Has Rugby Become boring?

[RoyalBlueStuey]

The why do we watch this crap then? It is suppose to be a spectacle, why else would people pay so much coin to go and watch it live? I wonder, 'cos it's actually suppose to be a spectator sport, hence it should be fast and free flowing so we can enjoy. So you are very much wrong. [/b]

Wrong, rugby is a messy, attritional battle with a dirty, ugly, brutal competition for the ball at it's heart and a tempo set by a skillful, territorial kicking game.

Occasional it opens up and a breath-taking flowing move will occur but that fleeting piece of perfection will have been earned by hard slog.

Don't be suckered by the hyperbolics of the highlight reels.....remember the game's fundamentals. Don't water it down to achieve more cheap thrills and appeal to kids & bandwagon jumpers.

 

[ikvat]

<div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'>
William Webb Ellis picked the ball up and ran with it, he didn't drop or place kick it over the soccer nets. Rugby is one day going to be about tries like it or not.
[/b]

Exactly :cheers: [/b][/quote]

William Webb Ellis was English. I thought the English didn't know how to run with the ball?
[/b][/quote]
He died and has been buried on south of france.
This man was a visionary

 

[nam97]

<div class='quotemain'>
The why do we watch this crap then? It is suppose to be a spectacle, why else would people pay so much coin to go and watch it live? I wonder, 'cos it's actually suppose to be a spectator sport, hence it should be fast and free flowing so we can enjoy. So you are very much wrong. [/b]

Wrong, rugby is a messy, attritional battle with a dirty, ugly, brutal competition for the ball at it's heart and a tempo set by a skillful, territorial kicking game.

Occasional it opens up and a breath-taking flowing move will occur but that fleeting piece of perfection will have been earned by hard slog.

Don't be suckered by the hyperbolics of the highlight reels.....remember the game's fundamentals. Don't water it down to achieve more cheap thrills and appeal to kids & bandwagon jumpers.
[/b][/quote]

I'm not suckered in at all. I know a game of rugby when I see one, heck I've only been watching it my entire life. It has to come down to the difference in play between NH competitions and SH comps because I'm serious about this, every/most game I watch, be it super14 or tri nations, all those games are generally spectacles with a lot of risks taken usually pulling off and turning into gold. The fact teams (one in particular comes to mind) train solely to counter this attacking play and just **** out an ugly display of penalties does the game injustice.

No point arguing about it really, everyone has their own style and I guess I just have to feel sorry you guys have to put up with that boring style of rugby, and you may think I'm just a total twat waffling on like this.

 

[Bullitt]

You only sound like a twat saying that a "style of rugby" is boring.

As an old cliche goes, "It's better to win dirty then lose pretty"

 

[nam97]

You only sound like a twat saying that a "style of rugby" is boring.

As an old cliche goes, "It's better to win dirty then lose pretty"
[/b]

Haha, fair enough then. The old cliche is all to familiar to me. Who knows, maybe is just a case of sour grapes and us needing to play with more of a smart tactical approach. England, show us the way......ahem

 

[C A Iversen]

<div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'>
<div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'>
William Webb Ellis picked the ball up and ran with it, he didn't drop or place kick it over the soccer nets. Rugby is one day going to be about tries like it or not.
[/b]

Exactly :cheers: [/b][/quote]

William Webb Ellis was English. I thought the English didn't know how to run with the ball?
[/b][/quote]
As time passes situations usually don't stay constant...time has passed and it seems the running in English rugby has not remained constant.... [/b][/quote]

Oh, I see. And you also believe the myth that a public schoolboy showed a fine disregard for poofball, caught a high ball and ran with it to invent the game also? Bless

<div class='quotemain'>
To save time can we just distill all these threads down to their main ingredients:

A) Boo hoo Australia and New Zealand did win
B) Boo hoo England got to the final

Rugby isn't meant to an open, flowing tryfest. It never was. In future you people should just watch rugby league or 7s or gridiron if all you want as cheap contrived thrills.
[/b]

The why do we watch this crap then? It is suppose to be a spectacle, why else would people pay so much coin to go and watch it live? I wonder, 'cos it's actually suppose to be a spectator sport, hence it should be fast and free flowing so we can enjoy. So you are very much wrong. [/b][/quote]

Why exactly does it have to be spun wide blah, blah, blah to be an enjoyable spectacle? I, and many more like me, find the team I'm supporting having a tight forwards battle, such as the final last week, much more enjoyable then I did watching Northampton play all this flowing rugby and put 74 points over Esher on the same day.

