Tri Nations: Springboks - All Blacks @ Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium (20-8-2011, 15:05)

[UilamOsa]

Nah, that's okay...

We like manly sports!

Watch a state of origin game: Queensland vs New South Wales. It is legalised thuggery, it is poetry in motion and it's as hard as rugby in the 70's & 80's. Let's put it way Johan Le Roux & Richard Loe would love it.

Played both - follow both ------ Leagues by far the harder sport.

Agreed. Speaking from experience as a tight five (rugby) and front row (league)

I'm sorry but because I was brought up in a very Rugby environment, I find Rugby League very boring to watch. I mean, you say it's such a fast sport where I would disagree because after every tackle you have to stop and reset, where as in Rugby it's continuous and if you've watched the All Blacks lately, you'd really know what fast sport is. When I watch league, I change the channel on numerous occassions for the simple fact that I know what's going to happen, this teams gonna get tackled 5 times then kick the ball. The scrum is a complete laughing stock and hit ups and offloads are like their main statistic it's hillarious. Rugby has so much more variety and the demand for physical fitness is [imo] second to no sport in the world. Sure when stoppages occur the game seems like it's slow, but when the ball is in hand, you don't know when something is going to happen or even how...

So that's my 2 cents

Fair point but you explained exactly why you can't provide a fair comment. Also, AFL players on average 7kms during a slow game. You also haven't accounted for rugby stoppages for lineouts, goalkicks, scrums, scrum resets, more scrum resets, dropkick restarts etc...

Before this year I played very little league, but I started getting into it mid season just because I wanted to use it to improve my game. From an honest view point, I actually find league easier. That may just be me, but because I'm a very big guy and strong runner, league I found probably a little more second nature. In union I think the part where I loose most of my energy is actually contesting at the ruck, so as a forward that's what really tests out my fitness. In league as a forward I think you conserve so much more energy doing nothing other than moving up field after the first and second phase.

The players I've found are a lot bigger at club level in league than in union but for what ever pain you feel getting hit hard in the tackle, it's a much easier pill to swallow than making it to every second breakdown.

It would be second nature, as the majority of games touch/tag all developed from league. The majority of backline moves & defensive organisations are underpinned by league offensive & defensive structures. Also, could be the competition you're in.

However, rugby is CHESS and league is CHECKERS. Both sports are amazing.

Don't change the points for rugby it's fine. And not disagreeing with South Africa's try scoring ability during the World Cup, just disappointed with their inability to create try scoring opportunities in the RWC.

If the RWC is the showcase of this sport, why can't the teams provide a showcase match? Or at least attempt too.

 

[Dizzy]

Watch a state of origin game: Queensland vs New South Wales. It is legalised thuggery, it is poetry in motion and it's as hard as rugby in the 70's & 80's. Let's put it way Johan Le Roux & Richard Loe would love it.



Agreed. Speaking from experience as a tight five (rugby) and front row (league)



Fair point but you explained exactly why you can't provide a fair comment. Also, AFL players on average 7kms during a slow game. You also haven't accounted for rugby stoppages for lineouts, goalkicks, scrums, scrum resets, more scrum resets, dropkick restarts etc...



It would be second nature, as the majority of games touch/tag all developed from league. The majority of backline moves & defensive organisations are underpinned by league offensive & defensive structures. Also, could be the competition you're in.

However, rugby is CHESS and league is CHECKERS. Both sports are amazing.

Don't change the points for rugby it's fine. And not disagreeing with South Africa's try scoring ability during the World Cup, just disappointed with their inability to create try scoring opportunities in the RWC.

If the RWC is the showcase of this sport, why can't the teams provide a showcase match? Or at least attempt too.

You're absolutely correct I can't. Neither game is better than the other, it all comes down to the individual and the individuals interests

 

[smartcooky]

I have to agree with the posts on here re the style of rugby on display during the World Cup.

