Does make boring.

The Auckland Blues have under achieved for 20 odd years.

The Australians and South Africans weakening their teams added to the repetitiveness. With the Crusaders going down a notch this year and the Australian teams improving the competition should be closer this year.

Some of the better Japanese club teams would do well against most Super Rugby teams. The standard of Japanese clubs is improving quickly; no doubt based on so many quality overseas imports. With regular games the standard of Japanese teams will improve more again.
It will be very interesting to see how the Super Rugby/Japan Rugby League one games go in 2024: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/waikato-news/news/super-rugby-2024-gallagher-chiefs-take-pre-season-to-japan-for-cross-border-rugby/ON2AHIGC4JCTFJJJL2PVOBJKVU/
When the All Blacks/All Blacks XV/Maori All Blacks play in Japan they draw decent crowds. A lot of fans will turn up to watch a good game, even if their team isn’t favored to win.

I think part of the reason why Super Rugby Pacific has quarter finals, for a 12 team competition, is that in some years Australia wouldn’t have any teams in the finals (if only the tope four made it); one team in most years and probably no home finals.

By having eight teams in the finals, more Australian teams will get in and some will get home games. Also, quarter finals results in four additional finals games.

“Is this yet another change to SRP that will make it less relatable to test rugby“. Super Rugby started going downhill when the South Africans and Australians disregarded that Super Rugby was intended to be a high-performance competition to prepare players for internationals.
The South Africans and Australians couldn’t keep their internal politics at bay and kept demanding more teams. They turned the best second tier competition in the world into a 2.5 tier competition. It’s never recovered. Different conferences were only a band aid to cover that only about half the teams were good enough to be in the competition. Australia won’t consider reducing the number of their teams. New Zealand can’t afford to pay more wages, so they can’t increase the number of their teams to reduce each team’s quality.
The only real hope for a decent second tier competition in the Pacific is the best from Super Rugby play the best from Japan Rugby League One.
Also, no mention of making sure referees use the same interpretations as the northern referees.
The South African teams winning more probably helped.

The rules should encourage teams to play a balanced game. If a team works out how to win using just a small part of the skills the rules should be adjusted to rebalance the game.

I’d say the same if teams were winning with no set piece or kicking for territory etc. If 15s became too much like 7s.

I say that as most fans like a balanced game. Imagine how boring rugby would be if most games were like the Springboks vs England semi final in RWC 2023: that game was dire.

Especially new fans from non traditional markets. I was rugby to grow, but to become an even more niche sport than it already is.

For the fans. Individual teams will be better or worse due to gluts of talent, retirements etc. The rugby during that time was very good. Most teams tried to play a balanced game. Not just focus on a subset of the skills.

The maul should only be allowed one stop then play the ball. Not two stops.

The referees shouldn’t be afraid to use the yellow for persistent team infringing; like they do for head contact. Also each penalty advantage should count toward a yellow for persistent team infringing.

Also a decent punt, from where a long range penalty would be taken, sets up a lineout deep in the 22. It would result in more tries. Ideally backline moves with whole width of the field to work with, rather than lineout mauls.

South Africa is good on attack, when they chose to play positively. If the rules were adjusted to incentivise the attack, they would still be a top notch team.

It’s weird how the English national team is mostly so conservative. The’ve got lots of players, money, and a good domestic competition with a wide range of styles.

The era they should be looking to get back to is the 2010-2015 era. Rugby was still quite balanced and very exciting.

Three points in opposition 22, two points between the 22 and halfway, one point the kickers own half.

They could also make tries worth to encourage teams to risk going for a try.

They could make the free kicks count toward yellow cards. But agree, that there needs to be punishment to deter offences.

The majority of rules changes since 1992 have sought to promote more flowing running rugby. Do you think rugby would be as popular if it went back to the pre 1992 rules?

I can appreciate that an old school purist gets as much entertainment out of a: scrum, maul, or tight defense as others get out of a try that starts from a lineout in the attacking team’s half and goes 60m to score etc.

