Declining participation and ARU plans for the future

[barbarian]

Just quickly to call back to one of my pet issues:

The Socceroos played Japan tonight. This is the biggest game for the Socceroos this year. In 2009 the corresponding match (on a Tuesday night at the MCG) drew a crowd of 75,000.

Tonight it drew just 48,000.

It's a good crowd, but not what the FFA would have been hoping for, and there were plenty of empty seats on show in the coverage.
.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

More use of cards by referees is needed plus the introduction of a 5 minute sin bin.

Repeated infringements by defending team in 22 (offside, off feet, side entry etc., basically all the negative ones) - 3 strikes and on the 3rd infringement it's a green card (5 minute sin bin), next infringement is a yellow card (10 minute sin bin). Penalty shots from cards are restarted by a scrum on the penalty mark with the non-offending team to feed. Watch cynical infringements almost disappear overnight.

I like the idea of a 'white' card signalling 5 mins in the bin. I think it could be applied to multiple infringments that often occur around the ruck. Often you see someone either penalised or YC'd while his co-offender skips punishment. The ref has to make a judgement call on who is more guilty. A shorter 5 min system could allow for the ref to really hammer those looking to infringe or slow the play. While 5 mins is a relative short period losing say 2 players for that timeeriod could be very inconvienent for teams.

I'd have it set as 3 'white' cards regardless of offence or the players involved before the next recieves infringement is an automatic YC. It then resets. After a second YC is issued then it becomes RC territory.

I don't think this would kill the competition for the ball be it counterrucking or jackaling. Teams could still look to do it but the right way that ensures the game flows. All too often players ignore refs calls to clear out of the ruck and or release the ball. Knowing that not doing so will definitely disadvantage their team should be enough of a deterrent.

 

[mst]

Yes introduction of 5 minute sin bin raised as solution back in 2010-11 when their was the usual wave of outcries by leading figures for change in points system.

I probably think the 10 minute sin bin still suffices for repeat offences and given impact has on the team in question would see repeated infringements / cynical play stamped out with out changing flow of attacking rugby.

What about left field options with quick resolutions etc.

Something like an ice hockey power-play type system for penalties in the red zone? So offsides etc would result in a player being ordered to standoff the pitch immediately until the play ends. Multiple players can be stood off. If the ball is turned over and exits the 22 the players come straight back on. Yellow still applies for cynical or repeated etc.

For penalty kicks put a limit on them EG: so only 2 kicks allowed at goal per zone (inside 22 / outside etc) per half. From then on its quick tap or to the line. Then add a wild card element. If the take the line or tap option over the kick the conversion is worth 4 - but they must call it like a power play.

For other penalties where an advantage applies, from the next phase make it mandatory the defending team must defend from 5m behind the last feet for the first 2 phases.

They are quick thoughts without much consideration but keep the game going.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

What about left field options with quick resolutions etc.

Something like an ice hockey power-play type system for penalties in the red zone? So offsides etc would result in a player being ordered to standoff the pitch immediately until the play ends. Multiple players can be stood off. If the ball is turned over and exits the 22 the players come straight back on. Yellow still applies for cynical or repeated etc.

For penalty kicks put a limit on them EG: so only 2 kicks allowed at goal per zone (inside 22 / outside etc) per half. From then on its quick tap or to the line. Then add a wild card element. If the take the line or tap option over the kick the conversion is worth 4 - but they must call it like a power play.

For other penalties where an advantage applies, from the next phase make it mandatory the defending team must defend from 5m behind the last feet for the first 2 phases.

They are quick thoughts without much consideration but keep the game going.

All good ideas wcr and mst which address repeated infringements whilst keeping the flow of the game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rugbynutter39]

All good ideas wcr and mst which address repeated infringements whilst keeping the flow of the game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Might add qh and wcr you have swayed me with your arguments that 5 minute sin bin very good idea


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Want less penalties kicked?

Re-introduce the shitty old leather balls, and outlaw the kicking tee. No sand either.

Kicker has to kick the ball from the ground. If the ground is too hard to "build a tee" with the heel, like it is in much of SAF and AUS, then tough luck. Better learn to score more tries.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Want less penalties kicked?

Re-introduce the shitty old leather balls, and outlaw the kicking tee. No sand either.

Kicker has to kick the ball from the ground. If the ground is too hard to "build a tee" with the heel, like it is in much of SAF and AUS, then tough luck. Better learn to score more tries.

