The Current State of Rugby
-
@MajorRage said in The Current State of Rugby:
@gibbon-rib said in The Current State of Rugby:
A few other factors:
The influence of league. Particularly in Australia, but also NZ. This is most notable in the discussion around head contact, but also elsewhere. (Obviously league is big in England too, but generally there is a firewall between the two codes. In Australia many people follow both flavours of Rugby; in England, it's either one or the other).
This might be a contentious one, but I also think ignorance of the laws is part of the problem too. I'm thinking of Australia here, since most of the rugby media I see is Australian, but I get the impression that SA is similar. Kiwis on the other hand seem to know their stuff and be a bit more measured. (Obviously I'm generalising massively here, and I might lose Aussie friends, but hey ho...). Lots of Aussies are part time fans, rugby is maybe their 3rd or 4th or 6th favourite sport, so they're understandably not as familiar with the rules. The real problem is that the level of rugby commentary and journalism here is hopeless. Every time some decision goes against the Wallabies, the commentators pretend to be dumbfounded and outraged and shocked at the absurdity of it. Then at half time, the presenters are equally astonished and talk about how ridiculous it is. Then the next day, the newspapers run stories about the dumbest rule in rugby, and how the administrators and refs are killing the game. And the average fan who doesn't really know the laws comes away thinking rugby is a mess. I thought this might get better after we ditched Fox, but it seems 9/Stan have decided to plough the same furrow.
Pretty much so summed up @NTA career on TSF there ..
Nah, he's one of the good ones. I'm talking about the truly clueless casual fans who have absolutely no idea, like Phil Kearns
@gibbon-rib said in The Current State of Rugby:
@MajorRage said in The Current State of Rugby:
@gibbon-rib said in The Current State of Rugby:
A few other factors:
The influence of league. Particularly in Australia, but also NZ. This is most notable in the discussion around head contact, but also elsewhere. (Obviously league is big in England too, but generally there is a firewall between the two codes. In Australia many people follow both flavours of Rugby; in England, it's either one or the other).
This might be a contentious one, but I also think ignorance of the laws is part of the problem too. I'm thinking of Australia here, since most of the rugby media I see is Australian, but I get the impression that SA is similar. Kiwis on the other hand seem to know their stuff and be a bit more measured. (Obviously I'm generalising massively here, and I might lose Aussie friends, but hey ho...). Lots of Aussies are part time fans, rugby is maybe their 3rd or 4th or 6th favourite sport, so they're understandably not as familiar with the rules. The real problem is that the level of rugby commentary and journalism here is hopeless. Every time some decision goes against the Wallabies, the commentators pretend to be dumbfounded and outraged and shocked at the absurdity of it. Then at half time, the presenters are equally astonished and talk about how ridiculous it is. Then the next day, the newspapers run stories about the dumbest rule in rugby, and how the administrators and refs are killing the game. And the average fan who doesn't really know the laws comes away thinking rugby is a mess. I thought this might get better after we ditched Fox, but it seems 9/Stan have decided to plough the same furrow.
Pretty much so summed up @NTA career on TSF there ..
Nah, he's one of the good ones. I'm talking about the truly clueless casual fans who have absolutely no idea, like Phil Kearns
'twas a joke, young @gibbon-rib ... which I think @NTA worked out ...
I have a theory that they are like this because of the way rugby is in Aus. Pretty much so an elite school sport, which means that getting schooled on the rugby field is close to the only thing in life they don't get what they want. Used to work in HK with plenty of Sydney private school boys, and they very much so lived their life like that.
-
@gibbon-rib said in The Current State of Rugby:
@MajorRage said in The Current State of Rugby:
@gibbon-rib said in The Current State of Rugby:
A few other factors:
The influence of league. Particularly in Australia, but also NZ. This is most notable in the discussion around head contact, but also elsewhere. (Obviously league is big in England too, but generally there is a firewall between the two codes. In Australia many people follow both flavours of Rugby; in England, it's either one or the other).
