Hansen worried about future of rugby

[ruggabee]

Dunno, the ABs and Wallabies are still able to play an exciting brand of rugby with the current sized pitches and metres between the offensive and defensive lines at the moment. Even the Saffas and Argentinians are capable of entertaining rugby. We still see a positive approach in Super Rugby as well. Maybe the players north of the equator need to be coached into approaching a lesser negative style of play. I still believe if a team can build continuous phases of quick ruck ball with quick delivery from the 9 then gaps can be created and breaks can be made. Are the contrasting refereeing styles between the north and south a factor as well?

 

[ratsapprentice]

Dunno, the ABs and Wallabies are still able to play an exciting brand of rugby

There's nothing stopping teams from playing positively.
There's also nothing standing in the way of teams doing the exact opposite - and that (along with consistently malfunctioning scrums and breakdowns) is the problem.

I am in a similar situation to Peat, I am currently watching far less rugby than I was even a year or two ago, simply because what I'm watching is predictably far less enjoyable.
I'm watching a fair bit more RL to fill the void.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

u20's is far better to watch these days, if we continue as things are rugby will go the way of American Football where the college game offers more entertainment. A change I'd make is to introduce the mark to anywhere inside the 10m line, unless the kick came from the 22, and we'll see far less kicking within possibly attacking areas. Simple change to have the desired effects, obviously we do this after Ireland's kick chase brings William Webb Ellis to Dublin!

 

[ratsapprentice]

A change I'd make is to introduce the mark to anywhere inside the 10m line, unless the kick came from the 22, and we'll see far less kicking within possibly attacking areas.

I was thinking of something similar recently although not in depth so it may be fundamentally flawed, but something like:

If you kick the ball from your own 22 in open play and it lands in the opposition 22 then the ball cannot be kicked until the next phase.

Or even that you can't kick the ball (obviously excluding grubbers) in open play except from turnovers in your own half (to clear pressure).

I dunno - like I say, I haven't really thought it through. :lol:

 

[ruggabee]

There's nothing stopping teams from playing positively.
There's also nothing standing in the way of teams doing the exact opposite - and that (along with consistently malfunctioning scrums and breakdowns) is the problem.

I am in a similar situation to Peat, I am currently watching far less rugby than I was even a year or two ago, simply because what I'm watching is predictably far worse.
I'm watching a fair bit more RL to fill the void.

I see. Yeah the rules and ruling of the game at the moment allows teams to approach the game negatively with successful results amongst the messiness of the the scrums and breakdowns every game. That sucks. But rugby can still be played in an entertaining way. Only thing is, hopefully newcomers stumble upon those games to keep an interest!

I also find myself not caring if I miss a provincial game these days. Rarely will I miss anything of note.

Personally, I feel scrums need to be sorted (I have no idea what's going on there but we're losing more time than before here), and refs need to be stricter on offside lines and breakdown management. But other than that, when players have the skills and right attitude, the game can be played in a positive way that can attract viewers.

 

[Peat]

I was thinking of something similar recently although not in depth so it may be fundamentally flawed, but something like:

If you kick the ball from your own 22 in open play and it lands in the opposition 22 then the ball cannot be kicked until the next phase.

Or even that you can't kick the ball (obviously excluding grubbers) in open play except from turnovers in your own half (to clear pressure).

I dunno - like I say, I haven't really thought it through. :lol:

Obvious corollary - the threat of no kicking leads to full defensive lines with wingers not hanging back. Turning over the ball becomes an even bigger deal than it already is.

The safe option is to keep hold of the ball no matter what and hope the opposition give away a penalty. Which is also terminally dull.

I'd love to see an end to kick tennis but I struggle to see a rules change that doesn't promote a form of boring rugby. Maybe the best answer, for those so inclined, is simply to shorten the pitch first.

 

[goodNumber10]

Or even that you can't kick the ball (obviously excluding grubbers) in open play except from turnovers in your own half (to clear pressure).

I dunno - like I say, I haven't really thought it through. :lol:

play a lot of freindly game slike that in france, "esprit de jeu". No kicking outside your own 22 unless you regather - so no kicking to touch and so on.

Played a brilliant vets tournament in Dieppe and you are only allowed to kick in your own 22 but if you miss touch it's a free kick from where you kicked it. Made it bleeding hard to exit your own half as essentially the oppo 15 sits in the line like an extra defensive centre.

*** ah peat just beat me to it.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Kicks along the ground would ensure the defending team kept coverage behind the line, non?

 

[goodNumber10]

Kicks along the ground would ensure the defending team kept coverage behind the line, non?

not if you don't regather...... so grubber kicks need to be collected by the same team or freekick back.

