F
fcukernaut
Guest
I don't see how puting a more attractive product on the field will turn more people off the game than on. Simply put if you have a game that is entertaining and appeals to both the hardcore and the casual fan alike, you will put bums in the seats and you will get the lucrative television audience. Now, I do realize you can't necessarily force nations to play a certain way, but with certain law changes perhaps you can entice them into playing more attractive rugby. Proffessional rugby is still in its infancy and is currently in the phase where defence and territory are deemed to be the most important attributes. What many of us are looking for is a balance. We want to see teams not only able to slug it out on the ground but also to be able use some skill and swing it wide.
But does that not support our arguement? The constant here is that kicking is what turns fans off and kicking is the most integral part of playing a foward dominated/territorial game. I don't mind the forward packs slogging it out, since I am a hooker my self and I not only appreciate the going ons but I enjoy it. My problem comes when the backs don't take advantage of that possession and hard work. It is highly disappointing to see hard work wasted on seven backs with little skill who either kick the ball away or get isolated out wide.
I don't mind if your backs are up against the wall and you have to grab the game by the balls and do what ever you have to do to secure possession and try to win. My problem comes when two sides right from the kick off say "what the hell do I want this white oval object for" and promptly boot it straight down the field. And when this repeats another 83 times in the game I get frustrated, angry and eventually sleepy. Certainly, I also understand that England had neither the imagination nor the skill outside the man wearing the number ten on his jersey, but that is exactly what we're talking about. Why should a side that is completely one dimensional and unskilled be able to compete at the highest level?
Obviously some of the rules will not be permently implemented into the game but some will and hopefully they will help open up the game. I think we all realize that these rules may take years to fully make their impact, but there will be some short term gains. Yes, some players will be filtered out of the game, but we will hopefully see a new brand of player come through all across the globe. Maybe those new generations of players are out at the clubs now at ten or eleven years old, we just need the coaches at the grassroots level to embrace the law changes and change the priorities of the kids from kick first to pass first.
I won't disagree with the fact that drastic changes could have an adverse effect on the game, but like every other sport, rugby must look within and ask "is this how we want the game to be played?". The iRB has done this and the resonding answer has been and emphatic "No". As such they have outlined where the game is wrong and have developed rules that might counter the current style of rugby. At least with these Stellenboche rules, it shows that the iRB not only care, but are not completely stuck in the Old Boys Club and want to see the game flourish. Promising signs indeed.
