The Kicking problem

Discussion in 'General Rugby Union' started by smartcooky, Aug 25, 2009.

  1. smartcooky

    smartcooky Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (InsaneAsylum @ Aug 12 2009, 01:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    There are a couple of fairly simple solutions to cutting down the amount of stupid and pointless "aerial ping-ping" kicking while still rewarding a really good bomb and still rewarding good tactical kicking. Neither of these solutions involve making wholesale Law changes or legislating kicking out of the game, but a couple minor tweaks to Law technicalities would do the trick.

    FIRST: Allow a mark to be taken anywhere inside a player's own half.
    This would discourage aimless punting downfield, and cause those players who do so to think a bit more about what they are doing. Rather than simply send a couple of speedsters downfield to knock over the catcher, they will have to compete for the ball in order to prevent the defending player from taking a mark. This also might bring us back to seeing teams kick more tactically, accurately and with greater skill rather then just mindlessly belting the ball back and starting something akin to a game of school yard force-back.

    SECOND: When a Free Kick (from a mark or infringement) is taken inside a team's own half, a gain in ground is allowed.
    So if you kick downfield from outside your 22, and a mark is taken by an opponent 5m inside his own half, you are likely to find your team competing for possession at a line-out inside your own 22. This would be a real disincentive to those who find it necessary to kick without purpose, and encourage players to try kicking into space or into touch rather then just any old place.

    Nothing else needs to be done, Its two simple changes to Laws 18 and 19. They would require the players to increase their kicking and catching skill-levels, while making the game a much more exciting to watch.

    I expect some people to be critical of these ideas, especially, there will be those who think the game would become a "series of marks". These people will, of course, have entirely missed the point. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence will quickly work out that this will not happen.

    If you wanted to take it further, and be more radical (and I'm not necessarily recommending this, I'm just putting it out there as an idea) you could add a third more substantial change that would further encourage players to kick tactically rather than aimlessly. .

    THIRD: Adopt something similar to Rugby League's "40-20" rule
    A kick from inside a team's own 10m line that bounces or rolls into touch inside the opponent's 22 gives the line-out throw to the attacking team. Perhaps we could call it the "10-22" kick. Not only would it encourage tactical kicking in the midfield, it would encourage the defending players to pick the ball up rather than allow it to roll into touch.

    Finally, one change I would like to see, that South African readers will hate. I would like something done about the dropped goal. I'm not against dropped goals. IMO a well executed dropped goal is worth the three points it gets. Kicking dropped goals is a difficult skill to master (as anyone who's tried it will testify to). What concerns me is that the long distance dropped goal attempt has really become a risk free way of gaining territory. Its a win-win situation for the kicker;

    ► if you get the DG, its 3 points...so its a win
    ► if you miss the DG and kick the ball dead or if a defender touches down, you get a drop-out 22, so either
    <blockquote>the defending does a short drop-out, and you compete for the ball 20m+ downfield...so its a win, or
    the defending team does a long drop-out, so you get the ball back about where you kicked from, so you're no worse off.
    </blockquote>► if you don't kick as far as the goal-line, you are likely to be throwing to an attacking line-out, so its a win.

    You can see, NO RISK - MUCH REWARD

    What I would like to see happen is for the exemption in Law 22.8 for the attempted dropped goal going dead in-goal to be removed. Essentially, this will add some risk to the dropped goal attempt, so instead of a drop out 22, the defending team would have the option of a scrum with their feed at the point where the kick was taken, just like any other kick that went through the in-goal. The further the attempt is from, the more chance there is of missing, the greater the risk of coming back a long way for a scrum.
     
  2. Forum Ad Advertisement

  3. smartcooky

    smartcooky Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Melhor Time @ Aug 25 2009, 08:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    MT.

    That's assuming that the reader actually cares about the teams, players and towns/cities they represent.

    I don't give a fat rats arse about any of them, so I don't bother watching. Even if I did, there's no team from Marseilles (where the French part of my family comes from). They're all wendyball mad down there anyway.

    I did watch a little of Perpignan playing last year, but only because Dan Carter was playing. If he hadn't been there, I wouldn't have bothered.

    One major barrier to Top 14 in NZ is the TV coverage. In a word, its CRAP,

    ► the commentator doesn't know who half the players are, unless they're English.
    ► he can't pronounce half the French names correctly
    ► he obviously is not actually at the game, but in remote studio because if it ain't happening on the screen he cant tell you about it.
    ► the colour commentator sounds like a pommie faking a frog accent (like Officer Crabtree in 'Allo, 'Allo)

    Its a completely amateur set-up with crap production standards.

