Under the Radar

[richy678]

Anybody else perceive that the present RWC and especially England's progress is not being reported on TV and general media as such a high priority this time around?
Seems a bit low key?
Therefore non rugby general public do not seem as aware as previous RWC's?
In previous years the media have tried to home in on some players personalities and paint them as characters for the general public, I don't see that happening.
Is it a factor of the politics of the day or maybe it's been obvious were going to have play New Zealand in the semi's ?
Maybe it's because ITV and BT haven't done so much of that "with the players..reality TV type coverage they have done before"?

[twitchy]

Rugby just isn't really that popular in england. You might be able to get some random people interested if it was kicking off mid afternoon or evening. 6-10 am on a weekend? Forget it.

[Mellsblue]

People in my office who normally have no interest in the game are talking to me about it now we are in the knockout rounds. I think, as Twitchy says, the morning kick offs won’t help - not least as it’s not an excuse for a drink at that time - and the lack of a ‘big’ team oppo until Aus.
Tbh, this World Cup isn’t aimed at growing the game here, we f**ked up that opportunity fours years ago, but at growing the game in Japan which, given the 60m viewing figures, I think we can say had worked, subject to WR pulling their finger out over the next 6 - 12 months.

[Raggs]

If we beat the ABs it'll be front and centre, but that's the only way.

[Epaminondas Pules]

I'm over in NYC and lots of Americans have been talking with us about it. Really up to speed.

[fivepointer]

KO times dont help.
Our problem - and every other sports problem - is that we dont have the broad appeal of football. Even the recent cricket world cup didnt generate that much interest until we go to the final.
I daresay the NZ game will draw a big audience, but overall its an uphill struggle to raise the sports profile.

[Oakboy]

KO times dont help.
Our problem - and every other sports problem - is that we dont have the broad appeal of football. Even the recent cricket world cup didnt generate that much interest until we go to the final.
I daresay the NZ game will draw a big audience, but overall its an uphill struggle to raise the sports profile.

I do wonder if football is shooting itself in the foot with the VAR nonsense and the over-complication of the offside rule. The fan base is so huge that it will survive in a big-time way whatever it does but there are a few million spectators worldwide who will be lost.

There is a lesson there for rugby, though, and a potential for new spectating recruits. Any scope to simplify the laws/rules must be seized upon and the review process must be short and sweet. On-field crap like scrum resets has to disappear. I'd be in favour of referees having to give penalties one way or the other for every scrum collapse. Then, the breakdown laws have to be made more transparent and obvious. At the moment, even seasoned ex-pros on commentary are sometimes struggling to identify why a penalty was awarded. 'Clear and obvious' is a useful expression from football and the failure of that sport to apply the message properly needs due consideration by rugby.

[p/d]

To be fair the 'sensible' papers are giving it good press coverage, and ones like the DT have separate rugby pull out sections with descent commentary.

BBC does its best to limit the time dedicated to a sport it isn't broadcasting, and their radio 'sport reporters' are basically ignorant of rugby (sport in general), as such resort to lazy journalism.

That said throw in an oncoming disaster (typhoon for example) or -god forbid - clashes between travelling fans then you wouldn't be able to switch on any device without hearing about the RWC.

Good news just isn't news, unless the England football team win a friendly

[richy678]

KO times dont help.
Our problem - and every other sports problem - is that we dont have the broad appeal of football. Even the recent cricket world cup didnt generate that much interest until we go to the final.
I daresay the NZ game will draw a big audience, but overall its an uphill struggle to raise the sports profile.

I do wonder if football is shooting itself in the foot with the VAR nonsense and the over-complication of the offside rule. The fan base is so huge that it will survive in a big-time way whatever it does but there are a few million spectators worldwide who will be lost.

