Rugby losing its entertainment value ?

[Thomas]

Just glad I'm a Reds follower.

Now there's entertaining rugby at its best. They don't die wondering!

They also don't win...but at least they give it s shot.

 

[Te Kaha]

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.

The "taking it back" law predated the ELV's... the kicking did not... the strong defences predated the ELV's... the kicking did not... the ELV's are the cause of the kicking... while most of the ELV's are great, the use it or lose it rule for rucks means running the ball is more likely to result in a turnover... therefore they kick... it needs to go!!

 

[shiznit]

Just glad I'm a Reds follower.

Now there's entertaining rugby at its best. They don't die wondering!

They also don't win...but at least they give it s shot.

yeah... i bet being a reds fan is great... those annual wooden spoon battles with the cheetahs would be cracker jack football..

 

[Mr Angry]

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

I agree here, I never know who is actually playing who.
It's all good to have a mascot, but tables should read Christchurch, Durban, NSW etc.

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.

Been saying that for ages, kickby.

I try every now and then to watch a game, but end up turning off, as they simply kick far to much.

 

[Parra]

The "taking it back" law predated the ELV's... the kicking did not... the strong defences predated the ELV's... the kicking did not... the ELV's are the cause of the kicking... while most of the ELV's are great, the use it or lose it rule for rucks means running the ball is more likely to result in a turnover... therefore they kick... it needs to go!!

And how many turnovers have you seen from this obscure infringement? As I mentioned earlier - a ref is much more likely to blow a kick for the defender not rolling away. In most cases this would be the cause of a ball being unable to be retrieved. You'll notice that in almost all cases, this is the case and the team that takes it in gets the free kick, all other things being equal.

Some shocking handling skills from some backlines would be the main reason No 10's are being told to kick it this year. I just wish the kicks had more thought behind them.

 

[shiznit]

I agree here, I never know who is actually playing who.
It's all good to have a mascot, but tables should read Christchurch, Durban, NSW etc.

Been saying that for ages, kickby.

I try every now and then to watch a game, but end up turning off, as they simply kick far to much.

er... the Crusaders arent just Christchurch.. they would be Canterbury. it would be like renaming NSW to Sydney.

 

[Solid]

I think the set pieces take far too long. Scrums are constantly reset again and again. Same goes for line outs. The ref always interferes to fix the gaps between the two teams.

There is too much kicking. Once a team has territorial advantage through winning the kicking duel. They conservatively ruck until a penalty is blown.

There needs to be a points restructure for tries and penalty goals. Fans want too see tries!

I like the role technology plays in Union more than in League, but its making both games just too slow.

 

[Parra]

A reduction in the value of penalty and field goals, with a corresponding increase in yellow cards issued for infringements, might help with fans appetite for tries.

Personally, I want to see a good contest. No need for more tries, any more than there's a need for more sixes in test cricket.

Sport should not always cater to the lowest common denominator. Unfortunately, that seems to be the trend.

 

[Parra]

I get sick of officials coaching sides - telling them how to pack scrums, or how to set a lineout. I agree with solid in that regard.

There is no reason the ref can't do all that before the game - even at a pre arranged session for test matches, so that it doesn't happen during the match.

 

[shiznit]

leave the points alone.... we already have RL... i dont see why RU should go that way.

RU is all about set piece contests... what needs to happen is refs need to be tougher on weaker teams at set piece time. the only time we get scrums restarting heaps is if a ref keeps blowing it up to protect a weaker pack of forwards.

the game of RU is doing fine in Europe, Japan & South Africa. they get good crowds to the games. its just the administrators here need to sort there sh*t out...

NZ rugby is in the sh*thouse at the moment because there trying to make a quick buck by accommodating the hopeless ARU.

 

[Te Kaha]

And how many turnovers have you seen from this obscure infringement?

BECAUSE THEY ARE KICKING THE BALL AWAY!!! how many interviews with coaches and players does there have to be where they all say we cant afford to attack from a kick because we will probably lose the ball... They know this because after kick is taken the kicking team has the advantage of the extra split second it takes for the retreating team to go behind the last mans feet to enter the ruck, while the kicking team can hit it head on...

 

[wittyfan]

Witty will revive rugby imho.