This might be a contentious one, but I also think ignorance of the laws is part of the problem too. I'm thinking of Australia here, since most of the rugby media I see is Australian, but I get the impression that SA is similar. Kiwis on the other hand seem to know their stuff and be a bit more measured. (Obviously I'm generalising massively here, and I might lose Aussie friends, but hey ho...). Lots of Aussies are part time fans, rugby is maybe their 3rd or 4th or 6th favourite sport, so they're understandably not as familiar with the rules. The real problem is that the level of rugby commentary and journalism here is hopeless. Every time some decision goes against the Wallabies, the commentators pretend to be dumbfounded and outraged and shocked at the absurdity of it. Then at half time, the presenters are equally astonished and talk about how ridiculous it is. Then the next day, the newspapers run stories about the dumbest rule in rugby, and how the administrators and refs are killing the game. And the average fan who doesn't really know the laws comes away thinking rugby is a mess. I thought this might get better after we ditched Fox, but it seems 9/Stan have decided to plough the same furrow.
Pretty much so summed up @NTA career on TSF there ..
Nah, he's one of the good ones. I'm talking about the truly clueless casual fans who have absolutely no idea, like Phil Kearns
'twas a joke, young @gibbon-rib ... which I think @NTA worked out ...
I have a theory that they are like this because of the way rugby is in Aus. Pretty much so an elite school sport, which means that getting schooled on the rugby field is close to the only thing in life they don't get what they want. Used to work in HK with plenty of Sydney private school boys, and they very much so lived their life like that.
@MajorRage said in The Current State of Rugby:
@gibbon-rib said in The Current State of Rugby:
@MajorRage said in The Current State of Rugby:
@gibbon-rib said in The Current State of Rugby:
A few other factors:
The influence of league. Particularly in Australia, but also NZ. This is most notable in the discussion around head contact, but also elsewhere. (Obviously league is big in England too, but generally there is a firewall between the two codes. In Australia many people follow both flavours of Rugby; in England, it's either one or the other).
This might be a contentious one, but I also think ignorance of the laws is part of the problem too. I'm thinking of Australia here, since most of the rugby media I see is Australian, but I get the impression that SA is similar. Kiwis on the other hand seem to know their stuff and be a bit more measured. (Obviously I'm generalising massively here, and I might lose Aussie friends, but hey ho...). Lots of Aussies are part time fans, rugby is maybe their 3rd or 4th or 6th favourite sport, so they're understandably not as familiar with the rules. The real problem is that the level of rugby commentary and journalism here is hopeless. Every time some decision goes against the Wallabies, the commentators pretend to be dumbfounded and outraged and shocked at the absurdity of it. Then at half time, the presenters are equally astonished and talk about how ridiculous it is. Then the next day, the newspapers run stories about the dumbest rule in rugby, and how the administrators and refs are killing the game. And the average fan who doesn't really know the laws comes away thinking rugby is a mess. I thought this might get better after we ditched Fox, but it seems 9/Stan have decided to plough the same furrow.
Pretty much so summed up @NTA career on TSF there ..
Nah, he's one of the good ones. I'm talking about the truly clueless casual fans who have absolutely no idea, like Phil Kearns
'twas a joke, young @gibbon-rib ... which I think @NTA worked out ...
I know, I'm probably just feeling a bit guilty about ragging on the Aussies so much. After all, I'm an Aussie too now, and I do love it here, I just think they need to take quality of rugby punditry into account when they do those "worlds most livable cities" surveys.
I have a theory that they are like this because of the way rugby is in Aus. Pretty much so an elite school sport, which means that getting schooled on the rugby field is close to the only thing in life they don't get what they want. Used to work in HK with plenty of Sydney private school boys, and they very much so lived their life like that.
