NPR

JM2K6 wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 3:29 pm

Grandpa wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 1:55 pm

JM2K6 wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 1:46 pmI don't think that's any different to the laws we've been using up here. It makes for a nice change but it just emphasised the role of the outright jackler, and there's a glut of those at the moment. So teams still play it safe.

Though in NZ teams didn't play safe.. just the opposite... is that because of no relegation more than the ruck laws?

Teams up here are absolutely massive and geared towards gainline defence and forward superiority uber alles.

Do you think it would be different if a summer sport?

Grandpa wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 5:08 pm

JM2K6 wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 3:29 pm

Grandpa wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 1:55 pm
Though in NZ teams didn't play safe.. just the opposite... is that because of no relegation more than the ruck laws?

Teams up here are absolutely massive and geared towards gainline defence and forward superiority uber alles.

Do you think it would be different if a summer sport?

Yes. We've always seen a bit more willingness to attack in the hotter months. International rugby wouldn't change though.

Niegs - no argument about the maul, just the slowing down for support...

JM2K6 wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 7:39 pm

Grandpa wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 5:08 pm

JM2K6 wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 3:29 pm

Teams up here are absolutely massive and geared towards gainline defence and forward superiority uber alles.

Do you think it would be different if a summer sport?

Yes. We've always seen a bit more willingness to attack in the hotter months. International rugby wouldn't change though.

Niegs - no argument about the maul, just the slowing down for support...

Do the All Blacks play that way? Or Australia even?

Grandpa wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 9:47 pm

JM2K6 wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 7:39 pm

Grandpa wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 5:08 pm

Do you think it would be different if a summer sport?

Yes. We've always seen a bit more willingness to attack in the hotter months. International rugby wouldn't change though.

Niegs - no argument about the maul, just the slowing down for support...

Do the All Blacks play that way? Or Australia even?

Largely, yes. Teams are mostly homogenous in how they play the game now, and the differences are fairly minor. I don't think it's coincidental that both Australia and New Zealand - two teams more likely to chance their arm at international level - got run over by England at the world cup, though.

edit to add some more detail: The All Blacks copped a hiding from a fairly ordinary Argentina team precisely because they didn't respect the fact that the game is so heavily focused on this sort of defensive approach and just sent players out to die in the teeth of the Argentina defence rather than booting it away. But even NZ have cottoned on to the fact that teams don't want the ball. I have just watched several matches of Aaron Smith kicking the shit out of the ball, after all.

JM2K6 wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 11:08 pm

Grandpa wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 9:47 pm

JM2K6 wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 7:39 pm

Yes. We've always seen a bit more willingness to attack in the hotter months. International rugby wouldn't change though.

Niegs - no argument about the maul, just the slowing down for support...

Do the All Blacks play that way? Or Australia even?

Largely, yes. Teams are mostly homogenous in how they play the game now, and the differences are fairly minor. I don't think it's coincidental that both Australia and New Zealand - two teams more likely to chance their arm at international level - got run over by England at the world cup, though.

edit to add some more detail: The All Blacks copped a hiding from a fairly ordinary Argentina team precisely because they didn't respect the fact that the game is so heavily focused on this sort of defensive approach and just sent players out to die in the teeth of the Argentina defence rather than booting it away. But even NZ have cottoned on to the fact that teams don't want the ball. I have just watched several matches of Aaron Smith kicking the shit out of the ball, after all.

Both those games were lost in the mind though... not because of ability... NZ beat SA at the world cup who demolished England. Granted SA play the tighter game plan, but NZ generally beat them... as they do England... as they do everyone historically... so definitely a case that the defensive, tight, low risk game isn't the only way to be successful... as NZ has proved for the last couple of decades?

Grandpa wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 11:45 pm

JM2K6 wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 11:08 pm

Grandpa wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 9:47 pm

Do the All Blacks play that way? Or Australia even?

Largely, yes. Teams are mostly homogenous in how they play the game now, and the differences are fairly minor. I don't think it's coincidental that both Australia and New Zealand - two teams more likely to chance their arm at international level - got run over by England at the world cup, though.

edit to add some more detail: The All Blacks copped a hiding from a fairly ordinary Argentina team precisely because they didn't respect the fact that the game is so heavily focused on this sort of defensive approach and just sent players out to die in the teeth of the Argentina defence rather than booting it away. But even NZ have cottoned on to the fact that teams don't want the ball. I have just watched several matches of Aaron Smith kicking the shit out of the ball, after all.

Both those games were lost in the mind though... not because of ability... NZ beat SA at the world cup who demolished England. Granted SA play the tighter game plan, but NZ generally beat them... as they do England... as they do everyone historically... so definitely a case that the defensive, tight, low risk game isn't the only way to be successful... as NZ has proved for the last couple of decades?

