Declining participation and ARU plans for the future

[half]

On the finances my limited understanding and mainly from media reports is Pulver is doing an excellent job in getting to a break even position. Meaning credit were it is due. He seems on target to get the finances in order.

He has with mixed results attempted reforms, TBH its better than nothing. Further he has at least tried to change rugby's direction, and attempted with limited success to change the culture and thinking.

However our park structures are still behind the other codes.

 

[wamberal]

Chicken and egg, Half.


Our grass roots are behind because our game is not as popular, and vice versa.

 

[NTT]

There is such a thing as "economies of scale".


If you are running a one man business out of your living room, guess what percentage of your overheads your salary is?


Close to 100%


That is an extreme example, but the point is valid. There is an essential core of management expense for a major sporting code like ours, or like the other two.


If our revenues increased overnight, because a few more major sponsors jumped on board, and spectator numbers increased, our management expenses would not increase in quantum, but of course they would be reduced as a percentage of revenue.


Another factor might be that our administration costs might include items that are not included in the other two. For example, the costs of coaching and paying our national team. The costs of supporting the struggling Soup franchises. And no doubt there are others.


The point is, no sweeping generalisations can be drawn that are at all meaningful. A lot more expertise and access to the books would be required to produce any kind of valuable analysis.

And it would probably be the job of a highly skilled forensic accountant!

The costs of running the national team, high performance unit, player salaries are all reported separately in the financial report. The cash advances are also reported separately. How can you start putting them into the corporate expenditure when they are reported separately?
No ones making a sweeping generalisation. The figures are available to all to see.

We spend 20 out of every 100 dollars on corporate expenses, office space, wages etc.
The other codes, or if you call them what they are, our competitors, are spending 13.5 out of every 100 on corporate expenses.

Its not about revenue or income. It is quite simple to see that per $100 spent, our competitors are doing a better job of getting the balance right and get more for their $100.
Also, while the competitors may not have a national team to fund, although the ARL does, both codes are responsible for triple the number of professional teams as the ARU.

The figures are clearly available that per $100 of expenses, we are behind our competitors. Nothing to do with income, revenue or scale of economy.

 

[Quick Hands]

For the benefit of those who haven't seen the relevent part of the annual report, the following items are listed in operational expenditure

Commission & Servicing costs 3,864,000
Matchday operations 6,622,000
Marketing & Media 3,198,000
Wallabies team costs 5,637,000
National 7s team costs 3,493,000
Super rugby team costs 4,178,000
Super rugby grants 19,701,000
Player payments & RUPA costs 14,982,000
HPU & national teams 5,338,000
SANZAR office 1,237,000
Community rugby 2,368,000
Corporate 17,562,000

Income is also interesting:

Broadcasting 18,102,000
Matchday 16,022,000
Sponsorships 23,179,000
Licencing 1,901,000
Govt grants 2,385,000
World rugby grants 18,990,000
other 3,858,000


Apart from not really knowing what is included in "corporate", it's also interesting that there is no mention of the NRC and also that World Rugby provided 18,000,000 as a grant. Is the WR (World Rugby) grant a one off because of RWC or is it a regular thing?

Match day is a fairly big item in our income - we really need to fill these stadia with big crowds as often as possible.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

For the benefit of those who haven't seen the relevent part of the annual report, the following items are listed in operational expenditure

Commission & Servicing costs 3,864,000
Matchday operations 6,622,000
Marketing & Media 3,198,000
Wallabies team costs 5,637,000
National 7s team costs 3,493,000
Super rugby team costs 4,178,000
Super rugby grants 19,701,000
Player payments & RUPA costs 14,982,000
HPU & national teams 5,338,000
SANZAR office 1,237,000
Community rugby 2,368,000
Corporate 17,562,000

Income is also interesting:

Broadcasting 18,102,000
Matchday 16,022,000
Sponsorships 23,179,000
Licencing 1,901,000
Govt grants 2,385,000
World rugby grants 18,990,000
other 3,858,000


Apart from not really knowing what is included in "corporate", it's also interesting that there is no mention of the NRC and also that World Rugby provided 18,000,000 as a grant. Is the WR (World Rugby) grant a one off because of RWC or is it a regular thing?

Match day is a fairly big item in our income - we really need to fill these stadia with big crowds as often as possible.