 

[KHunt]

Are you a chick or a guy

 

[Iafeta]

One of the major issues for me is if you make a line break, and then cover defence gets you, there's a significant chance you're going to turn the ball over because the cover D is able to get back on their feet and rip the ball off you. So I think team's become a bit kick happy because holding on the ball has it's own perils. It becomes too territory based rather than possession based.

In other codes, football, league et al, if you break through the line you're generally at an advantage. Here it seems if you break the line, you risk turning the pill over cheaply.

 

[Parra]

It becomes too territory based rather than possession based.

The only footy code that is possession based rather than territory is rugby 7's.

Territory advantage wins games. Always has.

 

[Solid]

One of the major issues for me is if you make a line break, and then cover defence gets you, there's a significant chance you're going to turn the ball over because the cover D is able to get back on their feet and rip the ball off you. So I think team's become a bit kick happy because holding on the ball has it's own perils. It becomes too territory based rather than possession based.

In other codes, football, league et al, if you break through the line you're generally at an advantage. Here it seems if you break the line, you risk turning the pill over cheaply.

Yep agree, too much kicking. Emphasis is on opposition knocking on rather than regathering possession. Sames goes for possession. Pretty much they conservatively ruck until the other team cracks and concedes a penalty.

 

[Different kind of Rabbit]

The scrum used to be a real bonus for Union and lately it has become a major drawback. Watched a game a few weeks back, (I think it was the Waratahs and someone else) and the ref had five attempts at packing a scrum before it was packed to his liking. On the fifth attempt, one of the front rowers could be heard on the ref's mic saying that he'd like to pack again but was too worn out from packing down four previous times, to do so!

As a lot of the previous posters have mentioned, until you change the reward for effort structure in this game, it will not improve either. Their is more reward for kicking up field then there is for moving the ball up field through effort. It has become a game of 15 man a side force em backs with the odd line out and scrum thrown in.

Not sure how you improve it or open it up a bit, but the game certainly needs to be opened up a bit.

 

[Iafeta]

The only footy code that is possession based rather than territory is rugby 7's.

Territory advantage wins games. Always has.

Most rugby league teams will go through to the last tackle before kicking. It'd be less than 10% that teams don't deliberately give over possession for territory before their final allotment of tackles is up.

 

[nyfg89]

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.

The ARU is the only one that really wants the Super 14's competition. If you remember in the early 90's rugby union in Australia was dead, then they started the super 10's and pay TV came along and locked up the television rights so the ARU gets guaranteed money from pay TV.
Can you imagine a commercial TV station going out on a limb and stacking up a club rugby game of Randwick v University on a Saturday night against St George v Broncos and Carlton v Geelong?
Your theory of the top 4 teams in SA and NZ works fine because those countries live and breathe rugby union but here in Australia no one gives a rats about it apart from the die hards, you'd be lucky to get 200 people at a club game in Sydney, can you imagine trying to get 4 competitive club rugby teams from Australia to compete against the South African and Kiwi club rugby teams?
The ARU was onto a good idea a couple of years ago when they started the National Rugby competition, I don't know why they didn't preserver with it.

 

[shiznit]

The ARU is the only one that really wants the Super 14's competition. If you remember in the early 90's rugby union in Australia was dead, then they started the super 10's and pay TV came along and locked up the television rights so the ARU gets guaranteed money from pay TV.
Can you imagine a commercial TV station going out on a limb and stacking up a club rugby game of Randwick v University on a Saturday night against St George v Broncos and Carlton v Geelong?
Your theory of the top 4 teams in SA and NZ works fine because those countries live and breathe rugby union but here in Australia no one gives a rats about it apart from the die hards, you'd be lucky to get 200 people at a club game in Sydney, can you imagine trying to get 4 competitive club rugby teams from Australia to compete against the South African and Kiwi club rugby teams?
The ARU was onto a good idea a couple of years ago when they started the National Rugby competition, I don't know why they didn't preserver with it.

thats exactly it mate... the ARU need to have a National Rugby Competition... if they bring that competition back then they can build on it... if it loses money then so be it... they take it on the chin as a loss.

the way its going the ARU are bringing both the NZRFU & SARFU down with them with insisting to expand super rugby. thankfully SA are telling them to get farked.