It's the most likely way to win games with the laws, players, and defensive systems we have at the moment. No-one is talking about decades of rugby here, we're talking about the last few years.

NZ have always been the best coached, most talented group of players with a system designed entirely around servicing the international side. They're the most likely team to buck the trend and they will continue to be so. But even they will kick the living fuck out of the ball if they have it in their half now.

I don't agree those games were lost in the mind - they were lost on the pitch, with both the tactics and the individual performances. Yes, playing into a vicious defence is demoralising, but that's doubly true when you feed it like NZ did.

Meanwhile.. in other news... this came in an email newsletter I get from the Guardian. A new sport to be trialled in schools... to compete with rugby... which has become dull and predictable apparently...


David Moffett, the former chief executive of the New Zealand and Wales unions, in conjunction with the former Argentina and Australia prop Enrique Rodríguez, last August established a new form of the game, Rugby Rules, in frustration of what union had turned into since turning professional in 1995.

“The evolution of rugby in the last 25 years has made it almost unrecognisable, with an unhealthy obsession with defence and teams playing for penalties,” he said. “There are virtually no contests for possession and the public have become bored with the predictability of the game. The yearly changes in law interpretations, often to accommodate the latest whims of a few vocal coaches, have made rugby dangerous and overly complicated.”

Rugby Rules is a game for 13 (or 14) players, six forwards and seven (or eight) backs, played in three periods of 20 minutes. A try is worth six points, a penalty two and a drop goal and conversion earn one. There is a maximum of one reset per scrum, no lifting in the lineout and no clearing out at the breakdown or players going off their feet. Its aim is to make rugby dynamic, preoccupied with neither defence nor attack, and simpler for spectators and viewers, with six regulations and 10 rules.

World Rugby’s effort to establish a global season, which would stop players being caught between club and country, is still alive. Deloitte are conducting a financial evaluation to see whether leagues and unions would be better off by playing club tournaments to a conclusion and then combining the summer and autumn Test windows.

Something seismic needs to happen, like Amazon telling the European unions their product is over-priced or spectators baulking at investing a three-figure sum to get a cricked neck. The next Six Nations television contract will be on pay TV, but will enough pay to watch it? Over to CVC.

Moffett’s Rugby Rules is due for take off in the coming months. He is hoping to start it at school level initially, where minds are not yet closed, in the UK, Australia and New Zealand. He believes it will appeal to traditionalists because it takes rugby back to the days where power and size were not everything and rucks, mauls, scrums and line-outs were contests for possession.

“I have fallen out of love with the game because it has become boring and predictable,” he said. “I know many others who feel like that. A number of changes need to be made, but you will never get World Rugby to listen to you, never mind take any action.

“If they are not careful, they will face litigation, if not now then further down the line, because so many players are becoming shattered in their mid-20s through taking part in a dangerous collision sport. I know people who do not let their kids play rugby and that is why I invented this off-shoot.”

Moffett was the Welsh Rugby Union’s chief executive when the regional system started in 2003. Two years later, Wales won the grand slam for the first time in 27 years, but even though they added three more under Warren Gatland, he feels his fellow New Zealander destroyed the essence of Welsh rugby. “He did not want the Welsh to play the way we know they can,” he said. “Wales used to thrill the world and it is still there when the shackles come off. There was success under Gatland, but it was not rugby that people wanted to see. A problem is that, outside New Zealand, everything is the same.

“It has got to the point where something has to be done. More and more players are retiring early because their bodies cannot take it and I have had a good reaction to Rugby Rules. David Campese said it reminded him of the game he used to play – and one he would want to play now.

If there was a poll for a single law change, I would suggest that holding on to the ball after being tackled, preventing a swift turnover should become a straight yellow card offence. Deliberate and obvious cheating should face heavier sanctions to eradicate the risk/reward bias that currently favours cheating.
If the cheating stopped , the jackling player wouldn't be exposed for so long to the impact of brutal cleanouts and the quick turnover, well, it used to be premium attacking ball but now maybe a pass or two before the aimless kick?

No-one would ever carry the ball in their own half!

Gypo Jenkins wrote: Thu Dec 03, 2020 2:45 pm If there was a poll for a single law change, I would suggest that holding on to the ball after being tackled, preventing a swift turnover should become a straight yellow card offence. Deliberate and obvious cheating should face heavier sanctions to eradicate the risk/reward bias that currently favours cheating.
If the cheating stopped , the jackling player wouldn't be exposed for so long to the impact of brutal cleanouts and the quick turnover, well, it used to be premium attacking ball but now maybe a pass or two before the aimless kick?