You know in simple terms one of the most innovative and game changing things to drive more mass appeal for rugby and crowds is more emphasis on attacking rugby via more points for tries and less points for penalties ie nrc style point system. I know so many / spoken to so many people who use to be peripheral rugby supporters who continue to be put off by outdated focus on penalty goals which interrupts the whole ebb and flow of games. I have taken over last 3 seasons around 10 such peripheral sports fans who had not watched wallaby games for years to nrc games who have agreed this is type of rugby with focus on attack than penalties want to see. I have no doubt if at international level got this change to happen could drive more mass market appeal for rugby but we all know speed of change at irb level slow.

All aru is keep lobbying for this change to happen as rugby's point system is outdated and archaic for the modern demands as an entertainment product with so many competing options.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Strewthcobber]

Match day is a fairly big item in our income - we really need to fill these stadia with big crowds as often as possible.

The $18 m is a once every 4 years thing for the WC, qh.

Some revenue sharing but also in theory it includes compensation for the loss of our games due to the tournament being held during our test window. Check the notes section a few pages in for more details

At the time the annual report was published, we worked out that it wasn't covering the losses the ARU (and NZRU) experience

 

[Train Without a Station]

QH if you look at the 2014 report you get a bit more of an insight into that grant as I think the revenues are down over $30M due to the RWC year. In addition to no June tests, less RC tests and no EOYT, there is reduced broadcast income and reduced sponsorship income due to the RWC rules on it.

NTT, the term Wamberal is referring to is "Economies of Scale".

Essentially the bigger you are, the better efficiency you get. For example with 5 teams our corporate expenditure is $17.5M.

Unfortunately there are minimum costs to run a code to an extent. Some roles if not 100% productive cannot be job shared, etc.

The point is that if Australian Rugby had 10 teams instead of 5, that wouldn't necessarily mean corporate expenditure would go up to $35M with double the teams.

There may be minor employment increase in some areas, but much of it also able to be absorbed into the existing costs.

That's economies of scale.

That's where the other codes get better value. They don't have the issue of being at the minimum end. Say for example if you have a marketing department. You fill it accordingly but it gets to a point that regardless of how much marketing you need to do, you can't have less than 1 person in 1 office as your marketing department to have it function in any meaningful way.

Then there is the fact that many point out that the ARU essentially manage a team them self. Not like the Kangaroos with a full time coach and otherwise staff from NRL clubs that plays a handful of games. They have a full, regular season of 14 games. Whilst Super Rugby is underway, they are planning June test, Rugby Championship, etc.

While they are on the EOYT the Super teams are into pre-season planning and training.

The Reds have a total expenditure of $23M so I'd say that you basically throw all of that onto it. I don't think that includes their player salaries (excluding marquees) as these are paid or funded by the ARU.

 

[Strewthcobber]

For those interested - here is how the ARU have set up the departments within the organisation.

The direct reports to Mr Pulver are:


General Manager - Sevens

General Manager - Development Pathways

General Manager - Strategy, Corporate Affairs and Legal

General Manager - Rugby Operations

General Manager - Commercial & Marketing

General Manager - Media & Communications

General Manager - Rugby Participation

Chief Financial Officer

Qantas Wallabies Coach

Does the administrative expenses which fall under the General Manager - Rugby Participation, come under participation or corporate?

I have no idea

Does the administrative expenses which fall under the General Manager - Sevens, come under sevens or corporate? Where does Tim Walsh's salary fit?

Again, no idea

Unless you can answer these sorts of questions I really can't see any point trying to compare between sports or even nations - they all handle this stuff differently.

On top of the domestic stuff, the ARU helps to administer two international tournaments, enters teams in several more, has two Olympic teams (three if you include the new partnership with wheelchair rugby), have complicated ownership structures with at least two of their domestic teams, need to negotiate TV deals and match fees across 5 continents. Then there's the player retainment and salary negotiations

It appears to me to be a much more complicated operation than the AFL or ARL, but again, I have really no idea.

 

[NTT]

QH if you look at the 2014 report you get a bit more of an insight into that grant as I think the revenues are down over $30M due to the RWC year. In addition to no June tests, less RC tests and no EOYT, there is reduced broadcast income and reduced sponsorship income due to the RWC rules on it.

NTT, the term Wamberal is referring to is "Economies of Scale".