A newspaper article I was reading recently critiqued all of the previous World Cup tournaments for their entertainment value.
Saffas will be pleased to know that the '95 World Cup came in first place. This was partly due to the political backdrop, but also due to the games played during the tournament (and one Jonah Lomu - it must be said)

That remains the one Rugby World Cup that anyone outside the big Rugby playing nations will really have any memory of. This is due mainly to Jonah, and more recently, Clint Eastwood and his story about the tournament.

The last thing Rugby needs (I am am speaking from a NZ perspective here) is a dour, penalty and drop-goal infested bore-fest.

It has been noted in various NZ media about the need for this World Cup to be a success for the continued growth of Rugby in this country.
I believe this is true, because the harsh reality of professional sport is that is has to be entertaining. And for the last few years, Rugby has been losing ground to Rugby League for spectacle and entertainment, and also to Soccer- due to the All Whites making the World Cup last year and performing OK

Ask any average joe on the street what they would rather watch: soemone scoring a try, or someone kicking a penalty/drop goal. I guarantee you the world over, the try would be an overwhelming majority. In NZ, it would be a unanimous decision.

I sincerely hope this tournament provides decent games of running rugby.

I hope for the good of rugby that the teams that don't play decent running rugby don't get anywhere near the final. The last thing the game needs is another tournament like '07.

Anyway- I honestly believe that Rugby Union could have solved all the problems re too many penalty kicks/drop goals by simply changing the points structure years ago.
Lets face it, most penalties are hardly really worth 3 points- its seems far too heavily weighted considering you only get 5 for a try, which takes FAR, FAR, FAR more skill and execution to pull off.

But the old tosspots at the RFU would never change that because that is England's strength and they woudl strugglewithout shots at goals/droppies.

I am a firm believer that the points scoring system of League should be adapted, as it is far mroe consistent with the endeavour and effort it takes to actually acheive the task it takes to get the points. (ie: 4 points for a try, 2 for conversions and penalties, and 1 for a drop goal)
3 points for a drop goal is a joke, and dosn't encourage any endeavour.
Drop goals should be a game breaker, not a game winner (or a cheap way to acrue points with very little endeavour)

I should stress here, that I am a rugby man, but come from a league family. League has been professional for 100 years longer than rugby. They have had more time to fine tune the entertainment side of the game, and also get the laws right.

I believe if rugby wants to be progrssive and move forward, we need to learn from other professional sports. I think the points scoring system from league would be a good place to start.

THIS, THIS, THIS and THIS!!!

Give this man a medal, make it a Gold one.

This is the best post in the thread, by the length of the street

 

[donmcdazzle]

Also, AFL players on average 7kms during a slow game. You also haven't accounted for rugby stoppages for lineouts, goalkicks, scrums, scrum resets, more scrum resets, dropkick restarts etc...

That's great but they hardly have to do any contact do they? I think you'll find running 7km over 80min to be pretty easy going compared to running into people, pushing and wrestling constantly and picking yourself up off the ground repeatedly.

Soccer players run much much further but I wouldn't say it's more physically demanding. Distance covered =/= physically harder.

 

[Seaton]

You can't change the scoring system, as that means Scotlands tallies will no longer be divisible by 3!

No seriously, given the nature and conditions of rugby in Europe, I'll say that those countries should just stop playing against SH teams if the scoring system is changed, imo they just won't be able to 'adapt' and score more tries than their SH counterparts (if they could, they would have reached some form of parity by now at least)

 

[smartcooky]

people here is NZ are starting to turn to league simply because the game has better entertainment value these days

Illustrated perfectly earlier in the season when the Warriors played at Mt Smart Stadium on the same weekend as Auckland had an ITM Cup match at Eden Park

Warriors crowd 21,000
Auckland crowd 7,500

 

[Darwin]

You can't change the scoring system, as that means Scotlands tallies will no longer be divisible by 3!

No seriously, given the nature and conditions of rugby in Europe, I'll say that those countries should just stop playing against SH teams if the scoring system is changed, imo they just won't be able to 'adapt' and score more tries than their SH counterparts (if they could, they would have reached some form of parity by now at least)

Unless, of course, you change penalties to 6 points... if you did that Scotland might even win a few games in the RWC

 

[UilamOsa]

That's great but they hardly have to do any contact do they? I think you'll find running 7km over 80min to be pretty easy going compared to running into people, pushing and wrestling constantly and picking yourself up off the ground repeatedly.