    To top it off, I cannot understand the Referees or or ARs when the talk to each other or the players, because they (obviously) speak in French. I can't be arse learning the language just so I can watch rugby I don't even care about.
     
  4. wertas

    wertas Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (smartcooky @ Aug 25 2009, 04:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    There are a couple of fairly simple solutions to cutting down the amount of stupid and pointless "aerial ping-ping" kicking while still rewarding a really good bomb and still rewarding good tactical kicking. Neither of these solutions involve making wholesale Law changes or legislating kicking out of the game, but a couple minor tweaks to Law technicalities would do the trick.

    FIRST: Allow a mark to be taken anywhere inside a player's own half.
    This would discourage aimless punting downfield, and cause those players who do so to think a bit more about what they are doing. Rather than simply send a couple of speedsters downfield to knock over the catcher, they will have to compete for the ball in order to prevent the defending player from taking a mark. This also might bring us back to seeing teams kick more tactically, accurately and with greater skill rather then just mindlessly belting the ball back and starting something akin to a game of school yard force-back.

    SECOND: When a Free Kick (from a mark or infringement) is taken inside a team's own half, a gain in ground is allowed.
    So if you kick downfield from outside your 22, and a mark is taken by an opponent 5m inside his own half, you are likely to find your team competing for possession at a line-out inside your own 22. This would be a real disincentive to those who find it necessary to kick without purpose, and encourage players to try kicking into space or into touch rather then just any old place.

    Nothing else needs to be done, Its two simple changes to Laws 18 and 19. They would require the players to increase their kicking and catching skill-levels, while making the game a much more exciting to watch.

    I expect some people to be critical of these ideas, especially, there will be those who think the game would become a "series of marks". These people will, of course, have entirely missed the point. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence will quickly work out that this will not happen.

    If you wanted to take it further, and be more radical (and I'm not necessarily recommending this, I'm just putting it out there as an idea) you could add a third more substantial change that would further encourage players to kick tactically rather than aimlessly. .

    THIRD: Adopt something similar to Rugby League's "40-20" rule
    A kick from inside a team's own 10m line that bounces or rolls into touch inside the opponent's 22 gives the line-out throw to the attacking team. Perhaps we could call it the "10-22" kick. Not only would it encourage tactical kicking in the midfield, it would encourage the defending players to pick the ball up rather than allow it to roll into touch.

    Finally, one change I would like to see, that South African readers will hate. I would like something done about the dropped goal. I'm not against dropped goals. IMO a well executed dropped goal is worth the three points it gets. Kicking dropped goals is a difficult skill to master (as anyone who's tried it will testify to). What concerns me is that the long distance dropped goal attempt has really become a risk free way of gaining territory. Its a win-win situation for the kicker;

    ► if you get the DG, its 3 points...so its a win
    ► if you miss the DG and kick the ball dead or if a defender touches down, you get a drop-out 22, so either
    <blockquote>the defending does a short drop-out, and you compete for the ball 20m+ downfield...so its a win, or
    the defending team does a long drop-out, so you get the ball back about where you kicked from, so you're no worse off.
    </blockquote>► if you don't kick as far as the goal-line, you are likely to be throwing to an attacking line-out, so its a win.

    You can see, NO RISK - MUCH REWARD

    What I would like to see happen is for the exemption in Law 22.8 for the attempted dropped goal going dead in-goal to be removed. Essentially, this will add some risk to the dropped goal attempt, so instead of a drop out 22, the defending team would have the option of a scrum with their feed at the point where the kick was taken, just like any other kick that went through the in-goal. The further the attempt is from, the more chance there is of missing, the greater the risk of coming back a long way for a scrum.
    [/b][/quote]

    FIRST: Allow a mark to be taken anywhere inside a player's own half.
    We will see less actual rugby. After calling mark all defending team player should come back behind mark caller, so it will be a bit of time wasting.

    SECOND: When a Free Kick (from a mark or infringement) is taken inside a team's own half, a gain in ground is allowed.

    Also aimless kicking, time stopping and so on.

    THIRD: Adopt something similar to Rugby League's "40-20" rule

    cmon, are actually serious? It's Rugby Union.
     
  5. smartcooky

    smartcooky Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (wertas @ Aug 25 2009, 06:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    They don't have to if they are kicking for touch.