Essentially the bigger you are, the better efficiency you get. For example with 5 teams our corporate expenditure is $17.5M.

Unfortunately there are minimum costs to run a code to an extent. Some roles if not 100% productive cannot be job shared, etc.

The point is that if Australian Rugby had 10 teams instead of 5, that wouldn't necessarily mean corporate expenditure would go up to $35M with double the teams.

There may be minor employment increase in some areas, but much of it also able to be absorbed into the existing costs.

That's economies of scale.

That's where the other codes get better value. They don't have the issue of being at the minimum end. Say for example if you have a marketing department. You fill it accordingly but it gets to a point that regardless of how much marketing you need to do, you can't have less than 1 person in 1 office as your marketing department to have it function in any meaningful way.

Then there is the fact that many point out that the ARU essentially manage a team them self. Not like the Kangaroos with a full time coach and otherwise staff from NRL clubs that plays a handful of games. They have a full, regular season of 14 games. Whilst Super Rugby is underway, they are planning June test, Rugby Championship, etc.

While they are on the EOYT the Super teams are into pre-season planning and training.

The Reds have a total expenditure of $23M so I'd say that you basically throw all of that onto it. I don't think that includes their player salaries (excluding marquees) as these are paid or funded by the ARU.

Ok, ill explain one last time. The amount spent on Corporate in the report is what the ARU spent to run it's own office, not the offices of the super rugby clubs. The figures are all reported separately. The figures to run the Wallabies, player payments etc are separated. I understand fully the concept of economies of scale. This is a red herring.

The fact no one seems to be able to dispute is the ARU are paying more per $100 to run its own offices (this is a separated, reported expense, nothing to do with any other expenditure) than their competitors.

People want more spent on grassroots and growing the game, expanding the NRC etc. Lets properly analyse the current expenditure to see, firstly, where the money goes, secondly, to see how efficiently its being spent, thirdly, to see if there is any margin for savings, fourthly, wasteful spending, fifthly, overspending on unnecessary items and services, sixthly, are we paying for duplicated services over our entire expenditure.

Its all good to bang on about funding this that and the other. Everyone bemoans, where will we get the money? Isn't it logical to analyze the figures for wasteful spending as expanding revenue is proving exceedingly difficult?

Lets look at the 'sale' of the Rebels. Whose genius idea was it to sell the Rebels to the private investor then negotiate as part of the 'sale' to basically give the investor more money back than he invested that is not purely generated profit from the Rebels?
Would you sell a shop for $10 000 then to negotiate that you will give the new owner $12 000 to operate the shop?

Again, my point is this. People want grassroots funded. People want expansion of the NRC. People want the franchises to be profitable. People want the state unions to have more money. With limited options for revenue growth, then our options are to rrestructure and reform how we spend our money. We expect it from our governments, we should also expect it from our governing sporting bodies.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Well clearly you don't understand the concepts of economies of scale if you keep saying that per revenue, other codes spend less.

That's because they get better economies of scale, and therefore can run larger codes but only spend a portion extra.

That is the economies of scale. Greater sized businesses will achieve greater efficiency.

So achieving less efficiency due to economies of scale, of course you spend more per $100 of revenue. That's the entire discussion.

As for Wallabies, yes player payments are separated. But there are other functions. Many of those are the same as Super Rugby team functions in addition to requiring to oversea the regions. As a result you likely would not be able to see staff double up on a lot of roles, especially since Super Rugby staff now work on NRC in the off-season.

The ARU has to manage the Wallabies and all national HPU teams.

They have to manage Super Rugby and the franchises to an extent.

They then have to manage the state unions to an extent.

As strewthcobber pointed out there is a lot of staff required to perform multiple functions and unless we can identify where the cost is allocated it's difficult to criticize the overall expenditure on the basis that other larger codes do it for less per $100.

Once you are outside a sole trader as a business, generally more successful businesses will have lower overheads per $100 of revenue because those overheads are spread across greater revenue, but there is little capacity forthe less successful businesses to reduce those overheads and function in the same capacity.

 

[half]

^^^^^^^
NTT

Without trying to get into a contest on budgets and finances, lets assume you are right.

However the cost saving, would be minimal and spread across the grassroots would IMO have limited affect. Pulver is trying to address it, so the issue is know and being worked on.

