A new three-code star for Wallabies?

[SimonG]

What you are describing is basically 7s.


...Which is quite ****.

Sevens is extreme...thirteen as in RL (or even 15).

Regards ball in play...the forwards are bigger and more dominant than ever and control the ball for long spells. The give and goes are a constant (a valid point which Sanzar brought up...how to eradicate this I do not know).

I've decided only really to focus on this part of your comment, as that's really the crux of it. As I've said above, the problem you have here is that you'd really struggle to find a Rugby League fan that sees the play-the-ball as a problem for the game's appeal. And why would they? It's a fast and efficient means of recycling possession in order to get the ball back into action. When rule changes get discussed each year at NRL HQ, it's just not something that would ever come up. Rather, the focus on increasing the speed of the play the ball by looking at how tackles are officiated. A good example would be how the Melbourne Storm started using wrestling trainers to teach their players how to hold guys and make tackles slower so they could get back onside. The NRL then sent out an edict saying that referees had to call players "held" much quicker so the game didn't slow down too much. But it'll be a cold day in hell before you get anyone to talk about introducing rucks into the game.

On Union you're simply flat out wrong on that one. In Australia most people would agree with you, but head to South Africa and fans get bloody excited about scrums... As for line-outs. I actually really like them. They're an interesting mini-game that doesn't take very long to complete and ensures that possession isn't guaranteed. By the same token, I think the "quick line-out" pass in field rule is a great idea, as it changes the calculus of long kicking.

As I said at the outset, you're suggesting things from the perspective of an outsider who is frustrated by both game. The problem is you'd get little support from existing fans of either sport. Put it to you this way: I suggested to my Peruvian born soccer made child-hood friend that soccer's point scoring system was off balance. The game would be far better if penalty kicks in the box were worth less than an open field goal because they're frankly a much easier goal to score. Make box-penalties worth 1 point and open field penalties worth 2 points. Also, instead of warning players with a yellow card, do what Union does and send them to the bin for 10 mins. Would make for a much better spectacle I thought. But no, "you're messing with the DNA of the game when you start changing such long standing fundamentals" he argued. Introducing rucking to League or eliminating the set-piece from union is in the same category.

Thats just it...the ball is "out of action" 600 odd times during a game. This stop start, disjointed routine (which league recognised by trying to lessen it by going from four to six tackles), the ball should be contested every single time. This is the complaint of Union folk.

The most entertaining teams in Union have been Wales, France, Australia and New Zealand. Attacking play, flair and creativity gets the most views. If only South Africa existed there wouldn't be a sport to discuss.

Again these are minority sports we are talking about...popular in pockets in a handful of countries with only NZ having the Union code as the national sport. Contrary to what rats stated I never used "bigger" as an incentive, rather as a footnote after removing the chaff.

Regards football, I'm all for any change that improves the game. Technology for one (to a minimum obviously to avoid it becoming another stop start game). The value for a pen inside the box is the same as a free kick outside for obvious reasons (this applys to any sport). In the box you have a far greater chance of scoring so being fouled should not have any bearing on the value of the penalty. It's like saying the equivalent in Rugby...desperately fouling someone three yards from the tryline, the value of that penalty should be less than a penalty from the halfway line. :lol: Surprised your Peruvian mate didn't laugh.

The flaws I'm pointing in each Rugby code out are only echoing the opposing masses from each code. I'm saying nothing new here. What I'd hope to see is Union change with the game, but it's not adapting with the changes thus the game itself is completely different.

 

[RoosTah]

Thats just it...the ball is "out of action" 600 odd times during a game. This stop start, disjointed routine (which league recognised by trying to lessen it by going from four to six tackles), the ball should be contested every single time. This is the complaint of Union folk.

You're still not getting that League fans don't care about the contest for possession; they care that the play the ball is faster than a ruck, in which the ball is also effectively out of action (it's only that there are players are bunching over the top of it in union - something which slows the process of bringing it back into action).

Again these are minority sports we are talking about...popular in pockets in a handful of countries with only NZ having the Union code as the national sport. Contrary to what rats stated I never used "bigger" as an incentive, rather as a footnote after removing the chaff.