I've not heard that theory before, there could be something in that
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in The Current State of Rugby:
Interesting take by Nigel Owens.
https://www.ruck.co.uk/the-games-out-of-control-nigel-owens-wants-five-law-changes-asap/
Welcome to the Fern Nigel
@MiketheSnow said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Victor-Meldrew said in The Current State of Rugby:
Interesting take by Nigel Owens.
https://www.ruck.co.uk/the-games-out-of-control-nigel-owens-wants-five-law-changes-asap/
Welcome to the Fern Nigel
Agree with all of those but will also add “punish time wasting “
Tonight was appalling in game management by the refs. I’m not sure if it showed on TV but at one stage there were so many extra people on the field the Sky guys decided they could also wander out on their Segway have a go too. The ref was telling them all to get off but was being totally ignored.
Reduce the reserves, speed up the game
-
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial really, right from first principles?
- 15 players per team
- these are the field dimensions
- pass the ball backwards
- scrums and lines outs
we can't even agree on 3. Despite the physics being explained, videos being presented, etc. The difference between forward relative to the runner and forward relative to the ground are just not understood. See also Barnes, W.
@nzzp said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Crucial really, right from first principles?
- 15 players per team
- these are the field dimensions
- pass the ball backwards
- scrums and lines outs
we can't even agree on 3. Despite the physics being explained, videos being presented, etc. The difference between forward relative to the runner and forward relative to the ground are just not understood. See also Barnes, W.
This. So amazingly poorly understood by so many people involved with the game. And, it seems, 100% of the Irish.
-
I think the other big problem we have in test rugby etc at least (apart from plethora of cards), is we almost never see 2 tests in a row with top teams on field, as it has moved to a game of attrition almost rather than skill, and the injury toll is bloody horrendus. Look at tests this week, Wallabies, English , Argentina, SA, ABs , Irish , none of them are going field preferred team probably. I think we all have a good idea what problem is, players getting subbed off etc and we now have bigger playerss in game etc, and I not sure there any thought of fixing it.
I hear 'experts' etc saying the worried the WC will be decided by cards etc, also will be decided by injuries , and ask is that what we want? -
I got caught out last night from the law book changes ans simplification. Ireland's first try had me wondering why it was allowed as the ball clearly hit the hoardings. The old law clause for quick throws used to say they weren't allowed if the ball touched anyone or anything over the touchline. That has been simplified to anyone other than the player that took the ball into touch and the one throwing it in.
Can't wait to see the outcry when a kick bounces off something into the arms of a player well away from the point of touch wo trows it in quickly for a try -
The Origin decider is a million miles more entertaining than any rugby game I have seen in years
-
The Origin decider is a million miles more entertaining than any rugby game I have seen in years
@mariner4life said in The Current State of Rugby:
The Origin decider is a million miles more entertaining than any rugby game I have seen in years.
Ardie agrees.
-
The Origin decider is a million miles more entertaining than any rugby game I have seen in years
@mariner4life said in The Current State of Rugby:
The Origin decider is a million miles more entertaining than any rugby game I have seen in years
Only 8 penalties for the whole match (4 each) and no endless use of the video ref even for the biff.
The viewing experience was greatly enhanced with those two things alone.
-
I was thinking that this hyper extreme focus on safety is occurring at the top level where they have 100 cameras and 4 match officials, but the vast majority of games are taking place in parks where reserves from the respective teams are running the touch and the only camera is in a phone being held by a kid in a pram (modern day parenting but that's another story). The incidents causing all these cards at the top level probably happen repeatedly at every other level, but are obviously not picked up because it's logistically and technically impossible. So is the welfare or these players not being considered? Obviously there's a vast gulf in skill and speed, but these types of "card events" will still repeatedly occur and probably much more often. It's a pretty massive disconnect IMHO.
Ultimately, and as I've said a million times, rugby is a brutal and dangerous sport. Obviously you don't want it to be a murderous free for all, but there are limits to how much you can sanitise a game like this. Sometimes you wonder if those instituting the rules every played the game or that they believe everything occurs in slo motion.