IMO the biggest issue we have is park structures supporting a national based domestic competition.

I am even more convinced of this after “She who must be obeyed” dragged me to last Saturdays match between the Wanders & SFC.

I want to totally ignore the size of the crowd although it was not half bad. What scared me was the crowd not in fearful way but their age and passion.


At 61 with grey hair, I kinda fit in at most rugby matches. I made a point of looking around the crowd at the match and after the match in my walk back to the station. I saw two other people with grey hair.

I saw almost as many women as men, I saw a lot of banter but also a lot of mutual respect among the two lots of fans. I saw kids and young families everywhere, I saw fans being part of the night out. TBH I was blown away and scared. Any child from say 7 to 15 that was there or went to a match would want to play soccer.

It’s no wonder that soccer player numbers have exploded since the A-League started and by and large they say they don’t lose their best players any more to other codes.

According to the boss (She who must be obeyed) the A-League will within the next one to three years have 12 teams and within four to six years have 14 teams.

OK guys it my hobby horse I know and maybe I am reading too much into it. However with netball, and basketball starting to develop a larger national presence, cricket having ODI, test matches and the BB now, car racing getting bigger and more press, I would add to that surfing and today a couple of tennis players with some capability, add soccer growing, NRL and AFL growing. Staying with SANDZZAR and its schedules is making us invisible to new fans, the rusted on are here but how many new fans.

For those in Sydney get along to the next Wanders V SFC match and see if you see what I see.

Essentially we all need to step up to the plate, we all need to do more, and we need visionary leadership to set a course for us to follow. Most of all we need a inclusive all embracing structure of park teams supporting a national domestic competition.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

^^^^^^^
NTT

Without trying to get into a contest on budgets and finances, lets assume you are right.

However the cost saving, would be minimal and spread across the grassroots would IMO have limited affect. Pulver is trying to address it, so the issue is know and being worked on.

IMO the biggest issue we have is park structures supporting a national based domestic competition.

I am even more convinced of this after “She who must be obeyed” dragged me to last Saturdays match between the Wanders & SFC.

I want to totally ignore the size of the crowd although it was not half bad. What scared me was the crowd not in fearful way but their age and passion.


At 61 with grey hair, I kinda fit in at most rugby matches. I made a point of looking around the crowd at the match and after the match in my walk back to the station. I saw two other people with grey hair.

I saw almost as many women as men, I saw a lot of banter but also a lot of mutual respect among the two lots of fans. I saw kids and young families everywhere, I saw fans being part of the night out. TBH I was blown away and scared. Any child from say 7 to 15 that was there or went to a match would want to play soccer.

It’s no wonder that soccer player numbers have exploded since the A-League started and by and large they say they don’t lose their best players any more to other codes.

According to the boss (She who must be obeyed) the A-League will within the next one to three years have 12 teams and within four to six years have 14 teams.

OK guys it my hobby horse I know and maybe I am reading too much into it. However with netball, and basketball starting to develop a larger national presence, cricket having ODI, test matches and the BB now, car racing getting bigger and more press, I would add to that surfing and today a couple of tennis players with some capability, add soccer growing, NRL and AFL growing. Staying with SANDZZAR and its schedules is making us invisible to new fans, the rusted on are here but how many new fans.

For those in Sydney get along to the next Wanders V SFC match and see if you see what I see.

Essentially we all need to step up to the plate, we all need to do more, and we need visionary leadership to set a course for us to follow. Most of all we need a inclusive all embracing structure of park teams supporting a national domestic competition.

I have tried to get many in my mates network in local area to nrc local games - hard bit is getting them there as put off by perception of rugby as old school lots of kicking for penalties and quite frankly that makes for most very negative perception of rugby. But when they have watched nrc games which is about 10-12 peripheral lapsed rugby supporters in their 30's and 40's they love it. Hardest bit has been getting them to the game as small crowds also affect perception and lack of media - then when they see it surprised never aware of it.

Hence it is not just about having a national domestic comp but a national domestic comp with right product to attract and grow the fan base re: nrc style point systems.

This is biggest thing holding back growth of rugby worldwide as those under 40 especially generally see rugby as a boring kick fest compared to the more entertainment primed competing codes.

If rugby was run a proper multinational business those changes would have been made long time ago.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rugbynutter39]

^^^^^^^
NTT

Without trying to get into a contest on budgets and finances, lets assume you are right.

