The dying - perhaps death - of Rugby in Australia.

[WorkingClassRugger]

League's heartland is now the most hotly contested sporting market in the country.
GWS is having a hard time and i dont think that will change. what league should be worried about is soccer. WSW are killing it in a region rich with immigrants who have an affinity for soccer. WSW are getting better crowds than most league teams do and they have been successful. they will kill it again next year. further, you look at all the young kids in WS and where are they likely to get steered to by their parents? league - easily the most recklessly dangerous game in the country or AFL or soccer? soccer 1st and AFL 2nd (i'm ignoring rugby here)

AFL and soccer have taken the war right to league's heartland and i reckon soccer is winning and AFL is doing as predicted (and they will do better).
people talk about rugby being in trouble, but personally, i reckon league is in a lot of trouble that is just masked at the moment by a big tv deal. they do not offer a product that can compete with either AFL or soccer in their heartland. they can come up with your ideas of how to grow the game but it is a global non-entity despite being professional for how long? btw - a premiership game in china - no one in china would have any idea what league is ..this is 10x more stupid than AFL playing a pre-season game in china which itself was moronic).

i personally think rugby is only having a hard time in australia and that is for two primary reasons - the bad taste from the horribly boring style of play that the english and south africans played (and dominated with) from 2003 - 2007 which, if it had persisted, would've ruined the game and the limited success by the wallabies since 2003.

turn that around and the fair weather NSW sports fans will come out again (same applies to waratahs). if you had the rebels in melbourne playing rugby like the brumbies or the reds, the crowds and membership numbers would be 50% higher or better. rugby is the fastest growing team sport in the states, growing in england and france, growing significantly in spain, russia, italy, georgia (number 1 sport in georgia) and growing throughout southern africa.
Brazil has apparently fully embraced 7s and that is filtering into XVs as well - largely due to the olympics as they want to field a strong team at home. if the game grows in brazil, which doesn't have a contact team sport, that will be huge. That filters into Argentina (where the game is going from strength to strength) and uraguay which still has a great rugby culture and tradition.

end rant.

You could add Chile to that list. They are beginning to produce particularly strong youth teams now capable of putting it to (not quite to the level of beating them) their Argentine counterparts. And when you consider that the Argentine U20s team just defeated the JWC defending champions in a trial leading in this year's edition that says something. We tend to get very down in the dumps about the game in this country but we really need to get ourselves out of the haze and look around to see that the game is really beginning to progress and expand. We truly are the world contact sport. What we need here is for our administration to wake up and get the ball rolling.

Coming from the region, and having witnessed the participation first hand as a kid. The true No.1 sport in Western Sydney has always been Soccer. The issue was always the lack of adequate level competition in which to take interest in on our shore (the old NSL was always considered third rate) and when that finally arrived in the A-League they neglected to include the region that had produced around a third of the then Socceroos squad. Now that the region has its team, in a decent league you can be assured that the Melbourne Victory claim for the the biggest club in the league is null and void and that Parra stadium is not big enough for the Wanderers fans now and well into the future. We are looking a the new biggest football club in the country. BTW, I've long since gone off Soccer but I know about where I grew up and this is the reality.

 

[Hell West & Crooked]

IMHO, the biggest blight on the game is the constant kicking. I am been wracking my brains trying to think of an answer.


Maybe we should go back to the old rule, where a mark (a "fair catch") could be taken anywhere, not just in the 22. But no kick for goal allowed, of course. That would be a pretty strong disincentive against the constant up-and-unders.


The rule of unintended consequences apart, this might be worth a trial.

This is actually quite simple - but no-one seems game to take the stepS:

1. Make a Try Worth 6 pts and a Penalty Goal can remain at 3 - or even reduce to 2...
2. Make Field Goals worth 1 pt.

3. Simply make it against the Laws to kick when between the two 22-metre lines. You can kick in your OWN quarter, you can kick in THEIR quarter - but for the rest of the day, you RUN with the Ball...

 

[Rob42]

This is actually quite simple - but no-one seems game to take the stepS:

1. Make a Try Worth 6 pts and a Penalty Goal can remain at 3 - or even reduce to 2.
2. Make Field Goals worth 1 pt.

3. Simply make it against the Laws to kick when between the two 22-metre lines. You can kick in your OWN quarter, you can kick in THEIR quarter - but for the rest of the day, you RUN with the Ball.

Yeah, but nuh.

Making a try worth more just makes it more worthwhile for a defender to infringe to stop it - 3 points is cheaper if you save 8.

How often are field goals stop an enjoyable game? Not often.