Oddly, it does make it good fun, but tough... running strike moves in your own 22 off first phase ball

 

[Shaggy]

There's nothing stopping teams from playing positively.
There's also nothing standing in the way of teams doing the exact opposite - and that (along with consistently malfunctioning scrums and breakdowns) is the problem.

I am in a similar situation to Peat, I am currently watching far less rugby than I was even a year or two ago, simply because what I'm watching is predictably far less enjoyable.
I'm watching a fair bit more RL to fill the void.

Well, it's Horses for Courses I guess ... I find RL pretty predictable, and like the contest for the ball in Union myself. My lack of watching games is more to do with what the channel with the broadcast rights, decides to televise, and also due to the sheer number of game saturating the available viewing time.

I'm not saying one game is better than another - indeed, I enjoy rugby sevens for a good quick game with lots of space and plenty of tries ... Doesn't mean I can't enjoy 15s or RL too though

 

[ratsapprentice]

Rugby is still my favorite sport by miles, a good RU game entertains me like nothing else.
Good games are becoming increasingly fewer and further between for me though, and with RL you do get a consistency that you don't get with Rugby.
The other code does actually function as intended practically 100% of the time - something that cannot be said for RU.

Annoyingly - the more RL I watch, the more frustrated by the sheer amount of time the ball is out of play in RU (actually not in play - I don't mean in the set-piece).

 

[London_Italian]

As somebody mentioned before....Make teams want to run with the ball more by either increasing the number of points for a try or reducing the number for penalties. It really is very easy.

As for scrums, its not really a problem in the amateur game, so why not stop the clock in all top flight/International games until the ball has come out of it? Maybe the ref could say something like "time on" when the scrum half picks it up?

 

[Peat]

Last 6N saw England and Wales post their second highest tries scored tally since 2006, Ireland second highest since 2005, and Italy since 2004. The game can still be quality. This season's been pretty crappy though.

But tries still happen. But then not every try is great attractive play. Watching a team kick to the corner three times and finally push over for a try isn't gonna grow the sport.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Last 6N saw England and Wales post their second highest tries scored tally since 2006, Ireland second highest since 2005, and Italy since 2004. The game can still be quality. This season's been pretty crappy though.

But tries still happen. But then not every try is great attractive play. Watching a team kick to the corner three times and finally push over for a try isn't gonna grow the sport.

True.

And what about the tries of the year nominees for 2014? How rare is it that South Africa, with our conservative approach, got nominated for 2 tries last year. And both of them were tries which started from within our own 22.

I think all the international teams have stepped up in getting their games adapted to play a more "attractive" style. The Springboks have certainly done this, while still sticking to their core style of play. But then again the act of try scoring is attractive to certain people. I for one love a try where the forwards pack maul it over. It's very tough to do it, and it only ever works if the entire forwards team work together as a unit, and each player knows it's positioning and how to support the carrier.

 

[ENZED-88]

True.

And what about the tries of the year nominees for 2014? How rare is it that South Africa, with our conservative approach, got nominated for 2 tries last year. And both of them were tries which started from within our own 22.

I think all the international teams have stepped up in getting their games adapted to play a more "attractive" style. The Springboks have certainly done this, while still sticking to their core style of play. But then again the act of try scoring is attractive to certain people. I for one love a try where the forwards pack maul it over. It's very tough to do it, and it only ever works if the entire forwards team work together as a unit, and each player knows it's positioning and how to support the carrier.

Agree with this Heineken!! I think rugby is made of different styles of play. It'll be a worse off game if all teams played the same style, and tried to run it from their 22. I mean the different styles make matches, the boks forward play against the wobs off the cuff ball playing, irish structured game vs AB counter punch. The contrast in styles make the game for me, the team with more weapons (who are good enough to use them) usually come out on top anyway. Let's not forget at the end of the day you play to win! Not to attract fans to the game (everyone hope this happens )you play for silverware and you go about it anyway necessary.

 

[welshglory]

I emphatically agree with Hansen.

Apart from the Wales v England game i have been incredibly disappointed with the standards on display this year and bored to death.
Club rugby has been equally dismal as well, apart from a few standout matches.

The main problem with the game certainly appears to be the breakdown.
I would argue that there is too much advantage been given to the attacking team. So as a consequence most teams will just attack side to side crashing it in all the time, just so they can keep possession, then they will kick it away after a few phases if it's on. Then the defensive team will just fan out across the defence. Sounds not too dissimilar to RL right?

This always seems to happen in Rugby Union. We reach a point where things look pretty damn good in terms of the quality (2011/12) and then after a few years the professional analysts and coaching staff will work out ways to manipulate the game. Scrums seem to be the easiest to manipulate, remember that under the pro level there is no problem with the scrum at all and there never has been. Rucks take a bit longer for them work their way around it but when they do they are the biggest problem bar none, because it affects the whole flow of the game. Let's be honest this is all because the LAWS are all up to interpretation and all these little tweaks and variations do absolutely nothing in the broad sense. It is not the REFS fault it is the GAME ITSELF!!!