    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
    Perhaps you could elaborate. I have no idea what you are trying to say


    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
    As I said, I wasn't necessarily recommending this. Nonetheless, we should not be so high-and-mighty about rugby union or be too proud to use a good idea when we see one, just because the idea came from Rugby league. There are plenty of Rules/Laws that have migrated across the codes over the years

    League Laws/Ideas that were picked up by Union
    The four point try (RU subsequently moved on to the five point try)
    Making the spear tackle illegal
    Blood replacements
    The Video Referee ( TMO in Union)
    making scrums a minimum distance from the goalline (League are 10m - Union went to 5)
    Tactical replacements


    Union Laws/Ideas that were picked up by League
    Making it illegal to tackle players in the air
    The differential penalty (in Union we call it a Free Kick)
    The sin bin


    There are others
     
  6. monkeypigeon

    monkeypigeon Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (wertas @ Aug 25 2009, 07:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    There are a couple of fairly simple solutions to cutting down the amount of stupid and pointless "aerial ping-ping" kicking while still rewarding a really good bomb and still rewarding good tactical kicking. Neither of these solutions involve making wholesale Law changes or legislating kicking out of the game, but a couple minor tweaks to Law technicalities would do the trick.

    FIRST: Allow a mark to be taken anywhere inside a player's own half.
    This would discourage aimless punting downfield, and cause those players who do so to think a bit more about what they are doing. Rather than simply send a couple of speedsters downfield to knock over the catcher, they will have to compete for the ball in order to prevent the defending player from taking a mark. This also might bring us back to seeing teams kick more tactically, accurately and with greater skill rather then just mindlessly belting the ball back and starting something akin to a game of school yard force-back.

    SECOND: When a Free Kick (from a mark or infringement) is taken inside a team's own half, a gain in ground is allowed.
    So if you kick downfield from outside your 22, and a mark is taken by an opponent 5m inside his own half, you are likely to find your team competing for possession at a line-out inside your own 22. This would be a real disincentive to those who find it necessary to kick without purpose, and encourage players to try kicking into space or into touch rather then just any old place.

    Nothing else needs to be done, Its two simple changes to Laws 18 and 19. They would require the players to increase their kicking and catching skill-levels, while making the game a much more exciting to watch.

    I expect some people to be critical of these ideas, especially, there will be those who think the game would become a "series of marks". These people will, of course, have entirely missed the point. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence will quickly work out that this will not happen.

    If you wanted to take it further, and be more radical (and I'm not necessarily recommending this, I'm just putting it out there as an idea) you could add a third more substantial change that would further encourage players to kick tactically rather than aimlessly. .

    THIRD: Adopt something similar to Rugby League's "40-20" rule
    A kick from inside a team's own 10m line that bounces or rolls into touch inside the opponent's 22 gives the line-out throw to the attacking team. Perhaps we could call it the "10-22" kick. Not only would it encourage tactical kicking in the midfield, it would encourage the defending players to pick the ball up rather than allow it to roll into touch.

    Finally, one change I would like to see, that South African readers will hate. I would like something done about the dropped goal. I'm not against dropped goals. IMO a well executed dropped goal is worth the three points it gets. Kicking dropped goals is a difficult skill to master (as anyone who's tried it will testify to). What concerns me is that the long distance dropped goal attempt has really become a risk free way of gaining territory. Its a win-win situation for the kicker;

    ► if you get the DG, its 3 points...so its a win
    ► if you miss the DG and kick the ball dead or if a defender touches down, you get a drop-out 22, so either
    <blockquote>the defending does a short drop-out, and you compete for the ball 20m+ downfield...so its a win, or
    the defending team does a long drop-out, so you get the ball back about where you kicked from, so you're no worse off.
    </blockquote>► if you don't kick as far as the goal-line, you are likely to be throwing to an attacking line-out, so its a win.

    You can see, NO RISK - MUCH REWARD

    What I would like to see happen is for the exemption in Law 22.8 for the attempted dropped goal going dead in-goal to be removed. Essentially, this will add some risk to the dropped goal attempt, so instead of a drop out 22, the defending team would have the option of a scrum with their feed at the point where the kick was taken, just like any other kick that went through the in-goal. The further the attempt is from, the more chance there is of missing, the greater the risk of coming back a long way for a scrum.
    [/b][/quote]

    FIRST: Allow a mark to be taken anywhere inside a player's own half.
    I'd disagree with that one, I think it would just slow the game down rather than discourage the kicking. I'd rather they change the offside lines to give the catching player more space. I'd have to think it through to find something that works, but at the moment I'm thinking that if someone from team A isn't commited to challanging for the ball in the final, and someone from team B catches the ball, then there's a 15 metre radius which team A must retreat from. So basically, Team A gets 15 metres free.