There is a lesson there for rugby, though, and a potential for new spectating recruits. Any scope to simplify the laws/rules must be seized upon and the review process must be short and sweet. On-field crap like scrum resets has to disappear. I'd be in favour of referees having to give penalties one way or the other for every scrum collapse. Then, the breakdown laws have to be made more transparent and obvious. At the moment, even seasoned ex-pros on commentary are sometimes struggling to identify why a penalty was awarded. 'Clear and obvious' is a useful expression from football and the failure of that sport to apply the message properly needs due consideration by rugby.

The scrum reset thing may have reached the tail wagging the dog point.
The scrum is restart after non foul play stoppages.
It is, however, a traditional part of the game. I think it's supposed to be a pushing competition, but has always lent itself to techniques, interpretation and rule bending.
It does seem to have become a platform to generate penalties, which is not good. When I see a dominant scrum with a drive on I don't understand why the present interpretation means the ref automatically blows for a penalty. Used to be the best time to run an old fashioned Backrow move.

[Beasties]

KO times dont help.
Our problem - and every other sports problem - is that we dont have the broad appeal of football. Even the recent cricket world cup didnt generate that much interest until we go to the final.
I daresay the NZ game will draw a big audience, but overall its an uphill struggle to raise the sports profile.

I do wonder if football is shooting itself in the foot with the VAR nonsense and the over-complication of the offside rule. The fan base is so huge that it will survive in a big-time way whatever it does but there are a few million spectators worldwide who will be lost.

There is a lesson there for rugby, though, and a potential for new spectating recruits. Any scope to simplify the laws/rules must be seized upon and the review process must be short and sweet. On-field crap like scrum resets has to disappear. I'd be in favour of referees having to give penalties one way or the other for every scrum collapse. Then, the breakdown laws have to be made more transparent and obvious. At the moment, even seasoned ex-pros on commentary are sometimes struggling to identify why a penalty was awarded. 'Clear and obvious' is a useful expression from football and the failure of that sport to apply the message properly needs due consideration by rugby.

The scrum reset thing may have reached the tail wagging the dog point.
The scrum is restart after non foul play stoppages.
It is, however, a traditional part of the game. I think it's supposed to be a pushing competition, but has always lent itself to techniques, interpretation and rule bending.
It does seem to have become a platform to generate penalties, which is not good. When I see a dominant scrum with a drive on I don't understand why the present interpretation means the ref automatically blows for a penalty. Used to be the best time to run an old fashioned Backrow move.

Indeed. The current scrum laws are a total mess, brought about by fiddling with the laws after ignoring them for years after NZ introduced the hit. Going back to the original laws would cut out most of the time wasting. Making the SH responsible for the timing of the put in is the ONLY thing they're got right in the last ten or fifteen years.

[Puja]

I do wonder if football is shooting itself in the foot with the VAR nonsense and the over-complication of the offside rule. The fan base is so huge that it will survive in a big-time way whatever it does but there are a few million spectators worldwide who will be lost.

There is a lesson there for rugby, though, and a potential for new spectating recruits. Any scope to simplify the laws/rules must be seized upon and the review process must be short and sweet. On-field crap like scrum resets has to disappear. I'd be in favour of referees having to give penalties one way or the other for every scrum collapse. Then, the breakdown laws have to be made more transparent and obvious. At the moment, even seasoned ex-pros on commentary are sometimes struggling to identify why a penalty was awarded. 'Clear and obvious' is a useful expression from football and the failure of that sport to apply the message properly needs due consideration by rugby.

The scrum reset thing may have reached the tail wagging the dog point.
The scrum is restart after non foul play stoppages.
It is, however, a traditional part of the game. I think it's supposed to be a pushing competition, but has always lent itself to techniques, interpretation and rule bending.
It does seem to have become a platform to generate penalties, which is not good. When I see a dominant scrum with a drive on I don't understand why the present interpretation means the ref automatically blows for a penalty. Used to be the best time to run an old fashioned Backrow move.

Indeed. The current scrum laws are a total mess, brought about by fiddling with the laws after ignoring them for years after NZ introduced the hit. Going back to the original laws would cut out most of the time wasting. Making the SH responsible for the timing of the put in is the ONLY thing they're got right in the last ten or fifteen years.

