Has Rugby Become boring?

[O'Rothlain]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.c...524&ref=rss
I have to agree a bit with the reporters comments on the RWC Final. I attended a party with my rugby team last night to watch it, and I was a bit bored as a spectator...as were my team. I'm not going to point fingers at which nations have boring rugby and which ones have "Exciting" rugby but let's just say 1 Northern Hemisphere team played 1 Southern Hemisphere Team and it was...oh sorry I fell asleep there...where were we? Oh yes, boring.
I hate the suggestions listed in the article: "Remove the goal posts"...how about go ____ your dog. So, please don't say anything silly like that. It comes down to coaching, IMO.
</span>

 

[SaintsFan_Webby]

It comes down to pressure.

France vs Argentina in the 3rd place playoff is case in point. Nothing was riding on it really, so both teams tried things and ran the ball a lot.

Matthew Tait showed a little inexperience in the final, trying to run the ball inside his own 22, slipping, and conceding 3 points in the end. Playing for your country in front of 70,000 people, contesting the biggest prize in world rugby is pretty nerve-racking I imagine. South Africa got the result using a style which, while some people may not consider fun, was hugely effective.

England vs Australia wasn't beautiful a lot of the time, but it was definately exciting.

Just depends if you're looking for basketball scores in every match or a brutal contest full of effort. If every team scored 50 yard tries every phase then surely that would get boring?

 

[rugby_roots]

It comes down to money..thats it..money money money

 

[Princess Obolensky]

I don't think it's necessarily become boring... there have been some awfully boring games in the past. There have been some exciting tight games with a lot riding on them which have had low scores... but I have to say the ones which I enjoy more are those where the teams attempt different ways to score points - but with a lot more emphasis on scoring tries. But no - not become boring - finals rugby is just cautious rugby. Which is a little sad.

 

[Prestwick]

Yet again, people are confused. They think that "entertaining rugby" and "winning the game" are won and the same when actually, they are not.

The team isn't meant to be entertaining the crowd, they're there to win. If there are some enterprising moments of rugby or even whole passages or even if the entire 80 minutes was one whole try fest then so be it, but do not begrudge the teams who simply play the game.

Do not complain about the fact that your forward pack couldn't secure ball either at the break down, line out or scrum to enable your backs to run free.

Do not complain about the fact that Rugby Union is, in fact, not Rugby League.

And definitely do not complain about the fact that your team simply were not good enough to make safe a game in which you eventually succumbed to a drop goal or a simple penalty.

This is why I really do not like some of the stellenbosch rules. Some are just plain dangerous (such as being allowed to collapse a maul) and some are simply there to make the game easier for teams who are blatantly too lazy to develop their own forward pack. If Japan and the Pacific Island teams benefit from these changes then great, really happy for them, congratuations, etc but do not kid yourselves if you're thinking the mis-guided thought that these rules are being changed for their benefit and theirs alone.

 

[ikvat]

I think that European point of view can be different.
Rugby is probably become boring, but we have so many teams (national or clubs) involved in so many sports, foot, basket ball, handball... which are so close, that every thing is possible.
At the end, only victory count.

 

[Soulforged]

Rugby will change, at least that's what most experts are saying, wheter it's becoming boring or not depends on how much you like speed and football kicks.

 

[jawmalawm24]

Professionalism changed the game, since then it has all been about money, money, and more money. Players aren't playing with their hearts anymore they're more worried about what promotions they could get by playing flash rugby instead of good rugby.

Whatever happened to free to air rugby no such thing anymore because its all about the money. The only way I get to watch rugby now is on Skytv they don't even have free Npc matches on tv now.

 

[C A Iversen]

Yet again, people are confused. They think that "entertaining rugby" and "winning the game" are won and the same when actually, they are not.

The team isn't meant to be entertaining the crowd, they're there to win. If there are some enterprising moments of rugby or even whole passages or even if the entire 80 minutes was one whole try fest then so be it, but do not begrudge the teams who simply play the game.

