Search results

When people suggest Australia should go it alone we are talking about domestic level - not test level. Australian rugby loses money on Super Rugby. It is propped up by the Wallabies. It's a pretty bad model. The status quo is what's sending the ARU and the super rugby teams bankrupt. A...

Don't think I like the format. 7's is good because of its shortness and you get to watch different match ups in quick succession. Make games too long and I think it would be tedious. Some games could be 200-0, while the close ones would only get interesting at the end. A longer 7's format...

Maybe at halfway, but you're hardly going to do that when you've got a scrum in centre field on the 22. Watching a dominant scrum is great, and there should be reward for dominance. But the reward shouldn't be an automatic 3 points every time there's a scrum in the opposition half. But I'm...

Well I think you're just incredibly conservative. Rugby is losing the battle for eye balls in Australia. Well and truly. And if you ever ask fringe fans of the game (or sports fans that don't like rugby) what they don't like about it, the amount of penalty goals is a common answer. It's...

They also won't groan or boo when a team decides to kick for goal for the 4th or 5th time. They'd just remain engaged with the game. Actually I think people would cheer the awarding of the penalty more than they do now because they'd know their team was about to have a great attacking...

You must find it a real mystery when a team decides to kick for a 5m lineout from a penalty and everyone cheers. 5m lineouts and pick and drives close to the line are better to watch than a team being on attack and then everything stopping for a minute or two while one guy takes a kick at...

You lose much more than 10 minutes. If what you suggest became law it would take almost 4 hours for a game of rugby to finish. Currently, in an 80 minute game there is about 35 minutes of ball in play. I wouldn't go as extreme as you suggest (soccer and rugby league, for example don't have...

Very interested to see what sort of crowd they get. Would be amazing if it's a sell out or close to it. I think if publicised well they could get a fair few people along for the novelty / event factor. Hopefully the All Blacks play crap and the Eagles play the game of their lives and keep the...

Most fringe fans and sports fans that don't like rugby I've ever come across in Australia do have a problem with penalty goals. And time wasting, and stodgy play aimed at 'winning' penalties. I don't think most rugby fans find penalty goals enjoyable either. It's why whenever this topic comes...

This is such a straw man argument by the way. I don't want to see tries, tries, tries. I want to see teams playing rugby for more than 35 minutes out of 80. I don't want to watch one guy from each team take multiple unchallenged attempts at goal every second time the referee blows his whistle...

Yes, so the only constant is change. Rugby, like a lot of sports has evolved considerably and continues to do so. Many things that used to be integral parts of the game no longer exist. Just because something has existed for a while doesn't mean it is a good thing nor that it should always...

Rugby didn't originally have penalty goals. And for ages there was the goal from mark. Was it batshit crazy to get rid of that? I think it would improve the game considerably so long as you use yellow cards more readily for cynical or repeated infringements. It would increase the ball in...

Part of the complexity at the moment is the difference in the law between a tackle and a ruck. When it's just a tackle there's no offside line and you can use your hands. The second it becomes a ruck there's an offside line, you can't use your hands and the tackler must come through the gate...

Don't listen to the 'don't try anything' brigade. We should absolutely use the NRC to trial law variations that will encourage positive rugby and increase ball in play time (without increasing the time matches take to finish). Plus, if we trial variations that work it gives greater impetus for...

Why? All the squads would be recruiting from largely different playing bases. I think you're underestimating the growing strength of world rugby. And the tier 2 nations struggle to get their best players into professional squads because their only realistic options are in Europe. And there's...

No, not really. Not as one isolated team anyway, only in SANZAR land. It would make a lot more sense if there were 2 of them. And how do you expect a S17 would work? A straight round robin where every team plays each other once is not going to happen because the travel would be...

I think a 7th South African based team is probably more likely. An Asian based team in a South African conference doesn't make much sense. The whole thing has become one big compromise that doesn't work for anyone. If the goal is to have a global tournament they should be doing it quicker.

Personally I think SANZAR is expanding too slowly into Asia. I'd be happy for them to introduce 2 or 3 Asian based teams in one go. But they're not doing that. They're introducing one at most...and into an African conference no less. Singapore is perhaps a slightly better location from an...

If rugby was as popular in Germany as it is in Italy for example I have little doubt they'd have a strong national team. Maybe one day. I think the key for any of these developing nations is to get as many players as possible in professional squads. Then their national teams can become more...

It's no where near enough considering most of those Poms and Australians wouldn't be rugby fans. If the Singapore government is backing it that's great, but it won't help the competition if not many people are interested. SANZAR should be more concerned about creating a great competition...