Bring back proper rucking

Gypo Jenkins wrote: Thu Dec 03, 2020 2:45 pm If there was a poll for a single law change, I would suggest that holding on to the ball after being tackled, preventing a swift turnover should become a straight yellow card offence. Deliberate and obvious cheating should face heavier sanctions to eradicate the risk/reward bias that currently favours cheating.
If the cheating stopped , the jackling player wouldn't be exposed for so long to the impact of brutal cleanouts and the quick turnover, well, it used to be premium attacking ball but now maybe a pass or two before the aimless kick?

It would create a new version of Aussie Rules. Least risk strategy would be to kick the ball away continually and eventually try to catch it behind the try line.

Gypo Jenkins wrote: Thu Dec 03, 2020 2:45 pm If there was a poll for a single law change, I would suggest that holding on to the ball after being tackled, preventing a swift turnover should become a straight yellow card offence. Deliberate and obvious cheating should face heavier sanctions to eradicate the risk/reward bias that currently favours cheating.
If the cheating stopped , the jackling player wouldn't be exposed for so long to the impact of brutal cleanouts and the quick turnover, well, it used to be premium attacking ball but now maybe a pass or two before the aimless kick?

If tacklers rolled out of the way in a more timely fashion the tackled player might be better able to place the ball once on the deck...

It all gets a bit chicken and egg sometimes.

The problem is that if the breakdown favours the attacking team too much, you get Ireland 2018/Leinster/Exeter repetition of phase after phase, which is not very exciting to watch. If the breakdown favours the team defending too much, teams just kick away their own ball as the risk of being turned over is too high.

I have no solution. Having said that, isn't this a bit of an overreaction to the Autumn Cup games? There hasn't been as much of a problem in the Tri-Nations, maybe wait and see if the ugly games continue in the 6 Nations and June/July tours and Lions series. If they do, then maybe we need a change

sockwithaticket wrote: Thu Dec 03, 2020 3:04 pm

Gypo Jenkins wrote: Thu Dec 03, 2020 2:45 pm If there was a poll for a single law change, I would suggest that holding on to the ball after being tackled, preventing a swift turnover should become a straight yellow card offence. Deliberate and obvious cheating should face heavier sanctions to eradicate the risk/reward bias that currently favours cheating.
If the cheating stopped , the jackling player wouldn't be exposed for so long to the impact of brutal cleanouts and the quick turnover, well, it used to be premium attacking ball but now maybe a pass or two before the aimless kick?

If tacklers rolled out of the way in a more timely fashion the tackled player might be better able to place the ball once on the deck...

It all gets a bit chicken and egg sometimes.

Would it work to ban hands in the ruck completely? Have proper rucks again where you have to drive over the ball and only when it is back on your side of the ruck can someone pick it up... back to the future!

Grandpa wrote: Thu Dec 03, 2020 3:54 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: Thu Dec 03, 2020 3:04 pm

Gypo Jenkins wrote: Thu Dec 03, 2020 2:45 pm If there was a poll for a single law change, I would suggest that holding on to the ball after being tackled, preventing a swift turnover should become a straight yellow card offence. Deliberate and obvious cheating should face heavier sanctions to eradicate the risk/reward bias that currently favours cheating.
If the cheating stopped , the jackling player wouldn't be exposed for so long to the impact of brutal cleanouts and the quick turnover, well, it used to be premium attacking ball but now maybe a pass or two before the aimless kick?

If tacklers rolled out of the way in a more timely fashion the tackled player might be better able to place the ball once on the deck...

It all gets a bit chicken and egg sometimes.

Would it work to ban hands in the ruck completely? Have proper rucks again where you have to drive over the ball and only when it is back on your side of the ruck can someone pick it up... back to the future!

Certainly worth a go. Could also result in increased space on the field as more players become committed to rucks.

"Must ruck past the ball to pick it up" would work only in the context of genuine efforts to alter player behaviour at ruck time. We want a pushing contest, not a binding on to the guy on the floor / bending double / flying into rucks contest, right?

Lemoentjie wrote: Thu Dec 03, 2020 3:49 pm The problem is that if the breakdown favours the attacking team too much, you get Ireland 2018/Leinster/Exeter repetition of phase after phase, which is not very exciting to watch.

A dominant tackle changes that instantly.

The other Law which they changed which has led to an awful second-level effect is the maul law that the team who takes the ball in to the maul losses possession of the ball if it doesn't come out. I mean, what fuckwit thought that was a good idea? It immediately led to the 'choke' tackle and we've been stuck with that abomination in the game for years now already. The old system rewarded the team that was going forward when the maul becomes unplayable which rewards teams that commit players to the maul to push - be they defensive or attacking players. What the hell was wrong with that? Instead we now have spoilers who don't care if they concede yards as they get the ball regardless.

