The Roar
The Roar

Spew_81

Roar Rookie

Joined December 2020

8.3k

Views

5

Published

216

Comments

Published

Comments

Great to see the Wallabies win and play well.

MATCH REPORT: 'Box office' Thor hammers South Africa as Wallabies charge to famous victory

He needs to find his inner anger and take it out on the opposition. It doesn’t seem like he knows how to flick the switch.

'We're expecting a huge response': All Blacks make 11 changes and brace for Pumas revenge mission

Maybe the amount of points you get for a try should be the same as the number on your back?

Use it? Lose it! A simple way to fix rugby's much-maligned maul

The way that the Springboks are playing is a lot like rugby league. A series of one off hit ups, then a contestable kick (I realize it’s a little bit of an oversimplification).

Rugby needs to incentivize the open, flowing game (if they want to grow the game); but also they need to make sure that the hard yards e.g. set piece still is vital to being successful (or it becomes rugby league); e.g. take the good bits from rugby league and mix it with the good bits from rugby union.

I think if more teams played like the All Blacks rugby would be a massively more popular sport. But the first step is taking the mindset of wanting to play positive rugby. In New Zealand the NZRU sets the coaching programs to teach those skills from the start. If the young South Africans see their hero’s play conservative rugby and that’s how their coaches teach them to play, can you expect them to suddenly play running rugby?

Rugby's greatest strength can make it Australia's number one international sport

I think you should focus on the ‘casual Rugby viewer’ part of the comment rather than the ‘I’m a League fan’ part of the comment. It doesn’t matter what other sports the ‘casual Rugby viewer’ likes. It matters that the way rugby is played (by some teams) is putting off the ‘casual Rugby viewer’.

If you look at the rugby of the 1980s and compare it to current rugby; then compare those eras to rugby league it seems that rugby union has become a lot more like rugby league. But thankfully rugby still has things like set piece and the ruck etc. to give rugby more variety.

It is clear the rules changes, since 1992, have generally tried to make the game: faster, more free flowing and a more interesting visual spectacle. The ‘casual Rugby viewer’ is the growth market the rugby higher ups keep talking about harnessing.

I think the point Simon G is making is that some rugby teams play a style of rugby that just isn’t interesting – unless you are a fan of that team (and they are winning), or you are purist. Both those perspectives are cool. But if World Rugby wants to grow the game it is the perspective of the ‘casual Rugby viewer’ that needs to paid attention to. If you look at the New Zealand NPC and the South African Currie cup the different perspective are obvious. If rugby is to grow World Rugby needs to find a way to incentivize teams that would rather play 1980s rugby (currently typified by the Springboks and England) to play more like the teams that try to use the ball.

Rugby's greatest strength can make it Australia's number one international sport

Both are very good. The midfield scrum is very useful, especially when the number eight or half back runs right to create the extra man.

The extra distance, between the backlines, from a lineout. Combined with as much width as you get, from a set piece, makes me like the lineout option, slightly, better.

It’s also easier to give away a penalty, to the defense, from a scrum. But if my scrum was better I would go for the scrum, try and get penalty advantage, and run a high risk move.

Use it? Lose it! A simple way to fix rugby's much-maligned maul

Totally agree I don’t agree with the idea that his behavior is representative of all South Africans. All the ones I’ve met are nice.

Why I don't understand the Springboks hate

From what I can see in the media World Rugby is in process of dealing with it,
Eddie Jones urges World Rugby to deal with Rassie Erasmus case ‘quickly’
A date has yet to be set for Erasmus’ misconduct hearing but World Rugby is expected to make an example of the Springboks’ director of rugby: https://www.irishexaminer.com/newmaintopics/.

Why I don't understand the Springboks hate

the only difference is we don’t base our entire attack on it. – that is my point.

See my comment just above: It’s not that backs should be favored specifically. It’s that open, flowing, running rugby should be. That normally translates to the forwards earning the right to go wide and the backs finishing..

Agree the New Zealand style of play is the combination of attritional and free flowing rugby. But as you allude to that is to get us to a point where can move the ball wide. In the New Zealand style attritional rugby is used like the set piece, to create a situation where we can go wide.

I’m not saying we don’t use attritional rugby. We just use it as little as we need to, then go wide. Teams that earn the right to go wide and don’t (when they have the talent to do so) are unnecessarily limiting their potential.