I'm not sure the scrum is an area of the game where "going back to the original laws" would help. The professionalism, coaching, and general size increase of players means that the situation has changed dramatically - it's more dangerous than it used to be. I'd say they've done a pretty good job with the current scrum laws of "Crouch, Touch, Bind, Set" and the completion rate is far higher than it used to be.

I would be in favour of a law trial of 1) downgrading all scrum offences to free-kicks, but keeping the threat of yellow cards for repeated jnfringements, and 2) limiting the distance that a scrum can be driven backwards to 5m. The aim would be to discourage sides just scrummaging for penalties like England, while encouraging sides to go backwards rather than down, like Japan did against South Africa, with the knowledge that back can only mean 5m.

On that note, great work by the ref in the Japan vs SA game. Far too often sides expect a penalty simply for being good in the scrum and far too often refs give them one just for going forward. Japan made the conscious decision to give up ground instead of penalties and the ref played it very sensibly.

Puja

[Oakboy]

The scrum reset thing may have reached the tail wagging the dog point.
The scrum is restart after non foul play stoppages.
It is, however, a traditional part of the game. I think it's supposed to be a pushing competition, but has always lent itself to techniques, interpretation and rule bending.
It does seem to have become a platform to generate penalties, which is not good. When I see a dominant scrum with a drive on I don't understand why the present interpretation means the ref automatically blows for a penalty. Used to be the best time to run an old fashioned Backrow move.

Indeed. The current scrum laws are a total mess, brought about by fiddling with the laws after ignoring them for years after NZ introduced the hit. Going back to the original laws would cut out most of the time wasting. Making the SH responsible for the timing of the put in is the ONLY thing they're got right in the last ten or fifteen years.

I'm not sure the scrum is an area of the game where "going back to the original laws" would help. The professionalism, coaching, and general size increase of players means that the situation has changed dramatically - it's more dangerous than it used to be. I'd say they've done a pretty good job with the current scrum laws of "Crouch, Touch, Bind, Set" and the completion rate is far higher than it used to be.

I would be in favour of a law trial of 1) downgrading all scrum offences to free-kicks, but keeping the threat of yellow cards for repeated jnfringements, and 2) limiting the distance that a scrum can be driven backwards to 5m. The aim would be to discourage sides just scrummaging for penalties like England, while encouraging sides to go backwards rather than down, like Japan did against South Africa, with the knowledge that back can only mean 5m.

On that note, great work by the ref in the Japan vs SA game. Far too often sides expect a penalty simply for being good in the scrum and far too often refs give them one just for going forward. Japan made the conscious decision to give up ground instead of penalties and the ref played it very sensibly.

Puja

Puja, have you not confirmed that somebody is always at fault when a scrum collapses, in which case penalise them. However it is done, we have to get to the position where the two sets of forwards get a single chance to scrummage. Anything else renders the game boring from the viewpoint of recruiting new fans.

[Beasties]

I don't really get why you think going back to the original laws wouldn't be acceptable. Scrum collapses were penalised originally so no difference there at all. The whole basis of the original laws was that a team pushing early (ergo the hit or whatever) was penalised with a pen. Most of the danger for front rows in particular came from the hit arriving fractionally before the other props were ready to "take it". Remove the hit and you remove much of the danger. Yes the current drawn out engage removes the hit but so does penalising the early shove which is basically what they "forgot" about in the first place.

I just fear your changes are creating all new problems, soz.

[p/d]

Not sure the scrum issue has a bearing on media coverage/public popularity. Football has such a hold on journalism and public exposure that a woman scoring with her head is deemed more significant than May crossing the whitewash at a WC

[Puja]

Puja, have you not confirmed that somebody is always at fault when a scrum collapses, in which case penalise them. However it is done, we have to get to the position where the two sets of forwards get a single chance to scrummage. Anything else renders the game boring from the viewpoint of recruiting new fans.

