NPR

The video of Kolisi running out at the airport with the cup is quite something, sent shivers through me. What a man.

Tilly Orifice wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2023 11:35 am

sockwithaticket wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2023 10:46 am

ASMO wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2023 9:51 am It says something that from an entire RWC, there were probably about 4 games (and i don't include the final) that really were of the highest quality and would have been worth the entry fee.

Any non rugby person watching that RWC would likely walk away not wanting to watch another game...if we want to grow the sport and bring more money in, some drastic changes need to happen.

It all starts at the top, the governing bodies need a complete overhaul, most of the old boy types put out to pasture, they are killing the game.

"Winning is all that matters" is a sentiment I see all too frequently. You only have the privilege of thinking that way if your sport is thriving regardless. Rugby isn't.

Teams, coaches and players seem to forget that they're part of the entertainment industry and too often they're failing to entertain.

National teams are essentially billboards for the sport. From an England perspective ours has been a mass of grey for a whole world cup cycle. I can't imagine anyone not already into rugby has watched us over the last four years, even when we won the shit 2020 Six Nations, and thought "I'll have some more of that". That's a core failing. The national team should be fun to watch, not a test of one's own masochism.

In my limited experience of watching rugby with people who are new to the sport, they don't make these sort of complaints. Rather they are more likely to enjoy a tight tough game, which this world Cup provided several of.

Mine is that they complain it's boring and difficult to understand. Now the latter can certainly be cleaned up, but the laws are what they are and make rugby what it is.

By the way entertainment doesn't necessarily mean 45 - 42 scorelines with tries galore, but it does mean teams actively trying to play with the ball rather than booting it as the default or endless pick and goes on the opposition line.

Endless pick and goes are more or less gone thanks to the goal line drop out.

Uncle fester wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2023 9:53 pm Endless pick and goes are more or less gone thanks to the goal line drop out.

The five metre tap and go has made a big come back. Teams more often than not score from those positions, it's the only reason coaches would keep their teams banging away at the wall like that.

We see quite a few goal line drop outs, those are the exact consequence of teams hammering at the line brainlessly rather than trying something.

sockwithaticket wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2023 10:53 pm We see quite a few goal line drop outs, those are the exact consequence of teams hammering at the line brainlessly rather than trying something.

I don't know if we see more of them than we used to see 5m scrums or drops from the 22 - there will be statistical analysis to show that teams are more likely score from those situations if they keep at it. Once the stats drop off and teams are not scoring, we'll see a change in what the teams do

I miss the off the cuff rather than the off the spreadsheet stuff - that's professional sport

Tichtheid wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2023 11:02 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2023 10:53 pm We see quite a few goal line drop outs, those are the exact consequence of teams hammering at the line brainlessly rather than trying something.

I don't know if we see more of them than we used to see 5m scrums or drops from the 22 - there will be statistical analysis to show that teams are more likely score from those situations if they keep at it. Once the stats drop off and teams are not scoring, we'll see a change in what the teams do

I miss the off the cuff rather than the off the spreadsheet stuff - that's professional sport

All the more reason the minnow games are a great watch.

Gumboot wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2023 5:52 am @mat

Yep, most of what we're served up these days is dull as ditchwater coated in water breaks and Sweet Caroline. There's still the odd thriller, but it feels like they're becoming fewer and farther apart by the year. On a weekly basis, I find the NFL much more entertaining tbh. I used to hate all the breaks, but now rugby's hardly any different, so the better spectacle wins. And compared to most other contact sports, rugby is losing big time.

I find this interesting because I’ve pretty much totally lost interest in the NFL, which would have been UNTHINKABLE for me a decade ago, while at least in my opinion (with the exception of the idiotic bullshit around tackling and cards) rugby is in the best shape I can recall from an on-field entertainment standpoint since I got into the sport 16.5 years ago. I genuinely sometimes wonder how the fuck I stayed in the game sitting through that dire European dross of the late 00s, which was pretty much all I had access to at a reasonable hour.

I imagine there’s a parallel in our situations, you as to rugby and me as to football: neither sport resembles the one we knew and loved growing up, and it just so happens we don’t care for the new versions.

But, I wouldn’t infer that the NFL has become objectively boring empty calorie shit just because I feel strongly that it has become boring empty calorie shit. I will never, ever understand why rugby fans and administrators are so insecure about the sport’s appeal, always trying to change the game, fuck with the rules, etc. But by fuck is it widespread, just look at this thread. I know no other sport that has this mentality.

Gumboot wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2023 5:52 am @mat

Yep, most of what we're served up these days is dull as ditchwater coated in water breaks and Sweet Caroline. There's still the odd thriller, but it feels like they're becoming fewer and farther apart by the year. On a weekly basis, I find the NFL much more entertaining tbh. I used to hate all the breaks, but now rugby's hardly any different, so the better spectacle wins. And compared to most other contact sports, rugby is losing big time.

Some of it may be age related - TBH, I seldom watch any sport nowadays.

I'd rather play/take part in my own activities like Martial Arts - down time after that is spent reading and watching movies/TV series

The mark choise of scrumming was very exciting. It work a treat for the Springboks. Not just physical but the metal part of it.

@Fonz and Mat,

Yep, agree with pretty much all that. I should've added an imho, and of course my opinion isn't any more valuable than anyone else's.

You may find this of interest. I don't always agree with Shag, but it's hard to argue with any of this...

Yup.... I hate agreeing with Hansen but he's pretty well on the money there.

So you lot complain about the ref and system? Really sad. Move on, you get more depressed.

OomStruisbaai wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2023 5:03 am So you lot complain about the ref and system? Really sad. Move on, you get more depressed.

Can't see anyone begrudging the Boks' victory...if that's what you're suggesting? Quite the opposite, in fact.

What did Shag say that you disagree with?

Gumboot wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2023 5:07 am

OomStruisbaai wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2023 5:03 am So you lot complain about the ref and system? Really sad. Move on, you get more depressed.

Can't see anyone begrudging the Boks' victory...if that's what you're suggesting? Quite the opposite, in fact.

What did Shag say that you disagree with?

He complain about the tackling and the role of the TMO. Really? Playing in the URC made us use to that. Its old news in a new newspaper.

Regarding the tackling, well we got bliksemed in my day for not tackling around the ankles. Thats what they need to do. Its a OLD golden rugby rule. It cant be difficult.

What's your take on Shag's point about the lack of intent?

Did Cane have more malicious intent than Kolisi? Or did neither have any intent to commit a foul?

Don't you think this contradiction needs addressing?

What does the law say about “intent”? Establishing intent is pretty difficult and subjective so would think it would be better to referee according to the action, rather than “intent”. Players will have to change their mindset so that instinctive “non intentional” tackles, that are now being carded, are eliminated from their game. Obviously I’m highly biased but I think all the cards in the final were correct decisions

Calculon wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2023 5:41 am What does the law say about “intent”? Establishing intent is pretty difficult and subjective so would think it would be better to referee according to the action, rather than “intent”. Players will have to change their mindset so that instinctive “non intentional” tackles, that are now being carded, are eliminated from their game. Obviously I’m highly biased but I think all the cards in the final were correct decisions

Fair point.

But in terms of "intent", I never played with or against anyone who went into a head-on-head contact with malicious intent.

As Shag said, the game's now being reffed in replay.

Gumboot wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2023 5:24 am What's your take on Shag's point about the lack of intent?

Did Cane have more malicious intent than Kolisi? Or did neither have any intent to commit a foul?

Don't you think this contradiction needs addressing?

Boet honestly, the meaning of intent for Shag differs from the TMO who made that decision. No player, no coach have control over the TMO decision about intend, right, so just get over it. The decision has been made and thats that. Try to change rules or what fucking ever detail with grey areas in rugby, has always been there.

Or put it another way, what other contact sport doesn't distinguish between accidental and intentional collisions?

OomStruisbaai wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2023 6:16 amBoet honestly, the meaning of intent for Shag differs from the TMO who made that decision. No player, no coach have control over the TMO decision about intend, right, so just get over it. The decision has been made and thats that. Try to change rules or what fucking ever detail with grey areas in rugby, has always been there.

I can't understand how you can profess to love a game but turn a blind eye to its obvious flaws.

The Aotearoa Rugby Pod on the final also focused on the TMO, and oddly talked about the NRL a lot. I don't really see the problem with the ref and TMO working as a team for top level professional matches. The TMO has made matches much cleaner. My suspicion is that the cleaner game tighter regulations/TMO/citing has created is being taken for granted, and some now believe that can all be removed but the benefits will be retained somehow. I don't think that's true, instead less reffing will mean more dirt.

Removing the TMO could also be frustrating for knowledgeable viewers, they will have an unfair advantage over the ref and see everything which wasn't called. I saw the ABs knock in real time before the Smith no try was disallowed by TMO.

For me the final was a lot like the 2015 semi, the differences between the Boks and ABs were small. I was disappointed then because I didn't think the coach had built the best possible Bok side, some Kiwis seem to feel the same way about the ABs now. In 2015 the difference between the two sides was 2 points, in 2023 it was 1 point. Tough on any passionate supporter losing either, but both times the better side did win.

Gumboot wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2023 6:29 am

OomStruisbaai wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2023 6:16 amBoet honestly, the meaning of intent for Shag differs from the TMO who made that decision. No player, no coach have control over the TMO decision about intend, right, so just get over it. The decision has been made and thats that. Try to change rules or what fucking ever detail with grey areas in rugby, has always been there.

I can't understand how you can profess to love a game but turn a blind eye to its obvious flaws.

I dont turn a blind eye about the flaws. We are through this so many times specially in the URC. I have accepted the head on head rule and moved on. Every time it happens in tend or not there is a card. Thats the rule and will not change.

All I have to offer is more of the same.

I haven't heard anyone arguing that the officiating cost NZ the game.

Everyone agrees the Boks won fair and square. But that doesn't mean there's not room for a debate about the future of the game.

To brush away any concerns about the future health and growth of our game is unhelpful. Every sport is trying to grow. Otherwise, why are London and Hamburg now hosting NFL games?

Gumboot wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2023 7:17 am All I have to offer is more of the same.

I haven't heard anyone arguing that the officiating cost NZ the game.

Everyone agrees the Boks won fair and square. But that doesn't mean there's not room for a debate about the future of the game.

To brush away any concerns about the future health and growth of our game is unhelpful. Every sport is trying to grow. Otherwise, why are London and Hamburg now hosting NFL games?

Chicago did that in 2016. RWC next time in USA. We are growing the game.

Sandstorm wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2023 7:50 am

Gumboot wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2023 7:17 am All I have to offer is more of the same.

I haven't heard anyone arguing that the officiating cost NZ the game.

Everyone agrees the Boks won fair and square. But that doesn't mean there's not room for a debate about the future of the game.

To brush away any concerns about the future health and growth of our game is unhelpful. Every sport is trying to grow. Otherwise, why are London and Hamburg now hosting NFL games?

Chicago did that in 2016. RWC next time in USA. We are growing the game.

Nah, spreading it doesn't mean growing it. Or even sowing it.

There needs to be a concerted effort to grow the sport, and SA needs to be at the forefront of that effort. Because they are.

Gumboot wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2023 8:03 am

Sandstorm wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2023 7:50 am

Gumboot wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2023 7:17 am All I have to offer is more of the same.

I haven't heard anyone arguing that the officiating cost NZ the game.

Everyone agrees the Boks won fair and square. But that doesn't mean there's not room for a debate about the future of the game.

To brush away any concerns about the future health and growth of our game is unhelpful. Every sport is trying to grow. Otherwise, why are London and Hamburg now hosting NFL games?

Chicago did that in 2016. RWC next time in USA. We are growing the game.

Nah, spreading it doesn't mean growing it. Or even sowing it.

There needs to be a concerted effort to grow the sport, and SA needs to be at the forefront of that effort. Because they are.

Well I posted earlier the growth is good in South Africa and Africa.

It's simple, if you go into contact with an upright posture and there's head contact, you're going to get carded regardless of what your intent is. We need defensive players to bend 90 at the waist when going into contact. If you then hit someone's head, there's mitigation.

It needs to be policed and penalised strictly until things change. Just like we decided years ago we don't want players to throw fist at each other, we can't have players headbutting each other unconscious anymore. Whether it's intentional or accidental.

OomStruisbaai wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2023 8:26 am

Gumboot wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2023 8:03 amThere needs to be a concerted effort to grow the sport, and SA needs to be at the forefront of that effort. Because they are.

Well I posted earlier the growth is good in South Africa and Africa.

Beyond that?

Gumboot wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2023 7:17 am All I have to offer is more of the same.

I haven't heard anyone arguing that the officiating cost NZ the game.

Everyone agrees the Boks won fair and square.

This isn't true. The officiating certainly cost NZ the game. Wayne Barnes could have taken far more ownership of the decisions instead of acquiescing to a TMO half a city away. The evidence Foley submitted and insisted overturn the first try was paper thin at best, wrong in fact. Would never happen in any other sport with similar tech.

Barnes after all was the official with ultimate authority. I'm assuming here the actual referee still has ultimate authority?

Muttonbird wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2023 8:35 am

Gumboot wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2023 7:17 am All I have to offer is more of the same.

I haven't heard anyone arguing that the officiating cost NZ the game.

Everyone agrees the Boks won fair and square.

This isn't true. The officiating certainly cost NZ the game. Wayne Barnes could have taken far more ownership of the decisions instead of acquiescing to a TMO half a city away. The evidence Foley submitted and insisted overturn the first try was paper thin at best, wrong in fact. Would never happen in any other sport with similar tech.

Barnes after all was the official with ultimate authority. I'm assuming here the actual referee still has ultimate authority?

If only your assumption was correct.

Well, this is the main issue of course. As WR grapples with a host of law problems, the one thing which should have stayed constant is the authority of the referee. In rugby the referee is closer to the action than any other sport yet they have decided to undermine that person with another ref sitting miles away, leaving what once was the referee unable to make coherent decisions.

This thing about "growing the game" is utter nonsense. It's a niche sport, ether you like it, or you don't.
To grow the game, you need to simplify it in order to appeal to people who never followed it. So, you have to change it until it becomes unrecognizable to the traditional fanbase. Growing the game means changing it to something ells and losing the support it already had.

@Don

Has that horse already bolted?

If the ref's no longer the sole arbiter, let's get serious about who is. Because right now it's the TMO. Which isn't ideal.

You lost the game because your players missed their kicks. It has nothing to do with the refs, you had opportunities and you failed to take them.

average joe wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2023 8:45 am This thing about "growing the game" is utter nonsense. It's a niche sport, ether you like it, or you don't.
To grow the game, you need to simplify it in order to appeal to people who never followed it. So, you have to change it until it becomes unrecognizable to the traditional fanbase. Growing the game means changing it to something ells and losing the support it already had.

But how has NFL grown (ignoring that American Football and the NFL aren't the same thing)? To me it looks like the NFL catered to hardcore fans in the US only and didn't try to grow at all, then only expanded in very small increments into Europe as an entertainment product (not as a participation sport) decades after establishing themselves in the US. I don't have enough knowledge but Fonz says the NFL has changed?

Rugby admins imo don't fully grasp what makes rugby different and attractive for new players/watchers/fans, it's everything World Rugby seems a bit ashamed of and similar to what makes the NFL popular. Big hits and strange complex physical pile ups like scrums and rucks. They're going to waste a RWC in the US if they focus on Baabaas tries as rugby's unique selling point, which in test rugby have never happened in high pressure matches much, which is why the Baabaas are known for them. They don't seem alert to a compilation of Du Toit's 28 tackles in the final being interesting to some Americans.

average joe wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2023 8:51 am You lost the game because your players missed their kicks. It has nothing to do with the refs, you had opportunities and you failed to take them.

Yet again, nobody's arguing otherwise.

Gumboot wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2023 8:51 am @Don

Has that horse already bolted?

If the ref's no longer the sole arbiter, let's get serious about who is. Because right now it's the TMO. Which isn't ideal.

I get that. I've been interested in the shambolic way WR introduces tech to their game. It started when Nigel Owens started refereeing off the big screen 8 or 10 years ago.

At this point no-one knows who sole arbiter is. After that final we are all at sea. We could see this storm coming but I've no confidence WR has the ability to navigate it. There is simply no overall philosophy from them about how they want the game run, it's all reactionary.

Muttonbird wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2023 9:03 am

Gumboot wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2023 8:51 am @Don

Has that horse already bolted?

If the ref's no longer the sole arbiter, let's get serious about who is. Because right now it's the TMO. Which isn't ideal.

I get that. I've been interested in the shambolic way WR introduces tech to their game. At this point no-one knows who sole arbiter is. After that final we are all at sea. We could see this storm coming but I've no confidence WR has the ability to navigate it.

Likewise. It's a mess.

average joe wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2023 8:51 am You lost the game because your players missed their kicks. It has nothing to do with the refs, you had opportunities and you failed to take them.

That is a typical SA/ENG way to look at rugby. Kicks win games and that's that. There are more ways to win games than kicks, but not if the tech and the protocol doesn't allow it.