Where to for Super Rugby?

[WorkingClassRugger]

Good point Kiap - RA will likely get another deal for Super Rugby given mixed with tests etc but as you say will it just continue to hollow out and dimiish fan appeal. My point being there has to be something done to refresh interest in Super Rugby.whether adopting some of the GRR innovations maybe or something else - yes i am not clever to work that out but the current format is tired and needs a revamp.

Things like the power try and not being allowed to kick it into full from your own 22m might work well in Super Rugby. Richie McCaw suggested stopping the clock on scrums until the ball is fed in an effort to reduce time wastage. Apparently that would add a fair bit of extra time to the game. Someone on another forum mentioned they listened to a podcast that suggested as much as 20 mins of play. But I reckon it'd be closer to half that.

Edit: This article https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/how-much-lives-lost-scrum-11071864 suggested that up to as much as 20% of the game is wasted on scrums. So roughly 16 minutes. If alongside the above variations we could claw back somewhere between 16-24 min of actual ball in play across the game that would be huge.

 

[Adam84]

I think the idea has merit, and I think the issue is highlighted when teams are time-wasting at the scrum due to having a player in the sin-bin

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I think the idea has merit, and I think the issue is highlighted when teams are time-wasting at the scrum due to having a player in the sin-bin

Another area could be the line out. You get a lot of 'injuries' around them. I reckon you stop the clock for both and install shot clocks for the set ups. Say 30 seconds. If you take longer than 30 secs to form up and set then it's a short arm the other way. Clock starts when the hooker throws the ball and the scrummy feeds the scrum.

 

[wamberal]

If we want the game to be attractive I would rather see time limits on scrums and lineouts than stopping the clock. Plus lengthening the elapsed time of matches runs counter to what seems to be the modern appetite for shorter contests.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

If we want the game to be attractive I would rather see time limits on scrums and lineouts than stopping the clock. Plus lengthening the elapsed time of matches runs counter to what seems to be the modern appetite for shorter contests.

By stopping the clock and enforcing the shot clocks I suspect you'd actually see these platforms would move a lot quicker than at present or just putting in the shot clocks. Being forced to set the platform in a prompt order and not restarting the clock until they are successfully set I reckon we'll see a lot less little breaks and resets around scrums and lineouts.

 

[Adam84]

If we want the game to be attractive I would rather see time limits on scrums and lineouts than stopping the clock. Plus lengthening the elapsed time of matches runs counter to what seems to be the modern appetite for shorter contests.

How much of slowing the play at the scrum and line out is a result of deliberately trying to waste time though?
Therefore by removing the incentive for teams to deliberately waste time they may just get on with it, therefore we mightn't see games lengthened at all.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

How much of slowing the play at the scrum and line out is a result of deliberately trying to waste time though?
Therefore by removing the incentive for teams to deliberately waste time they may just get on with it, therefore we mightn't see games lengthened at all.

I reckon a lot of the lost time can be directly attributed to 'gamesmanship'. Stop the clock. Set timer for 30 secs. Form up and execute on the call in the case of scrums. Any collapses unless clearly obvious due to field conditions would immediately come with a short arm for the offending team. The clock starts as the scrummy or hooker feed the ball into line out/scrum. Once the ball is in it's play on regardless if the front rows go down.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I am all for either speeding up the set piece or having it eliminated from the game time altogether, but I fear there will smart coaches who will devise tactics to avoid the intention. However, I do not think migrating GRR rules to Super Rugby is a good idea at all. As many have said previously on here, Super rugby is the lead in to test selection. I don't think the two levels of the game should be played under different laws or interpretations.

The simplest way to open up the game would be to ensure the defensive lines are on side at the breakdown. Too many players shooting out of the line look to be well offside in most games.