    SECOND: When a Free Kick (from a mark or infringement) is taken inside a team's own half, a gain in ground is allowed.

    Perhaps if it was changed to 'taken inside a teams own 22', when the kick wasn't made from within the 22. That discourages the aimless kicking but doesn't discourage the wonderous 'cross field kick'.

    THIRD: Adopt something similar to Rugby League's "40-20" rule

    Couldn't see that working to be honest. I think the whole 'so many tackles then you hand the ball over' thing in League makes that rule work to give an option on the last phase. If anything this would encourage kicking when we want players to hold onto the ball.



    We've gone off topic again. At this stage 'the kicking problem' should have it's own thread. - If a mod could move these last few posts into a new thread that'd be wonderful.

    [/b][/quote]
     
  7. KZNSharksFan

    KZNSharksFan Guest

    Back to the kicking thing, Henry nad Deans are full of it. Its not the players, coaches or fans who decide how the game's played, its the rules. The players will always play in a way which makes the best use of the rules. Think of it as natural selection. The Boks tried a running game last season and they were shat on from a tremendous height, same for the other teams this season. Until the rules change, the play won't change.

    ps. Wtf! At teh mites comment on "**** defence" in the S14
     
  8. monkeypigeon

    monkeypigeon Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KZNSharksFan @ Aug 25 2009, 02:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    Yeah, I see where Teh Mite is coming from with that. All the Try highlights videos of the Super 14 were 90% horrible defense.

    But once I finished my exams and could watch the second half of the Super 14 it's actually not that bad it's just that they show all the bad defence tries for some reason.

    Though some teams did have horrid defense....Cheetahs for example.
     
  9. dundeesmiffy

    dundeesmiffy Guest

    This is something that should be stamped out ASAP.

    I like the being able to mark within your own half idea, but maybe it would be advisable to make it only between the teams 10 and tryline because bombs that land in the middle of the field are generally well contested and don't result in such aimless kicking.

    Admittedly when I saw the title of this thread I thought it was going to be about penalties getting reduced to 2 points to stop games like the RWC07 final happening. It makes a potentially exciting game of rugby an utter snoozefest.
     
  10. jawmalawm24

    jawmalawm24 Guest

    I think Rugby needs to just go back to old school rules with rucking, none of this touch, pause, engage stuff and make one whole ruling system. I'm getting bloody confused because at Anz Cup level here in Nz there's a certain set of rules than club rugby has it's own rules and than you've got International rules which are different again.

    Rules of Rugby need to be sorted out first and foremost and if we can all come to agreement on a single set of rules than we can worry about playing Rugby instead of worrying about the rules.
     
  11. Jethro

    Jethro Guest

    To add to the list, if the ref shots his arm out for an advantage and some numb nuts then proceeds to bollock a shot at goal, then advantage over.
     
  12. smartcooky

    smartcooky Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jethro @ Aug 26 2009, 02:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    Its not as simple as that.


    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

    Advantage has be be either "territorial" or "tactical". A missed dropped goal attempt is neither

    Remember there are also two types of Advantage played, "scrum" advantage and "penalty" advantage

    The territorial advantage gained by the non-offending team has to be a lot more from a penalty advantage than from a scrum advantage.

    The tactical position gained has to be much better too, e.g.

    Scrum Advantage
    Red 13 accidentally knocks-on in a tackle in the centre of his own 22. Blue 12 picks up the ball and fires a wide pass to a Blue 13 on his right and Blue now have a 3:1 overlap - ADVANTAGE OVER.

    Penalty advantage
    Red 13 deliberately knocks-on in a tackle in the centre of his own 22. Blue 12 picks up the ball and fires a wide pass to a Blue 13 on his right and Blue now have a 3:1 overlap - STILL PLAYING ADVANTAGE - The ball gets quickly through the hands to Blue 14 down the right touch...