Minor is a relative term. All sports are medium players at best in the context of large businesses - the most economically powerful football comp in the world - the NFL - still only rakes in $6 billion a year for its TV contract, a couple years ago BHP Billiton had $20 billion in profits for a single year and still weren't a top 5 company.

Rugby League is a small player, but it still scores TV contracts worth over a billion dollars with its fan base over the Australia Eastern Seaboard. That's a significant economic footprint in a country like ours, so you're just not going to see its administrators risk alienating its existing fans in the hope of scoring fans from random locations overseas by messing with such a fundamental area like the play the ball. The outcomes of such a move would more likely than not be a net loss of support for the game.

Regards football, I'm all for any change that improves the game. Technology for one (to a minimum obviously to avoid it becoming another stop start game). The value for a pen inside the box is the same as a free kick outside for obvious reasons (this applys to any sport). In the box you have a far greater chance of scoring so being fouled should not have any bearing on the value of the penalty. It's like saying the equivalent in Rugby...desperately fouling someone three yards from the tryline, the value of that penalty should be less than a penalty from the halfway line. :lol: Surprised your Peruvian mate didn't laugh.

Actually, if you think about that for a moment longer you'll see that 1) it's not at all analogous, and 2) it provides a perfect example of how to split scoring systems. In rugby, if you foul a player by slowing the ball near the try line, the result is still less than half a converted try (unless it's a foul stopping "a certain try"), but possibly ends with the offending player getting sent off. The problem with soccer's scoring system is that by assigning a singular value to goals, you have equal value for something that has zero team element to it as you do to a goal that is scored by and against a team.

The fact that you expected my friend to laugh was kinda why I brought it up; your ideas just sound of a similar nature to fans of league and union and fail to grasp that the games have been moving in different directions for 100 years now.

 

[SimonG]

You're still not getting that League fans don't care about the contest for possession; they care that the play the ball is faster than a ruck, in which the ball is also effectively out of action (it's only that there are players are bunching over the top of it in union - something which slows the process of bringing it back into action).

Minor is a relative term. All sports are medium players at best in the context of large businesses - the most economically powerful football comp in the world - the NFL - still only rakes in $6 billion a year for its TV contract, a couple years ago BHP Billiton had $20 billion in profits for a single year and still weren't a top 5 company.

Rugby League is a small player, but it still scores TV contracts worth over a billion dollars with its fan base over the Australia Eastern Seaboard. That's a significant economic footprint in a country like ours, so you're just not going to see its administrators risk alienating its existing fans in the hope of scoring fans from random locations overseas by messing with such a fundamental area like the play the ball. The outcomes of such a move would more likely than not be a net loss of support for the game.

Actually, if you think about that for a moment longer you'll see that 1) it's not at all analogous, and 2) it provides a perfect example of how to split scoring systems. In rugby, if you foul a player by slowing the ball near the try line, the result is still less than half a converted try (unless it's a foul stopping "a certain try"), but possibly ends with the offending player getting sent off. The problem with soccer's scoring system is that by assigning a singular value to goals, you have equal value for something that has zero team element to it as you do to a goal that is scored by and against a team.

The fact that you expected my friend to laugh was kinda why I brought it up; your ideas just sound of a similar nature to fans of league and union and fail to grasp that the games have been moving in different directions for 100 years now.

Its true that as I haven't grown up with league and have watched Union exclusively, the stop start nature of the play the ball routine is something I can't wrap my head around. I'm not trying to be ignorant (though it's probably coming across that way). It's hard to adapt to the stop start aspect and less flow. And when you say "faster" than a ruck...how many rucks on average are there. Not 650 odd I bet. No because in Union there is a far greater need to offload to avoid coughing up possession. With league you can just keep running straight into opponents knowing u get to keep the ball.

When I say minority sports I'm comparing them to other sports, not other businesses. Regards the nfl, its income is different to the Premier League (and others) in that it rakes in a huge amount of money that's got nothing to do with the product as more yanks (51%) tune in to watch commercials than the game. Therefore what's on show is irrelevant as most folks tune in to watch commercials. Its weird, its like a social event. With Rugby league (and Union) it is important what's on show as the viewers watch the game. It relies on the product. With two such similar codes the finances will always be limited. These fellas get paid peanuts in comparison to other sports and put their body in far more harms way.

