The cause of the decline of Rugby?

[Gagger]

An interesting article from David Hands in the Times yesterday
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/rugby_union/article6932581.ece

In a nut shell he's blaming the dwindling number tries being scored in comps around the world on
1) The tackler being able to stay on the ball after a ruck's been formed
2) Professionals being scared to lose

On point 1, I think he might be missing the point. Yes, this latest law sucks a fair bit, but to me the biggest problem has become the obsession with turning the breakdown into a 50/50 competition. Last year it was pinging attacking ruckers going off their feet - note how this penalty has disappeared this season - and this year pinging attacking support payers for not through the gate is also en vogue.

If we want to see attacking rugby, surely the advantage here has to be with the attacking side, with just enough room for great skill from the likes of George Smith & David Pocock (and I guess McCaw and Brussow...), which is how I remember it being in the late 90's, early noughties. Is it just me?

 

[chief]

I think its as simple as this.

Northern Hempishere rules the rugby laws, therefore we cannot progress to the current low attention span by current rugby fans, and journalists.

If we were to progress ELV's would have to be bought back. But refereed a shit load better, and not have 6 different people off their feet at once and referees playing a guess game. Then again the game should not be made like rugby league, where every 5th ruck either becomes a restart, or where the referee blows the whistle.

Its just a shame that these laws will not be bought into rugby to at least 2012.

 

[Gagger]

I sense it's gonna be a cold day in hell before the IRB digs up the ELVs

 

[Thomond78]

An interesting article from David Hands in the Times yesterday
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/rugby_union/article6932581.ece

In a nut shell he's blaming the dwindling number tries being scored in comps around the world on
1) The tackler being able to stay on the ball after a ruck's been formed
2) Professionals being scared to lose

On point 1, I think he might be missing the point. Yes, this latest law sucks a fair bit, but to me the biggest problem has become the obsession with turning the breakdown into a 50/50 competition. Last year it was pinging attacking ruckers going off their feet - note how this penalty has disappeared this season - and this year pinging attacking support payers for not through the gate is also en vogue.

If we want to see attacking rugby, surely the advantage here has to be with the attacking side, with just enough room for great skill from the likes of George Smith & David Pocock (and I guess McCaw and Brussow...), which is how I remember it being in the late 90's, early noughties. Is it just me?

And it worked. The whole point is, if you have to come through the gate, on your feet, no hands on, then you get two packs committing, and proper, classic rucking over the ball, which leads to fast ball with space out wide because the forwards have had to commit.

Paddy O'Brien introduced the new hands-in law - and that's what it is, a law by stealth - as a tantrum over the ELVs not being passed. And it was a disgrace. The ELVs were tried and failed. This new one where "hands in the ruck isn't really hands in the ruck, sort of, fingers crossed, no backs" is screwing up the game even more is worse, as it's even more subjective.

Get rid of it. Concentrate on having scrums settled and square before a straight put in, and keeping everyone onside and on their feet at all time, and we'll have most of the major problems sorted.

 

[Spook]

The ELVs weren't tried at all, especially in the North. Only a handful were played. The ARC featured all the laws and was great tournament.

 

[Scotty]

Paddy O'Brien introduced the new hands-in law - and that's what it is, a law by stealth - as a tantrum over the ELVs not being passed. And it was a disgrace. The ELVs were tried and failed. This new one where "hands in the ruck isn't really hands in the ruck, sort of, fingers crossed, no backs" is screwing up the game even more is worse, as it's even more subjective.

Is O'Brien the sole decision maker in regards to law 'interpretations'?

 

[chief]

Paddy O'Brien introduced the new hands-in law - and that's what it is, a law by stealth - as a tantrum over the ELVs not being passed. And it was a disgrace. The ELVs were tried and failed. This new one where "hands in the ruck isn't really hands in the ruck, sort of, fingers crossed, no backs" is screwing up the game even more is worse, as it's even more subjective.

Is O'Brien the sole decision maker in regards to law 'interpretations'?

He pretty much is. He has the referees interpret the laws on the international circuit. PDV is meeting with Paddy before their test against Ireland, so he can get some clarity on interpretations.

 

[Blue]

The NH will forever call the ELVs a failure as they see it as an initiative by the SH teams to counter their strenghts. All that pain with the ELV's and it all got dumped and replced with a shit excuse for a law (hands in).

Space needs to be created. The IRB hasnlt got the balls.

 

[fatprop]

An interesting article from David Hands in the Times yesterday
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/rugby_union/article6932581.ece

In a nut shell he's blaming the dwindling number tries being scored in comps around the world on
1) The tackler being able to stay on the ball after a ruck's been formed
2) Professionals being scared to lose

On point 1, I think he might be missing the point. Yes, this latest law sucks a fair bit, but to me the biggest problem has become the obsession with turning the breakdown into a 50/50 competition. Last year it was pinging attacking ruckers going off their feet - note how this penalty has disappeared this season - and this year pinging attacking support payers for not through the gate is also en vogue.