To poo-poo forwards based rugby is basically saying you either don't understand what a pack does you only care for what the girls do. Or you're a die-hard league "I hate the Union and I love Socialism!" fan who only wants to **** stir.
[/b][/quote]

Not a hint of generalism, tantrum-throwing, pigeon-holing and angry spite there. Your a co-owner and a responsible guy, so I'm sure you've just let your guard down for a sec......... Whats that last paragraph about, the guy never poo-poo'ed forwards!

Forwards can be dominant, get the ball, break the advantage line, suck in defenders and then allow free-flowing rugby. Thats whats being said. There's not enough of the last piece of that equation, in some peoples opinion.

In answer to what you said earlier "William Webb Ellis was English. I thought the English didn't know how to run with the ball?"

I believe many englishmen can run with the ball, many New Zealanders believe in a forwards dominated game too. Just both are out-numbered in their respective countries.

End of the day it's all just opinions and you know what they are like........everyone's got one.

 

[Brodizzle]

If the game ended 3-0 score line after a nice exciting game in ALL aspects then most viewers would be happy, yet the rules at the moment make it possible for the game to remain hugely one dimensional, eg. forwards gradually rumble the ball up, they pull a penalty and 3 points is scored, and that is basically the way the game is played. I have no problem with this but the methods of the attack have to at least change to keep things interesting, the game is becoming more predictable than league for gods sake, how is that acceptable?

The ELV's allow a team to play the ten man game yet there still is a need for geniune attack, because if you don't do it the opposition surely would.....the game didn't spread because of the quagmire of gameplay that is currently being displayed, but because of the excitement of having a crack and both the brutality of the forward game and the excitement of the back play....

 

[Bullitt]

The ELV's allow a team to play the ten man game yet there still is a need for geniune attack, because if you don't do it the opposition surely would.....the game didn't spread because of the quagmire of gameplay that is currently being displayed, but because of the excitement of having a crack and both the brutality of the forward game and the excitement of the back play.... [/b]

No they don't, they're slowly turning the game into Rugby League. Which is something nobody except the Aussies want anyway.

 

[melon]

<div class='quotemain'>The ELV's allow a team to play the ten man game yet there still is a need for geniune attack, because if you don't do it the opposition surely would.....the game didn't spread because of the quagmire of gameplay that is currently being displayed, but because of the excitement of having a crack and both the brutality of the forward game and the excitement of the back play.... [/b]

No they don't, they're slowly turning the game into Rugby League. Which is something nobody except the Aussies want anyway.
[/b][/quote]
Good joke.

 

[Brodizzle]

<div class='quotemain'>The ELV's allow a team to play the ten man game yet there still is a need for geniune attack, because if you don't do it the opposition surely would.....the game didn't spread because of the quagmire of gameplay that is currently being displayed, but because of the excitement of having a crack and both the brutality of the forward game and the excitement of the back play.... [/b]

No they don't, they're slowly turning the game into Rugby League. Which is something nobody except the Aussies want anyway.
[/b][/quote]
Have you actually watched the ELV's in action?

Rugby league is an offshoot of Union which basically takes the forwards out of the game, Union seems to be becoming the kind of game where the backs are being taken out of the game...the balance is where the greatness of rugby union lies. (when I used to play I was a prop btw, so don't think I am biased toward backs)

 

[jawmalawm24]

Well with all these new rules coming in next year for the Super14 it should be good to see how the game is played. I watched a game of the All Blacks vs Australia 97 and it was so much better than games these days because the ref was nowhere near as involved as they are now.

The refs weren't shouting out ruck! its a maul! and I couldn't believe how quick the ball was getting thrown around and how fast all the forwards were to setup the scrums. Nowadays the refs shouting the players ears off and are a hell of alot more vocal then they use to be.

This is why I think Rugby has become a bit boring because its not as free flowing as it use to be and it needs to change immediatley otherwise it could become a more of a testicle then a spectacle.

 

[RoyalBlueStuey]

The thing you need to remember is that the reason the games were so much more open in the past was that the game was wasn't nearly as professional. The standards were a lot lower and so there was more mistakes and players were less fit.

It's a fairly easy equation...fitter, better drilled, better disicplined players = tighter less open games.

This argument is like saying the Barclaycard Premiership is dull because when you were a kid your schoolboy kickabouts used to end 17-12.

Just coming up with rule changes to hamstring the high standards of professional players is silly.

 

[diehardkiwi07]

It all depends where you live really, if you live in the NH you like to see a low scoring messy affair with a touch of penalty shoot out here and there... While some people may call this fun and all, rugby fans and media down under in the SH have expressed there concerns that the game is grinding to a halt and is showing signs of suffercation. While this may look like a bad thing for us, the good news is IRB look like there coming to the party on this matter, because it looks as though changes are under way. So it clearly shows NOT ONLY US SEE THERE IS A PROBLEM IN THE GAME

My thoughts are if things dont change for us now where going to see the Tri Nations and super 14 end up like the 6 nations, with a final score of 3.0

*Puts bullet proof vest on*

 

[BokMagic]

Well personally I`d love to see how the "Stellenbosch" rules goes in next year`s S14 before casting a vote. In theory, at least, most of them looks pretty OK, and not nearly likely to turn the great game of Union into a watered-down version of League, as some are suggesting.

