Broadcast options for Australian Rugby

[Jimmy_Crouch]

The pathway needs to be clear. Each QPR club should create an alliance to a QLD region. Form strong relationships so when a kid does decide to move to the city they already have a network at a particular club (doesn't mean they have to go there but it is a start). NRC should be based on North v South of the River clubs. This then makes it easier for a supporter to follow. Currently my club has players on both teams so who am I to support?

100%. NRC can work if you get the correct alignment between club and province. NCC will only strengthen the strong clubs and kill the weaker ones.

NRC just needs some tweaks. There needs clear lines of developmental pathways. In QLD, rather than City and Country we need North of the River and South of the river. Premier teams align to those team.

The issue I have had is that supporting Wests we have players in City and Country so who do I support when they play each other?

As long as they get adequate support from the state unions (cough nsw cough cough). Reds took the right approach but would prefer to see clubs more strongly aligned to a NRC team (in QLD I’d like to see North clubs v South of the river clubs)

My idea would be for NSWRU/SRU/NSWCRU to align each country region with a Shute Shield club. Forge ties so that good young country kids that want to move to Sydney already have a path and a support structure. I doesn't have to be a firm rule but just work to develop closer ties. Helping people get jobs etc. Maybe once a year a game can be played in that region.

Each Shute Shield team should be aligned to an NRC team (geographically). NRC teams can only be selected from those clubs forcing players at Shute Shield level to potentially shift clubs to get selected in NRC. This would help re-align talent in the Shute Shield.

I'd also have a bye in Super Rugby once a year and call it back to club day where all the the Super Rugby players play a round of Shute Shield. The draw must alternate each year so teams who played away then get to play at home the next year.

As long as they get adequate support from the state unions (cough nsw cough cough). Reds took the right approach but would prefer to see clubs more strongly aligned to a NRC team (in QLD I’d like to see North clubs v South of the river clubs)

If you had an NRC tier whereby you could only be selected from the teams feeder Shute Shield clubs you would spread the talent in SS.

I think I've made my points on this one across a number of threads. So anyone for North v South of the River? But basically SS/QPR are interchangeable in these arguments.

 

[dru]

I think I've made my points on this one across a number of threads. So anyone for North v South of the River? But basically SS/QPR are interchangeable in these arguments.

I don't ,mind the way it is now. If you were to build a "Country" separately, and then split Brisbane/SEQ it is good a split as any. I'd stick with two teams and the way we have started NRC. It works.

 

[Dan54]

I really like the ideas being thrown around here, who's sent a link to RA??
Reckon you would feel if one or more of these ideas are used, there is great hope for Aussie rugby!

 

[Rugbynutter39]

here you go!

View attachment 12828

Prefer nrc which has more teams and hence pathway opportunities for best club players to tout their wares. Ie 2 teams each for nsw and qld, plus throw in drua

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I really like the ideas being thrown around here, who's sent a link to RA??
Reckon you would feel if one or more of these ideas are used, there is great hope for Aussie rugby!

I think for RA it is more the money / funding issue

 

[Dan54]

I think for RA it is more the money / funding issue

Oh I sure it is too RN, and I sure really they are as aware of what is required a lot more than us!

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

here you go!

View attachment 12828

Looking at those squads a part of me wonders if another possible way of developing a '3rd Tier' (which yes, I hate that term as well) would be to kind of look to resurrect the GRR to a degree. The President of the new Japanese League One structure has openly stated that they are interested in the likes of Hong Kong and Hyundai Glovis entering their system in the years to come. The former GRR venture the China Lions are actively pursuing entry into the NZ provincial structures. Why not look to engage with them? I'm not suggesting flying teams over to HK, Korea or China. More doing what is done in the Aus. Baseball League. They host a mostly Korean based squad based out of Geelong.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

BBL is only 8 teams, they have no established tribal following from club teams and are completely fabricated brands and teams. It’s a successful competition minus test players.

It’s possible for rugby.

I've quite liked the idea of a Rugby version of the BBL for some time. I'd even like to see some tweaks involve particularly if it were to be scheduled later in the year. People will hate this but something similar to the concept for a Super Rugby reserve comp Pulver initially proposed. With reduced numbers (12 a side) and game play (30 min halves). Alongside initiatives designed to improve the over flow of the game. And no. I'm not suggesting removing any of the fundamental elements around structure and the contest for possession.

 

[Adam84]

honestly if you’re going BBL style, which is closer to 7s rugby then test rugby, then you might as well go full gaudy and introduce things like the Powerplay, a 10min period where the captain can elect for the opposing team to drop one player.

Have a 10min Power-surge period either side of half time where all tries get converted from in front of the posts.

