What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Rugby losing its entertainment value ?

ozbash

Referee
Messages
26,922
It's a sad indictment on the game, and a rather embarrassed looking Jerome Kaino knows it.
The big All Blacks flanker packed down for the Blues in their romp over the Cheetahs on Friday night. But for once his most loyal fans, his two sisters, didn't go to the game. The reason? They're sick of rugby. Tired of all the aimless kicking.
"They actually can't wait for the league season to start," Kaino said rather sheepishly.
"Rugby, they reckon, has become boring, so they can't be bothered watching anymore. I was a bit surprised but when I thought about it, some of it hasn't been flash, has it?"
The question, albeit rhetorical, deserves an answer, because this year, more than any, Kaino's sisters are not alone.
Rugby's support base is having their faith in the game tested by an over-abundance of mediocre entertainment, and many are voicing their displeasure with their remotes and their feet.
Although it's notoriously difficult to get an accurate gauge on whether the sport's popularity is waning, reliable measures such as Nielsen Media TV ratings indicate fewer fans are bothering to tune into games.
The turnstiles are not exactly buzzing either.
Vast swathes of empty seats this year at Waikato Stadium, Carisbrook and Wellington's Cake Tin are evidence of that. Although AMI Stadium and Eden Park are a little harder to assess while both grounds are in the middle of major overhauls, season ticket holders have slumped to a staggeringly low 17,000 across our five Super rugby bases.
Exactly why the game is losing ground in the ultra competitive entertainment market is a question the game's administrators are grappling with. Some of the blame can be attributed to New Zealanders' interests diversifying, and sports such as rugby league are making inroads.
But more than ever there's a growing school of thought that rugby is becoming its own worst enemy. That one of the game's great strengths its complexity is leading to its demise. Nobody the players, coaches, referees and fans can understand what is going on half the time.
A high-ranking rugby official who shall remain nameless admitted recently: "It's got so bad I have found myself flicking over to Rove on the Friday night because I can at least understand that."
To add to the confusion, two different sets of laws are being trialled in the northern and southern hemispheres and there's as much confusion about what path the game should take on the field as there is off it.
The International Rugby Board is keen to seize the initiative and avert further confusion by staging a potentially face-saving meeting at the end of this month.
All the game's good and great including All Blacks forwards' coach Steve Hansen, New Zealand Rugby Union No2 Neil Sorensen, referees boss Lyndon Bray and a couple of players (depending on who's injured) will travel to London to try to reach a consensus with representatives from all the other major test-playing nations before the game's politicians make a final decision at a full IRB council meeting in May.

The traditionally more conservative north has looked on disapprovingly while the south adopted short arm penalty sanctions for most offences in an attempt to speed up the game. The experiment has been a mixed bag.
However, at executive level the south is convinced the trial was a success and NZRU chief executive Steve Tew confirmed: "We remain firmly convinced that the 16 ELVs trial we are running is the way to go. We believe the sanction gives the referee the chance to not stop the game with a penalty all the time and speeds it up."
The north stridently disagrees, arguing rugby doesn't necessarily have to be fast for it to be compelling. They also point out the game is thriving there so why fix something that ain't broke?
The stakes are high and the outcome, some say, may make or break the next world cup, because a moratorium on any future law changes beyond May will be imposed to they can be bedded in before the tournament.
Others are less convinced and say rugby can be entertaining despite the rules.
Tew's IRB offsider Mike Miller said: "Laws can make some difference [to whether a game is entertaining or otherwise] but the biggest factor is attitude. I think if you look at matches in the north, the reason why there is so much kicking at the moment, it's not the ELVs, it's the way we are policing the break-down, making sure people come in from behind and therefore many coaches have said we don't want to lose the ball in our territory so bang it down the other end. It's really about mentality. When teams start winning by playing attractive, attacking rugby and back themselves and have confidence, others will say if they can do it we can too."
It's a view the likes of All Blacks wing Joe Rokocoko endorse.
The All Blacks speed machine is fast becoming noted as one of the game's thinkers.
He told the Sunday Star-Times this week: "At the moment, players feel as if they have to kick the ball so they don't get caught with it. There's a reluctance to take risks.
"Now instead of just kicking for position, we are now kicking not just to chase it and put pressure on, but into areas on the field so we receive it back again in a better position and then to attack."
That has led to bouts of aerial ping pong and snoring in the stands; something of which Tew is acutely aware. "We have to openly admit that over the last couple of years there has been more emphasis on defence and that's closed the game down as an exciting open running sport and we have to find some way around that," he said.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/opinion/2263421/Rugby-facing-entertainment-issues
 

shiznit

Coach
Messages
14,796
its true... im hoha of it too... and ive been into bat for RU in heaps of occasions in this forum.

