Broadcast options for Australian Rugby

[The Ghost of Raelene]

Nothing wrong with owning their own product and have full control. These guys have enough contacts to not miss a beat.

Try and pick up a some advertising if they get enough listeners.

 

[Wallaby Man]

Two and two would suggest neither RA nor GBR were willing to renew? Seems an interesting choice considering it was seemingly a big success, but happy they're persisting

Serious question but they were aligned?

 

[Wallaby Man]

Bringing extra credence to multiple comps and trophies to be played for over the season for our Super Rugby sides, just like they do in Europe across almost every sport. But the NBA just ran their first in season tournament to massive success. Tv ratings were very impressive. Let’s get the SRAU running in some form or another asap. Build some quality tv content to package up for the next tv rights.

 

[LeCheese]

Serious question but they were aligned?

With RA? I'm not sure it was ever confirmed, but the presence of Harvey Norman as a sponsor and their appearances on RA socials would suggest that they were. If they were, obviously they were given a pretty long leash - which is possibly why they aren't being renewed...

 

[mst]

Wasn't really sure where to post this but thought I'd drop it here because I hope it gets some media attention and is brought to light during the season.

RWC final TMO steps away due to abuse

The television match official from the Rugby World Cup final stepped away from the international game "for the foreseeable future" on Monday.

www.espn.com.au

Our organisations and even the players themselves need to really get more vocal about the fan base not doing this sort of shit. And not to pick on the players but the constant arguing of decisions on the field to refs these days doesn't help. Not just in rugby either, every call in any sport these days causes an uproar. Might be time that dissent is treated as harshly as tackling above the sternum.

I know it's impossible to completely control behaviours and there are plenty of dickheads in the world. But maybe if we get some messages coming from the players whom these fans are allegedly protecting with their abuse it would help reduce it.

I will preface this with the fact that i find the abuse absolutely unacceptable and disgusting.

I do think it could be good Rugby could do some significant research key areas of agitation around the officiating and then look objectively at the laws of the game and see if there is any causation linkages. It might identify the key where changes may reduce the likelihood of abuse or fan reactions.

IMHO, apart from the laws being vague and open to too much interpretation, the fact the referees tend to "coach" players to keep the game flowing (which should be a signal that the laws are an issue) rather than penailse, may have or is creating some of the issues. It has instilled a behaviour in players to push the boundaries to get the warning and be coached out of infringements so have lost the fear of being penalised. Situations like advantage being called and a team deliberately committing another (professional) foul to kill the play is also ridiculous. But then again, so is the referee deciding if its advantage or not. You choose to play the advantage, its up to you to make it work is my preference. Add in the Assistants who seem to be insufficiently empowered and limited in what they could contribute, as well as decisions being deferred to a TMO who appears to have more influence over a game than the head referee, and complexities in laws so you can no longer understand what is backwards, I am unsurprised at the level of frustration fans may feel (but it doesn't justify any abuse).

Maybe we could learn a lesson from the AFL about the speed and flow of the game and umpire decisions. If an umpire makes a poor call in general play, the decision is made quickly so the play moves on so not allowing anyone to dwell or question a decision. As the game moves on quickly so does the fans attention.

Reducing TMO checks and possibly moving to the NFL system where the head referee does the review themselves (watches a sideline TV screen and directs what vision they want to see) may also be more palatable to fans rather than the current system of the TMO making decisions in isolation.

 

[PhilClinton]

I think one of the main issues which makes the simplification of rules etc hard is rugby has always been the more complex game in terms of restarts and contests for the ball at every tackle.

We have so many aspects of our game and at restart points where there is a genuine contest for possession and ascendancy. Then you look at something like league where they have deliberately made the scrum useless and even removed it from play restarts.

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

I think there is some low hanging fruit Rugby could jump on to make gains. I remember in the NRC the ability to take a quick tap from within a certain distance of the mark. I don't remember the exact distance but felt about 1.5m or so. How many times do we see a 9 sprint up to try and take one to be called back by the ref with a "no no, on the mark please"

I think changes like that can get a game rolling and promote attacking play and fatigue which opens up the game late.

 

[Homer]

I think there is some low hanging fruit Rugby could jump on to make gains. I remember in the NRC the ability to take a quick tap from within a certain distance of the mark. I don't remember the exact distance but felt about 1.5m or so. How many times do we see a 9 sprint up to try and take one to be called back by the ref with a "no no, on the mark please"

I think changes like that can get a game rolling and promote attacking play and fatigue which opens up the game late.

And speeding up the lineouts. No more pod discussions before walking in. After the ball crosses the sideline you have 20 seconds to get it in.

 

[LeCheese]

I agree with your sentiment, and I'm not trying to pick holes in your argument, but just a few things to consider:

IMHO, apart from the laws being vague and open to too much interpretation, the fact the referees tend to "coach" players to keep the game flowing (which should be a signal that the laws are an issue) rather than penailse, may have or is creating some of the issues. ... Situations like advantage being called and a team deliberately committing another (professional) foul to kill the play is also ridiculous.

As @PhilClinton said, the complexity of rugby requires an element of 'grey' in the rules - we saw the effects of trying to be too black and white when the revised head contact rules first came in. If deliberate fouls to kill the advantage were outlawed, how would that be enforced? Who's to say whether a knock on, forward pass, etc. was deliberate? If a team with advantage wishes to take the penalty, aren't they within their rights to do so?

Maybe we could learn a lesson from the AFL about the speed and flow of the game and umpire decisions. If an umpire makes a poor call in general play, the decision is made quickly so the play moves on so not allowing anyone to dwell or question a decision. As the game moves on quickly so does the fans attention.

