• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Super Rugby Pacific 2025

chiraag

Larry Dwyer (12)
Yep strewth, I agree, was making point you can't use player test payments as part of super salary.
We in agreement. I just making point earlier that salary cap isn't everything anyway, as Aussie teams seem to have a higher one.
You do need to use a component of it though, to try and equalise teams and avoid gaming of the system (like we currently have RA doing to help out the Tahs & Reds).
There should be a reasonable minimum percentage of each player's total salary (super salary + national team top up) that is counted towards a team's salary cap. I'd suggest something like 30% to 40% would be reasonable, based on a player playing roughly the same number of super and international games, and international games being worth about twice a super game.
 

Adam84

Rod McCall (65)
Ok I get that Adam, just I found I had no more interest in Reds last year with Toomaga-Allen and Alex Hodgeman in them than other times.
Just felt once they were Reds players, that's what they were, Toomaga-Allen used to be a Canes player I liked, but once he left that was it.
I still watched Reds now and then, but just because I watch rugby. Same with Force and ex Canes(kiwi)players they have. Players that went to Moana Pasifika from Canes etc never got me watching them anymore,etc. Don't know really anyone who watc Japanese or URC etc just to see players from here. With players that go to other NZ team, I see them just because I watch almost every kiwi team play.
Though I do concede there might be a few that will a player, but not many.
Clearly, you're not a front-rower then... doesn't help Trans-Tasman's interest when Hodgman put his hand up for Wallabies eligibility early on. This same concept suggested by Barret extends to what NRL Clubs and State of Origin have done for a decade; Melbourne Storm are the 2nd most supported NRL team due to a massive interstate following of QLD supporters because of their long association with QLD Origin players like Cronk, Smith, Slater etc.

Personal opinion/bias aside, the facts of the situation are that NZ Super Rugby matches against one another rate the lowest on Australia TV, and I'm sure the opposite is true for Australian Derby ratings in NZ. So it might be worth acknowledging, Dan, that you are a clear outlier if you watch all Australian games..

As a broadcast product, half of the Super Rugby content in each country is devalued because fans have no buy-in to those games.
 
Last edited:

Dan54

David Wilson (68)
Clearly, you're not a front-rower then... doesn't help Trans-Tasman's interest when Hodgman put his hand up for Wallabies eligibility early on. This same concept suggested by Barret extends to what NRL Clubs and State of Origin have done for a decade; Melbourne Storm are the 2nd most supported NRL team due to a massive interstate following of QLD supporters because of their long association with QLD Origin players like Cronk, Smith, Slater etc.

Personal opinion/bias aside, the facts of the situation are that NZ Super Rugby matches against one another rate the lowest on Australia TV, and I'm sure the opposite is true for Australian Derby ratings in NZ. So it might be worth acknowledging, Dan, that you are a clear outlier if you watch all Australian games..

As a broadcast product, half of the Super Rugby content in one each country is devalued because fans have no buy-in to those games.
I will tell you one of reasons what doesn't help is time of games, there is a reason why tv wants games at 7.30pm, that's the best time to get audience. I struggle with games from Aus mainly because they on at 9.30pm here, and I know mates in Aus would quite often miss NZ games (especially early season) as they kicked off at 4.30 over there. I take it not only reason etc, but there all these things add up.
I don't know anyone over here was upset when Hodgeman put up hand for Wallabies, mind you he only a Blues player anyway, so who cared? ;) , same as Aiden Ross heading over to Aus for chance at Wallabies, generally when they go, they just no longer our player. I knew noone who watched Reds more when Daniel Braid played for them, I watched, but lived in Brisbane then and went to all Reds games anyway, before and after he played.
Mate I not suggesting that some people will find have more interest, but in my experience not a lot. I don't know many people watching the Leinster URC games because Jordie Barret is playing for them, it think those things are a quick sugar hit in interest.
 
Last edited:

Dan54

David Wilson (68)
Clearly, you're not a front-rower then... doesn't help Trans-Tasman's interest when Hodgman put his hand up for Wallabies eligibility early on. This same concept suggested by Barret extends to what NRL Clubs and State of Origin have done for a decade; Melbourne Storm are the 2nd most supported NRL team due to a massive interstate following of QLD supporters because of their long association with QLD Origin players like Cronk, Smith, Slater etc.

Personal opinion/bias aside, the facts of the situation are that NZ Super Rugby matches against one another rate the lowest on Australia TV, and I'm sure the opposite is true for Australian Derby ratings in NZ. So it might be worth acknowledging, Dan, that you are a clear outlier if you watch all Australian games..