The differing value for pens is....interesting, but flawed. It's a new one on me that's for sure! As I said, you would be rewarding the offending team and penalising the offended. If you get nearly the whole way down the field in Rugby, stopped near the try line due to the opposition commiting a foul...and you are then told..."sorry son...this penalty is worth less than had you been fouled at the halfway line". You are rewarding the offending team for fouling closer to the try (goal) where it's more dangerous for them, while penalising the offended who have worked their whole way down the field (into the box). It's like logic....in reverse. Just have a think mate.

 

[RoosTah]

Its true that as I haven't grown up with league and have watched Union exclusively, the stop start nature of the play the ball routine is something I can't wrap my head around. I'm not trying to be ignorant (though it's probably coming across that way). It's hard to adapt to the stop start aspect and less flow. And when you say "faster" than a ruck...how many rucks on average are there. Not 650 odd I bet. No because in Union there is a far greater need to offload to avoid coughing up possession. With league you can just keep running straight into opponents knowing u get to keep the ball.

This comment to me shows you haven't watched very much rugby league outside of the few world cup games last year. There would never be anywhere near as many rucks as there are play-the-balls in a Union game, but that's got nothing to do with offloads... If you pulled up the stats from the last State of Origin match you'd find NSW basically offloaded their way to victory against Queensland. Offloading, or "second phase play", as they call it in League, is critical in big games, as it effectively increases the number of tackles in your set and the defence is often already back peddling. Sonny Bill Williams is the best offloader in League or Union, and he basically offloaded us to the Grand Final win in last year's NRL Premiership. Indeed, SBW would complete more offloads on his own than some whole teams would in union, which says something given SBW was formed by League.

No, the reason you'd always have fewer rucks than play the balls, is because in union significant portions of the game are taken up by set-piece competition in scrums (which often have multiple resets) and line-outs. The fact is the ball is simply tied up in these mini games at quite frequent intervals, so it's unrealistic to expect that the number of rucks would be remotely close to the number of play the balls, as in League ball in play is king - which is precisely why the play the ball was introduced.

When I say minority sports I'm comparing them to other sports, not other businesses. Regards the nfl, its income is different to the Premier League (and others) in that it rakes in a huge amount of money that's got nothing to do with the product as more yanks (51%) tune in to watch commercials than the game. Therefore what's on show is irrelevant as most folks tune in to watch commercials. Its weird, its like a social event. With Rugby league (and Union) it is important what's on show as the viewers watch the game. It relies on the product. With two such similar codes the finances will always be limited. These fellas get paid peanuts in comparison to other sports and put their body in far more harms way.

The NFL has the highest average crowds of any football comp in the world... memberships for teams like the Green Bay Packers have decades long waiting lists, so I think it's fair to say the game is about more than just commercials for the yanks.

Anyway, your argument still makes zero sense from a business perspective because your underlying assumption is that the game is somehow missing this huge potential market... basically the product you're promoting is the "New Coke" of football; a product brought out because you somehow think it address issues you imagine are preventing a wider audience from embracing your product, but ultimately alienates your existing consumer base whilst failing to win any new fans from the imaginary wider market. What's the old say? The old saying "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" sums it up really.

The differing value for pens is....interesting, but flawed. It's a new one on me that's for sure! As I said, you would be rewarding the offending team and penalising the offended. If you get nearly the whole way down the field in Rugby, stopped near the try line due to the opposition commiting a foul...and you are then told..."sorry son...this penalty is worth less than had you been fouled at the halfway line". You are rewarding the offending team for fouling closer to the try (goal) where it's more dangerous for them, while penalising the offended who have worked their whole way down the field (into the box). It's like logic....in reverse. Just have a think mate.

Your point is somewhat contradictory and confusing here... a penalty in Rugby is worth the same whether it is awarded at half-way or a millimetre from the try-line, and it is worth less than half a fully converted try, which is the rugby equivalent to an open play soccer goal. Hence why I suggest a two tier scoring system (particularly given how often those box penalties are awarded due to dives). If rugby worked like soccer did, you would be awarded the opportunity for a one-on-one attacking opportunity against the full back in what would almost basically be a 50-50 opportunity for a try.