As Garces is ample proof of, it's hard to tell who has brought down a precariously balanced card tower composed of 18-25st men who are interlocked in a way that relies on other people to stay standing. Is the loosehead driving at an angle, or is the tighthead boring in and that's pulling the loose across? Did the hooker stand up or was his oppo driving him up illegally? Did one side push early or did the other side fake that they were going to support their weight and then step back? Did the tighthead go to ground or did the loosehead hinge?

It's not easy to make a decision and refs so often go for who they feel is on top, which means if you're stronger, there's no point in a completed scrum as you'd prefer the extra 30m from a penalty. And if ypu're weaker, you don't want to go backward 10m and cement the ref's interpretation that you're struggling (and thus, always at fault) - far better to drop it early and hope the random number generator of scrum penalties comes out in your favour.

What I'm trying to do is to reduce the incentive to collapse. If you're not going to get a penalty, then it's worthwhile using your dominant scrum ball for an 8 pick, rather than scrummaging till it collapses. And if the most that can happen is you go back 5m and the opposition has to use it, there's less incentive for you to drop it and risk a yellow for cumulative offences. I'd want to trial it, cause coaches and props are both tricky groups and I'm sure there'd be unintended consequences, but that' what I'd try.

I don't really get why you think going back to the original laws wouldn't be acceptable. Scrum collapses were penalised originally so no difference there at all. The whole basis of the original laws was that a team pushing early (ergo the hit or whatever) was penalised with a pen. Most of the danger for front rows in particular came from the hit arriving fractionally before the other props were ready to "take it". Remove the hit and you remove much of the danger. Yes the current drawn out engage removes the hit but so does penalising the early shove which is basically what they "forgot" about in the first place.

I just fear your changes are creating all new problems, soz.

I agree that penalising the early shove would help, but it's still legislating a hard to judge behaviour. Bound scrums have to exert some force on each other even if not pushing (or else they'd fall down), the more force you can exert the better your likely position is when the pushing starts, your opposite number exerts more force in response, you escalate, suddenly we're pushing before the ball's in. And the ref can only really see if one side goes forward, so it's very easy to play silly beggars and suddenly slacken off to let the oppo fall forward, buying you a penalty for cheating.

The problem with the current scrum laws, or the old ones, is that even if you're on top, it's better to keep the ball in than it is to play it. Surely that's not right.

Puja

[fivepointer]

The scrums so far in this WC have been pretty good.
The main issue with the game is the appalling mess that the breakdown has become. Tidy that up by insisting players contesting the ball are on their feet and those trying to maintain position are on theirs too.
Right now more laws are flouted around the tackle than they are at the scrum.

[Mikey Brown]

I feel like there was a flurry of penalising players going off their feet in the last 18 months or so, but it didn't go far enough to really stop anybody from doing it. They've just given up entirely in this tournament it seems.

[Beasties]

Just musing over the scrum pens and resets etc this am and had a thought. I wonder maybe if one idea would be to do away with scrum pens (except for repeated same infringements) and make the offences free kick only but have the free kick 10 yards further downfield. This would remove the hated pen kick to touch from the defending 25 yard line to inside the oppo 25 yard line. It would be a significant punishment without the ref scrum lottery potentially changing a close result right on 79 mins.

I clearly haven't though this through and I've not solved what happens in 5m scrums, hence reverting to a pen in those circumstances. Curse the extra hour to think. I just get pissed off that the random scrum pen generator can have too much influence on a scoreline.

[Mr Mwenda]

I'd also stop the clock until the ball is out so we don't lose all this playing time to people slipping over.

[Which Tyler]

I'd also stop the clock until the ball is out so we don't lose all this playing time to people slipping over.

Or taking 60 seconds to work out where they have to stand for a scrum.

Whilst the ref leads the engagement process, there's no reason why the clock has to be running before he starts. Turn the clock off when he indicates for a scrum, start it again when he says "crouch"

It will still rob momentum, but not 10 minutes per match of playing time.