The laws don't concern themselves with entertainment.As a spectacle it was dire. Someone with a back bone needs to look at the rules to ensure that games entertain on a regular basis. Not one every blue moon.
Even a close game and a tense fight entertain imho. That's not American Football here, luckily. Personally I enjoyed all the games I've watched, if looking for regular entertainment, maybe a Fiji /As a spectacle it was dire. Someone with a back bone needs to look at the rules to ensure that games entertain on a regular basis. Not one every blue moon.
Pretty sure he didn't wait until the 8th post - every post he's made has been to say that he doesn't like rugby.After 7 posts you come on this forum to start a thread complaining about how awful the game is? Do you go on football forums and complain they should change the laws to make the game more entertaining after a drab 0-0 draw?
Change the channel then?You totally miss my point. I want to be excited by those who dare to run the ball and have a desire to score tries, not kick it back or waste time with resetting scrums or rely on 3 points from some obscure penalty. For the most part I am not entertained.
As a spectacle it was dire. Someone with a back bone needs to look at the rules to ensure that games entertain on a regular basis. Not one every blue moon.
Also look at super rugby crowds. Looks like sacrificing safety is really working.That's what they did in Super Rugby. Sacrifice safety and regulation for the sake of entertainment and look how it negatively affected especially New Zealand in this tournament.
Also look at super rugby crowds. Looks like sacrificing safety is really working.
To be fair, football is a far superior product, though. I mean sure they're different sports and all that but football is so much easier to market from an entertainment point of view because, sadly, at the moment, it is.After 7 posts you come on this forum to start a thread complaining about how awful the game is? Do you go on football forums and complain they should change the laws to make the game more entertaining after a drab 0-0 draw?
I don't think it is. Its actually pretty dull sport to watch with incredibly low scoring games.To be fair, football is a far superior product, though. I mean sure they're different sports and all that but football is so much easier to market from an entertainment point of view because, sadly, at the moment, it is.
It's all subjective isnt it but I think, generally, people want to see fast moving sports played with high levels of skill. Rugby doesn't really offer anything in that department. It's a slow game, with loads of rules, a bit of skill but still ultimately a game of big men smashing other big men. Football is the polar opposite. Ball is always in play, it's fast moving, high level of skill and you'll generally see a few goals a game as well as not having a million rules to get used to. As I say, though, it's all subjective and rugby will always have my heart but looking at it from someone who isn't that into sport but looking to get into a team game and you show them a game of rugby and a game of football and ask them what looks like more fun they'll go football 9 times out of 10.I don't think it is. Its actually pretty dull sport to watch with incredibly low scoring games.
What it has is being the most accessible sport in the world to an extreme degree, therefore with such insanely high participation levels it translates to the level of support it has.
More watched than football? No way.I'm fairly sure the most watched sport is Gridiron.
Not exactly fast moving or accessible.