Soccer players run much much further but I wouldn't say it's more physically demanding. Distance covered =/= physically harder.

Incorrect, there is contact. In comparison to Rugby not as much but there is contact and at it's worst it's brutal but then the term physically demanding requires perspective doesnt it? If we continue to go down this road we'll start off saying, it's more physically demanding for props then wingers etc.
Each sport has there own difficulties, I was just trying to provide some perspective.

And for the love of all things masculine, please don't bring up Football.

Illustrated perfectly earlier in the season when the Warriors played at Mt Smart Stadium on the same weekend as Auckland had an ITM Cup match at Eden Park

Warriors crowd 21,000
Auckland crowd 7,500

That's hardly a fair comparison. NZ Warriors are a full time professional team, ITM Cup semi pro.
It would be fairer to compare NZ warriors against the Blues OR Auckland ITM vs Auckland Vulcans

Watching the Warriors at Eden Park was awesome. Too bad about the loss.

 

[Seaton]

Unless, of course, you change penalties to 6 points... if you did that Scotland might even win a few games in the RWC

A few games? 17 wins 1 draw 11 losses

Of which 5 of those losses were against New Zealand, only one of which was a non-konckout fixture.

Its a conspiracy I tells ya!

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Incorrect, there is contact. In comparison to Rugby not as much but there is contact and at it's worst it's brutal but then the term physically demanding requires perspective doesnt it? If we continue to go down this road we'll start off saying, it's more physically demanding for props then wingers etc.
Each sport has there own difficulties, I was just trying to provide some perspective.

And for the love of all things masculine, please don't bring up Football.



That's hardly a fair comparison. NZ Warriors are a full time professional team, ITM Cup semi pro.
It would be fairer to compare NZ warriors against the Blues OR Auckland ITM vs Auckland Vulcans

Watching the Warriors at Eden Park was awesome. Too bad about the loss.

Or it'd be like comparing the Warriors with the Phoenix.

Auckland and the Blues only represent the region - I live in Auckland but there's no chance I''ll go see an Auckland game unless Waikato is playing too.

The Warriors represent the whole country, and even though I far enjoy rugby more than league I'd probably more likely go watch the Warriors play than Auckland, purely because the Warriors are, to some extent, my team.

Perhaps you'd be better comparing how many people go to a Kiwis game with how many people go to an All Blacks game?

 

[Darwin]

A few games? 17 wins 1 draw 11 losses

Of which 5 of those losses were against New Zealand, only one of which was a non-konckout fixture.

Its a conspiracy I tells ya!

If Scotland has a good tournament they may even get to face New Zealand in the quarters this time too!

 

[Shaggy]

@ Shaggy

A couple of counter-points to your argument:

Excellent! ... good, healthy debate! ... I welcome your counter-points, and will try to justify mine

1. Under a law change they would still be getting 2 points for the penalty in all those situations, plus the referee still has the option of cards. Multiple offences still are punishable.

... My points here are, if i'm prepared to give away three points by slowing the game down, and preventing the attacking team from scoring a try, surely lessening the amount of points i'm penalised by, is going to encourage negative play, and slow the game down ... perhaps if the penalty was equal to or greater than the value of a converted try, or if the ref actually yellow carded offenders for cynical play STRAIGHT AWAY, without any warnings, this would genuinely penalise offending teams, the number of infringements would drop, the ball would be recycled quicker, the game would be faster, and your goal of a more entertaining match might be achieved

2. The breakdown penalties is such a grey area anyway, that the referree ostensibly "gifting" 3 points to the opposition is in reality WAY too harsh in some circumstances. How many times have you watched a game where you can not work out why the referee has penalised one team or the other? I would argue that you would see this at least once if you watched 2 games of rugby.

