Ideas for NRC 2015

[LeinsterRebel]

What would happen in this scenario,is weaker clubs would be cannibalised by the stronger clubs,making the SS unviable.
Give the new comp a chance.
When the Super 10 was formed,no one had much interest in it for a few years.
You cannot expect start up franchises to have spectators of +10,000's in their inaugural year, but it could well happen after a few years if promoted correctly.

True.

However, the Super 10 was the top tier below test rugby. The NRC is unlikely to match that

 

[LeinsterRebel]

Will Shute Shield/Premier Rugby sides ever enjoy popular support (in the true sense of the word)? Their support has been on the decline for a long time.

It's not like club rugby crowds put the NRC crowds to shame.

Giving them the opportunity to compete on the national level, managed correctly, could reverse the decline

 

[Brendan Hume]

Were there law changes this year apart from the value of goals? The value of the NRC won't be seen for 3-5 years, and it's value will be evident in the squad depth of the super rugby teams, and the standard of play in the Premier competitions of Qld, NSW, Vic and WA.

I think changes to the NRC should be considered with these goals in mind and should primarily be operational - as much as possible ensuring selection of players from variety of clubs, providing identified coaches and players with an opportunity to work with the squad (essentially develop an NRC Wider Training Group that included coaches and also officials), and provide mid-year training opportunities. Would a mid-year NRC training camp that correlated with the June inbound tour take too much momentum away from the respective local competitions?

It would also be nice if a Colts competition could be developed to support the NRC - particularly in the larger centers. Obviously too much cost to run in tandem with the NRC, but I'm not aware of a lot of Rep opportunities aside from the State U20s program for Colts. These are the players you want to have multiple weeks of rep footy under their belt to progress to the next level.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Giving them the opportunity to compete on the national level, managed correctly, could reverse the decline

Who are they going to "compete" against at a national level? SS teams would win most games in a canter.

The Brisbane teams might give them a decent run but anyone else would be a slaughter...

 

[LeinsterRebel]

Who are they going to "compete" against at a national level? SS teams would win most years in a canter.

The Brisbane teams might give them a decent run but anyone else would be a slaughter.

I don't have all the answers off the top of my head! For any such competition to work there would need to be a fair "draft" style distribution of Super XV players etc.

 

[Scoey]

I think the set up is good. Give it time and it will grow. My main suggestion is to do away with the experimental laws. I have no way of quantifying it, but my feeling is that most of the folk that watched or attended an NRC game would've done so regardless of whether they were playing standard laws or not. What I mean is, I don' think the experimental laws were the clincher. My experience at games and talking to people was that it was rugby fans watching the comp. Not Johnny-come-lately's that heard about this exciting new Rugby comp. Rugby fans getting behind a good idea. I'm generalising obviously but you probably get my point.

The experimental laws made it all a bit fun and exciting but I liken the end product to Twenty20 cricket. A game that may survive in it's own right but the number of viewers it brings to Test cricket would be negligible.

I'm likely in the minority but it's just my thinking on how a good think could be made better.

 

[Brendan Hume]

What were the experimental laws, apart from the value of goals?

 

[LeinsterRebel]

I think the set up is good. Give it time and it will grow. My main suggestion is to do away with the experimental laws. I have no way of quantifying it, but my feeling is that most of the folk that watched or attended an NRC game would've done so regardless of whether they were playing standard laws or not. What I mean is, I don' think the experimental laws were the clincher. My experience at games and talking to people was that it was rugby fans watching the comp. Not Johnny-come-lately's that heard about this exciting new Rugby comp. Rugby fans getting behind a good idea. I'm generalising obviously but you probably get my point.

The experimental laws made it all a bit fun and exciting but I liken the end product to Twenty20 cricket. A game that may survive in it's own right but the number of viewers it brings to Test cricket would be negligible.

I'm likely in the minority but it's just my thinking on how a good think could be made better.

I agree, I hope the NRC, if it continues in its current guise, goes from strength to strength. I would rather not have so many rule changes. Natural developments in rules are acceptable, the sweeping changes take it too far away from rugby. In my opinion some of the rules were absurd.

 

[Brendan Hume]

I agree, I hope the NRC, if it continues in its current guise, goes from strength to strength. I would rather not have so many rule changes. Natural developments in rules are acceptable, the sweeping changes take it too far away from rugby. In my opinion some of the rules were absurd.

What are you talking about? There were no law changes, except the points value of goals.

 

[Scoey]

What were the experimental laws, apart from the value of goals?

The full amendments are here:
http://www.rugby.com.au/nrc/LawVariation.aspx

To be honest, a couple of them were good, and probably most of them didn't have a hugely noticeable impact on how the game was played other than the changes to the points.

 

[Scoey]

I agree, I hope the NRC, if it continues in its current guise, goes from strength to strength. I would rather not have so many rule changes. Natural developments in rules are acceptable, the sweeping changes take it too far away from rugby. In my opinion some of the rules were absurd.

Some of the proposals that were shortlisted were pretty absurd, but I don't think that many that were implemented were that ludicrous. As stated above, the big one was the change to the points system.

 

[LeinsterRebel]

What are you talking about? There were no law changes, except the points value of goals.