-
I was thinking that this hyper extreme focus on safety is occurring at the top level where they have 100 cameras and 4 match officials, but the vast majority of games are taking place in parks where reserves from the respective teams are running the touch and the only camera is in a phone being held by a kid in a pram (modern day parenting but that's another story). The incidents causing all these cards at the top level probably happen repeatedly at every other level, but are obviously not picked up because it's logistically and technically impossible. So is the welfare or these players not being considered? Obviously there's a vast gulf in skill and speed, but these types of "card events" will still repeatedly occur and probably much more often. It's a pretty massive disconnect IMHO.
Ultimately, and as I've said a million times, rugby is a brutal and dangerous sport. Obviously you don't want it to be a murderous free for all, but there are limits to how much you can sanitise a game like this. Sometimes you wonder if those instituting the rules every played the game or that they believe everything occurs in slo motion.
@Rancid-Schnitzel we had one of our boys "Blue carded" on the weekend, the physio ran him through all the tests and signed him off before our game had even ended....but he still needs to go see a proper doc, who recommended an MRI etc...so hes out for at least a week and possible 2 even if nothing is wrong....obviously more if there is
I couldn't argue with the precautions...and i guess the real difference is if the doc tells him its serious and he shouldn't play again....then he'll coach...or manage like i had too last year....a lot seems to be keeping these guys playing....because its their job
-
@gibbon-rib said in The Current State of Rugby:
@MiketheSnow said in The Current State of Rugby:
I'm a big fan of bringing back substitutions for injuries only
Define injury
You don't have to define it, you just have to limit the number of subs allowed. full size bench, but only 3 subs allowed for the game, nominally for injury. Then you can't rort the system that much.
@reprobate said in The Current State of Rugby:
@gibbon-rib said in The Current State of Rugby:
@MiketheSnow said in The Current State of Rugby:
I'm a big fan of bringing back substitutions for injuries only
Define injury
You don't have to define it, you just have to limit the number of subs allowed. full size bench, but only 3 subs allowed for the game, nominally for injury. Then you can't rort the system that much.
I have to say having been a reserve in rep rugby as a teenager where you only came on for injury were some of the worst moments of my rugby playing days. I was stoked to have made the rep team, trained etc. But I was not good enough to make the starting side. We travelled playing other rep sides and I got maybe 5-10 minutes total in all the games. The other 4+ hours or so was standing in the cold on the sideline with all my gear on doing nothing.
Being a reserve is tough and I can't help but feel for players under this system getting very little game time at all.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel we had one of our boys "Blue carded" on the weekend, the physio ran him through all the tests and signed him off before our game had even ended....but he still needs to go see a proper doc, who recommended an MRI etc...so hes out for at least a week and possible 2 even if nothing is wrong....obviously more if there is
I couldn't argue with the precautions...and i guess the real difference is if the doc tells him its serious and he shouldn't play again....then he'll coach...or manage like i had too last year....a lot seems to be keeping these guys playing....because its their job
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Rancid-Schnitzel we had one of our boys "Blue carded" on the weekend, the physio ran him through all the tests and signed him off before our game had even ended....but he still needs to go see a proper doc, who recommended an MRI etc...so hes out for at least a week and possible 2 even if nothing is wrong....obviously more if there is
I couldn't argue with the precautions...and i guess the real difference is if the doc tells him its serious and he shouldn't play again....then he'll coach...or manage like i had too last year....a lot seems to be keeping these guys playing....because its their job
I don't have a problem with those protocols. That's rugby unfortunately.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel we had one of our boys "Blue carded" on the weekend, the physio ran him through all the tests and signed him off before our game had even ended....but he still needs to go see a proper doc, who recommended an MRI etc...so hes out for at least a week and possible 2 even if nothing is wrong....obviously more if there is
I couldn't argue with the precautions...and i guess the real difference is if the doc tells him its serious and he shouldn't play again....then he'll coach...or manage like i had too last year....a lot seems to be keeping these guys playing....because its their job
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Rancid-Schnitzel we had one of our boys "Blue carded" on the weekend, the physio ran him through all the tests and signed him off before our game had even ended....but he still needs to go see a proper doc, who recommended an MRI etc...so hes out for at least a week and possible 2 even if nothing is wrong....obviously more if there is
Jeez we're told that nobody sideline can sign a player off as fit to return - not even run an assessment (tho our club is desperately short of neurologists).
