Where to for Super Rugby?

[Ulrich]

We can all dream I suppose Rebels3.

 

[Rebels3]

We can all dream I suppose Rebels3.

Haha, i believe its as close as it'd come for me.

 

[zer0]

The problem for us in SA is that the Cheetahs are the lifeblood of SA rugby even if it may not seem so for the foreign contingent. They breed the best players, the school in Bloemfontein, Grey College, has the most Springboks of any school - and I believe NZs highest contributing school was founded by the same man.

Huh. They were indeed. That's an interesting bit of trivia.

 

[Ulrich]

I think SA would prefer 8 SA teams, 5 NZ teams, 2 Argie teams and 5 European teams.

We would prefer 5 SA teams namely the Bulls, Cheetahs, Lions, Sharks and Stormers against all 5 NZ teams.

That is the dream for us with cash not being a problem too of course.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Ulrich, still a lot of travel in that competition.

Rebels3, I think your dream world is probably the best potential solution I've seen in all the posts on the subject. Keep agitating.

 

[Omar Comin']

Further news:

http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/SuperRugby/super-rugby-chop-undecided-20170325

The most amazing piece of that article is this bit:
"Alexander said the regions and the broadcasters were still discussing PwC’s recommendations for a Sanzaar meeting to be held in Japan on May 11 and 12."

It's groundhog day. Are we sure SANZAAR isn't a satirical organisation at this point?

 

[Rugbynutter39]

We can all dream I suppose Rebels3.

Some Times Dreams can come true....but yes dreaming for the perfect world can lead to disappointment

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Strewthcobber]

Alexander said PwC’s research on Super Rugby teams was based on results, viewership, fan attendance at matches, their size of the market and marketability

Interesting to see the criteria spelled out.

Any one of the Brumbies, Rebs or Force could fall out of that depending on who's doing the evaluation and the weighting they give each category.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

We could probably pick up an extra few thousand fans just by removing the rolling maul.

I quite like the rolling maul but if that would bring more fans in by its removal I am all for it as we have to be prepared to change our product to make it more relevant to modern day demands and competition for fans.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Braveheart81]

I quite like the rolling maul but if that would bring more fans in by its removal I am all for it as we have to be prepared to change our product to make it more relevant to modern day demands and competition for fans.

It's not our product to change. We play a global sport.

Tinkering with the laws in some competitions is doable but all changes need to be approved by World Rugby.

I don't think creating a new sport is the way forward. It is a sure fire recipe for alienating ourselves from rugby fans both in Australia and globally.

Assuming that there are swathes of AFL and NRL fans just waiting to become diehard rugby fans with a couple of rule changes or a different competition structure seems highly unlikely to me.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

It's not our product to change. We play a global sport.

Tinkering with the laws in some competitions is doable but all changes need to be approved by World Rugby.

I don't think creating a new sport is the way forward. It is a sure fire recipe for alienating ourselves from rugby fans both in Australia and globally.

Actually the product is more than just the game on the field bh as we are selling a entertainment product at pro level.

So yes for product on the field i mean changes within the constraints as you suggest....e.g. adopting nrc points system

But there are many Changes to the product outside of the game played on the field. For example, format and structure of competition, entertainment and supporting events built around the product e.g like pi day nrc did.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Braveheart81]

Actually the product is more than just the game on the field bh as we are selling a entertainment product at pro level.

So yes for product on the field i mean changes within the constraints as you suggest..e.g. adopting nrc points system

But there are many Changes to the product outside of the game played on the field. For example, format and structure of competition, entertainment and supporting events built around the product e.g like pi day nrc did.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

Of course, but I was replying to your previous post where you said we should be prepared to get rid of things like the rolling maul.

Improving the competition structure for fans is vitally important but it also needs to be viable from year one. Hopefully we can navigate our way through the Super Rugby changes and end up with a Trans-Tasman comp in a few years time as I think that has the best long term viability.

I don't think an Australian only competition as the core way we pay our players is viable whatsoever. It would destroy the professional game in the country because we don't have the funds to finance it and you can't start from scratch and wait for it to grow because we compete in an international market in terms of player costs.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Actually the product is more than just the game on the field bh as we are selling a entertainment product at pro level.

So yes for product on the field i mean changes within the constraints as you suggest..e.g. adopting nrc points system

But there are many Changes to the product outside of the game played on the field. For example, format and structure of competition, entertainment and supporting events built around the product e.g like pi day nrc did.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

To be frank I think rugby is in this country needs to start with Greenfield thinking not constrained by current constraints. E.G. answer what could be offered as Rugby product to oz sports fans that would be more appealing to them to watch or be involved and don't introduce any constraints. As if something in top 3 of fans wishlist that would get them on board but say goes against current irb rules, should the aru just accept that constraint or lobby the iru for change or ability to at least lobby to trial here in oz. If the aru would take the former path I think the game is well and truly rooted in this country.

Bh hence I don't agree that the product should not be open to change as everything should be on the table if that is what is needed for rugby in this country.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Of course, but I was replying to your previous post where you said we should be prepared to get rid of things like the rolling maul.

