• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Australian Rugby / RA

Derpus

Nathan Sharpe (72)
Yeesh man. I love rugby but it's just a game.

The decision to not cut his pay seemed more a desperate ploy to try and keep him on board than something the man himself wanted.

By all accounts hes a good bloke and i dont see why he wouldnt want to share his portion of the burden we are all bearing at the moment.
 

wamberal

Phil Kearns (64)
Malcolm Knox - a rugby fan of old - now seriously arguing that RA flies a big white flag and merges with league here. Namely, the end of the end:

The only way something like this would happen would be if a local billionaire engineered a hybrid game, and it would certainly not encompass most of the rugby world. It might attract the Pacific Islands. And us.


So the "big white flag" would, in practical terms, have to be waved by rugby league. Rugby would continue everywhere else.



Can you seriously imagine the Brits and the rest of Europe giving up proper scrummaging?
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
One achievement: as spewing justified acid at the very complacency, unjustified arrogance and indolence that still exists today in the halls of RA and most of the local RUs. Right.In.Our.Faces.

Can't you see how little has really changed, even today, when we're at fucking death's door? Who exactly in positions of rugby power today is articulating the 'positive suggestions' you want? And where are yours, btw, as you seem to spit and crackle at some of us here.

Has one innovative, radical new change suggestion yet come out of any of the mouths of RA and the local RUs? Just one? Well maybe McLennan's super-hazy SOI idea, maybe that's one. Maybe the possibility - long overdue - of some rule tweaks for 2020 Super Rugby (such as it is). These will fix nothing central and core to our problems though.

Years back (just a few actually) when all that was wrong in these hallowed bodies was sort of cunningly hidden from view and the status-quo-forgiving-and-adoring mainstream rugby media and many, many posters here howled down voices that saw the appalling management and sick cultures in neon lights, then no one spoke out.

Pissing on 'loig' and 'the mungos' was the order of the day then, any critics were 'just negative', yes - that stream of always condescending stuff from most rugby followers, we always sort of knew best vs everybody else and would stay in our lofty towers as an 'elite' code that would surely never risk decline, let alone death. There's plenty of that tone still evident here, remarkably.

No Aust rugby change agent is ever good enough in many of the comments still alive today, remarkably. We approve of: none of them it seems.

We _might_ need some change, but, nonetheless, we want the ideal, elegant, approved change agent to appear that is just hygienically perfect in our respectful opinions for the very gentlemanly job at hand. No, we don't like the 10 Captains, we don't like A Jones, we don't approve of NFJ, we don't like Peter Wiggs, we don't like Papworth, we don't like News Corp. When will Jesus Christ himself return for the job?

Well, FFS, who exactly DO we like to get the change processes going? Do we think it will arrive via some kind of idealised auto-pilot process?

Speaking out strongly in protest and bringing attention to crass and disastrous incompetence does not always require an addendum of beautifully articulated solutions to still be of change-enabling value. Often the anger and real tough observations and truth-telling has to come first and in super load mode to hope to trigger some real change awareness and urgency, and then, when the conditions finally arrive to allow some genuine change, solutions will then start to gestate and hopefully bear fruit.

You've identified one of the main issues at play. None of the senior echelon of administrators want to change the fundamentals; they want Super Rugby in some form, they want NSWRU, QRU, ACTRU et al continuing their activities, they want SANZAAR/SANZAR, they want the NRC, they scoff and look down their noses at club rugby, they want they same RA board election "process" and on and on it goes.

It's as if all this is going to be magically fixed by getting South Africa out of Super Rugby and sacking a few middle managers.
 

liquor box

Peter Sullivan (51)
Malcolm Knox - a rugby fan of old - now seriously arguing that RA flies a big white flag and merges with league here. Namely, the end of the end:

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/why-it-makes-sense-for-union-and-league-to-merge-20200605-p54zv9.html

What would a merge achieve?

Everybody involved in Rugby could just go to League if they chose to, on some level they are involved in Rugby because they love it.

I would prefer Union to be rich and have money to make the game thrive, but even if RA as we know if failed and we were forced to play club rugby amateurs as Test players I would still follow the game.

These club rugby amateurs would still be the best in the country and if we managed to win a game every couple of years then imagine the joy we would feel.

I dont think people appreciate what a true underdog win represents, imagine being able to get the feeling that Japanese supporters have had at the last two world cups.

I will watch rugby in any form as I love the game. I do not enjoy League, and will not watch it not matter if a merger occurred because of the lack of enjoyment.
 

KOB1987

John Eales (66)
For starters the AAGPS and probably every other private school association wouldn’t do it. At the very least it would take them 200 years to debate it. So that kills it right there. Not to mention what the Northern Hemisphere and our friends across the Dutch would have to say about it.

Aside from that I can’t see the NRL players agreeing to go back to their roots (no pun intended, I mean the grassroots of their game, not random schoolgirls) and having to pack a scrum.
 

liquor box

Peter Sullivan (51)
The article also assumes that people dont like scrums. I love scrums, I do however get annoyed watching the clock count down for the resets. I would rather keep the contest of the scrum and stop the clock from the moment a decision is made that a scrum will occur until the ball is out.
 

hoggy

Nev Cottrell (35)
One achievement: as spewing justified acid at the very complacency, unjustified arrogance and indolence that still exists today in the halls of RA and most of the local RUs. Right.In.Our.Faces.

Can't you see how little has really changed, even today, when we're at fucking death's door? Who exactly in positions of rugby power today is articulating the 'positive suggestions' you want? And where are yours, btw, as you seem to spit and crackle at some of us here.