Basically, the new laws will, if anything, add even more impetus to the scrum, for example, with the 5m offside line as opposed to the current hindmost feet rule. Imagine just how much yardage any half-decent no.8 can make by picking up from the base of a good, solid scrum, especially if the defending scrumhalf is taken out of the game by a good right shoulder?

So this is my take on things- rugby union, as a professional sport, is still in its infancy. It is busy evolving slowly but surely. Along the way, some rule changes will happen, which will, for the most part, be for the better. Just think back a few years ago, when we had the rule change about being able to run back into your '22' and kick out on the full. Many were predicting the death of the kicking game, and it didn`t exactly happen.

But even saying all that, rugby needs to remember it`s roots. It`s a game where defense and attack should always, in theory at least, be in balance. One doesn`t want to see basketball-type scores of 75-53 enter test rugby. Ever.

But equally, at present, the biggest advances in rugby over the last 3-4 years have been on defense. Teams are able to analyse in depth their opponent`s strengths and weaknesses, and work out opposition-specific defensive strategies. The balance, on present, is ever so slightly in favour of defense. So a little law tweak towards restoring the balance between attack and defense can only be a good thing, not?

 

[Ripper]

To save time can we just distill all these threads down to their main ingredients:

A) Boo hoo Australia and New Zealand did win
B) Boo hoo England got to the final

Rugby isn't meant to an open, flowing tryfest. It never was. In future you people should just watch rugby league or 7s or gridiron if all you want as cheap contrived thrills. [/b]

Wayne Barnes, an Englishman, seems to be doing his best to turn Rugby into Gridion...

 

[nam97]

The new rules look good apart from one thing... why the f*** should an opposing team be allowed to pull down/collapse mauls? That is one of the main components of a dominating forward pack, this area should be left alone. Hands in the ruck doesn't bother me, and the 5m rule is going to have me creaming over the plethora of attacking moves in action.

 

[C A Iversen]

Oh yeah, the 5m rule is going to rule, lol! I've heard the odd comment that this turns the game into Rugby League a bit. How? Perhaps because there will be a measurement on how far back the defence needs to be? Well, there already is. It's called the hind-most foot rule.

With his eyes the ref must gauge an imaginary line across the field from the back of the ruck. The same thing will happen except it will be 5m back. Offsides are almost never given nowadays, which I believe is one of the biggest killers of back-play. This new rule will mean even if it's loosely enforced the opposition will be 4m further back than they were.

 

[fcukernaut]

<div class='quotemain'>
The why do we watch this crap then? It is suppose to be a spectacle, why else would people pay so much coin to go and watch it live? I wonder, 'cos it's actually suppose to be a spectator sport, hence it should be fast and free flowing so we can enjoy. So you are very much wrong. [/b]

Wrong, rugby is a messy, attritional battle with a dirty, ugly, brutal competition for the ball at it's heart and a tempo set by a skillful, territorial kicking game.

Occasional it opens up and a breath-taking flowing move will occur but that fleeting piece of perfection will have been earned by hard slog.

Don't be suckered by the hyperbolics of the highlight reels.....remember the game's fundamentals. Don't water it down to achieve more cheap thrills and appeal to kids & bandwagon jumpers.
[/b][/quote]



Why? Why is it ok for nothing to happen for 72 minutes like in the France/England Semi-final? Why is rucking and kicking the only basics? What happened to passing, vision and running lines? Are they not equal in terms of importance? Why do you feel that everyone wearing the numbers 11-15 are unimportant to the game apart from making up the numbers on defence and occasionally entering a kicking duel? I'm honestly trying to understand your position, but to me it just doesn't seem to make any sense.



By the comments that you have made, I'm not sure we're quite on the same page as to what running rugby means. We're not talking about a disorganized game like 7's, with outrageous final scores. We're simply saying that we want to see the emphasis change from kicking the ball and playing territory, to keeping the ball in hand and making the emphisis on the other basic skill, ball handling. There were something like 84 kicks in the final. I'm sorry but that is not entertaining, I want to see that number at least halved.