Blue Card = mandatory stand down for at least the 11-day period after the incident.
-
I'll also add I caught a bit of a Newcastle Knights game the other week and Ponga took a blow to the head and went off for further assessment.
I respect that NRL is a bloody tough slog for players. And I look at guys like Ponga - 24, in his prime, playing against some big lads, with some heavy hitting - and wonder what he'll look like at 44. Or 54.
While Rugby seems to have gone waaaaaay too far on the way it runs player safety frameworks, IMHO the NRL isn't doing enough to protect itself against future lawsuits.
On a related point, which I've made before: World Rugby has a two-speed system where 1) refs are forced to crack down on head contact on the field, but then 2) various Judiciaries don't do their job after the game in handing down sanctions that might contribute to behavioural change. They give discounts for being a top bloke, or "remorse", or a clean record.
Quite frankly, none of that shit should matter when it comes to sentencing high contact, intent or no.
A certain Irish lawyer who used to frequent these parts says that is largely due to ex-players now being on panels. Perhaps that is a good point but I tend to think the Judiciary has been doing this since forever.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Rancid-Schnitzel we had one of our boys "Blue carded" on the weekend, the physio ran him through all the tests and signed him off before our game had even ended....but he still needs to go see a proper doc, who recommended an MRI etc...so hes out for at least a week and possible 2 even if nothing is wrong....obviously more if there is
Jeez we're told that nobody sideline can sign a player off as fit to return - not even run an assessment (tho our club is desperately short of neurologists).
Blue Card = mandatory stand down for at least the 11-day period after the incident.
@NTA said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Rancid-Schnitzel we had one of our boys "Blue carded" on the weekend, the physio ran him through all the tests and signed him off before our game had even ended....but he still needs to go see a proper doc, who recommended an MRI etc...so hes out for at least a week and possible 2 even if nothing is wrong....obviously more if there is
Jeez we're told that nobody sideline can sign a player off as fit to return. Blue Card = mandatory stand down for at least the 11-day period after the incident.
when i say "signed off", i mean completed a series of checks to work out if its a "go see your GP on monday" or "call an ambulance", as i say, blue card meant he needed to be properly cleared by a doc, its a 7 day minimum in Vic but depending on how quick he gets the all clear it could be more
-
I'll also add I caught a bit of a Newcastle Knights game the other week and Ponga took a blow to the head and went off for further assessment.
I respect that NRL is a bloody tough slog for players. And I look at guys like Ponga - 24, in his prime, playing against some big lads, with some heavy hitting - and wonder what he'll look like at 44. Or 54.
While Rugby seems to have gone waaaaaay too far on the way it runs player safety frameworks, IMHO the NRL isn't doing enough to protect itself against future lawsuits.
On a related point, which I've made before: World Rugby has a two-speed system where 1) refs are forced to crack down on head contact on the field, but then 2) various Judiciaries don't do their job after the game in handing down sanctions that might contribute to behavioural change. They give discounts for being a top bloke, or "remorse", or a clean record.
Quite frankly, none of that shit should matter when it comes to sentencing high contact, intent or no.
A certain Irish lawyer who used to frequent these parts says that is largely due to ex-players now being on panels. Perhaps that is a good point but I tend to think the Judiciary has been doing this since forever.
@NTA said in The Current State of Rugby:
While Rugby seems to have gone waaaaaay too far on the way it runs player safety frameworks, IMHO the NRL isn't doing enough to protect itself against future lawsuits.
One is a regional sport that only really has to deal with one set of politicians and one legal system. League can always be more permissive.