As a broadcast product, half of the Super Rugby content in one each country is devalued because fans have no buy-in to those games.
Yep mate I actually said I watch all kiwi teams play, except sometimes against Force when it in Perth (too late for me) but get your point of view, just different to mine is all:)
 

dru

David Wilson (68)
@Dan, I don't think you are catching my point. Also (in passing) I have avoided conversations with you for quite a while due to the way myopic thoughts drive the conversation. So I'm not hopeful here.

IMO Australia needs more teams. 4 is a fucking disaster. With more teams, AND a drive that we have to integrate with the Kiwis, then (and pretty much only then) there is a need for an equaliser to balance the competition.

Where we are now, intentionally or not, to the Kiwi delight or not, is to shrink to greatness. Which is not just a nonsense but an unmitigated fuckup. So what happens here, without input from RA that I just can't see what it would be, is a gradual (but increasing) decline of Australian pro rugby. Yes we've been watching that for a while, but the slippery slide has been oiled.

You and I, Dan, are not on the same page.
 

Dan54

David Wilson (68)
@Dan, I don't think you are catching my point. Also (in passing) I have avoided conversations with you for quite a while due to the way myopic thoughts drive the conversation. So I'm not hopeful here.

IMO Australia needs more teams. 4 is a fucking disaster. With more teams, AND a drive that we have to integrate with the Kiwis, then (and pretty much only then) there is a need for an equaliser to balance the competition.

Where we are now, intentionally or not, to the Kiwi delight or not, is to shrink to greatness. Which is not just a nonsense but an unmitigated fuckup. So what happens here, without input from RA that I just can't see what it would be, is a gradual (but increasing) decline of Australian pro rugby. Yes we've been watching that for a while, but the slippery slide has been oiled.

You and I, Dan, are not on the same page.
Actually mate we on the same page re the 4 teams. I don't really know that many who think it is good, and never is good for any nation to lose teams. (I was pissed with Pom comp losing clubs) I kept right out of discussions on number of teams for Aus, even though I disagreed with shrinking etc,, because I just saw opinions and no real facts why it was done.
I admit we not on same page re kiwis filling up Aussie teams with kiwi players, as Aussie money should be used to pay Aussie players and not ours I don't believe.
I know and understand the idea of super being completely free of interference from NZR and RA etc, just can't happen and can't even think of any major rugby comp in world that the governing board doesn't have a say on how it's run and elibility etc.
 

dru

David Wilson (68)
Actually mate we on the same page re the 4 teams. I don't really know that many who think it is good, and never is good for any nation to lose teams. (I was pissed with Pom comp losing clubs) I kept right out of discussions on number of teams for Aus, even though I disagreed with shrinking etc,, because I just saw opinions and no real facts why it was done.
I admit we not on same page re kiwis filling up Aussie teams with kiwi players, as Aussie money should be used to pay Aussie players and not ours I don't believe.
I know and understand the idea of super being completely free of interference from NZR and RA etc, just can't happen and can't even think of any major rugby comp in world that the governing board doesn't have a say on how it's run and elibility etc.

Dan, my apologies on my earlier post. I'm not going to retract it as the sentiment stands. All the best, bloke, I've always thought you are a true rugby guy.
 

Wilson

Rod McCall (65)
Law innovations have bee confirmed:

New law innovations for Super Rugby Pacific in 2025 include:

- Time restrictions (conversions and penalty goals): Players will have 60 seconds to attempt conversions and penalty goals. This was previously 90 seconds for conversions.

- Play on from not-straight lineout throws: If the non-throwing team does not lift a teammate to compete for the ball, then play shall continue. If the non-throwing team lifts a teammate to compete for the ball, a free kick is awarded to the non-throwing team. The awarding of a free kick rather than a scrum is a change to the World Rugby law trial specific to Super Rugby Pacific, to promote the flow of game.

- Protection of 9 at ruck, maul and defensive positions at scrum:

  • Ruck: A player who is, or was part of the ruck may not play an opponent who is near it (within one metre), and who is attempting to play the ball away.
  • Maul: A player who is, or was part of the maul may not play an opponent near it (within one metre), and who is attempting to play the ball away.
  • Scrum: Once play in the scrum begins, the scrum half of the team not in possession takes up a position with both feet no further than the centre line of the tunnel.
- Starting play in Super Point: The team who scores the first try in regular time has the choice to kick off or receive in Super Point, which was formerly known as Golden Point. This replaces the coin toss.

