Broadcast options for Australian Rugby

[Derpus]

Most people will probably not like this but I also think advantage should be exclusive for penalties. With either what you've suggested or set time period of say 10-15 seconds to achieve 10-15 metres. As for knock ons. If the opposition recovers the ball cleanly then it should just be play on and only held up if both teams knock it on. I also think advantage should be use it or lose it. Meaning that you have to actually attempt to make something of it. So if a team is awarded advantage and they choose to kick it then that's them choosing to not take it and the game just continues. Unless the advantage is for foul play of course.

Somewhat unrelated to the purpose of this convo but I wish they had a hard line for advantage. 10 or 15 metres, whatever. But it's consistently applied.

None of this shit where they go 35m down the field within a few metres of the try line and then lose it and go back for a shot at goal.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Somewhat unrelated to the purpose of this convo but I wish they had a hard line for advantage. 10 or 15 metres, whatever. But it's consistently applied.

None of this shit where they go 35m down the field within a few metres of the try line and then lose it and go back for a shot at goal.

Not unrelated to my post. That's what I'm suggesting. A hard line of 10 -15m beyond the point of the infringement. A team gets over it then great play on. If not then back we go. But with very strict time frames involved. Either X many phases or X many seconds (ideally 10-15 seconds).

 

[Sir Arthur Higgins]

Most people will probably not like this but I also think advantage should be exclusive for penalties. With either what you've suggested or set time period of say 10-15 seconds to achieve 10-15 metres. As for knock ons. If the opposition recovers the ball cleanly then it should just be play on and only held up if both teams knock it on. I also think advantage should be use it or lose it. Meaning that you have to actually attempt to make something of it. So if a team is awarded advantage and they choose to kick it then that's them choosing to not take it and the game just continues. Unless the advantage is for foul play of course.

Use it lose it would encourage more ball running or attacking kicking I guess.
There’s 5-7 easy tweaks that could be made

 

[dru]

Not unrelated to my post. That's what I'm suggesting. A hard line of 10 -15m beyond the point of the infringement. A team gets over it then great play on. If not then back we go. But with very strict time frames involved. Either X many phases or X many seconds (ideally 10-15 seconds).

I generally read that the advantage has been as the result of an action that pretty much deserves scoring, so the ref will play advantage until that opportunity is taken or blown. It often also means that the offending player dodges a bullet (card).

Not saying that complaints aren't valid, just how I see the interpretation.

 

[Sir Arthur Higgins]

I generally read that the advantage has been as the result of an action that pretty much deserves scoring, so the ref will play advantage until that opportunity is taken or blown. It often also means that the offending player dodges a bullet (card).

Not saying that complaints aren't valid, just how I see the interpretation.

Knock on advantage equals 5 or 10m
Penalty advantage = 15 or 20m
For both you have max three phases or 20 seconds
Don’t make it, ball comes back.

 

[Derpus]

Knock on advantage equals 5 or 10m
Penalty advantage = 15 or 20m
For both you have max three phases or 20 seconds
Don’t make it, ball comes back.

Feels kind of long

 

[Dan54]

Knock on advantage equals 5 or 10m
Penalty advantage = 15 or 20m
For both you have max three phases or 20 seconds
Don’t make it, ball comes back.

I would go go only 1 or 2 passes for knock on, I think penalty needs a much longer advantage than knock on.
Also to do that the ref needs to make sure everyone knows he is playing penalty advanatage. And I know there will be a heap more stoppages as players will tend to be pretty careful not to lose advantage.

 

[dru]

I would go go only 1 or 2 passes for knock on, I think penalty needs a much longer advantage than knock on.
Also to do that the ref needs to make sure everyone knows he is playing penalty advanatage. And I know there will be a heap more stoppages as players will tend to be pretty careful not to lose advantage.

Although - it also seems that everyone wants to reduce the number of scrums.

 

[Dan54]

Although - it also seems that everyone wants to reduce the number of scrums.

Yep it a very good point mate, the lass advantage the more stoppages etc, it's certainly a fine line to change if we want to keep game flowing.