Proper policing of the breakdown area itself would also be a big help so that faster ball can be achieved. Keep players on their feet and stop players entering from the side would be a good start.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Things like the power try and not being allowed to kick it into full from your own 22m might work well in Super Rugby. Richie McCaw suggested stopping the clock on scrums until the ball is fed in an effort to reduce time wastage. Apparently that would add a fair bit of extra time to the game. Someone on another forum mentioned they listened to a podcast that suggested as much as 20 mins of play. But I reckon it'd be closer to half that.

Edit: This article https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/how-much-lives-lost-scrum-11071864 suggested that up to as much as 20% of the game is wasted on scrums. So roughly 16 minutes. If alongside the above variations we could claw back somewhere between 16-24 min of actual ball in play across the game that would be huge.

yeh I tend to agree concept of power try and not allowed to kick into full from your own 22m might work in Super Rugby. I can see BR's point of not changing the rules too much to align with rules played at test level but these 2 rules for Super Rugby could be a good idea.

 

[Dan54]

Shit, save power tries etc to fun games etc, and keep playing super rugby as rugby, next there would be suggestions of dropping a souple of flankers to give more room on field,

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Shit, save power tries etc to fun games etc, and keep playing super rugby as rugby, next there would be suggestions of dropping a souple of flankers to give more room on field,

Staying the same to attract the modern day sports fan means things have to evolve. Look at cricket and the initial reactions when they started pyjama (one day) cricket under Kerry Packer. Would have had the same reactions.

Anyhow there will always be diverging views around this sort of stuff. I am probably more open to things like this if means would bring the fans back but appreciate others might choke on their cornflakes with the prospect of changes like this.

 

[hoggy]

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sp...y/news-story/83f5ea5c00e7c20f2153e8d099a7f93c

Brilliant, So we have dead man walking for the next five years.

 

[Sully]

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sp...y/news-story/83f5ea5c00e7c20f2153e8d099a7f93c

Brilliant, So we have dead man walking for the next five years.

It's not like it's leading to something else. it has to end someday why not then.

 

[half]

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sp...y/news-story/83f5ea5c00e7c20f2153e8d099a7f93c

Brilliant, So we have dead man walking for the next five years.

It's not like it's leading to something else. it has to end someday why not then.

I have been advocating for the end of Super Rugby since just before 2000. Further replacing Super Rugby with a local domestic competition and I can include NZ in a local competition.

I have always said that a caveat on that was a 4 to 5 year time frame where the first two years are spent in bringing folks together and working out what we wanta do.

Phase 2, is developing the model and get key players from business and media on board.

Phase 3, is implementation.

On my knees let this come to pass, 5 years to plan, develop & unite and develop a new set of governance for RA to operate under.

Best news I have heard in many years if this happens.

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

I have been advocating for the end of Super Rugby since just before 2000. Further replacing Super Rugby with a local domestic competition and I can include NZ in a local competition.

I have always said that a caveat on that was a 4 to 5 year time frame where the first two years are spent in bringing folks together and working out what we wanta do.

Phase 2, is developing the model and get key players from business and media on board.

Phase 3, is implementation.

On my knees let this come to pass, 5 years to plan, develop & unite and develop a new set of governance for RA to operate under.

Best news I have heard in many years if this happens.

So after 4 seasons of Super Rugby you wanted it binned. Righto.

 

[hoggy]

I have been advocating for the end of Super Rugby since just before 2000. Further replacing Super Rugby with a local domestic competition and I can include NZ in a local competition.

I have always said that a caveat on that was a 4 to 5 year time frame where the first two years are spent in bringing folks together and working out what we wanta do.

Phase 2, is developing the model and get key players from business and media on board.

Phase 3, is implementation.

On my knees let this come to pass, 5 years to plan, develop & unite and develop a new set of governance for RA to operate under.

Best news I have heard in many years if this happens.

The issue I have with the article is it is pretty much just speculation, I don't mind Smith but really I could've written that, and the part about air travel, not sure what to make of that, and i wonder just how keen Japan will be when there presence is more due to revenue than want.

