View From The 22 is a rugby forum where fans can discuss all the latest news and views regarding their club.
I would have thought that no-one would come up, just the 13th team would go down.Olyy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 19, 2021 12:16 pmGloucester breathe a sigh of relief!
Probably the right thing to do considering the cancelled games, and there'll inevitably be more.
Hopefully just a one season thing, as I think relegation is what makes the league so much more interesting.
Will make 21/22 season messy, though - presuming promotion still goes ahead from the Championship it'll be a 13 team season, and then double(?) relegation, also one team missing out on Europe.
Having 13th go straight down and then 11th vs 12th, the same weekend as the prem final, would spice things up a bit though
This would be a good place to arrive at. But I'm not looking forward to watching (even hearing about) all of the dead rubbers this will create in the interim.
It's no more damaging than what sarries did to get relegated and probably equally devaluing as relegating a team who played all fixtures over another team who had an unfortunate covid outbreak that gave them guaranteed points.But Monye believes doing away with relegation would devalue the season and damage the top flight's image.
The points split was agreed by all the clubs (no conflict) and nothing has been agreed regarding relegation.
Agree with the second point - last season had it's share of stinkers even after Sarries were automatically relegated.Rich E wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 7:06 pmIf no more games are cancelled due to COVID does the number of games subsequently cancelled on a 4-2 spilt constitute sufficient reason to abandon relegation. I for one think not.
I don't get this free abandon rugby if relegation is scrapped; I would much prefer to watch Friday's encounter rather than a 45-35 free for all.... just my views.
Not a perfect equation but it seems to me that the broadcaster is likely to have interests more closely aligned both to most fan's and most casual observers than the individual club owners are.LJK wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 11:10 pmDavid Flatman, was strongly of the opinion that it is very much in order for the broadcaster to have a major say in the game's future, given the millions they spend for the coverage. He went on to suggest that without the TV money the top tier rugby could not exist as it does. Strong stuff from someone whose opinions are usually respected on here .
That's concerningThere will then be engagement with the league's broadcaster, BT Sport, along with clubs, sponsors, players and fans on what happens for future seasons.
My recollection is that teams and game plans were much the same up until the season was suspended, but when games resumed in the summer some teams took the opportunity of rotating squads and blooding new players. That is certainly what we did at Irish - it was often somewhat frustrating at the time watching us getting beaten (I know, nothing new there...) but I think it paid dividends in terms of squad and player development for this season.Olyy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 7:32 pmFrom what I remember Tigers fully threw the towel in and experimented heavily with youth players and different combinations etc.
Everything else was pretty standard, though - I don't recall the league suddenly turning into super rugby with every one throwing caution to the wind and running from everywhere etc.
I agree with fifteen minutes over quarters. My comment about going from ten to fifteen minutes related more to when the switch was made in the "good old days" when I recall there being quite a lot of opposition from players and coaches who said it was too long as players got cold and had to warm up again. Not sure about current thinking though.iBozz wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 10:39 am
Fifteen minutes at halftime is better than playing four quarters purely for financial reasons. I'm pretty sure that fifteen minutes is better for the players in today's game as well and it is only an extra few minutes which is barely noticeable.
I don't mind half time (especially as a Gentleman of a certain age!) but I'd be against quarter time.
Speaking from the theatre world, intervals are traditionally twenty minutes and that generally isn't long enough to get everyone to the loo and back, let alone to buy food and drink, especially with a full house. I don't know the balance of income and profit in sports stadia, but in theatres we make our money on what we can sell to the Patrons before, during and after the show, not off ticket sales as the vast majority of that goes to the touring company.
Incidentally, don't blame the theatre for the ticket prices, in Receiving Houses they are nearly always set by the touring company and not the theatre.
SimonG wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 11:40 amMy comment about going from ten to fifteen minutes related more to when the switch was made in the "good old days" when I recall there being quite a lot of opposition from players and coaches who said it was too long as players got cold and had to warm up again. Not sure about current thinking though.
Absolutely. Wimps!iBozz wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 2:11 pmSimonG wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 11:40 amMy comment about going from ten to fifteen minutes related more to when the switch was made in the "good old days" when I recall there being quite a lot of opposition from players and coaches who said it was too long as players got cold and had to warm up again. Not sure about current thinking though.
In the good old days the players stayed on the pitch at half time and were given orange slices to suck for refreshment, today they run for the centrally heated changing rooms!
I have heard a rumour that David is off. This wasn[…]
Decent player and would probably be a good fit if […]
We all love analysing the referee’s decision[…]
I’ve just noticed that we have won twice a[…]