    ► Blue 14 scores the try - ADVANTAGE OVER - try scored
    ► Blue 14 knocks the ball on - NO ADVANTAGE - come back to the centre of the 22 for penalty to Blue
    ► Blue 14 is tacked into touch 10m out - NO ADVANTAGE - come back to the centre of the 22 for penalty to Blue
     
  13. smartcooky

    smartcooky Guest

    You think so. I do not believe so. The fact that any player could mark the ball in their own half would discourage the "kick and hope" philosophy we have now. Teams that persisted with this tactic would spend a lot of time defending line-outs in their own 22 when the "marker" kept kicking the ball back with interest, and it would not take them long to work out that aerial ping-pong was not very profitable for them.
     
  14. Nickdnz

    Nickdnz Guest

    Maybe, if you changed it so that a kick inside the opponents half, maybe instead of being marked, means you could kick the ball out on the full if you cought the ball on the full, if that makes sence. So say Blue 10, kicks the ball from inside his own half, into oppersition territory, and the red 15 catches the ball on the full, he then has the right to kick the ball out on the full without being in his own 22. That way a kick and prey tactic could come with larger territory risk.
     
  15. monkeypigeon

    monkeypigeon Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (smartcooky @ Aug 26 2009, 04:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    I do see where you're coming from but I'd just be afriad that it would slow down the game too much, and might destroy the kicking game all together which taks us to another extreme where the ball goes from left to right all day with very little chance of anyone kicking.

    I still think the way to go would be to introduce an offside radius around the catcher of 15/20 metres so the attacking team gets 15/20 metres free and builds up a head of steam.
     
  16. smartcooky

    smartcooky Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Monkeypigeon @ Aug 26 2009, 10:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    I do see where you're coming from but I'd just be afriad that it would slow down the game too much, and might destroy the kicking game all together which taks us to another extreme where the ball goes from left to right all day with very little chance of anyone kicking.

    I still think the way to go would be to introduce an offside radius around the catcher of 15/20 metres so the attacking team gets 15/20 metres free and builds up a head of steam.
    [/b][/quote]

    We already have a 10m Law, and that extends in a line across the field. The radius idea of yours is not new; its what the Law used to say; it was called the "10m circle". The trouble with that was that players would kick down the middle, then send runners left and right, outside the 10m circle so cutting off any possibility of a lateral passing movement getting started. This left the catcher no option but to run up the middle of the field, where the rest of the defence was waiting. That's why the 10m Law was changed from a circle to a line across the field in the 1990's.

    Perhaps increasing the 10m offside Law to 20m might help, but it still wont solve the problem of the continuous kicking back and forth, because that Law only applies to players ahead of the kick. Onside chasers will still be able to run up and mow down the catcher. Its a series of tactics that is ruining the game right now.

    By allowing players to mark the ball anywhere in their own half, you encourage the kicker to kick the ball accurately rather than mindlessly.

    for example;

    ► The wipers kick to touch
    ► The chip over the defence
    ► Kicking the ball into open spaces
    ► Kicking at a lower trajectory and to a lower height so that catchers cant get to the ball to mark it.

    If you want to kick a bomb, then your onside chasers can't just get up there to knock the catcher over, they have to try to prevent a mark from being taken (just like they have to currently if the ball is alighting in the 22), so they will need to compete in the air for the ball.

    This will not suppress all kicking from the game, just the mindless and directionless ones.

    One of the possible consequences of this change might be that the receiving team may drop extra players back to have the kick covered, i.e. to make sure that any kick is marked. All the better, those players have to come from somewhere, so the more players they drop back, the greater chance the ball carrying team has of creating a line-break with the lower number of defensive players in their faces.
     
  17. Melhor Time

    Melhor Time Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (smartcooky @ Aug 24 2009, 11:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    MT.

    That's assuming that the reader actually cares about the teams, players and towns/cities they represent.

    I don't give a fat rats arse about any of them, so I don't bother watching. Even if I did, there's no team from Marseilles (where the French part of my family comes from). They're all wendyball mad down there anyway.

    I did watch a little of Perpignan playing last year, but only because Dan Carter was playing. If he hadn't been there, I wouldn't have bothered.

    One major barrier to Top 14 in NZ is the TV coverage. In a word, its CRAP,

    ► the commentator doesn't know who half the players are, unless they're English.
    ► he can't pronounce half the French names correctly
    ► he obviously is not actually at the game, but in remote studio because if it ain't happening on the screen he cant tell you about it.
    ► the colour commentator sounds like a pommie faking a frog accent (like Officer Crabtree in 'Allo, 'Allo)

    Its a completely amateur set-up with crap production standards.