But anyway, I don't really care as I just don't follow the game. It was just something I put to that mate of mine when watching a match with him that was decided by some cheat falling over and clutching his leg (in spite of not being touched) when in the box. Just seems to happen too often for mine... but soccer fans don't have an issue with it because no one has ever messed with the scoring system.

I just can't wrap my head around why a game would want to encourage diving by making the rewards so juicy, but again, soccer fans tell me diving is just part of the game... Likewise, whilst you can't wrap your head around the play-the-ball, League fans consider it a clean and fast solution for recycling the ball without the threat of it getting bogged down like rucks do.

 

[SimonG]

This comment to me shows you haven't watched very much rugby league outside of the few world cup games last year. There would never be anywhere near as many rucks as there are play-the-balls in a Union game, but that's got nothing to do with offloads... If you pulled up the stats from the last State of Origin match you'd find NSW basically offloaded their way to victory against Queensland. Offloading, or "second phase play", as they call it in League, is critical in big games, as it effectively increases the number of tackles in your set and the defence is often already back peddling. Sonny Bill Williams is the best offloader in League or Union, and he basically offloaded us to the Grand Final win in last year's NRL Premiership. Indeed, SBW would complete more offloads on his own than some whole teams would in union, which says something given SBW was formed by League.

Indeed. And the fact the tackle is not contested is a major reason. Over 600 times running straight into a wall knowing you are guaranteed to keep possession, this is why the headless chicken label has been used for league. Make the tackle contestable and that number would nosedive. More offloading, supporting runners, diagonal running, and ball in play. My major gripe is the stop start nature of the game as the ball is effectively dead over 600 times. Its this play the ball rule that holds league back as a product, which is played in two pockets in eastern Aus and northern Eng, and gives Union the advantage as a competing code.

The NFL has the highest average crowds of any football comp in the world... memberships for teams like the Green Bay Packers have decades long waiting lists, so I think it's fair to say the game is about more than just commercials for the yanks.

Anyway, your argument still makes zero sense from a business perspective because your underlying assumption is that the game is somehow missing this huge potential market... basically the product you're promoting is the "New Coke" of football; a product brought out because you somehow think it address issues you imagine are preventing a wider audience from embracing your product, but ultimately alienates your existing consumer base whilst failing to win any new fans from the imaginary wider market. What's the old say? The old saying "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" sums it up really.

More yanks...tune in to watch commercials...than the game. Television money is king therefore the product is irrelevant when more folks tune in for commercials. The reason the Premier League is the most watched sports league on the planet is because of the product, the product is everything. The reason the Champions League is the most watched annual sporting event on the planet is because of the product, the reason the World Cup is the most watched single sporting event is....because of the product. Regards attendance, its only a small factor (which is buffered by only playing 8 games a year and in populous cities), tv money, commercials, that's where the money is. The three biggest sports teams on the planet, Manchester United, Real Madrid, and Barcelona, yes they have the most fans but their value comes from being global brands not their attendances.

The reason football is global and the most lucrative sport on the planet is because of the product. The most watched sport on the planet, biggest names, most valuable teams, most marketable athletes... all because of the product. It's the same reason Ronaldinho had the first YouTube video reach the landmark one million views.

Your point is somewhat contradictory and confusing here... a penalty in Rugby is worth the same whether it is awarded at half-way or a millimetre from the try-line, and it is worth less than half a fully converted try, which is the rugby equivalent to an open play soccer goal. Hence why I suggest a two tier scoring system (particularly given how often those box penalties are awarded due to dives). If rugby worked like soccer did, you would be awarded the opportunity for a one-on-one attacking opportunity against the full back in what would almost basically be a 50-50 opportunity for a try.

Indeed the value of the pen is the same regardless where it is, as it should be. It's your...reverse logic..that would like to change that. ^_^ You want to reward the offending team for fouling near the scoring area, and penalise the offended team that has managed to work their way close to the scoring area. Seriously I have chuckled at this (and questioned if serious at the same time).

 

[RoosTah]

Look, as I said before, I really don't care about the penalty argument. It was always just a way of showing you how many variables an outsider's view on sports they don't get misses.

