National Rugby Championship 2014

[Colin Windon]

Some feedback on the NRC from Steve James Rugby writer for the UK Telegraph. Maybe the world is waking up!

Rugby union is far from perfect and rules on trial in Australia must be taken seriously

Results in the third-tier National Rugby Championship suggest that the rule changes being trialled there could be worthwhile - including a new scoring system


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...ial-in-Australia-must-be-taken-seriously.html

 

[TOCC]

If an IT company like Apple can't even get it's live stream sorted then it's unrealistic for people to expect the NRC streaming to run smoothly during the season..

I can already foresee the pitchforks been pulled out against the ARU the first time a live stream of a game goes down..

 

[Pfitzy]

Apple aren't an IT company.

They're a marketing company that occasionally makes a tech device.

 

[Cpt Crow Eater]

What about a Radelaide team then, Capt'n Crowie?

Saw through me like glass.....

 

[kiap]

Saw through me like glass...

Ha! But if they get the solid backing needed then give 'em a shot.

 

[Lee Grant]

wow, the Ball in Play time for Rising v Brisbane was 40.23.

That is an outstanding number.

I'd like to see the time taken for kicks at goal and the time limit to set up the scrum - in the NRC - taken into the professional arena.

People will say it's impossible but I've seen all kinds of "impossible" law changes made in my long life and most of them answered well.

But I am not in favour of the change to points scoring because professional coaches will instruct their players to give up two to save eight.

The response to that would be automatic: the referees will issue yellow cards if they don't comply.

This is the crux of the matter. I know that you are a referee E&E but I have no confidence that your professional mates will come to the party, if there is one.

The higher up the chain the more conservative they get.

In 2008 the Super referees butchered the possibility of taking certain ELVs further because they were reluctant to use cards, yet the amateur 2007 Shute Shield referees were dishing them out like lollies, with a smile on their faces.

The carding worked brilliantly in that competition and it was not bad in the 2007 ARC either, but I was appalled at how shy the Super referees were a few months later.

They equivocated and incessantly added layers of warnings that free kick ELV infractions would be escalated to penalties. That ELV, designed to speed the game up, actually slowed it down because of the conversations that took place.

My point is not about the free kick ELV but about the probable reluctance of professional referees to use cards if the points system is trialled at a higher level.

My point should also warn people that they should not suppose that the low level of cynical infringements they have seen in the NRC (not obviously giving up two save eight) will carry forward at a higher level.

Naturally, as an Aussie, I hope I am wrong. It will change the game to the way that our players play it and give us an natural advantage over other rugby nations, except NZ.

And it will do no harm domestically to have the union game more try-oriented also.
.

 

[Train Without a Station]

But Lee. They're a been less penalty kicks and no more infringements in this Mickey Mouse competition that is yet to develop credibility due to being in it's first year and is considered less important than super rugby and premier rugby for now. Surely that means it works!

 

[Pfitzy]

Wait - I'm sensing sarcasm...

 

[RugbyReg]

wow, the Ball in Play time for Rising v Brisbane was 40.23.

That's great. Where are you getting the stats from?

 

[Omar Comin']

But I am not in favour of the change to points scoring because professional coaches will instruct their players to give up two to save eight.

What's the difference in the defensive mindset? They are already instructed to give up 3 rather than 7.

The biggest difference I can see is that when it's 2 vs 8, the attacking team doesn't actually take the 2. More often than not they attack and keep the defence under pressure. With absolutely no change in the mindset of referees, the defence then becomes under more pressure of receiving a yellow simply because they are now defending close to their goal line.

You don't see it that often with the 3 point penalty goal. Teams simply take the points and the ball goes back to neutral territory.

And the big difference with the ELV's is that referees are awarding penalties now. So teams can kick for touch and make 20+ metres of territory and get the throw. In terms of escalation there's only one option for referees. None of this 'I'm escalating from free kicks to penalties nonsense' that was the case under the ELV's.

 

[TOCC]

Referee's can be educated and trained, we shouldn't stop rule changes due to fear of the Ref's interpretation and implementation of those rules. Rule changes should be judged on a 3 things:
-Does it maintain the integrity of the game(competitiveness etc)
-Will it enhance the game for players
-Wil it enhance the game for fans

Maintaining the integrity of the game is critical; however, that doesn't mean rule changes shouldn't occur, the rules of rugby were devised in a largely amateur era, professionalism has lead an evolution of the game and the rules should be modified where required to ensure the game maintains a competitive edge in the marketplace for not only fans, but players as well.

These new rules should go nowhere near super rugby for another season at least, 2 seasons in the NRC should be long enough to identify and trends or negative side effects brought about by the rule changes.

Edit: interoperation auto-correct

 

[Train Without a Station]

What's the difference in the defensive mindset? They are already instructed to give up 3 rather than 7.

The biggest difference I can see is that when it's 2 vs 8, the attacking team doesn't actually take the 2.

It's not a fair assessment. The NRC is treated like Barbarians games right now. There's minimal on the line. Brisbane didn't even name their squad until Premier Rugby was over so that shows how they see it. We know it's considered a step down by Super Rugby players.

When there is something on the line, teams will infringe further. If teams are infringing further, the lure of the penalty shot becomes greater.

Of course the teams aren't taking the 2 now, there's fuck all cynical play and they know they will get a fair crack at attacking.

 

[#1 Tah]

TWAS does have a point here - maybe we should wait until finals games and Shawn McKay Shield games are played (ie, with a lot on the line) before making a judgement on how we are doing in terms of cynical play.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I think people who take the view, that teams deciding to take shots at goal are the issue, should go and watch NRL.

The issue is the infringements which lead to goals. The more infringements teams get away with, that are given no more than a penalty, encourage the teams to take the points on offer.