Yeah purists won’t like it, but beggars can’t be choosers and if that’s the kind of novelty factor that will attract extra eyeballs required to pay the bills, then I say fuck it and do it.

 

[PhilClinton]

honestly if you’re going BBL style, which is closer to 7s rugby then test rugby, then you might as well go full gaudy and introduce things like the Powerplay, a 10min period where the captain can elect for the opposing team to drop one player.

Have a 10min Power-surge period either side of half time where all tries get converted from in front of the posts.

Yeah purists won’t like it, but beggars can’t be choosers and if that’s the kind of novelty factor that will attract extra eyeballs required to pay the bills, then I say fuck it and do it.

I mean the NRC in it's first format already did something similar didn't they? Maybe I am crossing my memories but didn't they change the amount of points awarded for penalties, drop goals and tries to make the play more attacking focussed?

 

[dru]

I've quite liked the idea of a Rugby version of the BBL for some time. I'd even like to see some tweaks involve particularly if it were to be scheduled later in the year. People will hate this but something similar to the concept for a Super Rugby reserve comp Pulver initially proposed. With reduced numbers (12 a side) and game play (30 min halves). Alongside initiatives designed to improve the over flow of the game. And no. I'm not suggesting removing any of the fundamental elements around structure and the contest for possession.

No.

honestly if you’re going BBL style, which is closer to 7s rugby then test rugby, then you might as well go full gaudy and introduce things like the Powerplay, a 10min period where the captain can elect for the opposing team to drop one player.

Have a 10min Power-surge period either side of half time where all tries get converted from in front of the posts.

Yeah purists won’t like it, but beggars can’t be choosers and if that’s the kind of novelty factor that will attract extra eyeballs required to pay the bills, then I say fuck it and do it.

No.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

No.



No.

I'm not actually suggesting we change the fundamental elements of the game. Rucks, scrums, lineouts and mauls would all still be preserved. The central tenant of the contest would be first and foremost. It would still be the same game at its core just with 6 fewer players opening up more space and shorter halves. The primary goal would be to promote a better flow to the game while looking to package it in a shorter format.

 

[Adam84]

No.



No.

Do you consider the BBL as a negative for Australian cricket?

 

[dru]

Do you consider the BBL as a negative for Australian cricket?

Adam, with respect I have absolutely no interest in cricket, this is a rugby forum and I hadn't considered that would be an issue. Though I do understand that this can be considered, with some legitimacy, as anti-Australian from a sporting point of view. FWIW I have never watched big bash, rarely watch more than a couple of overs in any given test (and I have more interest in playing India than England). I have been to a total of one only day night game. It was entertaining. But it wasn't rugby.

I suppose I understand the concept of limited over v tests though I never understood tests that much either. Would not 7s be the equivalent of big bash? I have limited interest in 7s as well. But you might understand that I have no opinion on whether BBL is good for cricket and if I did it would be an opinion that had little merit.

Back to rugby. Rugby requires 15 people on the ground from each side. imho. Otherwise I would be following mungo. Which I don't. If they ever remove the breakaways, I will swap to NFL. If you want mindless hoopla entertainment, no-one does it better than the Yanks. Hard to call it sport, but it is entertainment.

 

[dru]

I'm not actually suggesting we change the fundamental elements of the game. Rucks, scrums, lineouts and mauls would all still be preserved. The central tenant of the contest would be first and foremost. It would still be the same game at its core just with 6 fewer players opening up more space and shorter halves. The primary goal would be to promote a better flow to the game while looking to package it in a shorter format.

That is not rugby. We have enough competitors to our sport without creating yet another one. I would certainly switch away with that sort of proposal.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Adam, with respect I have absolutely no interest in cricket, this is a rugby forum and I hadn't considered that would be an issue. Though I do understand that this can be considered, with some legitimacy, as anti-Australian from a sporting point of view. FWIW I have never watched big bash, rarely watch more than a couple of overs in any given test (and I have more interest in playing India than England). I have been to a total of one only day night game. It was entertaining. But it wasn't rugby.

I suppose I understand the concept of limited over v tests though I never understood tests that much either. Would not 7s be the equivalent of big bash? I have limited interest in 7s as well. But you might understand that I have no opinion on whether BBL is good for cricket and if I did it would be an opinion that had little merit.

Back to rugby. Rugby requires 15 people on the ground from each side. imho. Otherwise I would be following mungo. Which I don't. If they ever remove the breakaways, I will swap to NFL. If you want mindless hoopla entertainment, no-one does it better than the Yanks. Hard to call it sport, but it is entertainment.

On your last paragraph. Specifically on the bit where you state that Rugby requires 15 people on the pitch. Well, that's not according to World Rugby. Outside of their recognition of both 7s and 10s as Rugby they've recently released a codified set of modifications to the game designed to drive participation and growth. Which among other thing allows for playing games with reduced time and number of players. Among other things.