This is no longer an amateur game, and as such it should be run like a business. The more viewers you get the more money you receive from sponsors and as such there is more money to grow the game. There is not a neutral on the planet who likes watching a kicking duel like we saw in the final. My mother, who to her credit sat through most of the world cup games and finally became a fan after ten years of refusal during the World Cup. Now she is what is considered a casual fan, well that casual fan got up and left the room 20 minutes into the Final, because it was a terrible game. It only catered to the hardcore fan, and even then it was the select hardcore fan (read: English or South African). All I ever hear on this board is how the iRB is stuck in the past, and should leave itself of the Old Boys club and start developing rugby world wide. The same can be said for the product on the field, it's time they came out of the past and stopped catering solely to the hardcore. If the game stays the way it is, the game will not only be stagnant on the field but development of the game will stagnate as well.

 

[nam97]

<div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'>
The why do we watch this crap then? It is suppose to be a spectacle, why else would people pay so much coin to go and watch it live? I wonder, 'cos it's actually suppose to be a spectator sport, hence it should be fast and free flowing so we can enjoy. So you are very much wrong. [/b]

Wrong, rugby is a messy, attritional battle with a dirty, ugly, brutal competition for the ball at it's heart and a tempo set by a skillful, territorial kicking game.

Occasional it opens up and a breath-taking flowing move will occur but that fleeting piece of perfection will have been earned by hard slog.

Don't be suckered by the hyperbolics of the highlight reels.....remember the game's fundamentals. Don't water it down to achieve more cheap thrills and appeal to kids & bandwagon jumpers.
[/b][/quote]



Why? Why is it ok for nothing to happen for 72 minutes like in the France/England Semi-final? Why is rucking and kicking the only basics? What happened to passing, vision and running lines? Are they not equal in terms of importance? Why do you feel that everyone wearing the numbers 11-15 are unimportant to the game apart from making up the numbers on defence and occasionally entering a kicking duel? I'm honestly trying to understand your position, but to me it just doesn't seem to make any sense.



By the comments that you have made, I'm not sure we're quite on the same page as to what running rugby means. We're not talking about a disorganized game like 7's, with outrageous final scores. We're simply saying that we want to see the emphasis change from kicking the ball and playing territory, to keeping the ball in hand and making the emphisis on the other basic skill, ball handling. There were something like 84 kicks in the final. I'm sorry but that is not entertaining, I want to see that number at least halved.



This is no longer an amateur game, and as such it should be run like a business. The more viewers you get the more money you receive from sponsors and as such there is more money to grow the game. There is not a neutral on the planet who likes watching a kicking duel like we saw in the final. My mother, who to her credit sat through most of the world cup games and finally became a fan after ten years of refusal during the World Cup. Now she is what is considered a casual fan, well that casual fan got up and left the room 20 minutes into the Final, because it was a terrible game. It only catered to the hardcore fan, and even then it was the select hardcore fan (read: English or South African). All I ever hear on this board is how the iRB is stuck in the past, and should leave itself of the Old Boys club and start developing rugby world wide. The same can be said for the product on the field, it's time they came out of the past and stopped catering solely to the hardcore. If the game stays the way it is, the game will not only be stagnant on the field but development of the game will stagnate as well.
[/b][/quote]

Exactly, spot on.

 

[diehardkiwi07]

Why? Why is it ok for nothing to happen for 72 minutes like in the France/England Semi-final? Why is rucking and kicking the only basics? What happened to passing, vision and running lines? Are they not equal in terms of importance? Why do you feel that everyone wearing the numbers 11-15 are unimportant to the game apart from making up the numbers on defence and occasionally entering a kicking duel? I'm honestly trying to understand your position, but to me it just doesn't seem to make any sense.



By the comments that you have made, I'm not sure we're quite on the same page as to what running rugby means. We're not talking about a disorganized game like 7's, with outrageous final scores. We're simply saying that we want to see the emphasis change from kicking the ball and playing territory, to keeping the ball in hand and making the emphisis on the other basic skill, ball handling. There were something like 84 kicks in the final. I'm sorry but that is not entertaining, I want to see that number at least halved.



This is no longer an amateur game, and as such it should be run like a business. The more viewers you get the more money you receive from sponsors and as such there is more money to grow the game. There is not a neutral on the planet who likes watching a kicking duel like we saw in the final. My mother, who to her credit sat through most of the world cup games and finally became a fan after ten years of refusal during the World Cup. Now she is what is considered a casual fan, well that casual fan got up and left the room 20 minutes into the Final, because it was a terrible game. It only catered to the hardcore fan, and even then it was the select hardcore fan (read: English or South African). All I ever hear on this board is how the iRB is stuck in the past, and should leave itself of the Old Boys club and start developing rugby world wide. The same can be said for the product on the field, it's time they came out of the past and stopped catering solely to the hardcore. If the game stays the way it is, the game will not only be stagnant on the field but development of the game will stagnate as well.
[/b]

45.0 ... fcukernut leads