Agreed, it can be hard to tell sometimes, but a large number of infringements that occur are related to slowing the ball down ... my thinking is that if a faster game = more tries being scored = a more entertaining game = more people watching, then a bigger disincentive/a larger penalty, is going to lessen the number of infringements, so the ref is going to have to make less marginal calls.

3. Comparing the penalty points change to a change in scrum rules is comparing oranges and apples. It is a red herring and one has little to do with the other in terms of the points argument. I don't condone changing scrum riles, I love the scrum (being a hooker myself). If you change those rules, then you may as well take away lineouts and contesting for the ball at breakdowns, and turn it into league. As I say- scrum rules have nothing to do with changing the pints structure.

Well, I guess ... but my point is rather than change the rules or the scoring, teams should learn to play a better game within the existing rules.

4. None of your points really address the key issue I was trying to raise regarding growing the game and its value as "entertainment"

Well, I apologise for not clarifying my position more - my interpretation of your point was that faster = more tries = a better spectacle for fans to watch = more people watching/growth of the game ... also, that penalties and drop goals aren't as entertaining.

... My position is that, assuming all of the above is true, lowering the value of penalties, is going to increase the number of penalties awarded, and thus, make the game less attractive to punters.

I actually don't think that scoring more tries, is as effective a tool at increasing viewership, as player participation, viewer education of the rules, and good marketing of the game ... you really just need to look at the evil round ball code to see what all of these three things can do ... Soccer is the most popular sport in the world, and it can go for 90 minutes without either team scoring.

5. If this your opinion on penalties, where do you stand re Drop goals?

My opinion on drop goals is, if they are so easy to execute, and if they are an easy reward, why doesn't everyone do it ... if the reward is so great, and you don't have the personnel to kick them successfully, pick players that do

... I personally feel that they aren't as easy to execute as many people feel, and that you have to have achieved specific field position to kick them anyway, so if a team can get themselves in a position to score the points, great

 

[DariusLovehall]

I'm sorry but because I was brought up in a very Rugby environment, I find Rugby League very boring to watch. I mean, you say it's such a fast sport where I would disagree because after every tackle you have to stop and reset, where as in Rugby it's continuous and if you've watched the All Blacks lately, you'd really know what fast sport is. When I watch league, I change the channel on numerous occassions for the simple fact that I know what's going to happen, this teams gonna get tackled 5 times then kick the ball. The scrum is a complete laughing stock and hit ups and offloads are like their main statistic it's hillarious. Rugby has so much more variety and the demand for physical fitness is [imo] second to no sport in the world. Sure when stoppages occur the game seems like it's slow, but when the ball is in hand, you don't know when something is going to happen or even how...

So that's my 2 cents

Yup i see what your saying...
I agree to a certain extent but def not about the continuous nature of Rugby - there is far more stoppage in Rugby - in League the ball is nearly always in play ... as you have stated the scrum is of little consequence as its just
a means to restart play and keep the ball in play. Rugby is all about Stop /Start / Stop - scrums and resets and lineouts and breakdown penalties and shots at goal ... they all slow the game down until the ball is out of play
more that it is in play!

Anyway i could easily rip the shortcomings of Rugby as a spectator sport but doing that on a Rugby Forum would be akin to ******* directly into a Wellington Southerly - counterproductive.

And as much as i loathe the stoppages and mucking around - i love Rugby as a contest and as a game....

 

[smartcooky]

That's hardly a fair comparison. NZ Warriors are a full time professional team, ITM Cup semi pro.
It would be fairer to compare NZ warriors against the Blues OR Auckland ITM vs Auckland Vulcans

Could be right of course, were it not for the fact that even earlier in the NRL season, the Warriors played at Mount Smart Stadium on the same weekend that the Blues played a Super Rugby match at Eden Park.

The Blues still drew less than 10,000, while the Warriors draw, IIRC about 18,000. The Mad Butcher made that point on Veitchy's "Sporting Breakfast"

Watching the Warriors at Eden Park was awesome. Too bad about the loss.