If we want to see attacking rugby, surely the advantage here has to be with the attacking side, with just enough room for great skill from the likes of George Smith & David Pocock (and I guess McCaw and Brussow...), which is how I remember it being in the late 90's, early noughties. Is it just me?

Which is what I said i a blog post last week (http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/unintentional-consequences/)

Players and coaches need some comfort that they can recycle the ball or they will kick it away.

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

1. The players are too fit/strong which is causing too many injuries. No matter how much you like scrums and contact, the human body isn't made to be hit by a 125kg person with 1.5% body fat at full tilt

2. TV/Video analysis means defence coaches have a distinct advantage over offence as you don't need to be talented at rugby, you just need to be a good analyst.

3. ELV's were trialled then chucked wasting everybodie's time

Rugby is just plain and simply, too big for the sport. Too big money wise, too big player wise & too big research wise. It's just supposed to be a bunch of ugly fella's with loose fitting shirts hanging out, kicking a footy around in a mud pit. In the near future, it's going to be a morph of NFL.

 

[Gagger]

THE END IS NIGH!!!

 

[PaarlBok]

I know our position is different to Aus due to your competition from other codes.

if you mean killing by crowds attending live matches , then yes, its on the decline. Why? nothing about rules more to do with to much top class rugby on Telly.

On the other fronts (players/TV Viewers/structure) we are on the up and stronger then ever in the past and on the up. Fortunately rugby is on a success role in SA and all Saffers love winners and thats what the Bokke supply at the moment. When Snor give his reason why the Bokke have to win, to lift the Nation moral being caught in ression and all the day to day kak, he has it spot on. Thats what rugby do to Saffers.

We have a sound talent base at schoolboy level and it grow every single year.

 

[PaarlBok]

Find it very interesting that criket follow the same path. Hell I cant remember in the past they'll struggle to get a full house Newlands Cricket Stadium for a ODI. Today they play against the Poms and there is still tickets available. Same story nothing about cricket rules , simply to much cricket. Do we want to go the same root as cricket? Change the rules to the T20 style? No I dont hope so, cricket is losing some serious basic principales of basic batting and bowling due to Six or a Nix kak to watch.

 

[Thomond78]

The NH will forever call the ELVs a failure as they see it as an initiative by the SH teams to counter their strenghts. All that pain with the ELV's and it all got dumped and replced with a shit excuse for a law (hands in).

Space needs to be created. The IRB hasnlt got the balls.

It's worth pointing out - again - that most of the ELVs made it through. Hell, the Bokke won the Lions series because of one of them (the corner flag one). Ironically, we kept one of the worst - the stupid 22 ELV - and got rid of one I really, really liked, the no-numbers in the lineout one. That one really annoyed me, because there was no dislike of it here, but to the best of my knowledge it was dumped in an effort to get FKAGG global. It was a good one, allowed tactical play, and, as I said here at the time, only needed the addition of mauls to be a cracker.

The fact that we dumped that, but kept the idiot ones about the hooker and the receiver at the lineout, shows just what a balls Paddy O'Brien made of the whole thing. That he then followed it up with the hands-in one and the Dickinson debacles shows he really is one of the major problems facing the game at the moment.

 

[Gagger]

Which is what I said i a blog post last week (http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/unintentional-consequences/)

Players and coaches need some comfort that they can recycle the ball or they will kick it away.

Darn - knew that idea was too good to be mine. I swear it was subliminal FP.

 

[PaarlBok]

The fact that we dumped that, but kept the idiot ones about the hooker and the receiver at the lineout, shows just what a balls Paddy O'Brien made of the whole thing. That he then followed it up with the hands-in one and the Dickinson debacles shows he really is one of the major problems facing the game at the moment.

Once again, Watson was the one taking them on trail in our rugby first. Probably the reason why SA went against the ELVs was only because we end up here with four sets of rules in one season. It was a joke.

 

[Cutter]

1. The players are too fit/strong which is causing too many injuries. No matter how much you like scrums and contact, the human body isn't made to be hit by a 125kg person with 1.5% body fat at full tilt

2. TV/Video analysis means defence coaches have a distinct advantage over offence as you don't need to be talented at rugby, you just need to be a good analyst.

3. ELV's were trialled then chucked wasting everybodie's time

Rugby is just plain and simply, too big for the sport. Too big money wise, too big player wise & too big research wise. It's just supposed to be a bunch of ugly fella's with loose fitting shirts hanging out, kicking a footy around in a mud pit. In the near future, it's going to be a morph of NFL.

This is why I supported the ELVs. Its a real pity the whole lot werent trialled anywhere worthwhile.

 

[PaarlBok]

I love the ELVs in our schoolboy game. It work perfectly to educate the kids to play a much faster and skilfull game. We had years of low scores aith the top teams and the ELVs open that up a bit. Luckily they kept some of the ELVs with the schoolboys.