Of the tier one nations it’s only really England and the Springboks that play a highly conservative, accumulate in units of three, game. Wales and Scotland are nowhere as conservative as England or the Springboks.
Hopefully there is more chance of union moving in a more flowing direction than in 2009. With the battle for viewership greater than it’s ever been, teams going bust in England etc. There may be a greater desire to attract the more casual fan.
The key will be to make changes that make union more flowing, but still keeping it distinctly rugby. Tweaks to disrupt the ‘scrum – penalty – shot/lineout drive – penalty’ cycle will be key; but tweak it too far it becomes league with contested rucks.
Lowering the tackle height to the base of the sternum, with the associated extra offloads, is another area that will make union more flowing.
Another could be to make both teams back, five meters, behind the ruck.
But as you say what is needed is the buy in of a majority of the national unions (or at least 51% of the World Rugby votes). As rugby becomes more of a business it is likely to seek to appeal to the broadest possible audience.

Agree that Tuivasa-Sheck didn’t adapt to union well. I was surprised that he get dropped early on in the Super Rugby season last year. I thought MacDonald was a more intelligent coach than that; apparently the Blues sponsors really wanted Tuivasa-Sheck to play.

I was surprised that Christie got picked as the backup in the important games at RWC 2023. Roigard showed in Twickenham that he can make a try out of nothing, and is a real running threat.

Hopefully someone steps up.

McKenzie, at the moment, is a lesser version of Mo’unga; he’s young enough to still improve. B Barrett struggled at 10 for the Blues; he’s acceleration, pace, agility isn’t the same as it used to be. Burke will be injured for the first part of the season. Perofeta will have lots of game time.

That no one was a real challenger for Mo’unga at RWC 2023 shows the gap between him and the rest.

The contenders will have to step up in 2024. I hope they do.

They could extend the Super Rugby season by having a finals series with Japan Rugby League. Top six from each play off. They could introduce a second tier e.g. teams seven to 12.

It would be interesting to see how much the NZRU offered Mo’unga.

Agree. This is the right, long term, call. Too many players have already gone overseas. The critical mass of players, to keep the quality is high and produce adequate pressure to perform, is arguably already too low. If All Blacks can be picked from overseas (outside of sabbaticals), then a number of the better player will go overseas, the critical mass will reduce further.
The only player that is really hard to replace out of the latest graduating class is Mo’unga. It’s sad as he was really making the 10 jersey his own. But the All Blacks coaches never really committed to Mo’unga. Foster only really gave Mo’unga a decent shot at 10 when Foster was about to be fired. Maybe if Foster has installed Mo’unga at 10 in 2020 Mo’unga would’ve returned the loyalty?

I’ve read your comments on this article. You agree safety is important, but you don’t offer any solutions to reduce head contact. You make a distinction between intentional and unintentional head contact. Player safety wise it’s a distinction without a difference. A head knock can cause CTE whether the knock was intentional either or not. The number of concussions need to be reduced. They found by lowering the tackle height they lowered the instances on concussion significantly. That is what the primary aim should be, not keeping the game from loosening up a bit (to probably the level it was in 2010-2015).
You infer that the bench is contributing to injuries, having half the team fresh and the other half fatigued no doubt contributes; I think that the number of replacements should drop to four, but number on the bench should stay at eight. If they get an injury after four replacements, bad luck, go down to 14.
I think that removing rucking was backwards step. Rucking resulted in: red marks, the odd bit of blood/stiches, and the very occasional broken hand. But now players are bent at the hip with the back of their head and neck exposed to a flying clean out. That’s got to a factor in the concussion debate.
I think part the reason why they’ve set the tackle height at the base of the sternum is that a slightly high tackle would now hit the upper chest or shoulder. They won’t have to give a yellow for that. I also think that they will be comparatively lenient on tackles only marginally about the sternum (not blowing a penalty for hitting slightly too high) as the associated risk will be less. After an adjustment period there will, hopefully, be less stoppages for high tackles, and especially cards which can really affect the quality of the contest.
You state “I don”t like a loose game and prefer a tight contest”. It is rare that a tackle will result in a scrum turnover. Mostly it stops and offload and/or slows the recycle of the ball.
You seem like a genuine ‘old school’ rugby fan. But it seems that your thoughts regarding lowering the tackle height are more related to keeping rugby tight rather than reducing head contact. If lowering the tackle height resulted in less concussion, but no increase in offloads would you still oppose it?