I agree about forward planning and implementation, but the governance issue is the biggest challenge, because unless you are genuine in addressing the main reasons of why Super rugby is failing then just replacing SA with japan is not going to work, yet I can't help the feeling that is exactly what there trying to do.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

The issue I have with the article is it is pretty much just speculation, I don't mind Smith but really I could've written that, and the part about air travel, not sure what to make of that, and i wonder just how keen Japan will be when there presence is more due to revenue than want.

I agree about forward planning and implementation, but the governance issue is the biggest challenge, because unless you are genuine in addressing the main reasons of why Super rugby is failing then just replacing SA with japan is not going to work, yet I can't help the feeling that is exactly what there trying to do.

So, without seeing the article it's speculating a move to a Time zone based structure with Japan. How many Japanese teams? Could be interesting but I agree. They need to address the issues that caused Super Rugby to fall away. If they don't were just repackaging a turd.

 

[hoggy]

So, without seeing the article it's speculating a move to a Time zone based structure with Japan. How many Japanese teams? Could be interesting but I agree. They need to address the issues that caused Super Rugby to fall away. If they don't were just repackaging a turd.

Exactly or as you say it remains a turd. When i posted the link the article opened, however it is very much speculative, stating letting SA go but doesn't say where, talk is this will happen in 2026, they are beginning discussions, with the current NZ/AUS teams possibly Western Force and an unspecified number of Japanese teams, but nothing concrete and also implying the new broadcast options may play a part. And if this is the case then why for all its faults do you then drop the Sunwolves??

But I come back to what half has implied, you can't just keep people in the dark and pop up with a new competition, you have to bring the market along with you. The problem is the RA and NZRU don't want to relinquish control which is the biggest impediment to this, they want there cake and eat it to, they want control.

But any new competition will require an input of private money who will then want some bang for there bucks, that's where the problems start though, that private money won't want a list of terms & conditions attached or again you end up with Turd MK2.

 

[mst]

IMHO FWIW I think the "what's wrong with Super Rugby" question is a pretty much a Red Herring. Most of us like to watch our team play against the Kiwi teams and even SA teams. The concept is fairly sound. It's the people to watch it that are missing.

The structure of Aussie rugby is currently missing the key piece that the public need to identify with. A professional domestic competition. This is where you generate your fan base (and market from). The teams and sport would be relevant, accessible, identifiable and part of our weekly routines. From there the tribalism will grow, the supporter base will grow and the game grows. You will never get this from an amature based competion which is all we have left if Super Rugby goes.

One you have that local competition showcasing Aussie teams against the worlds best (lets say a limited duration Super Rugby competition for arguments sake) would work as it's a "special" and we would like to see our (Aussie) teams match up against the world best clubs. Bit of extra interest and extra revenue potentially.

But our product is not designed or fit for purpose in the domestic market so it's not locally accessible nor identifiable. People just can't relate to it it as its at a distance or in such limited quantity. It's comparative to a local food delicacy. You may of heard of it but it's rare, supply is limited and only a few get to try it; when it's in season. It doesn't appeal to a broad local fan base (and we wonder why the game is struggling ).

IMHO the very first challenge before we even think about TV deals is to break the current mould. The amature obession need to be killed off. But good luck with that as well all know about the desperate need of those entrenched in the game desire any power they can have, relish the politics and position and cling to the history that they rely on as justification for their continuing behaviours.

Until the amateur obsession is killed off the game will be divided and continues into the oblivion with no common agreed direction going forward nor ideas on how to generate revenue or appeal to the masses. Who (or what media outlet) would invest heavily in that?

Yes the Wallabies cash-cow might provided for the game for awhile, but with declining local supprterbase and players numbers it won't last for long.

We are already close to being reliant on budgeting from one world cup to the next as the only way generate tha extra income required to keep us going.

 

[VassMan]

What I would like to see is the NRC expanded to be our main competition. And then a reduced Super Rugby with just the Reds and Tahs being picked from the best of the NRC players, competing against say 3 NZ teams (Blues, Hurricanes, Crusaders based on largest towns), Sunwolves and Fiji. So Super Rugby is actually super and acts as trials for international teams.