The other option might be to get rid of place kicking all together. Go the Sevens option of drop kicks only

 

[Rugbynutter39]

http://theconversation.com/four-rea...truggling-despite-the-wallabies-success-49741


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rugbynutter39]

http://theconversation.com/four-rea...truggling-despite-the-wallabies-success-49741


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is best article I have found which summarises why rugby is where it is and the challenges it faces


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Braveheart81]

I think the simplest solution around goal kicking attempts is just to stop the clock so they don't take time out of the game.

It is a fine balance having the right level of punishment and deterrence for infringements by the defensive team. If you make penalties of too little value to the attacking team then the defensive team infringes more.

I don't think comparisons to 50+ years ago really work. The game has changed dramatically in that time and purely looking at tries vs goals across decades adds little to the conversation.

Personally I think the balance is pretty good right now. Teams that play positive, attacking rugby are winning at pretty much all levels. That is the balance to strive for in my opinion. If 10 man rugby is proving dominant then those are the times to look at the balance being off in the way the game is being adjudicated.

I don't think you can make a blanket assumption that more tries results in a better game. Tries need to be sufficiently difficult to score in order to make them exciting. If you make cards far more frequent and that results in the norm for tries being exploiting a numerical advantage and scoring out wide then I don't know that makes the game better.

You want a good contest between attack and defence. Some of the most exciting games aren't necessarily high scoring.

 

[stoff]

Just quickly to call back to one of my pet issues:

The Socceroos played Japan tonight. This is the biggest game for the Socceroos this year. In 2009 the corresponding match (on a Tuesday night at the MCG) drew a crowd of 75,000.

Tonight it drew just 48,000.

It's a good crowd, but not what the FFA would have been hoping for, and there were plenty of empty seats on show in the coverage.
.

I work around the corner from the stadium and drive home past it and had no idea it was even on until I saw a preview on the news. Most guys in the office were in the same Boat this morning. I had been hearing ads all week telling people to pick an A League side, as well as a lot of radio discussion about the Sydney derby. I think they got their marketing wrong on this one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I think the simplest solution around goal kicking attempts is just to stop the clock so they don't take time out of the game.

It is a fine balance having the right level of punishment and deterrence for infringements by the defensive team. If you make penalties of too little value to the attacking team then the defensive team infringes more.

I don't think comparisons to 50+ years ago really work. The game has changed dramatically in that time and purely looking at tries vs goals across decades adds little to the conversation.

Personally I think the balance is pretty good right now. Teams that play positive, attacking rugby are winning at pretty much all levels. That is the balance to strive for in my opinion. If 10 man rugby is proving dominant then those are the times to look at the balance being off in the way the game is being adjudicated.

I don't think you can make a blanket assumption that more tries results in a better game. Tries need to be sufficiently difficult to score in order to make them exciting. If you make cards far more frequent and that results in the norm for tries being exploiting a numerical advantage and scoring out wide then I don't know that makes the game better.

You want a good contest between attack and defence. Some of the most exciting games aren't necessarily high scoring.

I think many outside of rugby diehards would disagree with you. The point system generally encourages kicks for goals in attacking half 8 out of 10 times. Also evidence shows more laws introduced means more policing so more infringements.

You are ignoring imo why so many people find rugby boring with current point system. I suggest you do some google research on this and see just stopping clock for shot won't solve the problem.

Rugby as a product will never generate much growth compared to other codes whilst current point system is in play and will remain a declining niche sport by the diehards who gave you a thumbs up. Other products like 7's might have some growth but main product will remain stagnant and as article highlights just have its brief blip of interest every 4 years after rwc as article outlines.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I think many outside of rugby diehards would disagree with you. The point system generally encourages kicks for goals in attacking half 8 out of 10 times. Also evidence shows more laws introduced means more policing so more infringements.

You are ignoring imo why so many people find rugby boring with current point system. I suggest you do some google research on this and see just stopping clock for shot won't solve the problem.

Rugby as a product will never generate much growth compared to other codes whilst current point system is in play and will remain a declining niche sport by the diehards who gave you a thumbs up. Other products like 7's might have some growth but main product will remain stagnant and as article highlights just have its brief blip of interest every 4 years after rwc as article outlines.

Yes you want balance between attack and offence which league seems to manage btw. Ok because rugby more technical perhaps opportunity for more infringements hence why debates on use of 5 min sin bin as well as 10 min sin bin.

I actually am not looking for as radical change as nrc and would accept league style point system where penalty 2 points and converted try worth 6.

I also strongly disagree that data 60 years ago not relevant as what it shows is because ways been found over time to slow down game by tactics they have introduced more rules to combat those tactics to make rugby more free flowing and hence more infringement opportunities and irony is driver for these rule changes to make rugby more free flowing as resulted in significantly higher penalty goals per game which can make the game a stop start affair and less free flowing.