However the cost saving, would be minimal and spread across the grassroots would IMO have limited affect. Pulver is trying to address it, so the issue is know and being worked on.

IMO the biggest issue we have is park structures supporting a national based domestic competition.

I am even more convinced of this after “She who must be obeyed” dragged me to last Saturdays match between the Wanders & SFC.

I want to totally ignore the size of the crowd although it was not half bad. What scared me was the crowd not in fearful way but their age and passion.


At 61 with grey hair, I kinda fit in at most rugby matches. I made a point of looking around the crowd at the match and after the match in my walk back to the station. I saw two other people with grey hair.

I saw almost as many women as men, I saw a lot of banter but also a lot of mutual respect among the two lots of fans. I saw kids and young families everywhere, I saw fans being part of the night out. TBH I was blown away and scared. Any child from say 7 to 15 that was there or went to a match would want to play soccer.

It’s no wonder that soccer player numbers have exploded since the A-League started and by and large they say they don’t lose their best players any more to other codes.

According to the boss (She who must be obeyed) the A-League will within the next one to three years have 12 teams and within four to six years have 14 teams.

OK guys it my hobby horse I know and maybe I am reading too much into it. However with netball, and basketball starting to develop a larger national presence, cricket having ODI, test matches and the BB now, car racing getting bigger and more press, I would add to that surfing and today a couple of tennis players with some capability, add soccer growing, NRL and AFL growing. Staying with SANDZZAR and its schedules is making us invisible to new fans, the rusted on are here but how many new fans.

For those in Sydney get along to the next Wanders V SFC match and see if you see what I see.

Essentially we all need to step up to the plate, we all need to do more, and we need visionary leadership to set a course for us to follow. Most of all we need a inclusive all embracing structure of park teams supporting a national domestic competition.

Half yes been to wanderers and Sydney fc games and lots of afl games - the young as high energy games with constant movement which helps with the passion - the opportunity to constantly get points via penalties and the slowing of positive momentum it creates kills the game for the young. Until that changes across the board rugby will never really achieve much growth - change that I think rugby would and could topple league in popularity with all the other things going for it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Here is a thought for radical change - rugby struggling in oz and waiting for changes at irb level could cripple us - so why not below super rugby level change to nrc style points system ie school boy and club level.

Sometimes if you want real change you have to force your hand. This is about trying to protect grass roots. Would not more kids want to play that sort of rugby.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NTT]

Well clearly you don't understand the concepts of economies of scale if you keep saying that per revenue, other codes spend less.

That's because they get better economies of scale, and therefore can run larger codes but only spend a portion extra.

That is the economies of scale. Greater sized businesses will achieve greater efficiency.

So achieving less efficiency due to economies of scale, of course you spend more per $100 of revenue. That's the entire discussion.

As for Wallabies, yes player payments are separated. But there are other functions. Many of those are the same as Super Rugby team functions in addition to requiring to oversea the regions. As a result you likely would not be able to see staff double up on a lot of roles, especially since Super Rugby staff now work on NRC in the off-season.

The ARU has to manage the Wallabies and all national HPU teams.

They have to manage Super Rugby and the franchises to an extent.

They then have to manage the state unions to an extent.

As strewthcobber pointed out there is a lot of staff required to perform multiple functions and unless we can identify where the cost is allocated it's difficult to criticize the overall expenditure on the basis that other larger codes do it for less per $100.

Once you are outside a sole trader as a business, generally more successful businesses will have lower overheads per $100 of revenue because those overheads are spread across greater revenue, but there is little capacity forthe less successful businesses to reduce those overheads and function in the same capacity.

Im talking expenditure not revenue. I completely agree that businesses that have more to spend, spends a higher overall amount. The problem is that when it is broken down into a common unit of measurement, or a percentage, we are spending more per unit to achieve the same. Sole traders operate under a different business model and laws so therefore is a a false comparison.

The State Unions are not for profit organizations that are there to facilitate to mangement and growth of community rugby. The grants given to do so are also reported separately to the costs of staffing head office.

The franchises are separated entities who are trying to make a profit. They compete for revenue against the world as a separated business interest. This means that they also compete for income in competition to each other and the ARU. Its just unfortunate that the ARU is used to bail out the franchises when the business model is not working as intended and there is more resistance to preserve the status quo instead of consolidating and working together.

This brings me back to my other main point of saving money by centralisation of certain services that the ARU provides while also providing money for the Franchises to also provide. Marketing, Memberships, Ground and Catering Booking and facilitatation.

We are currently running 5 frachises and a head office versus each other. We are not running 5 franchises and head office to help each other. Apart from a rugby department and a small management team to operate the rugby department, do the franchises really need much more to operate? The franchises should not have the responsibility of running the community rugby side of things in their state, this should fall back onto the not for profit state unions to do funded by playing fees not cash handouts.

Take a corporation like McDonalds. They also operate a franchise based model. We do not see each McDonalds forcing each franchise to set up and fund boards, marketing, legal etc. They know that to do this is financial suicide. It is all done from a centralized head office. That massively reduces the overheads and operating costs of each franchise. Many of the franchise based corporations operate this way. The ARU does not. Maybe it should.

 

[Quick Hands]

For those interested - here is how the ARU have set up the departments within the organisation.



Does the administrative expenses which fall under the General Manager - Rugby Participation, come under participation or corporate?

I have no idea

Does the administrative expenses which fall under the General Manager - Sevens, come under sevens or corporate? Where does Tim Walsh's salary fit?

Again, no idea

Unless you can answer these sorts of questions I really can't see any point trying to compare between sports or even nations - they all handle this stuff differently.

On top of the domestic stuff, the ARU helps to administer two international tournaments, enters teams in several more, has two Olympic teams (three if you include the new partnership with wheelchair rugby), have complicated ownership structures with at least two of their domestic teams, need to negotiate TV deals and match fees across 5 continents. Then there's the player retainment and salary negotiations

It appears to me to be a much more complicated operation than the AFL or ARL, but again, I have really no idea.

That's essentially the problem. It's hard to know where savings could be made when it's really very unclear how expenditure and income are categorised.

As I said earlier: NRC not mentioned at all, but I assume that the ARU expend something on it. Also no mention of salaries and wages or utilities, rents etc.

 

[Dave Beat]

Get more kids having fun playing rugby.
Economies of scale has it building from there, pretty simple
It is ensuring the do's are DONE.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Get more kids having fun playing rugby.
Economies of scale has it building from there, pretty simple
It is ensuring the do's are DONE.

I look forward to a day when opposition are attacking in the 22, get a penalty and system such that I know right thing to do is go for a try rather than just take the points for a penalty goal.

I am with the masses on this as love most things about rugby but absolutely hate penalty being worth 3 points compared to 5 points and way it makes a game played by players and captains because of it.

Majority of people who could / would be rugby spectators and watchers don't want to see games won by stop start penalty kicking.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Quick Hands]

Get more kids having fun playing rugby.
Economies of scale has it building from there, pretty simple
It is ensuring the do's are DONE.

If we fix this, then many (not all) of the other problems will melt away.

 

[Quick Hands]

I look forward to a day when opposition are attacking in the 22, get a penalty and system such that I know right thing to do is go for a try rather than just take the points for a penalty goal.

I am with the masses on this as love most things about rugby but absolutely hate penalty being worth 3 points compared to 5 points and way it makes a game played by players and captains because of it.

Majority of people who could / would be rugby spectators and watchers don't fucking want to see games won by stop start penalty kicking.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's probably true in terms of spectator involvement at the higher levels, but at the lower levels I don't think it's an issue at all. There's remarkably few penalty goals at junior or schools level. Our problem at that level is lack of participation and in many cases, lack of opportunity to participate (i.e. there just isn't a local junior rugby club to play with in much of Sydney).

In terms of law changes - if the value of penalty goals is decreased, then there has to be an increase in the use of yellow cards and probably the introduction of a green card for a 5 minute sin bin. Referees are too reluctant to use cards at the higher levels of the game.

Without derailing the thread, I's like to see 5 minute sin bin (green card) for the second infringement in try scoring situations and a 10 minute sin bin (yellow card) for the next infringement and that the non-offending team gets a shot at goal and the restart is a scrum at the point of the penalty goal for any penalty inside the 22, with the non-offending team to feed. Watch cyncial infringements all but disappear from the game.

EDIT: And once the ball reaches the feet of the number 8 at a scrum, the penalty option is off the table except for offside and in a pushover try situation.