Do not complain about the fact that your forward pack couldn't secure ball either at the break down, line out or scrum to enable your backs to run free.

Do not complain about the fact that Rugby Union is, in fact, not Rugby League.

And definitely do not complain about the fact that your team simply were not good enough to make safe a game in which you eventually succumbed to a drop goal or a simple penalty.

This is why I really do not like some of the stellenbosch rules. Some are just plain dangerous (such as being allowed to collapse a maul) and some are simply there to make the game easier for teams who are blatantly too lazy to develop their own forward pack. If Japan and the Pacific Island teams benefit from these changes then great, really happy for them, congratuations, etc but do not kid yourselves if you're thinking the mis-guided thought that these rules are being changed for their benefit and theirs alone. [/b]

Explain what you mean, as the way it stands it looks like a cryptic dig at the fact that NZ, Aus & SA will use these rules to run the ball and your backs off their feet. If thats the case, then I'm sure your right and thats what rugby needs.

Other games sell themselves on their strong points, soccer sells on goals, basketball on dunks, cricket on 4's and 6's, Gridiron on touchdowns. Whats wrong with aspiring to play a running game?

William Webb Ellis picked the ball up and ran with it, he didn't drop or place kick it over the soccer nets. Rugby is one day going to be about tries like it or not.

Still you may have meant something else. As I said, it was cryptic.

 

[Brodizzle]

Yet again, people are confused. They think that "entertaining rugby" and "winning the game" are won and the same when actually, they are not.
[/b]

Look at the AB's between the last two world cups, they have been playing pretty rugby yet still winning the game, don't take one slip up in the world cup to be the proof to your argument....

 

[scuubasteve]

The team isn't meant to be entertaining the crowd, they're there to win.

[/b]

This is where I beg to differ.

Why do people watch sport?
And why does anyone pay MASSIVE money to watch a sporting final?

I would hazzard a guess at entertainment? Afterall, this is the essence of sports watching is it not?

So, should we therfore be aiming to make the way you win games and entertaining play one in the same?

Enter the Stellenbosch law experiment. Makes perfect sense.

And on a side note, the law for pulling down mauls has so far been proven to be safer than the current law. The arguement being that currently you are not expecting to be pulled to the turf, and when it does happen (which is all the time anyway) players are not prepared for it and get hurt.

Instead, if you're expecting to be pulled down then you're more likely to fall safely and not be hurt. But these facts aside, I just don't think it needs to be changed.

 

[nam97]

Yet again, people are confused. They think that "entertaining rugby" and "winning the game" are won and the same when actually, they are not.

The team isn't meant to be entertaining the crowd, they're there to win. If there are some enterprising moments of rugby or even whole passages or even if the entire 80 minutes was one whole try fest then so be it, but do not begrudge the teams who simply play the game.
[/b]

Boring. To win, you should play entertaining and that is why the rules will/must change. After all, it is a spectator sport, so the 80,000 odd people packed into the Stade de France should have had one. I doubt they dished out 10,000NZD per ticket to watch that dour affair, they wanted fast and exciting Rugby.

A classic (the best) example of this is the 2000 Bledisloe cup match in Sydney where the scoreline was 39-35 and the winning play came from an NZ try with a minute left in front of 110,000 people at Homebush. That is what I want.

 

[C A Iversen]

Your not alone. Most sane people want the rules to be suited to open running play, along with easier to follow rulings. This is for the players and spectators sake.

It can be a boring game when not played with some flair.

 

[diehardkiwi07]

William Webb Ellis picked the ball up and ran with it, he didn't drop or place kick it over the soccer nets. Rugby is one day going to be about tries like it or not.
[/b]

Exactly :cheers:

 

[Bullitt]

<div class='quotemain'>
William Webb Ellis picked the ball up and ran with it, he didn't drop or place kick it over the soccer nets. Rugby is one day going to be about tries like it or not.
[/b]

Exactly :cheers: [/b][/quote]

William Webb Ellis was English. I thought the English didn't know how to run with the ball?