You can deride Rugby League as being "headless chickens" if you like - if there's one thing they're used to it's being looked down on by others - but just because you don't like the play the ball doesn't mean your argument for changing it makes any more sense. It's just the opinion of someone who really prefers Union, but wants League's speed.

As for the "product", Soccer is the biggest sport for the same reason religions like Catholicism are big - they got to their target market's first. Rugby was always hamstrung by the elitist attitude of too many of its early pommy adherents. If the "product" of soccer was simply "better" than the competition, then in markets like Australia soccer would rake in close to half a billion every year in TV revenue, rather than the $40 million it currently gets. The trouble with the theory that it's big because it's a great product is its dismal failure in places where other forms of football have taken hold first. Indeed, from what my Irish friends tell me both Hurling and Gaelic Football have significantly higher average attendances than soccer does in your country.

Ultimately sport is first and foremost about identity and tribalism. It's the reason Australians and English people can develop an interest in a game like Cricket in spite of its very lengthy and playing time and long spells with little action. Try explaining to a Japanese person (I lived there for some years) why we watch Cricket, and the game itself doesn't really cut it as an explanation.

This all also goes to why your attempts to change the rules in Rugby League make about as much sense as the American suggestion that soccer ought to ditch the goalie; the stories and identities are also built around a certain fundamental nature to what the sport is about on the field, so if you mess with its DNA you mess with its identity.

 

[Jaguares]

Look, as I said before, I really don't care about the penalty argument. It was always just a way of showing you how many variables an outsider's view on sports they don't get misses.

You can deride Rugby League as being "headless chickens" if you like - if there's one thing they're used to it's being looked down on by others - but just because you don't like the play the ball doesn't mean your argument for changing it makes any more sense. It's just the opinion of someone who really prefers Union, but wants League's speed.

As for the "product", Soccer is the biggest sport for the same reason religions like Catholicism are big - they got to their target market's first. Rugby was always hamstrung by the elitist attitude of too many of its early pommy adherents. If the "product" of soccer was simply "better" than the competition, then in markets like Australia soccer would rake in close to half a billion every year in TV revenue, rather than the $40 million it currently gets. The trouble with the theory that it's big because it's a great product is its dismal failure in places where other forms of football have taken hold first. Indeed, from what my Irish friends tell me both Hurling and Gaelic Football have significantly higher average attendances than soccer does in your country.

Ultimately sport is first and foremost about identity and tribalism. It's the reason Australians and English people can develop an interest in a game like Cricket in spite of its very lengthy and playing time and long spells with little action. Try explaining to a Japanese person (I lived there for some years) why we watch Cricket, and the game itself doesn't really cut it as an explanation.

This all also goes to why your attempts to change the rules in Rugby League make about as much sense as the American suggestion that soccer ought to ditch the goalie; the stories and identities are also built around a certain fundamental nature to what the sport is about on the field, so if you mess with its DNA you mess with its identity.

Football/soccer is the most popular sport in the world because it's the cheapest and most accessible sport. Anyone can play football. It's also easy to understand because it has few rules and the soccer rules aren't complicated, In my opinion, the only rule complicated is the offside rule, which isn't so difficult to understand.

Anyone from a ghetto, weighing 60 kgs, can become a professional soccer player. However, for sports like swimming, rugby or american football you need bigger and stronger athletes.

It's easier to get 300 million athletes with an average weight of 60 to 80 kgs (Average weight of professional soccer players) than get 300 million athletes with an average weight between 95 and 130 kgs. (Average weight of professional rugby players).

For this reason, football/soccer will always be more popular than rugby. Not because it's a better sport, but because it's simpler, requires less athletic and less painful requirement. Something that people who never played rugby can't understand the pain you have to endure a rugby player in the field, is something that most people couldn't tolerate.

 

[jonny24]

More yanks...tune in to watch commercials...than the game. Television money is king therefore the product is irrelevant when more folks tune in for commercials.

The ONLY case where that might be true is the Super Bowl, because of the ridiculous nature of the commercials. I'm not sure where else you could have got this idea that people watch for the commercials... that's just plain incorrect.

 

[Basco]

I'm amazed at the high number of top class athletes Australia produces. If the RL hadn't existed they would probably have dominated rugby.