Calendar changes

[Which Tyler]

On the whole, I approve of the changes, though I'm a little concerned about player welfare from an NH perspective.
Then, from a purely English perspective; these chages mean that there will be no clash between the Premiership and international rugby (allegedly, far more likely that it'll open the door for expansion to 14 teams and allow ring-fencing in a bout of predictable utter stupidity); so does that mean we can ditch the play-offs? after all, the only reason for their existence will suddenly have ceased to exist (unless they go for expansion and the return of clashes, of course)

 

[Goodey]

If the June internationals are postponed I hope the start of the season is too. Just make sure we still have rugby in the winter. I need to get me through the cold dark nights.

 

[CocoPampas]

As usual, good and bad news all together.
Let try to analyse this by parts:

New July window boosts season harmony
This is clearly a SANZAAR vs 6 Nations battle. And I fail to see any winner.
Currently the Super Rugby season runs 6 weeks after the June Window. How would this 4 weeks movement avoid the Super Rugby season interruption? Is the Super Rugby going to start 2 week earlier, reducing their rest period?
On the other hand, if the 6 Nations don't push the start of their leagues the resting perior for their players would be insuficient. And if they do it, the end of their leagues will also be pushed. Therefore, nobody is going to have an enhanced preparation for this window.
In conclusion, this movement don't have any sence.

Increased opportunity for emerging nations and greater schedule equity
Some things that are already hapenning since 2012:
- 110 matches in 12 years - around 12 T1vT2 matches per year (I don't know who have done the World Rugby maths);
- 6 Nations unions hosting 6 T2 matches.

A couple of good commitments:
- SANZAAR hosting T2 nations in July window (A minimun amount of matches it would be great)
- France and England to tour T2 countries

Some more statments, that will depends on the way they are actually apply:
- Georgia and Romania to host matches against Six Nations unions within the July window
- Ability for rankings to determine inclusion of T2 teams in the schedule

All in all, I think that this part is something good.

Optimised player welfare
If they didn't already agreed with T14/PRO12/AP to move the start of their seasons to October, all this part is only bulls**t

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Good points Cocopampas. I guess the Super Rugby season may be shorter if they end up cutting two or three teams?

I am wondering if the recent Rugby Europe public reminder to the 6N that they are the authority governing the sport in Europe was simply a bargaining manouver to get the 6N unions to swallow what appears to be negative calendar changes for them. Hopefully not.

 

[CocoPampas]

Good points Cocopampas. I guess the Super Rugby season may be shorter if they end up cutting two or three teams?

I am wondering if the recent Rugby Europe public reminder to the 6N that they are the authority governing the sport in Europe was simply a bargaining manouver to get the 6N unions to swallow what appears to be negative calendar changes for them. Hopefully not.

Yes, cutting two or threee teams may shorter the Super Rugby season. However, I really don't think that cutting that amount of teams is the solution to anything.
IMHO Super Rugby expansion is SANZAAR only oportunity to compete against TOP14/AP (Indeed I expect Argentina to get a second team sooner than later). Therefore, reducing the number of teams is only a temporary solution.
Also, I fail to see the problem of interrupting the season for 3 weeks. Actually, if they had moved the start of the season a bit latter, the break would help to create the climax just in time for the conferences stage definition and before starting the knock-out phase.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Report containing Milton Haigs thoughts on this new arrangement. Long story short, he is very positive.

http://www.rugbyworld.com/news/blogs/is ... unds-77555