But that's why we also love rugby isn't it? The fact that you can compete for everything in the game. This doesn't seem to be the case anymore at the pro level.

What i would consider is a more free for all approach at the breakdown? So as a consequence both teams will throw in more players to the breakdown creating space on the outside.

Looking at the overall picture we really need head to a less is more season structure don't we?
I would much prefer if there were less club and international games but the quality was higher because of the freshness of the players and risen intensity.

 

[goodNumber10]

I think people are underestimating the effect a world cup cycle has on the game, everyone is in it to win it and teams will inevitably be better at everything come the world cup year - and top of that list is going to be defence.

Most teams are running a 12/3 system now, so space is there, people just need to understand how to break it down and it's hard.

That is why something like 80-90% of tries come in under 5 phases from turnover - you don't (or Seldom) break defences down once they are into their transition mode - attacks become disorganised the more phases you run and defences become more organised and running phases eats up attackers in a way it doesn't eat up defenders.

 

[welshglory]

The 2011 6 nations was much better quality from what i remember.

Rugby has evolved into something quiet disappointing at this moment in time imo

 

[TRF_heineken]

I emphatically agree with Hansen.

Apart from the Wales v England game i have been incredibly disappointed with the standards on display this year and bored to death.
Club rugby has been equally dismal as well, apart from a few standout matches.

The main problem with the game certainly appears to be the breakdown.
I would argue that there is too much advantage been given to the attacking team. So as a consequence most teams will just attack side to side crashing it in all the time, just so they can keep possession, then they will kick it away after a few phases if it's on. Then the defensive team will just fan out across the defence. Sounds not too dissimilar to RL right?

This always seems to happen in Rugby Union. We reach a point where things look pretty damn good in terms of the quality (2011/12) and then after a few years the professional analysts and coaching staff will work out ways to manipulate the game. Scrums seem to be the easiest to manipulate, remember that under the pro level there is no problem with the scrum at all and there never has been. Rucks take a bit longer for them work their way around it but when they do they are the biggest problem bar none, because it affects the whole flow of the game. Let's be honest this is all because the LAWS are all up to interpretation and all these little tweaks and variations do absolutely nothing in the broad sense. It is not the REFS fault it is the GAME ITSELF!!!

But that's why we also love rugby isn't it? The fact that you can compete for everything in the game. This doesn't seem to be the case anymore at the pro level.

What i would consider is a more free for all approach at the breakdown? So as a consequence both teams will throw in more players to the breakdown creating space on the outside.

Looking at the overall picture we really need head to a less is more season structure don't we?
I would much prefer if there were less club and international games but the quality was higher because of the freshness of the players and risen intensity.

What is the point of having a law when it's not policed?

I think here is the crux of the modern game. We can't seperate the Refs from the laws. Because the refs (and assistants and TMO's) are the only ones with the authority to judge on the laws.

The players, coaches and management look at ways to manipulate the laws in any way they can, just like a lawyer or advocate would do for their client. But if the referees aren't up to standard, the better planned team/player/coaches will get away with things in the game to their advantage, just like in a court room.

The difference in interpretation is a flaw in law, and not just in rugby laws. But if there are guidelines and a collective understanding of what is implied by the laws, then the difference in interpretation will be decreased.

Manipulation can only get you so far though, and if the laws are structured in such a way that it doesn't provide any manipulation then the referees will also have an easier task, which will result in correct calls being made, and the focus will be on the game itself and nothing else.

 

[welshglory]

You know what. Refs need to start been paid a lot more to create a more competitive workforce. What's the point of investing all your time and effort if you're just going to be criticised and marginalised for things out of your control. What is the difference between officiating the game to the law or letting a few things slide to create a more "attractive game"?
Nigel Owens is rated a very good referee. But if you actually look at his style he ignores a hell of a lot of infringements as too create a more "attractive" game. How the hell are you supposed to work in those kind of conditions?
These guys are mostly doing it for the love of the game and to give back. I feel for them at the pro level it's almost an impossible job.

There are always guidelines announced at the start of the season and tournaments, but what usually happens is that they will focus too much on these aspects because the ref management will monitor these and they will look at other aspects of the games less!

Refs are always under pressure to create a more attractive game, which then has the adverse affect at times of giving too much advantage to one side which then leads to more defensive mind set overall!!!

There is no real way to structure the laws in a way that can't provide manipulation because there are far too many for one man too look at!

We need to consider two refs on the field imo. Kaplan seems to agree with me...