I have heard that the NRL really liked what they saw, and have asked the Warriors to go to Eden Park again for R1 of the 2012 season.

 

[Shaggy]

Could be right of course, were it not for the fact that even earlier in the NRL season, the Warriors played at Mount Smart Stadium on the same weekend that the Blues played a Super Rugby match at Eden Park.

The Blues still drew less than 10,000, while the Warriors draw, IIRC about 18,000. The Mad Butcher made that point on Veitchy's "Sporting Breakfast"




I have heard that the NRL really liked what they saw, and have asked the Warriors to go to Eden Park again for R1 of the 2012 season.

With respect to the 13 man code and those who follow it more closely than I do, it's global presence is less than that of Rugby Union, and the countries where the game is popular (Australia, France,Great Britain, and New Zealand) are all nations where Rugby Union already has a strong presence. The two games are similar enough, that, if you understand one game, you can easily pick up the rules for the other, and follow it/enjoy it as a spectator.

While I don't dispute that the two codes can probably learn something from one another in terms of entertainment and marketing their games, people have to realise that to entice new markets and global expansion, the potential players and viewers need to be able to understand the rules, and develop an interest in the game.

This is a lot easier to achieve if you can identify Rugby with a sport that you already know, such as Rugby League ... I'll use my current base of Canada as an example here, although i'm sure it's very similar to the problems that other countries face, where the exposure isn't high ... even the sporting made supporter, has trouble understanding the basics of the game.

... I'm talking passing level or backwards here ... scrums, line out ... jeez, try explaining what goes on in rucks and mauls - i'm not saying that spectators aren't capable of understanding the rules, just that they can't be bothered investing the time to learn because they can't identify with similar sports, so, until this issue is addressed, it really doesn't matter how fast the game is, or how many tries are scored, they aren't going to watch anyway (because they don't understand what's going on).

The irony of the whole faster is better, more tries/more excitement debate, is that there's actually less time to explain why a referee has ruled a particular way, to someone who is new to watching the game than if you are watching rugby unions closest relative here (Canadian Football) where there are breaks and stoppages, giving opportunities for rulings to be explained

 

[User1245]

It's very interesting how a thread can evolve

On the game...
I thought NZ played fantastic, considering the amount of changes that took place in the team. I would defo say those guys did NZ proud, and showcased what outstanding quality in depth you guys have developed despite hordes of players going up North. I enjoyed watching Kahui, I liken him to Jacque Fourie. Dagg is just awesome on attack, he's a very instinctive attack brain, literally the stuff you can't teach.

SA honestly needs to adopt some NZ's developmental methods to help groom our players. There has also been a gap from school level to provincial level in terms of skill. We have the player numbers, that's for sure, but we need to focus our resources more efficiently. SA does seem to be wasteful with our playing talent due the numbers constantly mass produced like a rugby factory.

From a Bok perspective, a general sense of relief is the best way to describe the nations feeling after the game. Yeah we kicked all our points but I don't have a problem with that. The people who do must rather look at why we have to win like that... Because in general, New Zealand teams are very cynical when the opposition are in their 22. In this case it was Thompson who would cynically spoil our right to play some rugby on numerous occasions.
Our strategy seems to be: We don't like playing rugby in our half, hence the kick and chase, and if you mess with our ball whilst attacking your half we'll punish you with 3 points.
And I'm ok with that... What I'm not ok with is how rigid and static we look when we do attack. Our centers seem to be on crashball duty 24/7, which is really not their strength or how they wanna play. JdV and JF are a deadly combo for the Stormers but in a Bok jersey that spark seems to fade. WTF Dick Muir is doing? After all this time, 4 years with basically the same players, our backline looks clueless. It's just not good enough. We had plenty of front foot ball to utilize them. Someone is not doing their job and it's either Morne Steyn or Dick Muir.

What the very top management need to do is get an Aussie or Kiwi to be our next backline coach. The fact is they are better in that department than us, it's quite obvious. We need some fresh ideas and a different perspective on attack. I'm not saying completely discard the traditional Bok way of playing, we've got 2 WC's thanks to that. But there is room for much improvement. Lets be clever and utilize our huge financial resources we have in SA rugby and our now close relationship with our SH partners, to grow our rugby skills and knowledge base.