JM2K6 wrote: Thu Dec 03, 2020 5:02 pm "Must ruck past the ball to pick it up" would work only in the context of genuine efforts to alter player behaviour at ruck time. We want a pushing contest, not a binding on to the guy on the floor / bending double / flying into rucks contest, right?

Wouldn't the way it is reffed alter player behaviour? Ref to the laws... staying on feet, pushing and no hands... ref it properly and though there may be lots of penalties at first (as we saw in Super Rugby Aotearoa) eventually the players adapt...

Kawazaki wrote: Thu Dec 03, 2020 7:51 pm

Lemoentjie wrote: Thu Dec 03, 2020 3:49 pm The problem is that if the breakdown favours the attacking team too much, you get Ireland 2018/Leinster/Exeter repetition of phase after phase, which is not very exciting to watch.

A dominant tackle changes that instantly.

The other Law which they changed which has led to an awful second-level effect is the maul law that the team who takes the ball in to the maul losses possession of the ball if it doesn't come out. I mean, what fuckwit thought that was a good idea? It immediately led to the 'choke' tackle and we've been stuck with that abomination in the game for years now already. The old system rewarded the team that was going forward when the maul becomes unplayable which rewards teams that commit players to the maul to push - be they defensive or attacking players. What the hell was wrong with that? Instead we now have spoilers who don't care if they concede yards as they get the ball regardless.

I agree... ridiculous... and even more ridiculous that they have persisted with the law...

Grandpa wrote: Thu Dec 03, 2020 9:12 pm

JM2K6 wrote: Thu Dec 03, 2020 5:02 pm "Must ruck past the ball to pick it up" would work only in the context of genuine efforts to alter player behaviour at ruck time. We want a pushing contest, not a binding on to the guy on the floor / bending double / flying into rucks contest, right?

Wouldn't the way it is reffed alter player behaviour? Ref to the laws... staying on feet, pushing and no hands... ref it properly and though there may be lots of penalties at first (as we saw in Super Rugby Aotearoa) eventually the players adapt...

Well yeah, that's one of the things I mean by "genuine efforts to alter behaviour" - I don't expect the players to do it out of the goodness of their hearts!

Kawazaki wrote: Thu Dec 03, 2020 7:51 pm

Lemoentjie wrote: Thu Dec 03, 2020 3:49 pm The problem is that if the breakdown favours the attacking team too much, you get Ireland 2018/Leinster/Exeter repetition of phase after phase, which is not very exciting to watch.

A dominant tackle changes that instantly.

The other Law which they changed which has led to an awful second-level effect is the maul law that the team who takes the ball in to the maul losses possession of the ball if it doesn't come out. I mean, what fuckwit thought that was a good idea? It immediately led to the 'choke' tackle and we've been stuck with that abomination in the game for years now already. The old system rewarded the team that was going forward when the maul becomes unplayable which rewards teams that commit players to the maul to push - be they defensive or attacking players. What the hell was wrong with that? Instead we now have spoilers who don't care if they concede yards as they get the ball regardless.

Agreed RE: the maul. A maul isn't dull, it's an exciting attacking weapon and draws in 10+ players without fail if executed properly. Suddenly there's space, if you have any hope you'll get the ball out.

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Dec 04, 2020 9:13 am

Kawazaki wrote: Thu Dec 03, 2020 7:51 pm

Lemoentjie wrote: Thu Dec 03, 2020 3:49 pm The problem is that if the breakdown favours the attacking team too much, you get Ireland 2018/Leinster/Exeter repetition of phase after phase, which is not very exciting to watch.

A dominant tackle changes that instantly.

The other Law which they changed which has led to an awful second-level effect is the maul law that the team who takes the ball in to the maul losses possession of the ball if it doesn't come out. I mean, what fuckwit thought that was a good idea? It immediately led to the 'choke' tackle and we've been stuck with that abomination in the game for years now already. The old system rewarded the team that was going forward when the maul becomes unplayable which rewards teams that commit players to the maul to push - be they defensive or attacking players. What the hell was wrong with that? Instead we now have spoilers who don't care if they concede yards as they get the ball regardless.

Agreed RE: the maul. A maul isn't dull, it's an exciting attacking weapon and draws in 10+ players without fail if executed properly. Suddenly there's space, if you have any hope you'll get the ball out.

I've also never understand why players also don't have to release the ball when a maul collapses, I'm fairly certain that in the old days when a maul collapsed, if the ref could see the ball he would call hands off and would then regard it as a ruck.