Suggest you read some of research on this as does not support your views


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wamberal]

Sad, very sad, but true.


The world is speeding up, everything has to happen quickly with no interruptions; attention spans are getting shorter and shorter.


That's life. If we want to stay relevant we have to understand this, this is the way of the future.


Above all, World Rugby and the young fogeys of the Northern Hemisphere have to understand this. They need to look ahead (it's called "strategic planning") and look at our game, its strengths and weaknesses, the threats and opportunities, and plan and execute a programme of adaptation to, and exploitation of, the environment in which we and all our competitors exist, and will continue to exist. And to evolve.


Nothing stays the same, and the speed of change is increasing.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Sad, very sad, but true.


The world is speeding up, everything has to happen quickly with no interruptions; attention spans are getting shorter and shorter.


That's life. If we want to stay relevant we have to understand this, this is the way of the future.


Above all, World Rugby and the young fogeys of the Northern Hemisphere have to understand this. They need to look ahead (it's called "strategic planning") and look at our game, its strengths and weaknesses, the threats and opportunities, and plan and execute a programme of adaptation to, and exploitation of, the environment in which we and all our competitors exist, and will continue to exist. And to evolve.


Nothing stays the same, and the speed of change is increasing.

Many sports have had the same challenges in the modern era and need to change to stay relevant in an ever changing modern society. look at cricket as classic example of very traditional game which has embraced large scale change since 70's to stay relevant.

Rugby needs to finally grow up and get with the times as approaching nearly 30 years since game became professional. We need rugby to embrace change as a product to not only become relevant but sport of choice and move quicker on speed of change. Latter more so as we need to make up for rugby do very little in terms of change agenda for its first couple of decades out of the amateur era.

We can't move at same pace of change as last decade as other codes are moving more quickly so we move quicker to make changes now or it will be only harder to make those changes in the future with an even smaller participant and fan base.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Braveheart81]

I think many outside of rugby diehards would disagree with you. The point system generally encourages kicks for goals in attacking half 8 out of 10 times. Also evidence shows more laws introduced means more policing so more infringements.

You are ignoring imo why so many people find rugby boring with current point system. I suggest you do some google research on this and see just stopping clock for shot won't solve the problem.

Rugby as a product will never generate much growth compared to other codes whilst current point system is in play and will remain a declining niche sport by the diehards who gave you a thumbs up. Other products like 7's might have some growth but main product will remain stagnant and as article highlights just have its brief blip of interest every 4 years after rwc as article outlines.

I assure you I have read vast amounts of material on the subject and it has been debated ad nauseum on this forum.

You always need to be aware that changes to the laws or the points system have consequences and they are not always as intended.

If you look at rugby since it went professional, I don't know that there has been a time when attacking rugby has dominated at all levels as much as it is now. That to me is a major positive.

Rugby is always going to be a more complex game both in terms of laws and how it is officiated because a contest for the ball is an integral part of the game. There is no getting away from that whilst maintaining the core of what rugby is.

I challenge you to watch some rugby highlights on Youtube from the 1960s and tell me that is what a modern audience is actually looking for and that is what we should strive to recreate.

If you look at the NRL, penalty goal attempts have risen sharply in the last few years (still a fairly low figure but it is increasing). You need to look at what leads to points though. Penalties play a major part in teams scoring tries and there is a substantial percentage of tries scored from getting back to back sets of six through a penalty. Drawing that penalty or forcing a repeat set through a goal line dropout are major influences on teams scoring points and that becomes where the focus is.

For me, pointing at rugby's problem being penalty goal attempts is looking for a simple solution to a complex problem and won't actually solve anything. Teams take shots at goal because games are tight and it isn't easy to score a try. Teams give away penalties because they are struggling to defend within the laws of the game.

The NRC doesn't have penalty goal attempts and has a lot of tries scored. Without doubt the competition has been very good to watch this year but I think it comes down to some of the skills on show rather than just tries specifically. In some games the defence is poor and tries come too easily. That isn't what makes rugby exciting.

I think a lot of the comments saying rugby is boring because there are too many shots at goal come from people who aren't rugby fans (and generally are NRL fans) and I don't think changing that would actually attract them to the sport.

 

[Braveheart81]

Many sports have had the same challenges in the modern era and need to change to stay relevant in an ever changing modern society. look at cricket as classic example of very traditional game which has embraced large scale change since 70's to stay relevant.