 

[nickdnz]

It's very interesting how a thread can evolve

On the game...
I thought NZ played fantastic, considering the amount of changes that took place in the team. I would defo say those guys did NZ proud, and showcased what outstanding quality in depth you guys have developed despite hordes of players going up North. I enjoyed watching Kahui, I liken him to Jacque Fourie. Dagg is just awesome on attack, he's a very instinctive attack brain, literally the stuff you can't teach.

SA honestly needs to adopt some NZ's developmental methods to help groom our players. There has also been a gap from school level to provincial level in terms of skill. We have the player numbers, that's for sure, but we need to focus our resources more efficiently. SA does seem to be wasteful with our playing talent due the numbers constantly mass produced like a rugby factory.

From a Bok perspective, a general sense of relief is the best way to describe the nations feeling after the game. Yeah we kicked all our points but I don't have a problem with that. The people who do must rather look at why we have to win like that... Because in general, New Zealand teams are very cynical when the opposition are in their 22. In this case it was Thompson who would cynically spoil our right to play some rugby on numerous occasions.
Our strategy seems to be: We don't like playing rugby in our half, hence the kick and chase, and if you mess with our ball whilst attacking your half we'll punish you with 3 points.
And I'm ok with that... What I'm not ok with is how rigid and static we look when we do attack. Our centers seem to be on crashball duty 24/7, which is really not their strength or how they wanna play. JdV and JF are a deadly combo for the Stormers but in a Bok jersey that spark seems to fade. WTF Dick Muir is doing? After all this time, 4 years with basically the same players, our backline looks clueless. It's just not good enough. We had plenty of front foot ball to utilize them. Someone is not doing their job and it's either Morne Steyn or Dick Muir.

What the very top management need to do is get an Aussie or Kiwi to be our next backline coach. The fact is they are better in that department than us, it's quite obvious. We need some fresh ideas and a different perspective on attack. I'm not saying completely discard the traditional Bok way of playing, we've got 2 WC's thanks to that. But there is room for much improvement. Lets be clever and utilize our huge financial resources we have in SA rugby and our now close relationship with our SH partners, to grow our rugby skills and knowledge base.

To be honest, I think John Mitchell would be excellent in that role. He's obviously made the Lions attack very good, despite not a huge amount of resources. He'd do well providing he stayed away form selections, although I even think he'd be pretty good in that aspect in rebuilding a Boks side.

 

[User1245]

The last thing Rugby needs (I am am speaking from a NZ perspective here) is a dour, penalty and drop-goal infested bore-fest.

It has been noted in various NZ media about the need for this World Cup to be a success for the continued growth of Rugby in this country.
I believe this is true, because the harsh reality of professional sport is that is has to be entertaining. And for the last few years, Rugby has been losing ground to Rugby League for spectacle and entertainment, and also to Soccer- due to the All Whites making the World Cup last year and performing OK

Ask any average joe on the street what they would rather watch: soemone scoring a try, or someone kicking a penalty/drop goal. I guarantee you the world over, the try would be an overwhelming majority. In NZ, it would be a unanimous decision.

Well at least you admitted that your perspective AKA a bias perspective, where in AUS/NZ rugby popularity is declining or has mass or direct competition.

They only thing people hate more than a game they don't understand, is a game that's rules change all the time! Like the spoilt kid who changes the rules just to suit him.

AUS/NZ have gotten into the habit of 'improving the product' & 'making it a spectacle', the focus is not on the game anymore. The current points and rule system rugby has now has spread the game massively, globally there is an increase in rugby playing numbers and spectators.
Yes I know now that rugby is professional and that the Rupert Murdoch view on sport has some grounding but if you are so obsessed with profit margins and such then you should know that this graph exists



That is the life cycle of every product eventually. Your focus should now be on product loyalty and customer retention.
Is changing the rules really gonna keep people around? Does rugby have a set formula that: tries - penalties = bigger crowds?
Is that really all people are looking for in sport? What about sport in it's very essence and as a social event? Have you noticed how many women and children are at SA rugby games, not to forgetting cricket games either? At least half the crowd are women! So why are they coming to these events? The last RWC was the 3rd biggest sporting event after the Olympics and Soccer WC. So should we make rugby more like the Olympics then?