i think the main problem is super rugby itself... i just think no one cares about the franchises. there not REALLY your team.

i just wished we would just scrap super rugby and take it back to NPC/Currie Cup rugby. let the all blacks play and have a european champions league set up for the top 4 teams in SA, NZ & AUS. just look at the northern hemisphere.... there clubs get bloody packed houses to there footy. i reckon its because the games more tribal up there. there clubs are older and have a better following.

the franchises are just manufactured and no one really cares about them.
 

Parra

Referee
Messages
24,900
The franchise system has been controversial from day one.

A lot of frustrations that are voiced about rugby are due to not comprehending the game. The rules and tactics are more complex than other footy codes. But I can't agree with this line from the article "Nobody the players, coaches, referees and fans can understand what is going on half the time." That should be corrected to "Journalists can't understand what is going on half the time, so they resort to criticism to cover their own shortcomings". Players, refs & fans know what is going on.

Rugby has always been a game where field position / territorial advantage is the most important thing. One thing ELV's have done is increase the time the ball is in play. This has resulted in less kicks for touch, and more kicks keep the ball in play. The net result is less lineouts than under the old rules.

Get in position, and then attack the try line. This tactic is no different under any laws - or under any of the footy codes that have evolved from rugby - modern rugby, rugby league and American football (NFL). How you achieve "getting in position" is what casual fans find boring - but it is this grind, the accuracy of the plays and the teamwork that makes the game - that gets the team in position to score.

Having journos claim games are boring just because they don't understand them is annoying. There are plenty of boring games out there - but these are usually fumble sessions & mistake ridden affairs.
 

murraymob

Coach
Messages
10,338
the first thing they need to do is get rid of using the nick names and get back to using the names of the clubs.Who knows who the cheetahs are or where they come from.It loses its tribal effect with the nick names
 

Te Kaha

First Grade
Messages
5,998
It can be all be fixed with two simple rules... change it back to team going forward keeps the ball if it is stuck in a ruck... that will stop the kicking... and for gods sake bring back rucking!!!
 

Parra

Referee
Messages
24,900
Removing rucking is the cause of a lot of the rules we see today.

Bring back rucking.

I like the use it or lose it rules - and it's good that it is now applied to rucks as well as mauls. But the ref will hardly use this option - easier to blow one for a defender not rolling away.

Which brings us back to rucking.
 

KHunt

Juniors
Messages
843
What do you mean by rucking? Rucks still exist or am I wrong?

Things that will help:
1. PUT GAMES ON FTA
2. Thank God the "Queensland" Reds still exist. Now who are the Sharks, Crusaders, Bulls, Cheifs and where the f**k do they come from?

Is it more or are other Aussie's/Kiwi's sick of playing against the South African's? There's just no interest in playing them and the travel is ridiculous. Go back to the NPC/Currie Cups, bring in the Aussie teams into the NPC?
 

Te Kaha

First Grade
Messages
5,998
I like the use it or lose it rules - and it's good that it is now applied to rucks as well as mauls. But the ref will hardly use this option - easier to blow one for a defender not rolling away.

Aye?? the use it or lose it is DIRECTLY responsible for all the kicking... with no sureity of possesion the alternatitive is kick the ball away and look for a mistake.... get rid of that and the game is where it should be
 

Parra

Referee
Messages
24,900
As I said - it brings us back to rucking.


But deliberately locking up the ball and going for a scrum is fairly negative play. Especially if the fly half kicks it following the scrum win anyway.

But use it or lose it has also resulted in teams committing less forwards to the maul/ruck - which means tighter defence and more kicking.

Think of it this way - in order to kick the ball, you must first have it. Whether you get it from a ruck/maul or a set play is not the issue. The reason teams kick the ball is interesting. If you accept that rugby is a game where territory, or field advantage, is the most important thing - then the question is "how do I achieve that". In many cases, kicking is the best option.

The only way to change this is to remove the contest for the ball. And as league development has shown us - even then kicking is often the best option.
 

ozbash

Referee
Messages
26,922
they get back to basics, i think they have over-complicated a relativly simple enough game.
 

Te Kaha

First Grade
Messages
5,998
As I said - it brings us back to rucking.


But deliberately locking up the ball and going for a scrum is fairly negative play. Especially if the fly half kicks it following the scrum win anyway.

But use it or lose it has also resulted in teams committing less forwards to the maul/ruck - which means tighter defence and more kicking.

Think of it this way - in order to kick the ball, you must first have it. Whether you get it from a ruck/maul or a set play is not the issue. The reason teams kick the ball is interesting. If you accept that rugby is a game where territory, or field advantage, is the most important thing - then the question is "how do I achieve that". In many cases, kicking is the best option.

The only way to change this is to remove the contest for the ball. And as league development has shown us - even then kicking is often the best option.

Which is the problem... FAR FAR FAR to much kicking... before the use it or lose it the balance was right... if you had a decent openside you won the ball in the ruck... if the team killed the ball they were penalised, now free kicked... teams are not running the ball for fair of losing it... if they thought they had a decent chance of retaining the ball they would run it more.
 

Tamatoa

Juniors
Messages
4
I think its one of those years like when Auckland and Canterbury were winning everything in NZ rugby . The NZRU need to come back to earth and help the grassroots rugby .
I would bring in unlimited subs for the tight fives like they do in the NRL to speed up the game . Go back to the team going forward feeds the scrum and your only allowed to kick out on the full from behind your own goal line .
 

Parra

Referee
Messages
24,900
Which is the problem... FAR FAR FAR to much kicking... before the use it or lose it the balance was right... if you had a decent openside you won the ball in the ruck... if the team killed the ball they were penalised, now free kicked... teams are not running the ball for fair of losing it... if they thought they had a decent chance of retaining the ball they would run it more.


But that rule did not lead to more kicks. All that changed is that kicks are now taken from the back of a ruck, rather than from the back of a scrum. Rules that encourage scrums are negative. The ELV's have replaced some scrums with free kicks, and some penalties with free kicks.

In a twist, the ELV's have not resulted in less scrums, but more. As some infringements that used to be a full arm penalty, are now a free kick, and quite a few teams take the scrum option.

Not being able to carry it back into the 22 has led to more kicks in play - and more return kicks. Changing the rules to restrict this further (eg the goal line as suggested) will result in even more kicks, not less.

What we have less of is line-outs.

I don't mind the good, tactical kicking - see Gerrard from the Brumbies. What is annoying is the proliferation of useless box kicks from halves - Luke Burgess is the worst offender, and the mid-field speculator bombs.

These mindless kicks show a lack of talent or confidence from the proponents, rather than any deficiency in the rules.
 

Te Kaha

First Grade
Messages
5,998
But that rule did not lead to more kicks. All that changed is that kicks are now taken from the back of a ruck, rather than from the back of a scrum. Rules that encourage scrums are negative. The ELV's have replaced some scrums with free kicks, and some penalties with free kicks.

In a twist, the ELV's have not resulted in less scrums, but more. As some infringements that used to be a full arm penalty, are now a free kick, and quite a few teams take the scrum option.

Not being able to carry it back into the 22 has led to more kicks in play - and more return kicks. Changing the rules to restrict this further (eg the goal line as suggested) will result in even more kicks, not less.

What we have less of is line-outs.

I don't mind the good, tactical kicking - see Gerrard from the Brumbies. What is annoying is the proliferation of useless box kicks from halves - Luke Burgess is the worst offender, and the mid-field speculator bombs.

These mindless kicks show a lack of talent or confidence from the proponents, rather than any deficiency in the rules.

Who said anything about scrums and and free kicks... its purely about the belief that running the ball back or fielding a kick will result in a turnover... so they naturally kick the ball back... change it back to team going forward retains possesion and there will be a hell of a lot more running then kicking.
 

Parra

Referee
Messages
24,900
Who said anything about scrums and and free kicks... its purely about the belief that running the ball back or fielding a kick will result in a turnover... so they naturally kick the ball back... change it back to team going forward retains possesion and there will be a hell of a lot more running then kicking.