Has one innovative, radical new change suggestion yet come out of any of the mouths of RA and the local RUs? Just one? Well maybe McLennan's super-hazy SOI idea, maybe that's one. Maybe the possibility - long overdue - of some rule tweaks for 2020 Super Rugby (such as it is). These will fix nothing central and core to our problems though.

Years back (just a few actually) when all that was wrong in these hallowed bodies was sort of cunningly hidden from view and the status-quo-forgiving-and-adoring mainstream rugby media and many, many posters here howled down voices that saw the appalling management and sick cultures in neon lights, then no one spoke out.

Pissing on 'loig' and 'the mungos' was the order of the day then, any critics were 'just negative', yes - that stream of always condescending stuff from most rugby followers, we always sort of knew best vs everybody else and would stay in our lofty towers as an 'elite' code that would surely never risk decline, let alone death. There's plenty of that tone still evident here, remarkably.

No Aust rugby change agent is ever good enough in many of the comments still alive today, remarkably. We approve of: none of them it seems.

We _might_ need some change, but, nonetheless, we want the ideal, elegant, approved change agent to appear that is just hygienically perfect in our respectful opinions for the very gentlemanly job at hand. No, we don't like the 10 Captains, we don't like A Jones, we don't approve of NFJ, we don't like Peter Wiggs, we don't like Papworth, we don't like News Corp. When will Jesus Christ himself return for the job?

Well, FFS, who exactly DO we like to get the change processes going? Do we think it will arrive via some kind of idealised auto-pilot process?

Speaking out strongly in protest and bringing attention to crass and disastrous incompetence does not always require an addendum of beautifully articulated solutions to still be of change-enabling value. Often the anger and real tough observations and truth-telling has to come first and in super load mode to hope to trigger some real change awareness and urgency, and then, when the conditions finally arrive to allow some genuine change, solutions will then start to gestate and hopefully bear fruit.

A fantastic post that should be read.
 

KOB1987

John Eales (66)
The article also assumes that people dont like scrums. I love scrums, I do however get annoyed watching the clock count down for the resets. I would rather keep the contest of the scrum and stop the clock from the moment a decision is made that a scrum will occur until the ball is out.
Small modification, a scrum is pretty taxing on the players actually packing it. It’s probably actually the most energy consuming component of the game, particularly for the front rowers, and second rowers to a lesser extent. To remove it from the clock would be abhorrent. So put a clock on it, 60 seconds, use it or lose it.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
Small modification, a scrum is pretty taxing on the players actually packing it. It’s probably actually the most energy consuming component of the game, particularly for the front rowers, and second rowers to a lesser extent. To remove it from the clock would be abhorrent. So put a clock on it, 60 seconds, use it or lose it.

The problem with scrums is that referees and administrators have allowed them to be transformed from a method of restarting play and deciding possession after a minor infringement to a device for obtaining penalties to kick for goal or territory.

The purpose of a scrum is to restart play with a contest for possession after a minor infringement or stoppage.

Reasonably easy to fix most of it.

As you say, time limit on the scrum with a free kick against the team not ready

Once the ball gets to the back of the scrum then penalties are off the table - use it or lose it. (exception only for pushover attempt at an attacking 5m scrum)


Note this example from 1964 and see how quickly the ball gets back into play at scums and lineouts. I purposely picked an old 5N game to show that the NH wasn't always so obssessed with this nonsense. You only have to watch for about 90 seconds to see 4 lineouts and a scrum. The scrum is called at 1.14 and is packed and the ball in out by 1.26.



Then watch this where France clearly win the ball at a scrum, have clean front foot ball but decide to play of a penalty instead of using the ball - and the ref rewards it.

 

formerflanker

Ken Catchpole (46)
QH, the scrum law changes were designed to stop scrum related injuries.
From a free-for-all packing of the scrum to today's interminable precision driven system of packing, laws and procedures have changed a lot.
Any new law must take the best of both extremes - speed for entertainment and safety for players.
I note from your footage that most players ran to the set piece after the refs whistle to stop play.
Don't see much of that today.
 

formerflanker

Ken Catchpole (46)
Another thought for speeding up the game - no stoppages for injury.
I mean, you didn't see Charlton Heston stop his chariot for downed charioteers did you?
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
QH, the scrum law changes were designed to stop scrum related injuries.
From a free-for-all packing of the scrum to today's interminable precision driven system of packing, laws and procedures have changed a lot.
Any new law must take the best of both extremes - speed for entertainment and safety for players.
I note from your footage that most players ran to the set piece after the refs whistle to stop play.
Don't see much of that today.

Absolutely there's now a safety factor as the scrums are more structured and thus more power goes through the front rows. But there's no need for them to take as long as they now do.

I think KOBs suggestion about a 60 second limit provides enough time for a safe scrum. FK against the team not ready. I'll bet that teams with a good scrum will suddenly be able to organise themselves very quickly.
 

WorkingClassRugger

Michael Lynagh (62)
Absolutely there's now a safety factor as the scrums are more structured and thus more power goes through the front rows. But there's no need for them to take as long as they now do.

I think KOBs suggestion about a 60 second limit provides enough time for a safe scrum. FK against the team not ready. I'll bet that teams with a good scrum will suddenly be able to organise themselves very quickly.


Much of the issues surrounding the scrum come down to the collective skullduggery going on between packs. Which needs to be stopped. Yes, the scrum should be about technique and team work but there's far too much silly buggers going on around angling and weight distribution etc around the engagement all designed to milk the penalty.
 
Top