No kicking in between quarters - why? Do you think the 2011 Reds were a great team to watch? They kicked more often than anyone - but the kicks were accurate and effective. Effective kicking adds to our multi-dimensional game - don't take parts to make it more black, white and boring.

 

[Braveheart81]

The only thing I would really consider is making it so you can't kick for goal when you are greater than say 35 metres from the try line. This would see far more attacking lineouts taken.

The reasoning behind this is that for a very long time when rugby was a game played with leather footballs, it was very difficult to kick a penalty goal from much further out than 35 metres with any great accuracy. When it rained it was nigh on impossible.

That to me is the one negative result from synthetic footballs. Everything else they bring is positive, mostly because the game doesn't completely break down in the wet like it did with a leather football that became like a cake of soap.

 

[Hell West & Crooked]

The only thing I would really consider is making it so you can't kick for goal when you are greater than say 35 metres from the try line. This would see far more attacking lineouts taken.

The reasoning behind this is that for a very long time when rugby was a game played with leather footballs, it was very difficult to kick a penalty goal from much further out than 35 metres with any great accuracy. When it rained it was nigh on impossible.

That to me is the one negative result from synthetic footballs. Everything else they bring is positive, mostly because the game doesn't completely break down in the wet like it did with a leather football that became like a cake of soap.

That is true... I will stick by what I have said about no kicking in the middle zones, Rugby is ultimately a running game, and yes I DO think that Kicking is a part of the game we can do with much less of...

As to field goals, well, personally, I would ban them - but I am aware that the majority would never go for that... even as a kid they struck me as an anomally in the game.

 

[TOCC]

i think there should be less rules, not more rules..

As for kicking, kicking does not make for boring rugby, its the way those kicks are employed which can make it boring. Kicking can be used and is used as an attacking weapon by a few teams so i disagree with the sentiment that kicking makes for boring rugby. Furthermore, kicking creates opportunity for the defending team as well, the "greatest try of all time"(Barbarians v AB 1973) had 3 kicks between the teams in the phase leading up-to the try.

 

[TOCC]

why kicking should remain:

 

[Hell West & Crooked]

That same era was also known for the phenominally boring 10-man rugby play of teams like Wales, and the Poms - and the likes of South Africa's Botha, who just kicked the ball away, all day...

Of more recent vintage were game(S) like South Africa versus Australia - was it in Sydney? (I have tried to block it out) where there was so much kicking that even MARK ELLA said it was bad enough to drive him to Rugby League...

Of course there is nothing wrong with kicking in itself - as a concept - but if it is used by the majority of teams in a way detrimental to the game, or, if the Laws as they exist encourage it to be used in such a way - then I believe that adjustments do need to be made.

If the ball had to stay 'in the hands' in the centre zone of the field, it would in no way hinder tactical kicking in the opposition's 22 - or Your Own...

It certainly makes No More, and No Less Sense, than a Law that says You can kick the ball out on the Full, from inside your 22 metre line, but one step forwards, with your Foot ON the line, You cannot... errant nonsense! You can either kick or you cannot.

Its Rugby, Not Chess.

I will Maintain to the Grave, that kicking blindly downfield, only to deliver the ball to your opposition in the hope of picking up a Penalty is Not Rugby.

Its just cynical - and the fact that we so readily accept it as a legitimate tactic in the modern game, is a condemnation all of its own.

 

[TOCC]

You ban kicking and teams will then take the next safest option to the the ball out of their territory, low percentage plays.. It won't improve the game, just add another rule to the already long list.

 

[Hell West & Crooked]

very vague.

 

[Rob42]

Law changes always have unintended consequences, which often reverse the intent of the law change. The dire kickfest referred to above, between the Wallabies and the Boks, was, if I'm not mistaken, a result of the ELVs which sought to make the game faster, and to increase the contest at the ruck. Noble intentions, yes? But the result was that teams could not take the risk of playing rugby (ie running it) from deep in their own territory, because the risk of turnover was too great - they needed greater security at the breakdown to make the risk of running it worthwhile. So under those laws, team always kicked out of their own territory, making for a woeful spectacle.

Banning kicking could well have the same effect. If the defence knows that there is no kick option, they can bring one or two extra defenders up into the defensive line - line breaks are hard enough to come by now, adding extra defenders to the line certainly won't help. So what you'll get is endless minutes of teams grinding out territory metre by metre until one team or the other cracks. Not a great spectacle either.

