technology ruining the game (according to graham henry)

handsomecake

http://www.allblacks.com/news/11182/Technology-ruining-the-game---Henry

following on from other discussions we have had on here i tend to agree with him.especially the penalty option

themont85

I've said this many times before but looking at the game back in the 80s it wasn't much of a spectacle either. Sports evolve all the time and new ideas ect are created all the time.

anonymous_joe

He should try and sort out his own team before ragging on the world game.

chupacabra

I completely disagree with reducing the penalty to a single point. Ridiculous suggestion. That would completely undermine a large tactical element of the game and basically shít all over teams whose attacking play isn't their strong point.

Size=everything

chupacabra wrote: »

and basically shít all over teams whose attacking play isn't their strong point.

Good.

OldJay

chupacabra wrote: »

I completely disagree with reducing the penalty to a single point. Ridiculous suggestion. That would completely undermine a large tactical element of the game and basically shít all over teams whose attacking play isn't their strong point.

Devaluing a penalty, reduces the severity of the offence that leads to it therefore yielding more cynical play

damnyanks

Then make it easier to get carded. Maybe put in a counter, for every five penalties conceded someone gets a yellow card.

twinytwo

handsomecake wrote: »

http://www.allblacks.com/news/11182/Technology-ruining-the-game---Henry

following on from other discussions we have had on here i tend to agree with him.especially the penalty option

is he taking the piss...with the new elvs there is more kicking than ever... also if the peno was dropped to one point it would destroy the game. His whole problem is the abs got owned in the tri nations and he has to have to have a bitch at something or someone as an excuse to their failure instead of admitting they wernt good enough.

Its about adapting to the game ... teams with players that have a boot like steyn or wikos kicking in his prime are going to use them as much as they can... just as a team would with ourstanding centers or backrow

handsomecake

twinytwo wrote: »

is he taking the piss...with the new elvs there is more kicking than ever... also if the peno was dropped to one point it would destroy the game. His whole problem is the abs got owned in the tri nations and he has to have to have a bitch at something or someone as an excuse to their failure instead of admitting they wernt good enough.

Its about adapting to the game ... teams with players that have a boot like steyn or wikos kicking in his prime are going to use them as much as they can... just as a team would with ourstanding centers or backrow

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/need-to-make-space-means-reducing-player-numbers-1897436.html
tony ward ( he is irish by the way,and his national team didnt get "owned" this year in fact quite the opposite),seems to disagree with you. he also thinks the game is fundamentally flawed and heading down the pan

OldJay

damnyanks wrote: »

Then make it easier to get carded. Maybe put in a counter, for every five penalties conceded someone gets a yellow card.

. . . and drag a match through the u-bend? Not going to happen.
The sanctions you look for are already in place. Its down to individuals officiating the actual games to enforce them whenever necessary.

The Tony Ward piece is an overreaction in my opinion. The key to creating space is committing players to the breakdown instead of filling out a defensive line. How to do this? Making the ball more contestable instead of a done deal, whereby a team who is defending still have a chance to counter-ruck and wni the turnover.
As with all law changes, this takes time to be 'copped onto' and is slowly happening. For examples of teams who like to commit only two or so players in at the contact area, see the Lions in the first test or the Ospreys and Scarlets in their first Magners games so far. A good example of a team making avail of the breakdown laws is Ulster. They're forcing an excellent number of turnovers. Another is South Africa.

anonymous_joe

handsomecake wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/need-to-make-space-means-reducing-player-numbers-1897436.html
tony ward ( he is irish by the way,and his national team didnt get "owned" this year in fact quite the opposite),seems to disagree with you. he also thinks the game is fundamentally flawed and heading down the pan

The problem with the game is nothing to do with the rules or anything. It has two problems, and only two.

One: the players are too fit. Sunday Times pointed out that the Wasps hooker is 5 stone heavier than Brian Moore was when he was hooking for England. The guys are too big, too fast, too powerful.

Two: Defenses are too good. Watch Brian O'Driscoll's hat-trick against France all those moons ago. A lot of them are awful. A modern defence wouldn't concede them at all. Unbreachable defensive lines lead to lots of kicking. Especially with reduced numbers in rucks there are more people in those same defensive lines.

Sangre

anonymous_joe wrote: »

The problem with the game is nothing to do with the rules or anything. It has two problems, and only two.

One: the players are too fit. Sunday Times pointed out that the Wasps hooker is 5 stone heavier than Brian Moore was when he was hooking for England. The guys are too big, too fast, too powerful.

Yes, but the other hooker is also 5 stone heavier. Is there actually any difference?

anonymous_joe

Sangre wrote: »

Yes, but the other hooker is also 5 stone heavier. Is there actually any difference?

There is though. Because now they're all really fit, strong and powerful, they can keep going for longer and manage to combine greater power with greater mobility.