 

[Adam84]

I would be happy with the number of scrums if they didn't take 2 mins to set and another 3mins of resets followed by a penalty based on a haphazard interpretation of what occurred.

They're supposed to be just a means to restart the play, but they've evolved into a part of the game that takes up a significant portion. Listen to the crowd when scrums are taking place, there's more groans from despondent fans waiting for something to happen then there is cheering.

 

[Members Section]

The Global youth 7's on stan now, our girls flogging Aoteroara Maori

 

[Dan54]

I would be happy with the number of scrums if they didn't take 2 mins to set and another 3mins of resets followed by a penalty based on a haphazard interpretation of what occurred.

They're supposed to be just a means to restart the play, but they've evolved into a part of the game that takes up a significant portion. Listen to the crowd when scrums are taking place, there's more groans from despondent fans waiting for something to happen then there is cheering.

Yep but the problem is we have proper scrums, and they not really just a way restarting play, that's what they do in league, in rugby they are and always have been a contest, like lineouts. I not sure what the answer is but the day they are just a way to restart and not a contest the game is history as such.

 

[Adam84]

I didn’t say they should be like league scrums. Go back to the 90s and early 00s they were much faster, still achieved the purpose of being a means to restart play and were competitive.

We’ve being brainwashed to believe that the only way to have a competitive scrum is for it to take a stupidly long time.

 

[Derpus]

I didn’t say they should be like league scrums. Go back to the 90s and early 00s they were much faster, still achieved the purpose of being a means to restart play and were competitive.

We’ve being brainwashed that the only way to have a competitive scrum is for it to take a stupidly long time.

I believe the argument is that modern scrums are safer.

Dunno bout that. But old school scrums certainly didn't involve the quivering mountains of man meat they do these days. Bigger forces involved (probably for the worse).

 

[Dan54]

I didn’t say they should be like league scrums. Go back to the 90s and early 00s they were much faster, still achieved the purpose of being a means to restart play and were competitive.

We’ve being brainwashed to believe that the only way to have a competitive scrum is for it to take a stupidly long time.

Agree mate, I kind of realised that what you meant, it's just a bug bear of mine when I hear anyone say scrums and lineouts are just a way to restart play. I know even when I played during 70-80s we used to spend a bit of time on scrumming at training to try and take other scrum apart. Though take your point on time they taking, a lot of that has come from how scrums have to be set after the rash of broken necks late 80s etc I believe.
Even in here have a look how many posts etc we see of players supposedly packing illegally etc, take me word for it in earlier yers even 90-00s it wasn't something that rugby watchers took any notice of. By geez those days the team with most skullduggery in scrums uaually got on top.

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

I believe the argument is that modern scrums are safer.

Dunno bout that. But old school scrums certainly didn't involve the quivering mountains of man meat they do these days. Bigger forces involved (probably for the worse).

If you ain’t cheating you ain’t trying at scrum time. Ask Bill Young.

The emphasis on safety or at least perceived safety which slowed the set up was a huge problem.

Seems to be better now than it was 2005-2015ish though.

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

How many people here have Amazon Prime?

I do, as it’s a lifesaver if you need kids stuff. Not bad shows either and their push into sports continues with the potential they may buy the failed Bally Sports in the US which broadcast 40 sides of various sports in their local markets.

They’re already heavily invested in Cricket and I wonder if it’s an option for Rugby?

I like Stan and would be happy for them to stay but just thinking of comparable services that may be able to bid as well.

 

[RugbyReg]

I don’t. But if rugby went there I’d ditch Stan and get it.

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

I do worry would they care about the Club stuff but it’s also such small fish they may take it if it helps a deal. Does Stan actually care

Any competition would be good for Rugby.

Streaming platforms aren’t access restrictive anymore. Even the most technically stubborn are using them now that the tech in TVs has made it as simple as finding a FTA channel.

 

[Adam84]

I don’t. But if rugby went there I’d ditch Stan and get it.

Stan is garbage beside the sport, they have barely any decent tv shows or movies. Same could be said about all SVOD platforms now though, increased number of platforms has diluted the quality of the product available to each one.