 

[Hell West & Crooked]

Law changes always have unintended consequences, which often reverse the intent of the law change. The dire kickfest referred to above, between the Wallabies and the Boks, was, if I'm not mistaken, a result of the ELVs which sought to make the game faster, and to increase the contest at the ruck. Noble intentions, yes? But the result was that teams could not take the risk of playing rugby (ie running it) from deep in their own territory, because the risk of turnover was too great - they needed greater security at the breakdown to make the risk of running it worthwhile. So under those laws, team always kicked out of their own territory, making for a woeful spectacle.

Banning kicking could well have the same effect. If the defence knows that there is no kick option, they can bring one or two extra defenders up into the defensive line - line breaks are hard enough to come by now, adding extra defenders to the line certainly won't help. So what you'll get is endless minutes of teams grinding out territory metre by metre until one team or the other cracks. Not a great spectacle either.

That is a fair point... I can appreciate that - I guess it is a question of the lesser of two evils... I would say that Rucking and Mauling metre by metre is the better of the two - others may reasonably disagree...

One of those unintended consequences you spoke of has been - by killing-off the Ruck - the ability of teams like the ABs and the Poms to play only 2 or 3 players in the maul and still manage a reasonable field position, whilst at the same time completely smothering-out any attacking options for the opposition...

Not attractive Rugby.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Hell West & Crooked has suggested that the oval could be widened to generate space for the pretty boys.

This year, lead by the Saffers we are seeing more and more of the rolling maul being used to great effect.

The defence either has to commit numbers to the maul to counter, which gets the fatties out of the defence line, or accept a huge loss of territory as their 2-3 man "defending pod" gets shunted backwards.

Old school footy is drag the fatties in, tire them out, then give it to the pretty boys to score a try so the fatties can get their breath back.

The rules don't need to be changed. Coaches need to change their tactics.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Hell West & Crooked has suggested that the oval could be widened to generate space for the pretty boys.

This year, lead by the Saffers we are seeing more and more of the rolling maul being used to great effect.

The defence either has to commit numbers to the maul to counter, which gets the fatties out of the defence line, or accept a huge loss of territory as their 2-3 man "defending pod" gets shunted backwards.

Old school footy is drag the fatties in, tire them out, then give it to the pretty boys to score a try so the fatties can get their breath back.

The rules don't need to be changed. Coaches need to change their tactics.

There's nothing essentially wrong with the game itself. I believe a few little tweaks need to be made to improve the experience of watching and fluency of the game but not law changes. The implementation of certain technologies more than anything else.

One of the most frustrating issues for mine is the provision of 'advantage'. Similar technology to that employed in the NFL could be utilised to set a defined advantage line across the field. The TMO could monitor that alongside a count down (say 10 seconds) and advise the ref if advantage has been achieved. If they kick, that's advantage also. That's about it. All you have to do then is convince the respective coaching teams to set the game plans in action that ensure the game is played at its open, free flowing best.

 

[Hell West & Crooked]

As an ex piggie, I do Love a good Rolling Maul... (I also enjoy a pretty Girl making me breakfast while wearing one of my old Rugby Jumpers - but in a different way)...

Anything that pulls the Pigs back into the forwards, and stops them Swanning About in the Centres, is ok by me... "In my old playing days" THAT was a sure way to find yourself dropped for the following week... Not these days.

It is a fast, hard game now - but even still, I am amazed how often I see the Wallaby tight 5 literally 'walking around' between the centres and the fly-half... Not jogging, Not running to the maul, or even getting out of the Bloody Way - just walking around, apparently waiting for the Ref to blow his whistle.

Maybe other teams have the same problem, but I'm not noticing it...

 

[Pfitzy]

make it part of the citizenship test maybe. Stuff "who was Don Bradman", try "what are the relative merits of Quade Cooper as starting 10 against the Lions"

Everyone would pass, as the correct answer is "buggered if I know".

All this wanging on about rule changes ignores one thing: refs are total pussies when it comes to handing out yellow cards like they're supposed to! That gets your space on the field

 

[Badger]

Out at the Swans game at the SCG on the weekend and saw the likes of Trinity, Knox, Cranbrook and St Ignatius forming the guard as the Swans run out on the field. Not your traditional AFL schools, but clear they are making headway at schools traditionally identified as rugby leaning.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

The technical and marketing boffins have been hard at work over at ARU headquarters.
I received an email from them this morning which would make Cat_A very pissed off but which included this breakthrough in "branding":

We're pleased to announce a new name for Australian Rugby's official YouTube channel - ARUTV!

 

[Braveheart81]

I would have gone with Wallavision.

 

[Bardon]

I bet that new name was one of those automatic suggestions youtube makes when it thinks your channel name is too long.