Use it? Lose it! A simple way to fix rugby's much-maligned maul

When I say varied style of play I mean the two styles need to be varied within the same game plan and working in conjunction. You create the opening, with attritional play, then you flow through the opening. When a team creates the opening and doesn’t even try to be expansive is what I don’t enjoy watching. I also don’t think it is the most effective way to utilize talent.
Attritional forward play is used to earn the right to go wide. Speed and precision finishes it off. It is the combination of the two styles that works best.
When one style leans either too attritional or too much ‘attempted’ free flowing (without proper preparation) the result does not meet it’s potential and is hard to watch.
When the All Blacks don’t play well you normally hear the phrase ‘didn’t earn the right to go wide’. When the Springboks don’t play well you hear something like ‘they didn’t make use of their opptuinities’.
Anyway rugby league is not free flowing. As soon as the ball carrier’s knee hits the ground (while held) the game stops. In rugby union when the carrier’s knee hits the ground (while held) the game moves into the breakdown, the contest continues. When the laws are interpreted in favor of the attack rugby union ruck ball is faster than rugby league ruck ball.
It is the attritional focused teams that play like rugby league. A hit up. Reorganize the attack, another hit up. Reorganize the attack, another hit up. Reorganize the attack, another hit up. Reorganize the attack, another hit up. Reorganize the attack, another hit up. Kick. I know what team that sounds like and it’s not the All Blacks.

Use it? Lose it! A simple way to fix rugby's much-maligned maul

I agree that both styles are important to maintain the game. The clash of styles makes for varied viewing.

Where we disagree is that I think running rugby should be incentivized. If we want the game to grow it’s not going to be on the back of a highlight reel of lineout drives and box kicks.

Happy to disagree. Have a good one. Yeah? Well, you know, that’s just like uh, my opinion, man. 😁

Use it? Lose it! A simple way to fix rugby's much-maligned maul

Double upload of the same point above. Upload lag.

Use it? Lose it! A simple way to fix rugby's much-maligned maul

It’s not that backs should be favored specifically. It’s that open, flowing, running rugby should be. That normally translates to the forwards earning the right to go wide and the backs finishing. But in this day and age (in the New Zealand at least) the backs can operate at the ruck and the forwards can run with the ball. So it’s more about encouraging positive play.

If the game is going to grow it’s not going to be from trench warfare rugby.

Yes I clearly favor the New Zealand view of how rugby should be played. Just look at my profile pic, I don’t hide it. But the New Zealand view of how rugby should be played has dominated the game since the mid 1990s. It is also the most viewer friendly style on display. I favor it not only because it works but because it’s the best style to grow the game.

Use it? Lose it! A simple way to fix rugby's much-maligned maul

I agree the proposed changes would effectively remove the maul from the game.

No one seems to want to use the maul in general play. While I’m sure the maul could be incorporated as a method to suck in defenders, then the ball moved before the opposition realized they were duped. For instance the Greatest All Black set-piece try ever?(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Dvc5DV_gC4). It makes awesome use if the the technique I describe.

I think part of the reason why mauls aren’t really used anymore is that the teams which could use the maul, like I describe above, aren’t that good at mauling anymore (the All Blacks used to be great at it). I guess there’s only so much you can cover at practice and mauls are seen as a less effective option.

But as you describe the maul is effectively not a part of the modern game already. While it is sad the game changes over time, change is inevitable. Dribbling used to be relatively common skill for a forward; dribbling is dead as the dodo. Dribbling would be a cool thing to see, but there are more effective methods to win games.

The: lineout, maul, penalty cycle is a blight on the game. It is used to milk penalties and yellow cards in the same way the: scrum, reset, penalty cycle is.

The spirit of rugby is running with the ball and passing so the ball beats the man, not getting the opposition removed from the field via yellow cards; that method is a modern aberration. The yellow card wasn’t even in test matches until the year 2000.

If the modern game can do without mauls, unless there is a lineout close to the line, then it can do without mauls entirety. Also lineout mauls hold back the development of the game. They are used to keep dinosaur (big and dumb) teams competitive.

Use it? Lose it! A simple way to fix rugby's much-maligned maul

Agree their crowd is their 16th man, even more so now. If they get ahead early they will be tough to run down. Should be a classic game.
Also I really wish there was revenue sharing of the gate.

How the Springboks can overcome the All Blacks – and not just this year

I guess if Eddie Jones stays in charge the All Blacks won’t get a chance to play England until we meet them at a World Cup.
Agree Wales look very good. It’s their best chance to beat the All Blacks since 1953. Though the All Blacks tend to be more comfortable against sides which play a similar style. It’s the teams that suffocate and slow the game down are the ones the All Blacks seem to struggle against.