Ironically, along with the pace and flowing nature of the game, I think it's the ambiguity of many rules in AFL that allow for this.

Reducing TMO checks and possibly moving to the NFL system where the head referee does the review themselves (watches a sideline TV screen and directs what vision they want to see) may also be more palatable to fans rather than the current system of the TMO making decisions in isolation.

The referee in the middle being solely responsible for a decision is only going to shift blame, not improve outcomes. The TMO isn't typically making decisions in isolation at present anyway - (good) officiating teams will confer with the TMO, who is providing evidence on the big screen, after which a joint decision is made. Listening to the language used during TMO reviews, as well as talking through decisions, is evidence of this - "reviewing potential foul play", "are we all in agreement?" etc. Realistically, adding more voices is the only way to reduce the risk of error. If I agree that assistants should be more empowered to provide input, however.

 

[PhilClinton]

I think there is some low hanging fruit Rugby could jump on to make gains. I remember in the NRC the ability to take a quick tap from within a certain distance of the mark.

Yep, not the era you’re talking about but there was a season or two back in 2008/09/10 where the rules to speed up the game were trialled across clubland. Essentially replacing a lot of full arm penalties with short arms and the quick taps seemed to be much more lenient. I played a few games back then and it was definitely a lot faster.

The issue of course is none of these significant innovations ever make it to the big leagues because we have so many chiefs at WR (World Rugby) level who won’t make these changes. And the argument for keeping them at Super Rugby level doesn’t work because we can’t have our flagship team (Wallabies) playing one set of rules all year and then another for internationals. Although it does sorta work for basketball where there are NBA rules and FIBA rules.

 

[Brumby Runner]

If I read it correctly, I think MST's suggestion about playing advantage has a lot of merit. If the non-offending team elects to play on, should that not at that point nullify any advantage so that play then would not comeback for the original infringement after numerous phases currently being played under advantage? A difficulty could be having a difference of opinion within the non-offending team about playing on or going with the sanction. Perhaps a call by the Captain after just one phase might work? I would anticipate fewer advantage plays under this scenario but more time with ball in meaningful play. At the moment any time play returns after numerous phases, that play under advantage is pointless and essentially a waste of time.

 

[Rob42]

If I read it correctly, I think MST's suggestion about playing advantage has a lot of merit. If the non-offending team elects to play on, should that not at that point nullify any advantage so that play then would not comeback for the original infringement after numerous phases currently being played under advantage? A difficulty could be having a difference of opinion within the non-offending team about playing on or going with the sanction. Perhaps a call by the Captain after just one phase might work? I would anticipate fewer advantage plays under this scenario but more time with ball in meaningful play. At the moment any time play returns after numerous phases, that play under advantage is pointless and essentially a waste of time.

Teams could definitely be smarter about advantage under the current laws. Given the amount of analysis available to them, they must surely have a good idea of when they're likely to actually gain advantage. But for many teams, it doesn't seem like there's a decision being made - they just plug on through phases, when it's far more likely they'd benefit more through a lineout 20 m downfield.

I seem to remember George Gregan occasionally dropping the ball at the base of a ruck to stop the advantage play and take the penalty. No reason modern scrum-halfs can't do that.

 

[PhilClinton]

I seem to remember George Gregan occasionally dropping the ball at the base of a ruck to stop the advantage play and take the penalty. No reason modern scrum-halfs can't do that.

I actually do think a referee now rules a deliberate drop of the ball or throwing the ball deliberately into the back of their own player (which Gregan also did) to stop advantage as against the spirit of the game.

Maybe I’m imagining it but I thought something was done about that around 10 years ago.

 

[Braveheart81]

At the moment any time play returns after numerous phases, that play under advantage is pointless and essentially a waste of time.

Is it pointless? It's more a philosophical question than anything in my view. It still happened and is counted in the stats.

If teams know that advantage will be ruled over much faster they will change what they do. So it comes down to whether we want teams to keep playing with the knowledge that play may still come back for the penalty or whether we want play to stop faster so there is either a scrum, kick for touch or penalty goal attempt.

I've got a foot in both camps on the matter. I don't think it is good for the game if the best decision is to stop playing and take the penalty. Likewise I don't like advantage when you're 10m out from the try line to effectively be endless. Maybe advantage should include a maximum number of phases before advantage is either over because you made the relevant amount of territory or scored a try or it gets brought back for the penalty?

 

[KentwellCup>ShuteShield]

Advantage should be measured by phases and metres gained from point of penalty.

 

[Sir Arthur Higgins]

Advantage should be measured by phases and metres gained from point of penalty.

Agreed
The current advantage setup can be ridiculous.
You have three phases to advance 10-15m if you don’t the penalty comes back. Some of these absurd advantages are absurd in length of time.

 

[liquor box]

Agreed
The current advantage setup can be ridiculous.
You have three phases to advance 10-15m if you don’t the penalty comes back. Some of these absurd advantages are absurd in length of time.

the time is what annoys me the most, when it comes back to the original penalty they should take back the time

 

[Sir Arthur Higgins]

honestly just make it a 30 second advantage and if it comes back - tack that 30 seconds onto "injury time".

 

[PhilClinton]

Seeing how teams adapt to a hard distance or time based advantage would be quite interesting.

It would probably reduce the amount of cards for repeated infringements because I feel like many teams use the long advantages currently to keep grinding away at their opponents, knowing that multiple infringements during an advantage nearly always results in a card.

If you knew you only had a small window to use the advantage, I think most teams would go for the hail mary play knowing they'll have a penalty if it fails.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Agreed
The current advantage setup can be ridiculous.
You have three phases to advance 10-15m if you don’t the penalty comes back. Some of these absurd advantages are absurd in length of time.

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.