Improving the competition structure for fans is vitally important but it also needs to be viable from year one. Hopefully we can navigate our way through the Super Rugby changes and end up with a Trans-Tasman comp in a few years time as I think that has the best long term viability.

I don't think an Australian only competition as the core way we pay our players is viable whatsoever. It would destroy the professional game in the country because we don't have the funds to finance it and you can't start from scratch and wait for it to grow because we compete in an international market in terms of player costs.

I doubt the rolling maul would be holding back more wider mass appeal for rugby in this country but if was then considering how we could address this has to be on the table

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Twoilms]

It's not our product to change. We play a global sport.

Tinkering with the laws in some competitions is doable but all changes need to be approved by World Rugby.

I don't think creating a new sport is the way forward. It is a sure fire recipe for alienating ourselves from rugby fans both in Australia and globally.

Assuming that there are swathes of AFL and NRL fans just waiting to become diehard rugby fans with a couple of rule changes or a different competition structure seems highly unlikely to me.

Can't be that hard to lobby for a few changes globally though, particularly around scrums. There was a period during the Force game where nothing but scrummaging happened for 8+ minutes. No one wants to see it. Not even our ogreish northern brethren want to see 8 minutes of scrumming. It still has to have a place but it's gotta be moderated. Too many resets and too much reward for dubious scrum penalties.

It doesn't need to be a case of drastically changing the game. A few minor tweaks, plus a properly thought out and formulated competition structure and it'll be popular again.

As an aside, what do people see in the rolling maul? Can't stand the things.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

As an aside, what do people see in the rolling maul? Can't stand the things.

A blight.
I cant even admire them as something beyond the capacity of any team I ever played in to keep going for more than about 3m and the refereeing of them is abysmal (see ref thread).
if they were strictly reffed they'd be rare and bearable.

 

[Braveheart81]

Can't be that hard to lobby for a few changes globally though, particularly around scrums. There was a period during the Force game where nothing but scrummaging happened for 8+ minutes. No one wants to see it. Not even our ogreish northern brethren want to see 8 minutes of scrumming. It still has to have a place but it's gotta be moderated. Too many resets and too much reward for dubious scrum penalties.

It doesn't need to be a case of drastically changing the game. A few minor tweaks, plus a properly thought out and formulated competition structure and it'll be popular again.

As an aside, what do people see in the rolling maul? Can't stand the things.

I agree with all those things.

The question is how to change them though.

I think they have made some improvements with the scrum officiating in that they let them play on if the scrum goes down and the ball is available. Likewise if the ball is available and the scrum is stationary they make them play it.

It's hard to work out what to do beyond that. If you gave more free kicks at scrum time, the dominant scrum would just take another scrum in a lot of circumstances. If you made it so that you couldn't take another scrum from a free kick then the weak scrum would be incentivised to give up free kicks rather than getting demolished and/or penalised from the scrum.

As for rolling mauls, I think the only way they can really reduce their prevalence is getting stricter on adjudicating the attacking team because whilst they are hard to defend, they will remain very popular.

 

[Twoilms]

I think they have made some improvements with the scrum officiating in that they let them play on if the scrum goes down and the ball is available. Likewise if the ball is available and the scrum is stationary they make them play it.

This seems to be as arbitrary as the rest of the scrum rules though. Sometimes they let it go and sometimes they pull play up instantly.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I agree with all those things.

The question is how to change them though.

I think they have made some improvements with the scrum officiating in that they let them play on if the scrum goes down and the ball is available. Likewise if the ball is available and the scrum is stationary they make them play it.

It's hard to work out what to do beyond that. If you gave more free kicks at scrum time, the dominant scrum would just take another scrum in a lot of circumstances. If you made it so that you couldn't take another scrum from a free kick then the weak scrum would be incentivised to give up free kicks rather than getting demolished and/or penalised from the scrum.

As for rolling mauls, I think the only way they can really reduce their prevalence is getting stricter on adjudicating the attacking team because whilst they are hard to defend, they will remain very popular.

Scrums are easily fixed actually. Coming from an ex-tighthead. Remove the hit and replace it with a 'fold in'. Much of the shenanigans at scrum time occur invand around the hit. Remove that and many of those will disappear as with the need to reset collapsed scrums as there would be a increase in overall stability as well.

You can still use the scrum as a weapon and establish dominance at the set piece. It would also make it a lot easier for refs to identify any wrong doing and punish it.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

A blight.
I cant even admire them as something beyond the capacity of any team I ever played in to keep going for more than about 3m and the refereeing of them is abysmal (see ref thread).
if they were strictly reffed they'd be rare and bearable.

Never been a fan of the maul in the sense that for most situations in a game that prides itself on the continued contest it effectively negates it. I like many want to see Rugby keep its identity in terms of structural elements but I can empathise with the sentiment that the maul is very much a remnant of a by gone era that has nothing in common woth today.

I wouldn't weep for it if WR (World Rugby) decided to cast it aside.