How the Springboks can overcome the All Blacks – and not just this year

The intent behind most of the law changes since 1992 is to create a more open, faster, flowing game. Some sides e.g. the All Blacks and Wallabies follow the intent of the law changes. While some sides e.g. the Springboks and England try to twist law changes so they can keep playing 1980s rugby; the referees, by following the intent of the law changes, will often officiate in ways that frustrate sides that would rather stay in the past. I appreciate purist rugby, but I’d rather watch modern rugby. Also purist rugby will never grow the game.

How the Springboks can overcome the All Blacks – and not just this year

Agree, with their excellent defence they just need to add a little more variety to their attack to be dominant. I’m not sure why they don’t that as they have the raw talent to do so. It’s almost if they pride themselves on winning with a limited game; it’s like they would rather win on the hard difficulty setting. Just to show they can.

How the Springboks can overcome the All Blacks – and not just this year

Agree Foster’s All Blacks are looking good so far. The Springboks and later England will be the acid test.

One thing to consider. Is that most of those that dislike Foster as coach would rather have Robertson. I still think that Robertson would be getting better results than Foster. But that’s impossible to verify without parallel universes.

How the Springboks can overcome the All Blacks – and not just this year

The lineout is the best attacking platform in rugby. It gives the attacker most of the width of the field to use and lots of space between the two backlines. The lineout should be used to run strike moves from, not mauls. The rules need to be adjusted to make the maul risker for the attacker. This will result in more high quality moves. Apart from being a more pleasing visual spectacle, for the fickle casual tv audience, it makes it more of a contest as a poor executed strike move provides an counter attacking opportunity. The maul should be the back up option, not the primary option.

Use it? Lose it! A simple way to fix rugby's much-maligned maul

The maul has been virtually eliminated from the game anyway. Though I think it still has merit as a method to suck in defenders; but only if they are quickly formed and the ball quickly moved once the defenders are sucked in, otherwise you lose momentum. The game isn’t really worse off for it; though personally I always enjoyed participating in the maul. The reason why it is prevalent from lineouts is that the attacking team holds the ball carrier in the air while they set a drive and the defender can’t counter drive; not really fair. If the maul, in general, was a good type of attacking play it would be used outside of the lineout drive from general play.

Use it? Lose it! A simple way to fix rugby's much-maligned maul

The really good sides would still score. But they would have to move the ball quickly, be dynamic and risk a turnover – an actual contest.
It would save time and reduce the lineout, maul, penalty – lineout, maul, penalty, – lineout, maul, penalty, card cycle. The lineout, maul, penalty cycle is as overused as the: scrum, penalty, card cycle. Both boring and time wasters. They can quite easily use up five minutes of game time.
A dominant forward pack should give you a significant advantage, not win the game without using the backs. A forward pack should give you go forward for the backs to exploit. Not be the only weapon a team has. If we want attractive 15 man rugby, to grow the game, we need to make boring rugby less profitable.

Use it? Lose it! A simple way to fix rugby's much-maligned maul

One method is to just allow the defender to just collapse the maul (which originated from a lineout). A really dominant mauling team will just shift the ball and keep going; but it will stop sides scoring unless they are really dominant. The injury risk would be mitigated by the fact that really large, well set rucks, with a dozen players or more just won’t be able to form.

Another method is to require the scoring player to be completely detached from the maul (which originated from a lineout) and not touching the maul, at all. If they are not fully detached, or they are touching the maul (or say a defending player grabs their jersey while diving) they are offside – penalty.

Though we are unlikely to see any change to the rules to de-weaponize the maul (which originated from a lineout) while it is a key scoring method for the likes of the Springboks and more importantly England.

Use it? Lose it! A simple way to fix rugby's much-maligned maul

One method to even it up is to prohibit backs from joining a maul which originated from a lineout.

Use it? Lose it! A simple way to fix rugby's much-maligned maul

Agree two stoppages, then use it. “When a maul has stopped moving towards a goal line, it may restart moving towards a goal line providing it does so within five seconds. If it stops a second time but the ball is being moved and the referee can see it, the referee instructs the team to use the ball. The team in possession must then use the ball in a reasonable time. Sanction: Scrum.“.

Use it? Lose it! A simple way to fix rugby's much-maligned maul

close