 

[Brodizzle]

<div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'>
William Webb Ellis picked the ball up and ran with it, he didn't drop or place kick it over the soccer nets. Rugby is one day going to be about tries like it or not.
[/b]

Exactly :cheers: [/b][/quote]

William Webb Ellis was English. I thought the English didn't know how to run with the ball?
[/b][/quote]
As time passes situations usually don't stay constant...time has passed and it seems the running in English rugby has not remained constant....

 

[dullonien]

I personally don't have much of a problem with the way some teams play. Fine, William Webb Ellis, picked the ball up and ran with it, but the game has moved on from there (well there wasn't a game back then).

The game has two parts, forewards and backs. As is always said, Forewards decide who wins, the backs decide by how much. England for example, rarely win by much these days (fine they did v Wales). I'm sure England won't be content with keeping it a foreward only game, they will attempt to add the running game to their arsenal, because this will make them a better team.

The game of rugby often goes in swings and roundabouts, soon enough running rugby will be back on top.

The only rule I would change is the rolling maul, doesn't make any sense to me, surely it's offside when there's 7 others infront of the man with the ball!

Saying all that, I of course prefer a fast running game, but it doesn't always work out that way. This is deffinately true of World Cup knockout games, where teams and players ofter seem more scared of making a mistake than anything else. But hey, that's the way it goes.

 

[RoyalBlueStuey]

To save time can we just distill all these threads down to their main ingredients:

A) Boo hoo Australia and New Zealand did win
B) Boo hoo England got to the final

Rugby isn't meant to an open, flowing tryfest. It never was. In future you people should just watch rugby league or 7s or gridiron if all you want as cheap contrived thrills.

 

[nam97]

To save time can we just distill all these threads down to their main ingredients:

A) Boo hoo Australia and New Zealand did win
B) Boo hoo England got to the final

Rugby isn't meant to an open, flowing tryfest. It never was. In future you people should just watch rugby league or 7s or gridiron if all you want as cheap contrived thrills.
[/b]

The why do we watch this crap then? It is suppose to be a spectacle, why else would people pay so much coin to go and watch it live? I wonder, 'cos it's actually suppose to be a spectator sport, hence it should be fast and free flowing so we can enjoy. So you are very much wrong.

 

[Bullitt]

<div class='quotemain'>
<div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'>
William Webb Ellis picked the ball up and ran with it, he didn't drop or place kick it over the soccer nets. Rugby is one day going to be about tries like it or not.
[/b]

Exactly :cheers: [/b][/quote]

William Webb Ellis was English. I thought the English didn't know how to run with the ball?
[/b][/quote]
As time passes situations usually don't stay constant...time has passed and it seems the running in English rugby has not remained constant.... [/b][/quote]

Oh, I see. And you also believe the myth that a public schoolboy showed a fine disregard for poofball, caught a high ball and ran with it to invent the game also? Bless

<div class='quotemain'>
To save time can we just distill all these threads down to their main ingredients:

A) Boo hoo Australia and New Zealand did win
B) Boo hoo England got to the final

Rugby isn't meant to an open, flowing tryfest. It never was. In future you people should just watch rugby league or 7s or gridiron if all you want as cheap contrived thrills.
[/b]

The why do we watch this crap then? It is suppose to be a spectacle, why else would people pay so much coin to go and watch it live? I wonder, 'cos it's actually suppose to be a spectator sport, hence it should be fast and free flowing so we can enjoy. So you are very much wrong. [/b][/quote]

Why exactly does it have to be spun wide blah, blah, blah to be an enjoyable spectacle? I, and many more like me, find the team I'm supporting having a tight forwards battle, such as the final last week, much more enjoyable then I did watching Northampton play all this flowing rugby and put 74 points over Esher on the same day.

To poo-poo forwards based rugby is basically saying you either don't understand what a pack does you only care for what the girls do. Or you're a die-hard league "I hate the Union and I love Socialism!" fan who only wants to **** stir.