AUS & NZ need to look at this from another angle, there is nothing wrong with rugby currently.

 

[LPsoldier ZA]

I agree, I don't see any problems with rugby at the moment.

IF one really needs to make it a little bit more entertaining, I think you can fine tune one single rule.

Only allow open play kicking when in your own 22m area. That's it.

You can still play the rest of the game as is...go for posts when being awarded a penalty from anywhere on the pitch.

Then all teams has to run it whenever between the two 22m lines, thus have to be more creative. All other rugby rules still apply as is.

But like I said, I like the different ways you can currently play a rugby game.

 

[nickdnz]

Well at least you admitted that your perspective AKA a bias perspective, where in AUS/NZ rugby popularity is declining or has mass or direct competition.

They only thing people hate more than a game they don't understand, is a game that's rules change all the time! Like the spoilt kid who changes the rules just to suit him.

AUS/NZ have gotten into the habit of 'improving the product' & 'making it a spectacle', the focus is not on the game anymore. The current points and rule system rugby has now has spread the game massively, globally there is an increase in rugby playing numbers and spectators.
Yes I know now that rugby is professional and that the Rupert Murdoch view on sport has some grounding but if you are so obsessed with profit margins and such then you should know that this graph exists

View attachment 1157

That is the life cycle of every product eventually. Your focus should now be on product loyalty and customer retention.
Is changing the rules really gonna keep people around? Does rugby have a set formula that: tries - penalties = bigger crowds?
Is that really all people are looking for in sport? What about sport in it's very essence and as a social event? Have you noticed how many women and children are at SA rugby games, not to forgetting cricket games either? At least half the crowd are women! So why are they coming to these events? The last RWC was the 3rd biggest sporting event after the Olympics and Soccer WC. So should we make rugby more like the Olympics then?

AUS & NZ need to look at this from another angle, there is nothing wrong with rugby currently.

In fairness, rugby's rules have constantly changed, proving to be a good thing. South Africa was on of the first countries to start lifting players in a lineout. Rucking has been taken out of the game. In fact the origin of rugby was that a try was essentially worthless unless it was converted, which was the way to score. I don't believe rugby has yet got the perfect formula. I think that it runs a little too much on which team is best able to take advantage of the specifics of the rules, rather than a focus on pure skill, which is unappealing to a mass auidence. I think just making all kicks two points would be perfect, as it could still decide matches, and it would still benefit teams like South Africa who have amazing kickers but it would also encourage teams to try their luck a bit more in finishing off tries.

The thing about something like Soccer, is that it is such a basic game to know the rules to and follow. I think most people can pick up the rules of a game of soccer within two or three games maximum. I've loved rugby all my life, but I still get penalised when playing it for things I didn't know was wrong and things that the referee misinterpreted. For example: My team won the semi final by a couple of points, however we scored five tries and they scored one. Now I got penalised for tackling the halfback after the ball was clearly out of the ruck, because I apparently grabbed him while I was still coming through the gate of the ruck...try explaining that to a first time viewer.

The referee just has too much on his plate in rugby and because there are so many ways that any given situation can be interpreted, it becomes just too subjective. In soccer, players can either be offside, touch the ball with his hand, obstructed, dangerously tackled or fake a dangerous tackle. That's all a referee looks out for. That's nothing in comparrison to the hundreds of very specific rules in rugby, and because it's so easy to break anyone one of them, it is just too rewarding to do nothing but milk penalties.

IN SAYING THAT:

Rugby is sure a lot better than it was in 2009, mainly because of a change in law interpretations at the breakdown, lessoning the effects of not playing any running rugby.