People need to look at the cause, not the symptom.

 

[Lee Grant]

Thanks for the interesting comments since my last post (with no bugles).

There's a lot in it, isn't there?

Much of my negativity comes from the prospect of what will happen once there has been a full examination of the effect of the scoring changes here.

I expect that we will be happy as clams in Australia with the outcome, but that we will be in the minority. I think there is little hope of it being adopted universally—unlike other variations like reducing the time for taking kicks at goal, which is already being trialled in France (with a shot clock !!)

I hope that I am wrong but all the power is in the other hemisphere and they are conservative.

It took them a long time to adopt the current kicking out on the full law which had been trialled successfully in Australia for decades. Elsewhere you could kick the ball directly into touch from anywhere on the field and gain ground.

That didn't faze them, it was a skill, they said. There was one test match where there were 111 lineouts in the game. The Wallabies played one law domestically but had to play test matches (even at home) under the international laws.

So they are conservative, and the weather and ground conditions they have to deal with for two months of the year up north, and sometimes three, produces a style of rugby that is just as conservative. One condition produces the other.

Not only will they be loath to be persuaded to try a brand of rugby in muddy conditions and bad weather for months, which could produce more stoppages, but also they will be reluctant to change the profile of their stable of players to get more mobility and athleticism into their squads to cope with the change.

Even in France, where all the clubs in the top two divisions are in the lower half of the country, but a couple, and enjoy more benign conditions than in Britain, they will not want to sacrifice the grinding rugby that they love. (Well, except in Clermont, perhaps).

Note that I am not suggesting that they should think like that. I could come up with reasons why they should adopt the scoring changes as well as anybody—commercial advantages included—it's just that I'm thinking about what they will think.

It's because of this that I consider it futile to develop players in the NRC, and to judge them for elevation into higher levels, in a false rugby environment.

Nobody hopes stronger than me that I am wrong in all these matters—and maybe it's worth doing it for a few years to be the willing guinea pig anyway—but it's how I am thinking at the minute.
.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Couldn't agree more. Immaterial changes like shot clocks and limitations on time wasting to keep the ball in play longer are great. But forcing players to develop in a game with different tactics to Super Rugby and Test Rugby is fraught with danger.

 

[Omar Comin']

It's not a fair assessment. The NRC is treated like Barbarians games right now. There's minimal on the line. Brisbane didn't even name their squad until Premier Rugby was over so that shows how they see it. We know it's considered a step down by Super Rugby players.

When there is something on the line, teams will infringe further. If teams are infringing further, the lure of the penalty shot becomes greater.

Of course the teams aren't taking the 2 now, there's fuck all cynical play and they know they will get a fair crack at attacking.

Some of you guys just can't accept being wrong.

You (or one of you conservative guys) said the same thing would happen in the NRC, but it hasn't. Now it's just because apparently there's nothing on the line. Tell the players and coaches that and see if they agree.

Teams will still take the 2 from time to time at the beginning of games and in close matches, but for the most part it's a better decision to attack. Not just because of the 8 points on offer, but because by attacking you put the defence under more pressure and if they concede penalties in the red zone they'll get yellows.

Especially if they're obviously cynical close to the line. Like being way off side or clearly laying all over the ball. Referees aren't afraid to use yellows in these situations.

When penalty goals are rewarded so much more, then it's a smarter play to kick for goal, and the cynical play doesn't result in anything other than 3 points.

 

[Omar Comin']

I think people who take the view, that teams deciding to take shots at goal are the issue, should go and watch NRL.

Too many people do exactly that.

The issue is the infringements which lead to goals. The more infringements teams get away with, that are given no more than a penalty, encourage the teams to take the points on offer.

People need to look at the cause, not the symptom.

Infringements aren't a huge problem IMO. There's certainly less infringements in rugby than there is in basketball for example, and basketball is a bigger global sport than rugby. Infringements are just a result of a contest. For most of them a kick for touch or a quick tap or scrum are enough. For others, either more dangerous or more cynical, a yellow card is ample punishment.

The problem in rugby is clearly how much time gets taken up kicking boring penalty goals - that often have a big impact on matches. And while you may not agree, the ARU have said that by far the most common response to their request for law change suggestions was to reduce the points for penalty goals. So you rusted on conservatives can bang on all you like, but most Australians want to see a game with less of them. And this is an Australian competition.

 

[Braveheart81]

It's just a shame that it's mostly the rusted-on conservatives are the ones actually turning up and watching these games.

I think it's silly to suggest that the dynamics with these laws wouldn't change as the standard improved up to test level. The way rugby is played changes quite dramatically from club to test level regardless of the laws.

Defences in the NRC have tended to struggle so far because it is harder to develop those combinations in a short period of time. You could have made converted tries worth 6 points and penalties 4 points and teams would probably still have an attacking mindset. It hasn't been hard to score tries for most teams.

Penalty goals tend to decide games more at test level because it is generally harder to score tries because defences are better.

The NRC is going well so far and the laws are working well. I think the only ones we're likely to see pushed further up anytime soon are time limits on kicks and scrums. They would be good ideas.

 

[Omar Comin']

It's just a shame that it's mostly the rusted-on conservatives are the ones actually turning up and watching these games.

How do you know? I'd say everyone that made suggestions to the ARU would be part of the core rugby support base in Australia. The core that is turning up. It's not like there were tens of thousands of people that participated. Most core rugby fans would like to see less penalty goals.

You could have made converted tries worth 6 points and penalties 4 points and teams would probably still have an attacking mindset.

I agree they would have an attacking mindset, but they wouldn't be kicking for touch from penalties. Plenty of teams have an attacking mindset at test level and super rugby level too. But they still kick the points when on offer because that's the best option 90% of the time under a 3 point penalty, 7 point converted try scoring system.