There were several law variations in addition to addition to protocol changes

 

[Brendan Hume]

The full amendments are here:
http://www.rugby.com.au/nrc/LawVariation.aspx

To be honest, a couple of them were good, and probably most of them didn't have a hugely noticeable impact on how the game was played other than the changes to the points.

These were only the changes to the application of law by the referee to try and speed the game up. I thought they were generally good ideas to improve the flow of the game.

 

[Scoey]

These were only the changes to the application of law by the referee to try and speed the game up. I thought they were generally good ideas to improve the flow of the game.

Semantics really. When people refer to the NRC law changes, that is what they will be referring to.

 

[LeinsterRebel]

Some of the proposals that were shortlisted were pretty absurd, but I don't think that many that were implemented were that ludicrous. As stated above, the big one was the change to the points system.

Fair point.

In my opinion the rules, in totality, represented a shift in the fundamentals of the game.

"Absurd" was strong, I concede, and perhaps more suited to the other suggested rule changes. I just hope the competition isn't open to sweeping changes.

 

[LeinsterRebel]

These were only the changes to the application of law by the referee to try and speed the game up. I thought they were generally good ideas to improve the flow of the game.

I have little doubt that you knew what I meant and just wanted to undermine me

 

[Scoey]

Fair point.

In my opinion the rules, in totality, represented a shift in the fundamentals of the game.

"Absurd" was strong, I concede, and perhaps more suited to the other suggested rule changes. I just hope the competition isn't open to sweeping changes.

That's it for me also. The first game was good fun, but with each game I watched, they started getting more and more beige. All a bit 'more of the same' week in, week out. It became a watered down version of the Rugby that I love.

 

[kiap]

My proposals to make the top state sides qualify for the NRC on an annual basis is to boost the standing of these clubs in their communities.

Annual qualification is not the way that any of the top competitions (in any sport) in Australia operate. Instead of implying you're an idiot, the opposite will suggest that you'll eventually understand that this idea does not work for a national competition. It's too wasteful; thins out the financial backing, filters down the interested supporter base, and leaves too many good players on the sideline.

The harsh truth is that top clubs are not good enough. Being founded in 1863 or having Alan Belford Jones as a former moral mentor in 1983 doesn't disguise the fact that the playing rosters are too weak. As mentioned by others, there would be a cannibalisation of players from existing clubs over a period of several seasons to get to the required strength. The Shute Shield would be yet more of an irrelevance and, if the stunted competition lasted long enough, you'd end up with the same sort of NRC squads that already exist. The flaws in the model are too big to make it work.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Come on, is there any need to be so disrespectful? I'm not an idiot so I would appreciate if you didn't address me in such a manner.

I do understand the purpose of the NRC. However, I do not believe that the NRC is viable in its current guise and if it continues as it has in 2014 it will not live much longer. Also there is no quick solution to have a top class national rugby championship with popular support.


My proposals to make the top state sides qualify for the NRC on an annual basis is to boost the standing of these clubs in their communities. Manly Marlins, for instance, if it was competing on a national scale, would have a much greater chance of capturing the imagination of the catchment area. This would increase support in Shute Shield games and all levels of rugby and most likely encourage young people to actually play the game.

Giving these clubs the ability to compete at a higher level will increase the standing of these clubs considerably and in the long term this will benefit Australian rugby.

There is a proud history of club rugby in Australia and it is something that can be tapped into. A national competition for these sides is a natural evolution and something that could grow organically.

I do not believe that the new franchises will ever capture the imagination of the public, and I believe that the ARU is searching for a quick win which is not likely. It's a high risk, high reward approach which is not prudent.



In regards the rule changes, there have been (in my opinion) too many drafted in for the inaugural year of the tournament and it has undermined its credibility.

Well, frankly your comment warranted that level of derision. Why? Because your proposal would as others have mentioned cannibalise weaker clubs further narrowing our base. It doesn't take into account the comparative strengths of the individual competitions. It limits the development and opportunity for at least 85% of the talent. Then there's the fact that Club Rugby runs on the fumes off an oily rag. There are only three maybe four clubs possibly capable of actually affording to compete. There's probably a list of other reasons that I'm not even considering.

We do have a long history of club rugby. But one that failed to adapt when the game went pro. Outside the diehards few care anymore. Sad but true.

As previously stated, you cannot reasonably expect 10,000 odd crowds in its inaugural season. The NRC needs time to grow and develop its own history. While I do still enjoy watching the Wicks play (a team I have supported since I was a child) I understand the game needs to go forward and grow beyond it's often parochial mindset.

 

[BDA]

Re the law changes, they did take a bit of variety out of team tactics that us rugby purists enjoy. Less classic arm-wrestles, less territorial kicking, less set piece tactics, etc. On the other hand they led to more attacking intent, more running rugby and a generally quicker pace to the game. We have to ask what is the product we want to put out? Sure us purists believe the game is best the way it is (because it is), but i wonder whether we ought be aiming the product at purists or trying to make it more palatable to the casual viewers, because I think the law changes generally should achieve that.

If some lay man turns an NRC game on and sees two teams playing territory and grinding from set piece to set piece, they'll change the channel immediately. So I like the idea of a product that encourages attacking intent. They perhaps need to reign it in a bit to find a better balance, probably achieved by reducing the points changes.

As others have pointed out, part of the problem with the first season was a result of some pretty poor performances particularly in defence. Hopefully the teams will be better this season and if they are I think we could end up with a pretty entertaining product