Rugby needs to finally grow up and get with the times as approaching nearly 30 years since game became professional. We need rugby to embrace change as a product to not only become relevant but sport of choice and move quicker on speed of change. Latter more so as we need to make up for rugby do very little in terms of change agenda for its first couple of decades out of the amateur era.

We can't move at same pace of change as last decade as other codes are moving more quickly so we move quicker to make changes now or it will be only harder to make those changes in the future with an even smaller participant and fan base.

If you look at highlights from various football codes across the decades, I think you'd end up deciding that rugby union has changed the most across those times.

Soccer has changed the least. Rugby league probably second least although it has probably become much more formulaic.

AFL has become an elite runner's game and big power forwards have become less dominant because they no longer get so isolated.

NFL has turned into more of a passing league and a lot of changes have come about through player safety because the athleticism of the players was making it unbelievably dangerous.

Rugby today looks almost nothing like it did in the 1960s.

 

[Strewthcobber]

If you look at highlights from various football codes across the decades, I think you'd end up deciding that rugby union has changed the most across those times.

Absolutely Braveheart.



The famous 1973 Barbarians v New Zealand match is up on YouTube. Some claim it's the greatest rugby match of all time.

If you haven't ever seen it it's worth having a look. It's virtually another sport all together

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I assure you I have read vast amounts of material on the subject and it has been debated ad nauseum on this forum.

You always need to be aware that changes to the laws or the points system have consequences and they are not always as intended.

If you look at rugby since it went professional, I don't know that there has been a time when attacking rugby has dominated at all levels as much as it is now. That to me is a major positive.

Rugby is always going to be a more complex game both in terms of laws and how it is officiated because a contest for the ball is an integral part of the game. There is no getting away from that whilst maintaining the core of what rugby is.

I challenge you to watch some rugby highlights on Youtube from the 1960s and tell me that is what a modern audience is actually looking for and that is what we should strive to recreate.

If you look at the NRL, penalty goal attempts have risen sharply in the last few years (still a fairly low figure but it is increasing). You need to look at what leads to points though. Penalties play a major part in teams scoring tries and there is a substantial percentage of tries scored from getting back to back sets of six through a penalty. Drawing that penalty or forcing a repeat set through a goal line dropout are major influences on teams scoring points and that becomes where the focus is.

For me, pointing at rugby's problem being penalty goal attempts is looking for a simple solution to a complex problem and won't actually solve anything. Teams take shots at goal because games are tight and it isn't easy to score a try. Teams give away penalties because they are struggling to defend within the laws of the game.

The NRC doesn't have penalty goal attempts and has a lot of tries scored. Without doubt the competition has been very good to watch this year but I think it comes down to some of the skills on show rather than just tries specifically. In some games the defence is poor and tries come too easily. That isn't what makes rugby exciting.

I think a lot of the comments saying rugby is boring because there are too many shots at goal come from people who aren't rugby fans (and generally are NRL fans) and I don't think changing that would actually attract them to the sport.

You must read different research. The current point system is outdated and needs to change.

I am not saying nrc style perfect answer but rather somewhere between current point system and nrc system with some other possible changes eg 5 min sin bin. A planned and consultative approach can work out the blueprint.

This is like the article on conversation.com where it highlights rugby needs to adopt same approach like other sports eg cricket where not about those who don't like test cricket but create a product that is relevant to modern day fan to get more fans. Eg why cricket Australia looks at night tests and other constant areas of innovation.

You and other rugby die hards need to stop with the defence for change against those who have switched away from rugby because they find it boring and look at creating a product that appeals to a wider audience. That is the whole issue - current product does not have appeal to a wider audience.

If cricket with its very conservative and traditional roots can do it why can't rugby? sorry all I ever hear from rugby hard core die hards is excuses and that really needs to change - too many from old amateur generation holding onto the past which is doing nothing to make rugby have a bigger future in today's world. Change is not a choice - it has to happen as change won't stop - it is just that rugby will be left even further behind


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rugbynutter39]

If you look at highlights from various football codes across the decades, I think you'd end up deciding that rugby union has changed the most across those times.

Soccer has changed the least. Rugby league probably second least although it has probably become much more formulaic.

AFL has become an elite runner's game and big power forwards have become less dominant because they no longer get so isolated.

NFL has turned into more of a passing league and a lot of changes have come about through player safety because the athleticism of the players was making it unbelievably dangerous.

Rugby today looks almost nothing like it did in the 1960s.

Rugby as a product suffered from being late in entering professional stake s and what fans prepared to pay for and given late start needed to make more changes as league pro since early 80's from memory and more advanced on product for professional era.

Sorry rugby started from much lower base and only valid comparison for change is in professional era as that drives real change where fans paying for a commercial product.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk