By LJK
#21107
Leaving aside Sale's dismal showing last night, the game was dire to watch, and I had some sympathy with the commentators to keep going, even if they did get a bit personal about Sam James's hairstyle!
How is the sport going to attract new fans even to watch on TV, with all to frequent borefests becoming prevalent. I try and get my football mad friends to watch and they always do so when the games are poor entertainment.
I read that CVC are now buying into the 6N as well as stakes in Pro 14 and the Premiership, and surely their commercial interests, along with others around the world, will start to tell more and more on how the game is played, to provide a better spectacle and increase audience nos.
Along with endless scrum re-sets, the caterpillar protection of the fly half, we now have increasing use of the long kicking duels. On a wet day and heavy greasy pitch I can see the point of this to an extent, but why was it used last night so much in dry conditions on an artificial pitch? Is there a reason that I can't fathom?
If not, then maybe this needs looking at as well by the governing bodies. Maybe limit kicks from deep to 3 before they need to find touch, and so move the game on?
User avatar
By Lord Elpus
#21108
The basic point about kick tennis is to get a mistake on their 22m from the opposition (Btw - how did Hammersley get away with that knock-on?).

I like a good kicking game as it's easy yards and gets the oppo pack down keep trotting backwards. Imho it's best done by the centres diagonally towards the touch line rather than parallel to the touch line. When you play a limited bosher like RJvR there's none of this. The bobbling ball on the floor is much harder to deal with for the defence than the high steepler.
By SimonG
#21109
As a neutral I thought it was an appalling match played by two teams with absolutely no ambition at all. It was probably a huge blessing it was played in a ground without spectators and was only a pity it wasn't played this afternoon when the television audience could have turned over and watched another game between teams who didn't want to promote all that is bad with rugby.

(Did you notice I didn't enjoy it?).
User avatar
By Lord Elpus
#21113
You're by no means alone in thinking it was an appalling match. Had any paying spectators been present they would have been entirely justified in demanding their ticket money back.
By LJK
#21115
I know why its done Elpus, and as I said if it was raining or the ball was wet then try it of course. But as last night when the back defenders caught the ball well so many times ( I think one error on both sides) why keep doing it? It shows a lack of ideas and maybe confidence in your team's ability to progress upfield. A few folks might enjoy it, but would wager the majority find it a bore, and it certainly won't gain many converts to the game.
By Clutch
#21119
Not the first time a Sale game has been so bad the commentators have laughed about it.

It’s quite embarrassing really and no way to grow the sport. If we’d won comfortably i would be fine with the tactics but we didn’t!!
By snaderson
#21164
Is it down to teams not wanting possession? They'd rather the opposition had it and then try to secure a turnover/penalty from strong defence. So maybe it's due to the breakdown laws and their application.
By Surbiton_Shark
#21165
snaderson wrote:
Mon Nov 30, 2020 8:27 am
Is it down to teams not wanting possession? They'd rather the opposition had it and then try to secure a turnover/penalty from strong defence. So maybe it's due to the breakdown laws and their application.


This sums it up very nicely
snaderson liked this
User avatar
By iBozz
#21168
A sound man, is Mr Owens, I like the cut of his jib.

There are far too many substitutions. Personally, I hanker for "the good old days"(ish) where substitutions were only allowed for medical reasons. The game lasts 80 minutes and so should the players, barring injury. Instead of building them up by feeding them raw steak and eggs, or whatever they use to bulk them up to become battering-rams rather then highly honed runners, build them for speed and agility and get rugby back to being a running game.

Another Law change would be to not allow water-coaches, sorry ... disguised-boys, sorry again... water-boys onto the field at every opportunity. If liquid refreshment is needed during a game (I'm no medic and genuinely do not know) then the home water-boys should service the Guests and the Guests' water-boys should service the Home side. That way, there isn't a constant stream of instruction coming from the Bench. Let the Captain be captain and let them decide the game from what they see in front of them.

I'll step aside now and let Lord Elpus have his say by telling me the game has changed.

It has, but not necessarily for the better in all areas.
SimonG, GHA liked this
By Surbiton_Shark
#21169
Certainly the coaches/players Monday video replay of the match will be a classic.

Wonder at what point which wag will mention 'did anyone think about running it at any point?'

Highlights will also include the 2 lineouts when we didn't even get the jumpers synchronized.
By WillC
#21172
iBozz wrote:
Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:51 am
A sound man, is Mr Owens, I like the cut of his jib.

There are far too many substitutions. Personally, I hanker for "the good old days"(ish) where substitutions were only allowed for medical reasons. The game lasts 80 minutes and so should the players, barring injury. Instead of building them up by feeding them raw steak and eggs, or whatever they use to bulk them up to become battering-rams rather then highly honed runners, build them for speed and agility and get rugby back to being a running game.

Another Law change would be to not allow water-coaches, sorry ... disguised-boys, sorry again... water-boys onto the field at every opportunity. If liquid refreshment is needed during a game (I'm no medic and genuinely do not know) then the home water-boys should service the Guests and the Guests' water-boys should service the Home side. That way, there isn't a constant stream of instruction coming from the Bench. Let the Captain be captain and let them decide the game from what they see in front of them.

I'll step aside now and let Lord Elpus have is say by telling me the game has changed.

It has, but not necessarily for the better in all areas.
My current pet hate is when the bench are warming up in the in goal area and they rush in to celebrate with a try scorer - they shouldn't be on the pitch!
iBozz, SimonG liked this
By ale shark
#21173
Any player celebrating a turnover or penalty, other than in the last 10 seconds of a World Cup final, should face an instant 48 month ban. Any back running in to celebrate such an event with a forward should get a lifetime ban.
By Surbiton_Shark
#21174
ale shark wrote:
Mon Nov 30, 2020 11:10 am
Any player celebrating a turnover or penalty, other than in the last 10 seconds of a World Cup final, should face an instant 48 month ban. Any back running in to celebrate such an event with a forward should get a lifetime ban.
Literally would be 3 a side the modern game in the Prem

Italy wouldn't ever play international rugby again
By LJK
#21176
I don't normally watch the endless discussion progs. but knowing that Nigel Owens was on after his 200 Tests, I did turn on for Rugby Tonight. That conversation between Healey, Kay and Owens was interesting and informative. the former two seem to have changed their minds about the game in general, after their remarks when commentating our game on Friday, i.e. the boredom of it in general and kicking in particular. They started off by saying there is nothing much wrong with the modern game and we only remember the 'good' matches from the past, before going on with specifics in the clip above.
Thought Owen's idea of reducing the bench to 5 or even 4 was interesting too. Forwards would have to be more mobile for longer and reduce their exhaustion of the current massive physicality, and/or they would tire and create gaps for attackers to penetrate.
The 'conversation' about more rule changes is growing fast with Matt Dawson now adding his voice on the BBC website, saying his kids are bored with the game. Some players are getting their voices heard too.
In the end, as I said at the start of this thread, the commercial interests in Rugby worldwide will surely increase the pressure on the game to improve the entertainment value, in order to benefit from their considerable investment in the sport.
Surbiton_Shark liked this
By DaveAitch
#21187
I'm very much in the iBozz camp (and others) in all this. Of course the game has changed. There didn't used to be a mass meeting of the forward pack before every line out. Nor, indeed, were they referred to as the "forward pack" , it being either the "forwards" or the "pack". As well as the idea of 3 kicks, I would like to see a limit on the number of times a side can barge forward (or back) when the ball is moved barely a metre in total.

Matt Dawson's lads aren't the only ones becoming bored by the game. The laws are a bit like the NHS. Let me explain. If something in the NHS isn't working, the powers that be introduce another layer of management. Then, when that hasn't worked, another layer is introduced. Layers should be taken out. What could be simpler in rugby than to say the ball has to put in straight into the scrum (and then enforce it). But no, the law is changed as to how the scrum half half can stand and the hooker has to act, and then they still allow feeding. Go back, enforce the old law and many of the problems relating to the scrum will be, at least, lessened.

Yes, I still watch, but Tranmere's cup game was, by far, the better Friday night watch last week.
iBozz liked this
User avatar
By Lord Elpus
#21188
Re Box kicking - improvements would be 1) penalise offside chasers 2) amend law so only the kicker could put offside chasers onside. Far too often a player , typically a winger, just dashes up and puts the chasers onside put doesn't take part in tackling the receiver, meanwhile the kicker acts as a sweeper - making the thing basically a shot to nothing.
GHA liked this
User avatar
By Major Bloodnok
#21189
ale shark wrote:
Mon Nov 30, 2020 11:10 am
Any player celebrating a turnover or penalty, other than in the last 10 seconds of a World Cup final, should face an instant 48 month ban. Any back running in to celebrate such an event with a forward should get a lifetime ban.
It's been mentioned a few times during televised games that players were so busy celebrating getting a scrum penalty that they missed the opportunity for a score from a quick tap. I'd like to hope that coaches would dish the odd good bollocking if such things turn up during the review session afterwards.
By ale shark
#21190
It absolutely infuriates me that not straight line-outs are penalised by a scrum that then isn't put in straight. Just award a free kick. It's nuts.
iBozz liked this
By HR1861
#21191
At last, it appears the media have realised something needs to be done. Many fans have been saying this for the last 2 or 3 years.
Would we have been happy if we held on and won at the end?
If yes, you are in the camp that winning is all that matters. If not, then like me, you want to be entertained and if at the expense of the odd loss, c'est la vie.
To me, this is all about "mindset", and the coaches and players understanding they are in the "entertainment business".
I think we need a major change to the points system to change this mindset.
If you score a try that originates in your own half, be it after 1 phase or 20 (or a kick return), then make that score worth 9 points (no conversion necessary). Hence, the incentive is there to take more risk, and reduce the aimless kicking.
Just an idea, but something needs to be done before we all vote on our feet (once we're allowed back).
Olyy, iBozz liked this
By WillC
#21195
HR1861 wrote:
Mon Nov 30, 2020 2:25 pm
At last, it appears the media have realised something needs to be done. Many fans have been saying this for the last 2 or 3 years.
Would we have been happy if we held on and won at the end?
If yes, you are in the camp that winning is all that matters. If not, then like me, you want to be entertained and if at the expense of the odd loss, c'est la vie.
To me, this is all about "mindset", and the coaches and players understanding they are in the "entertainment business".
I think we need a major change to the points system to change this mindset.
If you score a try that originates in your own half, be it after 1 phase or 20 (or a kick return), then make that score worth 9 points (no conversion necessary). Hence, the incentive is there to take more risk, and reduce the aimless kicking.
Just an idea, but something needs to be done before we all vote on our feet (once we're allowed back).
Stuart Barnes proposing something similar(ish) in the Times today. The trouble is that the laws/rules are too complicated as it is, especially for the part time fan who watches internationals but maybe not club rugby. Adding in yet more complicated laws is NOT the answer imho.
User avatar
By Major Bloodnok
#21198
HR1861 wrote:
Mon Nov 30, 2020 2:25 pm
[...]
Would we have been happy if we held on and won at the end?
If yes, you are in the camp that winning is all that matters. [...]
No, I'm not.

Had we held on, I would have been abso-bloody-lutely ecstatic. Doesn't mean I wouldn't also have been seriously p'ed off at the paucity of entertainment on offer. It is possible to have different reactions to different aspects of an event.
Flumpty, SimonG and 1 others liked this
User avatar
By Yareet
#21200
HR1861 wrote:
Mon Nov 30, 2020 2:25 pm
At last, it appears the media have realised something needs to be done. Many fans have been saying this for the last 2 or 3 years.
Would we have been happy if we held on and won at the end?
If yes, you are in the camp that winning is all that matters. If not, then like me, you want to be entertained and if at the expense of the odd loss, c'est la vie.
To me, this is all about "mindset", and the coaches and players understanding they are in the "entertainment business".
I think we need a major change to the points system to change this mindset.
If you score a try that originates in your own half, be it after 1 phase or 20 (or a kick return), then make that score worth 9 points (no conversion necessary). Hence, the incentive is there to take more risk, and reduce the aimless kicking.
Just an idea, but something needs to be done before we all vote on our feet (once we're allowed back).
To the viewer, sport is not entertainment business. To those involved, it rarely is.

The entertainment is a by-product and is found by different people in different aspects. I quite like a well executed rolling maul whilst one of the least enjoyable games I've ever watched was the Crusaders game at Twickenham as every player seemed to be trying offload like Sonny Bill.

Last I checked, the end of each season sees one team crowned champions for winning a final. One player is lauded as the highest points kicker. Another as having scored the most tries. Players (and coaches?) receive bonuses for winning. Others are let go for losing. Whether anybody sees any of this is (to those involved) secondary and whether those spectators are entertained is even further down the list.

If the business is to entertain, everybody is incentivised in completely the wrong way.

Do any of us think the Falcons players, coaches or even fans were disappointed with Friday night? Have a look at their board https://www.rugbynetwork.net/boards/rea ... 7,16875913
By HR1861
#21201
Believe me, I'm old school and can be enthralled as anyone with a tight forward battle. And I understand how the weather and conditions (even a plastic pitch!) can influence tatics and a game.
But it's gone beyond that. We didn't used to have the endless, aimless kicking, the reset scrums, the blatant time wasting.
The professional game has to change, or we will entice no new fans to the game and it will die. If that was served up at the AJ Bell on a miserable Friday night and you'd brought a new punter along, do you think they'd seriously want to come again?
iBozz liked this
By ageinghoody
#21202
In principle I'm totally in favour of reducing the number of substitutions, for the reasons already mentioned above, but I can immediately see problems in reconciling that with player safety and welfare.

It seems generally accepted that already far too much elite rugby is being played for the long-term health prospects of the players. So would fewer subsitutions mean fewer games?

Are we going to tacitly incentivise players to struggle on with a minor injury because we're out of subs, and thus exacerbate it?

Or from the other angle, will teams who have managed to play 65 mins with minimal or no substitutions suddenly find they need a rash of HIAs?

I'm sure we can all think of other potential abuses, without even mentioning blood!
User avatar
By IrishShark
#21206
ale shark wrote:
Mon Nov 30, 2020 2:20 pm
It absolutely infuriates me that not straight line-outs are penalised by a scrum that then isn't put in straight. Just award a free kick. It's nuts.
Not straight in line out is a free kick, but teams almost always choose a scrum from said free kick.
User avatar
By Flumpty
#21208
IrishShark wrote:
Mon Nov 30, 2020 6:01 pm
ale shark wrote:
Mon Nov 30, 2020 2:20 pm
It absolutely infuriates me that not straight line-outs are penalised by a scrum that then isn't put in straight. Just award a free kick. It's nuts.
Not straight in line out is a free kick, but teams almost always choose a scrum from said free kick.
I thought that not straight was option of lineout again, or scrum, rather than free kick.
User avatar
By poyntonshark
#21218
Law 18 - Part 23

The ball must:

a) - Be thrown in straight along the mark of touch; and
b) - Reach the five-metre line before it hits the ground or is played.
Sanction: Option of lineout or scrum. If the lineout is chosen and the ball is again not
thrown straight, a scrum is awarded to the team that originally threw in the ball.

c) - Be thrown in without delay once the lineout is formed. Sanction: Free-kick.
User avatar
By IrishShark
#21248
Flumpty wrote:
Mon Nov 30, 2020 6:43 pm
IrishShark wrote:
Mon Nov 30, 2020 6:01 pm
ale shark wrote:
Mon Nov 30, 2020 2:20 pm
It absolutely infuriates me that not straight line-outs are penalised by a scrum that then isn't put in straight. Just award a free kick. It's nuts.
Not straight in line out is a free kick, but teams almost always choose a scrum from said free kick.
I thought that not straight was option of lineout again, or scrum, rather than free kick.
You're correct, I think I got confused after seeing a dummy lineout throw in a match I watched at the weekend awarding a free kick.
By Van Cannonball
#21253
I think looking for rules to be changed is an overreaction, as it’s not like these are the tactics every game, or even commonly from what I’ve seen.

What’s most perplexing is why these tactics suddenly came about for this game, and as the OP points out, it’s not like the conditions required them.

Were we concerned about the speed of their back 3 isolating the runner? There’s nothing wrong with returning the ball back towards the pack, especially when we should have a general dominance there in collisions.
By ale shark
#21255
Van Cannonball wrote:
Tue Dec 01, 2020 7:35 pm
What’s most perplexing is why these tactics suddenly came about for this game, and as the OP points out, it’s not like the conditions required them.
They were the tactics the coaches thought would be the best route to victory. Arguably they were correct given we were leading after 80 mins.
User avatar
By iBozz
#21297
DaveAitch wrote:
Mon Nov 30, 2020 1:52 pm
There didn't used to be a mass meeting of the forward pack before every line out. Nor, indeed, were they referred to as the "forward pack" , it being either the "forwards" or the "pack".

And I was a wing forward, not a flanker!
Covid Repayments

I’m pretty sure I read from an interview s[…]

LC-D health scare

https://www.rugbypass.com/plus/luke-cowan-dickie-i[…]

Mr Critchard Keeps Us Informed

Good, solid prop. Never let us down, especially in[…]

That's a shame, Wonder where he'll go? I know hi[…]