Returning law innovations include:

- TMO referrals driven by on-field team: TMOs will only intervene unprompted if the on-field match officials have missed a piece of serious foul play, or a clear and obvious infringement leading to a try. This aims to improve decision-making and accuracy, while benefitting the flow and integrity of the game.

- 20-minute red card: Players who perform an act of foul play that is considered to have met the red card threshold, but is assessed as not deliberate or with a high degree of danger, will receive a red card but can be replaced after 20 minutes from the time of the incident.

Any incident of foul play that contains dangerous actions and is adjudicated at a yellow card level on field will automatically be reviewed by the TMO during the 10-minute period the player is off the field. The possible sanctions are:

  • Yellow card sanction in which the player is entitled to return at the conclusion of the 10-minute period; or
  • Red card sanction in which the player is removed from the match but is permitted to be replaced after 20 minutes from the time of the incident.
A full red card sanction, in which the player is removed from the match and not replaced, is still applicable when foul play is deemed deliberate and with a high level of danger.
 

Dan54

David Wilson (68)
That will stop a lot of conversions if the time start when ref indicates try. By geez if a try is scored under a pile of bodies it will take a while for opposition to get up. I agree it's a good idea when kicker has ball in hand (or available), but if it from when try scored??
 

JRugby2

Dave Cowper (27)
That will stop a lot of conversions if the time start when ref indicates try. By geez if a try is scored under a pile of bodies it will take a while for opposition to get up. I agree it's a good idea when kicker has ball in hand (or available), but if it from when try scored??
I don't think it's going to be that big of a deal to be honest.

90second was a long time and more often than not, not fully utilised.
 

Ignoto

Peter Sullivan (51)
Because sometimes two co-captains just ain't enough...

Imagine being put down as the 4th captain.

You wait, Trump will sign an executive order stopping this because having 4 captains seems like a DEI play!
 

Adam84

Rod McCall (65)

Shit i thought the 'play-on if not thrown straight' rule was already a thing in 2024... its honestly a no-brainer and maybe some refs were already loosly enforcing it..

But I have real concerns about the 'protection of the 9' rule; not letting the opposition half proceed past halfway is a stupid inclusion. When was that ever a concern in the game?

But my bigger issue relates to the rule around the ruck and maul; how is this applied close to the opposition line when you have forwards playing scrum-half, either picking and driving or popping to a pod beside them? It's essentially stating that a forward on the edge of the ruck can't defend within a 1m channel against an attacking pick&drive... which is where 90% of pick and drives are scored..
  • Ruck: A player who is, or was part of the ruck may not play an opponent who is near it (within one metre), and who is attempting to play the ball away.
  • Maul: A player who is, or was part of the maul may not play an opponent near it (within one metre), and who is attempting to play the ball away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dru

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Here are the law trials for MLR.

1739251588161.png


1739251596394.png


I have to say that I quite like 8.8(B)!
 

Dctarget

Tim Horan (67)
But my bigger issue relates to the rule around the ruck and maul; how is this applied close to the opposition line when you have forwards playing scrum-half, either picking and driving or popping to a pod beside them? It's essentially stating that a forward on the edge of the ruck can't defend within a 1m channel against an attacking pick&drive... which is where 90% of pick and drives are scored..
I assume that it'll go out the window when near the line which is what happens with most of the other rules anyway too.
 

Adam84

Rod McCall (65)
I assume that it'll go out the window when near the line which is what happens with most of the other rules anyway too.
you can't introduce new laws and not have a clear direction of when they are to be applied or not,, though.... what inevitably happens is inconsistent officiating across different referees, which frankly is one of the biggest sources of frustration with rugby union at Super Rugby level...

i can't wait to see the first forward yellow carded because he stops a try defending in this channel against another forward pick and driving.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
But my bigger issue relates to the rule around the ruck and maul; how is this applied close to the opposition line when you have forwards playing scrum-half, either picking and driving or popping to a pod beside them? It's essentially stating that a forward on the edge of the ruck can't defend within a 1m channel against an attacking pick&drive... which is where 90% of pick and drives are scored..

You need to be onside (i.e. not already part of the ruck/maul). I don't see how it changes for those defenders close to the goal line. It's only the players in the ruck/maul who are affected.

Has anyone noticed any difference so far in the Six Nations? This is a global law trial so it applies everywhere.
 
Top