Why? In both instances - old rules and new - retaining the ball relies on having team mates onside and ready to jump in. Either to clean-out and recycle(new rules) or make sure the ruck moves forward (old rule). In other words, without support, a player will kick.

I am not denying there is a glut of kicking - but I am saying it is due to better defensive structures, not rule changes.
 

Alehana

Juniors
Messages
1,692
the kicking is getting to be a joke IMO, but what they really need is consistency in the rules, the the north losers have such stupid rules that noone watches their games from the southern hemishpher unless ur from argentina or south africa, so i dont care if they remain in Southern hemisphere rugby or not,

rucks, whoever the dominant team is, wins the ruck (if the ref blows it up), rucking should be allowed back in, simple as that.

bring back club comps, have the NPC and the top 4 teams from that along with 2 PI teams play the four aussie teams in a comp. just an idea.
 

Te Kaha

First Grade
Messages
5,998
Why? In both instances - old rules and new - retaining the ball relies on having team mates onside and ready to jump in. Either to clean-out and recycle(new rules) or make sure the ruck moves forward (old rule). In other words, without support, a player will kick.

I am not denying there is a glut of kicking - but I am saying it is due to better defensive structures, not rule changes.

And yet its only really been happening since the ELVs came in... what an amazing coincedence there....

Making sure the team going forward will give the attacking player the extra second he needs for support to arrive... making it less likely he will want to kick... makes possesion more important.. and the moment, territory is far to heavily waited than possesion its hould be 50/50... at the moment the team who has territory will win... and win without the ball... whats the point of not kicking then???
 

Parra

Referee
Messages
24,900
Use it or lose it has been in before the ELV's. All the new laws did was introduce the idea to rucks. Previously the rule was used only for mauls.

But in practice, how many free kicks have you seen given because the ball is not coming out? The free kick is either for not rolling away - this rule clearly benefits the attacking side, or for not releasing - this is a penalty under any rugby law you care to name. What the ELV's have done is reduce this to a free kick - so in affect the attacking team benefits again.

I can see how the ELV's have caused more counter-kicks - with the ball finding touch less a return kick is going to be the better option a lot of the time. If the return kick is a good one, another return kick will be the play. This all stems from not being able to carry the ball back in to the 22, and from not being able to kick the ball dead in goal.

Against teams with good defence there has always been more kicking. Hence our criticism of northern hemisphere teams for so long. But kicking was often their best option.

Under the ELV's many infringements that were previously penalties are now free kicks. This actually makes it a bit less risky to play rugby in your own half - as you are not giving away 3 points with every infringement.
 

Te Kaha

First Grade
Messages
5,998
Use it or lose it has been in before the ELV's. All the new laws did was introduce the idea to rucks. Previously the rule was used only for mauls.

But in practice, how many free kicks have you seen given because the ball is not coming out? The free kick is either for not rolling away - this rule clearly benefits the attacking side, or for not releasing - this is a penalty under any rugby law you care to name. What the ELV's have done is reduce this to a free kick - so in affect the attacking team benefits again.

I can see how the ELV's have caused more counter-kicks - with the ball finding touch less a return kick is going to be the better option a lot of the time. If the return kick is a good one, another return kick will be the play. This all stems from not being able to carry the ball back in to the 22, and from not being able to kick the ball dead in goal.

Against teams with good defence there has always been more kicking. Hence our criticism of northern hemisphere teams for so long. But kicking was often their best option.

Under the ELV's many infringements that were previously penalties are now free kicks. This actually makes it a bit less risky to play rugby in your own half - as you are not giving away 3 points with every infringement.

Are you kidding??? the reason there have been hardly any ruck turnovers IS BECAUSE OF ALL THE KICKING... nobody is running the ball back because they know they will most likely lose the ball... so they kick and chase... basically turning big passages of the game into force back... If they thought they had an even chance of retaining possestion there WOULD be more running...
 

Parra

Referee
Messages
24,900
We agree on the kicking - just not the cause of it.

You say it's the ELV breakdown laws

I'm saying it is defence & the 'taking it back' law.


There's been plenty of turnover ball - usually to do with teams not committing enough players to the breakdown, than anything else.
 

Latest posts

Top