Makes it much harder to get by them, etc.

murphym7

anonymous_joe wrote: »

There is though. Because now they're all really fit, strong and powerful, they can keep going for longer and manage to combine greater power with greater mobility.

Makes it much harder to get by them, etc.

I'm not sure I really agree, it's kind of like saying that its good for teams to get tired so tries can be scored by their opponents. Players are far fitter and bigger these days, but they all are so advatage (in the most part) is cancelled out. There is far greater satisfaction of watching a good try scored against a good team rather tahn a mistake by a defense in the last 20 of a game.

PhatPiggins

Everytime there's an element of the game that NZ/OZ are defficient at there seems to be cries to change the rules. Reduce drop gaols to one point, reduce penalties to one point, speed up the scrums, blah blah blah. My favourite,why cant we change the rules to allow Rupeni Caucau to play for NZ?

Tell you what Graham we'll give you the 2011 WC(awful selection) and we'll fix the draw so you get France in the group stage just to be sure. Now the reality has hit that still might not win it, immediately start making excuses to why NZ are wrongly handicaped.

Do the decent thing Graham and resign.

Peter B

I do agree with Graham Henry on one point. As I mentioned before on the "Future of international rugby" thread a lot of the tennis type play we see these days could easily be avoided if we reduce the quality of the ball. If we went back to the ball used in the 60's it would make for a far batter game with far less emphesis on kicking.

As for changing the points for a penalty I'd say this should be a big no-no! Teams have to be worried about infringing and giving away easily penalties. I did not like the "Rugby League" start stop style of the elves used down under and I'm glad most of them were chucked!

Amabokke

:D:D

Technology ruining rugby?!!? What's next, the reflection of coke cans hurting player's eyes.

He had no problem with Dan carter's accurate boot during the Lions 05 and 04-05 season when the ball traveled far.

Big problem is he can't face facts and admit NZ is not the number 1 rugby team in the world anymore. Anyone can beat them, even Ireland!

He complains exactly about everything that SA was doing right and NZ/AUS doing wrong during the 3N. SA kickers can boot the ball very far, they are very good at line-outs and both NZ/AUS are struggling with that, now he wants to change the law.

Why can't we change laws to suit other teams weaknesses?

SA will win the 2011 world cup for a third time and teach these ABs a lesson or two in real rugger in their own backyard.

andrewdcs

I really think Henry and the other ELVers yearn to play League.

I do agree with the thrust of his point, that the players physical size/training improvements and technology have changed the balance of the game, whilst the pitch size etc. hasn't changed. this leads to new ways of playing the game which may not be desirable / become dangerous etc.

A solution to impromptu lengthy tennis matches is to tweak the offside rules around defensive kicking making it slightly more risky to keep a kick infield.
Main reason players don't run it back and set up new phases is that it's so easy to get turned over, but allowing the running attacker to be supported would solve this. That would make possession slightly more secure, rewarding teams attacking rather than defending, again, just a touch.

Union has always had an element of chess... to the draughts played in League.

justsomebloke

Peter B wrote: »

I do agree with Graham Henry on one point. As I mentioned before on the "Future of international rugby" thread a lot of the tennis type play we see these days could easily be avoided if we reduce the quality of the ball. If we went back to the ball used in the 60's it would make for a far batter game with far less emphesis on kicking.

I would have to agree I think a heavier ball designed with a slightly gripper surface would probably encourage more running with the ball.

Professionalism was always going to change the game was played but I think even without it going professional players would of gotten fitter and bigger anyway (actually if anyone has GAA football players stats from 10 years ago and now I would be interested), as training methods as well as nutritional understanding have come on leaps and bounds over the last while. So although professional speed the process up it was always going to happen.

andrewdcs

Also, making tries worth 6 and conversions 1 would reward tries more, wings touching down in the corner etc. while keeping the same score balance.

Amabokke

andrewdcs wrote: »

Also, making tries worth 6 and conversions 1 would reward tries more, wings touching down in the corner etc. while keeping the same score balance.

Not really. There is already incentives for scoring tries. In 3N 4 or more tries or loose by less than 7 points adds bonus points.

Teams like SA won't change and try and score more tries just because it's more points, they'll just apply more pressure and happily wait for the opposition to make mistakes.

Amabokke

Amabokke wrote: »

Not really. There is already incentives for scoring tries. In 3N 4 or more tries or loose by less than 7 points adds bonus points.

Teams like SA won't change and try and score more tries just because it's more points, they'll just apply more pressure and happily wait for the opposition to make mistakes.

Yes but do you not accept that this brand of rugby is boring and will drive people away from the game,I know who I would rather watch between NZ and SA.

The most annoying thing is that SA could play good rugby,they have the players but just refuse to.Its muck and if they win the wc again its a sad day for rugby.