What I've suggested is in line with WR (World Rugby) guidance.

My perspective on what constitutes Rugby isn't the number of people on the field. It's the central tenant of the contest for possession being present in all aspects of play. Which would still be present with 12 a side played over 60 minutes as it is with 15 over 80. Or 7s. Or 10s.

 

[Dan54]

That is not rugby. We have enough competitors to our sport without creating yet another one. I would certainly switch away with that sort of proposal.

I really agree with dru wholeheartedly. I can't see having a game of reduced nimbers doing anything really to help. For one it would not really do the job of building depth of players to play how you want them to, anymore than T20 builds test players in cricket.
And secondly I not don't think it will help increase the number of spectators at all, I would think the odd number that will come along for curiosity will be no more than the number that will be truned off because it not rugby. First thing that will go as dru says is flankers/loosies and so people that want to watch that will be down at the league grounds.
Perhaps I just old, but I go along with dru strongly we have a great game already, and I sure Aus wants to build depth in 15 aside not 10-12 aside.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I really agree with dru wholeheartedly. I can't see having a game of reduced nimbers doing anything really to help. For one it would not really do the job of building depth of players to play how you want them to, anymore than T20 builds test players in cricket.
And secondly I not don't think it will help increase the number of spectators at all, I would think the odd number that will come along for curiosity will be no more than the number that will be truned off because it not rugby. First thing that will go as dru says is flankers/loosies and so people that want to watch that will be down at the league grounds.
Perhaps I just old, but I go along with dru strongly we have a great game already, and I sure Aus wants to build depth in 15 aside not 10-12 aside.

And yet T20 has actually launched a number of Cricket careers. David Warner is a prime example. Literally burst onto the scene playing T20 and worked his way to the Test team.

As I said in my reply to Dru. WR (World Rugby) has come out in the last month with a range of approved modifications two of which were reduced halves and player numbers. I don't understand the insistence of their needing to be 30 players on the pitch for it to be considered Rugby. Frankly that's a new one. I've always thought the contest was what was sacred in Rugby. But no. It's the number of people on the pitch?

The very suggestion of trying something that fits within WR (World Rugby) framework is being treated like a fundamental altering of how the game is played. Which is a little silly to be honest. The game has changed in the past. And has recently. This whole argument feels like the reaction the 50/22 idea got early on. Cries of degrading the game and trying to turn it into League. Now, I seen far more praise for it than criticism. And no mention of the rarely seen goal line drop out. Which suggests it's working.

I'm not looking to change the game. Just improve the flow. When Rugby is being played with fluency and ball movement it's hugely entertaining. Trying something to enhance that can only be beneficial.

 

[Dan54]

I understand what you saying WCR and as you say Warner may of launched his career with T20, same as Lomu, Chritian Cullen etc launched their rugby careers with 7s, still not the way to promote or build depth in my opinion.
And I see what you mean about WR (World Rugby) allowing for contests between lesser numbers, but I think that is more so teams struggling for numbers at club level etc can still play, rather than suggesting whole comps should be built around it.
And I know you can still have a contest for the ball, but really don't think it is what will attract people to the game or more importantly really help build depth for Aus rugby for next step up.
Still just an opinion, but will be intersted if there a lot of support for idea.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I understand what you saying WCR and as you say Warner may of launched his career with T20, same as Lomu, Chritian Cullen etc launched their rugby careers with 7s, still not the way to promote or build depth in my opinion.
And I see what you mean about WR (World Rugby) allowing for contests between lesser numbers, but I think that is more so teams struggling for numbers at club level etc can still play, rather than suggesting whole comps should be built around it.
And I know you can still have a contest for the ball, but really don't think it is what will attract people to the game or more importantly really help build depth for Aus rugby for next step up.
Still just an opinion, but will be intersted if there a lot of support for idea.

A couple of things. You don't think a format of the game that promotes free flowing play and ball in hand Rugby wouldn't attract interest? Because I do. It's why I supported the introduction of the 50/22 - 22/50 variation. And the goal line dropout. They sought to improve on the overall flow of the game.

People aren't attracted to a sport because of the number of players on a team. They want to see a game played with fluency and skill. How many players on the pitch isn't a fundamental spent to that. Hell. It hinders it at times. Professional Rugby players are bigger, faster and fitter than ever. They can cover the field far better now than before. But we still cling to notions of if there are 30 blokes bashing each other on the pitch it isn't Rugby.

It's that kind of entrenched thinking that holds the game back while others (not just League by the way) are willing to make changes to appeal to broader audiences.

As for depth. I disagree. 12 a side would actually feature the core skilled positions needed in the game. With the bonus of focusing more on overall fitness and skill execution in my opinion.