Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Other Stuff
Archived
Tri Nations 2009-2011
Tri Nations: Springboks - All Blacks @ Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium (20-8-2011, 15:05)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="User1245" data-source="post: 435260" data-attributes="member: 40986"><p>Yes I agree some rule changes were for the best, especially when rugby was an amateur game. The game is now professional and has not had any major structural changes since and has grown consistently. The only major changes I can think of are: (1) the quick throw in (2) picking up lineout jumpers and (3) not being allowed to kick directly into touch if you ran back into your 22. These aren't really fundamental and structural changes imo. The emphasis on locks being tall didn't change and you still need a fullback that can kick well. The ELV's (which I supported) changed a very minor aspect of contesting for the ball, the contest itself didn't change. Ask your average casual rugby viewer (often the largest market & also heavily targeted to swing their sport alliance) what he/she thinks about rugby since 2009. They will not know what you're on about. Die hard rugby followers like you and myself can say "yes, the game is better" but according to what? Has rugby popularity in NZ increased since then? And is that the only factor?</p><p></p><p>I'm in the opinion that point changes and charges to the structured nature of rugby will be a bad thing... Using RL as an example of sporting success is a purely AUS/NZ phenomenon. That's bias cherry picking according to your viewer target market. </p><p>The most widely watched, best supported and well funded contact sport in the world is American Football. That game is mostly stoppages, and it would be a cheap and easy research to equate that: strategic game + stoppages = more viewers. </p><p></p><p>AUS/NZ need to re-look their take on declining of rugby popularity in their countries. Take in all the various factors such as population decline and economic stagnation, before you start tinkering with our beloved game. There is nothing wrong with the general rugby way is currently structured. Divert your focus to the external factors outside of rugby. And the realities that each of your countries face. NZ's growth across the board has slowed down or is decline, and AUS had many other sports that were professional, before rugby followed suit, and is now contesting in a sport saturated market.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="User1245, post: 435260, member: 40986"] Yes I agree some rule changes were for the best, especially when rugby was an amateur game. The game is now professional and has not had any major structural changes since and has grown consistently. The only major changes I can think of are: (1) the quick throw in (2) picking up lineout jumpers and (3) not being allowed to kick directly into touch if you ran back into your 22. These aren't really fundamental and structural changes imo. The emphasis on locks being tall didn't change and you still need a fullback that can kick well. The ELV's (which I supported) changed a very minor aspect of contesting for the ball, the contest itself didn't change. Ask your average casual rugby viewer (often the largest market & also heavily targeted to swing their sport alliance) what he/she thinks about rugby since 2009. They will not know what you're on about. Die hard rugby followers like you and myself can say "yes, the game is better" but according to what? Has rugby popularity in NZ increased since then? And is that the only factor? I'm in the opinion that point changes and charges to the structured nature of rugby will be a bad thing... Using RL as an example of sporting success is a purely AUS/NZ phenomenon. That's bias cherry picking according to your viewer target market. The most widely watched, best supported and well funded contact sport in the world is American Football. That game is mostly stoppages, and it would be a cheap and easy research to equate that: strategic game + stoppages = more viewers. AUS/NZ need to re-look their take on declining of rugby popularity in their countries. Take in all the various factors such as population decline and economic stagnation, before you start tinkering with our beloved game. There is nothing wrong with the general rugby way is currently structured. Divert your focus to the external factors outside of rugby. And the realities that each of your countries face. NZ's growth across the board has slowed down or is decline, and AUS had many other sports that were professional, before rugby followed suit, and is now contesting in a sport saturated market. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
Archived
Tri Nations 2009-2011
Tri Nations: Springboks - All Blacks @ Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium (20-8-2011, 15:05)
Top