I’m interested in your thoughts on why Ryan’s maul defense is illegal. I’m not saying it’s not. I’m just interested on your thoughts why.

It’s hard to argue that McCaw’s knee hitting Parra in 2011 was anything but a freak accident. It’s not like McCaw has a history of kneeing people in the head. I think even with a TMO, from today, it would’ve been play on.

The clean out of O’Driscoll was a really badly executed clean out that ended up with him getting dropped; still it broke his shoulder and ended his tour. It probably would’ve resulted in a one or two yellow cards if the referee/touch judges got a good look at it, or a suspension if the judiciary saw all the footage that later came out. But there isn’t a history of Umaga and Mealamu cleaning people out like that.

Both the incidents above could’ve been premeditated attempts to take out an opposition player. But the lack of a pattern of behaviour of similar incidents means they were more likely to be accidents. The ruck is probably the least structured part of rugby with the most variables. It’s likely that that is where a lot of non-intentional/reckless contact will occur.

With Farrell it’s not so much the times he’s been found to be at fault for head shots (four suspensions, and I think another five yellow cards; and probably multiple penalties when a deflection to the head was just a penalty), it the massive amount of near misses. The difference is that Farrell has decided to take the risk of head contact time and again. He may have zero intention to hit someone in the head, but the sheer amount of tackles he makes means head contact is an inevitability if he aims that high. If he aimed at the base of the sternum the chances of head contact are reduced. Players will play to the rules, but it makes sense to change that rule.

I think the reason why people are negative to Farrell, regarding high tackles, is that hitting near the top of the chest/shoulder is his standard practice.
Perception is what forms public opinion as much as facts. Farrell’s preference for big hits can make it seem that high tackles from Farrell are an inevitably, rather than a genuine error. That landing an eventual head shot is a risk he’s willing to take. When the margins are super fine you will eventually go over the line, even if it’s a genuine accident. He must be very skilled as a tackler to have not had more head contacts.
The problem is that making contact at the top of the chest/shoulder is currently legal and players will players will play to the rules. It’s not just a competition for pride, it’s a competition for a livelihood; the pressure to gain an advantage to get a win must be immense.
The idea to lower the tackle height to the bottom of the sternum would mean that an error will likely mean contact the upper chest/shoulder not the head. it won’t solve all head contact, but it will reduce it.

A lot of the wealthy sides have better legal representation. The All Blacks included. It definitely makes a difference. I think that counting a ‘game of three halves’ as a game to go against a suspension is BS.

Yes, the game has changed at lot in the last 20 years. Officiating, around head contact is one really big area of change. But, with all the awareness and focus on had contact, Farrell still choses to go for the big hit to the upper chest. If you chose to be the on the limit of a law – which is there for player safety – then you open yourself up to extra negative comments; though some go way too far and are not justifiable.

I use the McCaw example as he used to get a lot of flak. The things he was well known for: turnovers, slowing down the ball, getting in the etc, don’t have the side effect of giving someone head trauma (most of the time). No, McCaw wasn’t 100% clean; but turnovers, slowing the ball down, getting in the way typically don’t cause head trauma.

But, when Farrell does one of his trademark big hits, and it goes wrong. That is the type of thing that can cause head trauma. As stated, I think that difference is part of the reason for the extra vitriol experienced by Farrell (not agreeing with it, just trying to explain it).

Your comments seem to just be disagreeing with other people comments and not offering any alternative ideas.

On making rugby more following. You don’t agree that is needs to get more flowing. So, I don’t expect you to offer any solutions there.

But do you agree that head contact needs to be reduced? If you do there are a limited range of solutions. Either stronger punishment: more cards, longer suspensions, fines etc. Or to lower the tackle height. If you want to reduce head contact the solution is probably going to come from those ideas. If you have other ideas I’d be interested to know. If you’re happy to accept the current level of harm you should also make that clear.

Look at the current litigation. Do you cab World Rugby have demonstrated methods to reduce head contact – and not imperilment them? They would be asking to lose court cases.

Is part of the reason you don’t like the idea of dropping the tackle height limit is because it might make rugby a more flowing game?