    To top it off, I cannot understand the Referees or or ARs when the talk to each other or the players, because they (obviously) speak in French. I can't be arse learning the language just so I can watch rugby I don't even care about.
    [/b][/quote]

    Taking your point of view ito its logical conclusion it makes the Tri Nations look pretty dull, doesn't it? Only three countries involved which is less than were represented in the Top 14 match I was refering to. You mentioned Dan Carter interesting you because of the fact that he plays for the All Blacks and you are, of course, a Kiwi. Fair enough, good for you and this is what virtually everybody thinks. Country first and everything else second. But, the game I said is more interesting to me is because of the fact that there were so many rugby countries represented. This, therefore, means, that more people should be interested in it than a Tri Nations match as there were test players from world powers like France, Italy, Argentina, Fiji, Australia, England, South Africa and New Zealand.

    Bayonne - Craig Gower (Italy / Australia), Pepito Elhorga and Remy Martin (France), Ross Filipo (New Zealand), Rob Linde and Sam Gerber (South Africa) Stade Francais - Mark Gasnier (Australia), Lionel Beauxis, Matthieu Bastareaud, Julien Dupuy, Pascal Pape and Benjamin Kayser (France), James Haskell and Tom Palmer (England), Juan Manuel Leguizamon and Rodrigo Roncero (Argentina), Mauro Bergamasco (Italy).

    Again, like you say the reader cares about his own interests, that usually being players from his test team. The above is a compelling case to watch a game like Bayonne vs Stade Francais instead of another Australia vs New Zealand match. Can you believe Juan Martin Hernandez has never played against Matt Giteau?

    Does it matter who the team are when there is such a large group of leading countries represented? Someone interested in fixing Australia's current woes should definetly be following games like this. Gasnier, if elligible, would be in the Wallabies to replace Mortlock. Brock James (Clermont) would be there too.
     
  18. smartcooky

    smartcooky Guest

    MT

    Don't get me wrong. The Top 14 IS a very good competition and I do watch the occasional match. The play is uncompromising and you cannot question the intensity, although the skill level (IMO) seems a little lacking at times. Also, it almost appears to be two divisions in one. There seems to be a greater disparity between the top and bottom teams in Top14 than in say the S14 or the ANZC. I'm sure you will be able to quote matches that buck that trend, but from what I have seen, Top 14 and Pro-D2 (16 teams) would almost seem to more naturally divide into three divisions of 10 (so Top 14, ProD2 and ProD3)

    However, for me, the main reason I am not so interested and therefore don't watch it regularly, is THAT I HAVE NO STAKE IN THE OUTCOME. I hardly even know where some of the teams are located. I could easily stick a pin on a blank map of France for Paris, Toulouse, Biarritz, Brive and Perpignan, but I couldn't for Agen, Narbonne, Albi, Montauban, Montpellier or Castres. Having lots of players from various countries is interesting, but its not enough to get me about of bed at 3am - 6am to watch.

    I have often felt that having a few foreign players playing in the ANZC would add interest. Players with the obvious skills of Ben Gollings (Tasman) and Francisco Bosch (Manawatu) really added value to that competition when they were here, but I'm not sure I would want to see the same in Super 14. We have fourteen ANZC teams, so there is room for foreign players, but we only have five Super 14 teams so not a lot of room there.
     
  19. Thingimubob

    Thingimubob Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Melhor Time @ Aug 26 2009, 08:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    MT.

    That's assuming that the reader actually cares about the teams, players and towns/cities they represent.

    I don't give a fat rats arse about any of them, so I don't bother watching. Even if I did, there's no team from Marseilles (where the French part of my family comes from). They're all wendyball mad down there anyway.

    I did watch a little of Perpignan playing last year, but only because Dan Carter was playing. If he hadn't been there, I wouldn't have bothered.

    One major barrier to Top 14 in NZ is the TV coverage. In a word, its CRAP,

    ► the commentator doesn't know who half the players are, unless they're English.
    ► he can't pronounce half the French names correctly
    ► he obviously is not actually at the game, but in remote studio because if it ain't happening on the screen he cant tell you about it.
    ► the colour commentator sounds like a pommie faking a frog accent (like Officer Crabtree in 'Allo, 'Allo)

    Its a completely amateur set-up with crap production standards.