Im not saying other countries arent guilty,Ireland are just as guilty,we do however have the excuse of weather when we play,SA dont.

SA fans can chuckle along as they dominate but they wont be pleased when they are the only competitive team in the world because the game is slowly dying in other countries,just look at the crowds in NZ for the super 14.

OldJay

Lauren Thoughtless Spokesperson wrote: »

Yes but do you not accept that this brand of rugby is boring and will drive people away from the game,I know who I would rather watch between NZ and SA.

The most annoying thing is that SA could play good rugby,they have the players but just refuse to.Its muck and if they win the wc again its a sad day for rugby.

Im not saying other countries arent guilty,Ireland are just as guilty,we do however have the excuse of weather when we play,SA dont.

SA fans can chuckle along as they dominate but they wont be pleased when they are the only competitive team in the world because the game is slowly dying in other countries,just look at the crowds in NZ for the super 14.

Fairly melodramatic OTT stuff there. The game has received a tilt in NZ because they are not winning and not providing the promise for 2011. In Australia, they're not only winning eff all but under the cosh from rugby league in NSW and QLD and then AFL in the other states.

If you win your games/comps/whatever, a follower of a team tends not to give a stuff how they're won hence the rise in the game's profile here, for example.
Success breeds success in sport.

irishbucsfan

Most of those suggestions are ridiculous.

If you reduce the value of penalties then we'll just have teams playing cynical destructive rugby far more and it won't change the way the game is played at all. Teams will still kick from hand because they are afraid to take it into contact.

The mark would be interesting to see, but I have a feeling it would be hit and miss in whether it actually rewards accurate, sensible kicking from hand.

Eventually teams will adapt and someone will implement a system which improves the value of the counter-attack again.

dub_skav

This suggestion wouldn't cause a massive difference but might give the catcher a little bit more time. How about if only the kicker was allowed to put people onside (unless he was tackled while kicking). This would mean that you wouldn't have Habana (for example) with a running start chasing kicks.

andrewdcs

Amabokke wrote: »

Not really. There is already incentives for scoring tries. In 3N 4 or more tries or loose by less than 7 points adds bonus points.

Teams like SA won't change and try and score more tries just because it's more points, they'll just apply more pressure and happily wait for the opposition to make mistakes.

True, I'd forgotten the bonus point.

twinytwo

Amabokke wrote: »

:D:D

Technology ruining rugby?!!? What's next, the reflection of coke cans hurting player's eyes.

He had no problem with Dan carter's accurate boot during the Lions 05 and 04-05 season when the ball traveled far.

Big problem is he can't face facts and admit NZ is not the number 1 rugby team in the world anymore. Anyone can beat them, even Ireland!

He complains exactly about everything that SA was doing right and NZ/AUS doing wrong during the 3N. SA kickers can boot the ball very far, they are very good at line-outs and both NZ/AUS are struggling with that, now he wants to change the law.

Why can't we change laws to suit other teams weaknesses?

SA will win the 2011 world cup for a third time and teach these ABs a lesson or two in real rugger in their own backyard.

id have said we would have beat them anyway even if they wernt playing ****...

As i said he has to have a bitch at something cause they got schooled by SA.

as for the wc ill take my hat off to sa if they do...

twinytwo

Peter B wrote: »

I do agree with Graham Henry on one point. As I mentioned before on the "Future of international rugby" thread a lot of the tennis type play we see these days could easily be avoided if we reduce the quality of the ball. If we went back to the ball used in the 60's it would make for a far batter game with far less emphesis on kicking.

As for changing the points for a penalty I'd say this should be a big no-no! Teams have to be worried about infringing and giving away easily penalties. I did not like the "Rugby League" start stop style of the elves used down under and I'm glad most of them were chucked!

so favour the teams with the strongest running game and handicap those who may have exceptional kickers?

anonymous_joe

murphym7 wrote: »

I'm not sure I really agree, it's kind of like saying that its good for teams to get tired so tries can be scored by their opponents. Players are far fitter and bigger these days, but they all are so advatage (in the most part) is cancelled out. There is far greater satisfaction of watching a good try scored against a good team rather tahn a mistake by a defense in the last 20 of a game.

Dunno really. It's more like the ground you can cover, etc.

Without rucking for example, you now have defensive lines of 13 superb athletes, whereas in the past you might have had 8 or 9 lads in the defensive line.

Amabokke wrote: »

Big problem is he can't face facts and admit NZ is not the number 1 rugby team in the world anymore. Anyone can beat them, even Ireland!

I really, really hate you for that.

leeroybrown

It's nearly five weeks until they play next. That's an awful lot of time for the media to have a go at them. I'd guess that whether he believes it or not he's deliberately spinning a story to deflect a bit of media attention away from other things.