive environment. I’m not being critical of clubs — on the contrary

Goodness James, bigotry! You do know the essence of bigotry is exclusion not inclusion which is what I’m suggesting is the problem? Try shelving the personal insults big fella — and defensiveness is an ugly look, sometimes suggesting a challenge to an apparent sense of entitlement — don’t misrepresent what I said. At no stage did I lambast private school kids, parents or the schools themselves, the critique concerns the sport’s over reliance on private schools as the development pathway.

Mate, thanks for the lecture about how I should conduct myself. I’m not being unnecessarily negative, I’m expressing a POV — the fact that it’s critical isn’t pointless negativity. I want what’s best for the sport – that’s by definition a positive ambition. The game’s oversized reliance on the private school system is a fundamental problem. It’s got nothing to do with the fine kids and their parents putting their kids through those schools it’s about developmental structures and a culture that exclusive not inclusive.

Oh dear. Not sure if identifying the game’s penchant for elitism is necessarily narrow minded, but there you go. And why is it insulting? I’m indignant on behalf of the people who the system marginalize or completely ignore.
Didn’t use the word “explode,” buddy. I suggested there was a period (at the end of the amateur era in particular) when the sport could have made a concerted attempt to broaden its reach and embrace its growing profile. It didn’t.
Seem a bit touchy. To clarify, if I must, the criticism is not directed at private schools per se, but a culture that puts them on a platform as the beginning middle and end. I’m sure NSW running out with a XV last year featuring all private school boys made someone happy, but it’s possibly an indication the design of the talent pool is a little one dimensional.
The private schools are a terrific resource. Imagine if in their preseason, rather than playing other private schools, they played district rep team or country selection or maybe government sports schools (if they had rugby union programs)? Noone is trying to breakdown the beloved GPS or CAS comps, just offer opportunities for others wanting to play the great game.

I’ve enjoyed this series. Good business school read. Humbly suggest, however, that the problem is pretty simple and singular. The game has always viewed itself as exclusive. It is not inclusive. It doesn’t reach out to the actual people. It’s perspective in Australia is private school-dom. It’s not just a matter of ‘fixing” the grassroots, it’s gotta create one. I realize there are many hard-working volunteers (and players) not from that background, but fundamentally, they function in an environment that prioritizes middle to upper middle class worldview. The sport is about as inclusive as polo and fast becoming about as popular. It’s as obvious as the broken nose on my face, but we all jibber earnestly about other matters bringing the game down. The sad irony is the reliance on private schools (at the direct expense, make no mistake, of junior clubs and the multiple layers of talent among the hoi polloi) was/is the last hope of the disingenuous bastards running the thing. And now the sons of barristers, doctors, and money market sluts are turning their backs on the game too, causing intense handwringing and a search for answers that address the concerns of that demographic but tend to package the sport’s cardinal sin in Australia as an unfortunate niche problem and by-product of mismanaged financing or an unavoidable result of the shameless swill from league or Aussie rules or overly protective mummies wanting junior to play soccer. Of course, they are problems, as are the ownership, governance, and structure of the sport, but it’s like looking for a cure to someone’s cancer and ignoring the fact the bloke smoked three packs a day. I have lived overseas for decades. When I left Australia, rugby had a real shot at opening its gates to the great unwashed, but I’ve watched from afar, horrified, as its generational barriers have been reinforced in NSW and Qld, ignoring the existence of the potential to build a long-term foundation and starving the real faithful–the district clubs and the bushies to near extinction. Ya mongrels.

Terrific piece

Terrific discussion about the Waratahs woes and, pleasingly, their potential. I’d humbly submit that beyond getting the possession basics wrong (stupid pro-forma kicking) the option taken at virtually every other go-forward opportunity is thrown away. They pick and drive like they’re averting suicide rather than attacking an opponent and the inside backs play with all the confidence of Glenn Trimble. In a sense that’s why Tom Carter is the missing link. He’s like Nathan Gray’s angry lovechild. He plays a direct game — to the line in attack and on the front foot in offense. Not to say they shouldn’t persist with Tahu who is NOT a player to bring on in the last 20 minutes, but rather an athlete to use correctly for 80 minutes in order to devastate teams. I’d certainly use him at outside centre, regardless of Horne’s potential. Horne would be great on the wing (or if you must, put Tahu out there). Point is, the very talented Lachie Turner has enjoyed a populist honeymoon longer than Barrick Obama’s (who I understand had the potential to be a decent flanker) and not delivered, other than confirming he “may” have the x-factor, which is morphing into the xy factor the longer he plays like a passenger (injured or not).
The temporary solution IS about shuffling the players in a team that has no attacking philosophy. A few of them are playing like derelicts. The forwards are holding their own this year, which is more than we expected, but the backs are prancing. Burgess is potentially wonderful, but he’s been horribly inept and a deep source of the attacking malaise. Beale looks like he’s playing like a fat man, but he’s more likely between worlds because of Burgess and a lack of sensible build up through the phase ball.
Irony: Queensland are playing attacking rugby (the forwards in the shallow and the backs from wonderfully deep, with constructive dummy runners) helping a backline prepared to take a chance, and swift service from the breakdown — because they haven’t any other choice.
NSW should be so unlucky.
Greg