    To top it off, I cannot understand the Referees or or ARs when the talk to each other or the players, because they (obviously) speak in French. I can't be arse learning the language just so I can watch rugby I don't even care about.
    [/b][/quote]

    Taking your point of view ito its logical conclusion it makes the Tri Nations look pretty dull, doesn't it? Only three countries involved which is less than were represented in the Top 14 match I was refering to. You mentioned Dan Carter interesting you because of the fact that he plays for the All Blacks and you are, of course, a Kiwi. Fair enough, good for you and this is what virtually everybody thinks. Country first and everything else second. But, the game I said is more interesting to me is because of the fact that there were so many rugby countries represented. This, therefore, means, that more people should be interested in it than a Tri Nations match as there were test players from world powers like France, Italy, Argentina, Fiji, Australia, England, South Africa and New Zealand.

    Bayonne - Craig Gower (Italy / Australia), Pepito Elhorga and Remy Martin (France), Ross Filipo (New Zealand), Rob Linde and Sam Gerber (South Africa) Stade Francais - Mark Gasnier (Australia), Lionel Beauxis, Matthieu Bastareaud, Julien Dupuy, Pascal Pape and Benjamin Kayser (France), James Haskell and Tom Palmer (England), Juan Manuel Leguizamon and Rodrigo Roncero (Argentina), Mauro Bergamasco (Italy).

    Again, like you say the reader cares about his own interests, that usually being players from his test team. The above is a compelling case to watch a game like Bayonne vs Stade Francais instead of another Australia vs New Zealand match. Can you believe Juan Martin Hernandez has never played against Matt Giteau?

    Does it matter who the team are when there is such a large group of leading countries represented? Someone interested in fixing Australia's current woes should definetly be following games like this. Gasnier, if elligible, would be in the Wallabies to replace Mortlock. Brock James (Clermont) would be there too.


    [/b][/quote]

    So in other words people should stop watching International Rugby because there are only the players from 2 Countries are on the pitch, and watch Top 14/other leagues because there are many? :huh: That really makes no sense.
    International Rugby is the pinnacle of our sport, and yes there have been some boring games recently on the International Stage recently, but you can't really say none of the Top 14 (or any other league) games haven't been either. I saw a fair bit of Toulon v Stade Francais (22 - 22 all draw) nd there was a lot of kicking going on in that, so you can't really say the Top 14 in better on that front. International Tournaments and Club leagues are two very different things, so it's a bit daft to attempt to compare them.
     
  20. gingergenius

    gingergenius Guest

    There isn't a kicking problem.

    Rugby Union is a code of football. As such, I should expect there to be a fair amount of kicking. The fact that the standard of kicking is poor; or that there is more used than there used to be; is down to players and coaches. There is no need for loads of new laws - we've just seen a big bunch of laws trialled and they mostly did not work.

    The problem in fact with this year's Tri-Nations is that South Africa's style of play has forced the lesser teams in Aus and NZ to play more conservatively. So they've kicked more. As it happens, they were employing these tactics 1) behind a beaten pack, 2) with a rubbish lineout and 3) with a stand off who is not up to it (Donald) or one who had a bad day (Giteau).

    We saw in last Saturday's game that when there is no-one exerting the sort of pressure that the Boks can from 1-8, then there's room more a much more open and exciting game.

    'Kicking' is being used as a distraction from the fact that the real reason there was little genuine excitement before last week's game was because South Africa were too good and the format of the Tri-Nations is too drawn out.
     
  21. Jethro

    Jethro Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (smartcooky @ Aug 26 2009, 01:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    Its not as simple as that.

    [/b][/quote]

    Actually it is, the current DG ******** is certainly an awesome advertisement for the game for the non rugby casual viewer, similar to those hollywood flops the wendy ballers persist in making. Neither does their respective sports any good and it simply looks naff. You took your advantage by having a snap at goal, why should a completely bollocked play get what is seen as rewarded (as my wife asked me after a particular horrid example last year). The idea of advantage is you try to take, oh I don't know, advantage of the situation knowing you have the penalty in the bank, not simply doing something dire to immediatly take the penalty.

    Test match rugby isn't exactly inundating us with tries and classy plays currently, judging from this year's T3. Okay the last one was intense and nail biting, but try sitting through a second viewing .. don't get me started on what ever the hell the Saffas are currently doing, it makes the Waratahs look like they are playing an exciting brand of rugby.

    Kicking should be a tactic no the only tactic.
     
Enjoyed this thread? Register to post your reply - click here!

Share This Page