NFL Coach's View of Rugby

Madworld

http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/01/18/an-nfl-coach-looks-at-rugby/

It's an old Australian article from 2009 but there are some very interesting points in there. I'd personally be against some of the changes he suggests but he definitely makes some great points about potential impoverishments regarding commercialisation of the game.

There are just some personal suggestions but I'd love to see teams releasing stats similar to the NFL combine wherby we could find out what players are lifting and what speeds they're running 100m.

Madworld

Edit

Teferi

A lot/most of his suggestions would essentially turn it into American Football. You're grand thanks. I love American Football but if you watch a game on TV it's essentially an advertising omnibus with some football in between and watching a game live is fairly mental too, loads of advertising blimps floating around, cheerleaders driving trucks around the stadium perimeter shooting T-shirts into the crowd etc.

irishbucsfan

No thanks. I have no interest in turning rugby into a sport made for the lowest common denominator.

Stereomaniac

There are some that would argue that that is what it is already. What's your opinion on that?

Swan Curry

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No thanks. I have no interest in turning rugby into a sport made for the lowest common denominator.

God forbid the plebs start watching our glorious gentlemanly game.

Morf

The level of sport science seen in American Football will continue to grow in rugby.

The NFL are throwing so much money at athletic performance/predicting future performance/conditioning etc. that rugby coaches would be mad not to take advantage of it.

Hazys

Why is the assistant unnamed? For all we know he could have been a ball boy for the 49ers

irishbucsfan

Swan Curry wrote: »

God forbid the plebs start watching our glorious gentlemanly game.

Didn't say anything even remotely like that

davyjose

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Didn't say anything even remotely like that

Did the NFL coach?

irishbucsfan

davyjose wrote: »

Did the NFL coach?

Yes he did. Get rid of the knock on rule because it frustrates some people?!

P_1

I have to say it's a bit rich of an NFL coach to accuse rugby of being too 'stop-start'. Every single down of american football can be considered to be the definition of 'stop-start'.

irishbucsfan

We can learn a lot about the business side of things from the NFL. But we don't need to Americanise the sport itself to do so.

P_1

irishbucsfan wrote: »

We can learn a lot about the business side of things from the NFL. But we don't need to Americanise the sport itself to do so.

Yeah that's true. If there's one thing they do right it's the sense of drama and hype they bring to each game. It makes Barnes and Harrison in the last minutes of a Heineken Cup match seem like they're reading out the BBC classified football results on a Saturday evening.

Hazys

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Yes he did. Get rid of the knock on rule because it frustrates some people?!

I don't think its that bad of an idea. It used to be if a team knocked the ball on the whistle blew straight away. No chance of advantage for the opposition team.

I'm sure when they changed the knock on rule to allow advantage, people complained then but I don't think you'll have many people wanting to reverting back to the old way now for the purity of the game.


His points about sacrificing the 'purity' or need for perfection of the game to make the game more exciting to a wider audience are pretty intriguing. There is definitely room to make the game less stop/start and more free flowing. Its the reason the IRB brought in advantage after the knock on rule.

The game will always need to constantly evolve.

Pudsy33

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No thanks. I have no interest in turning rugby into a sport made for the lowest common denominator.

American football can be incredibly complex, even more so then rugby. How does this equate to a sport made for the lowest common denominator?

With regards this coaches comments, I think they're absurd. He criticises rugby for blowing up the smallest of errors, yet his game stop 30 seconds for every 10 of play.

P_1

Hazys wrote: »

I don't think its that bad of an idea. It used to be if a team knocked the ball on the whistle blew straight away. No chance of advantage for the opposition team.

I'm sure when they changed the knock on rule to allow advantage, people complained then but I don't think you'll have many people wanting to reverting back to the old way now for the purity of the game.


His points about sacrificing the 'purity' or need for perfection of the game to make the game more exciting to a wider audience are pretty intriguing. There is definitely room to make the game less stop/start and more free flowing. Its the reason the IRB brought in advantage after the knock on rule.

The game will always need to constantly evolve.

Ah but there's a massive difference between allowing the other team to have the potential to take advantage of another team committing a foul and letting a team who has just committed a foul continue on as if nothing happened.

F1ngers

Madworld wrote: »

Edit*** Could the Mods edit the thread title please for the typo. ***

Click "Edit" and then "Go Advanced" and edit the title yourself.

Hazys

P_1 wrote: »

Ah but there's a massive difference between allowing the other team to have the potential to take advantage of another team committing a foul and letting a team who has just committed a foul continue on as if nothing happened.

Well it wouldn't be a foul if they removed the rule.

Hagz

If you told me the laws and traditions of rugby wouldn't change one iota from now till the day I die, I'd be more than satisfied.

Keep yer filthy mitts of my beloved rugby.

P_1

Hazys wrote: »

Well it wouldn't be a foul if they removed the rule.

Sure if you did that you'd basically have american football without downs.

Why do I feel like I've been suddenly transported 110 years back to when they were debating about allowing forward passes :pac:

Hazys

Hagz wrote: »

If you told me the laws and traditions of rugby wouldn't change one iota from now till the day I die, I'd be more than satisfied.

Keep yer filthy mitts of my beloved rugby.

Thats completely unrealistic.

Compare the game now to 10 years ago, completely different...not to mention 20/30 years ago.

irishbucsfan

Pudsy33 wrote: »

American football can be incredibly complex, even more so then rugby. How does this equate to a sport made for the lowest common denominator?.

Its presented in a way that hides the complexity as much as possible.

Ameeican sports are made for TV. Short bursts of action that will keep the attention of people who can't handle european sports which are drawn out over 40/45 minutes without a break. American viewers find that very hard to endure.

Hagz

Hazys wrote: »

Thats completely unrealistic.

Compare the game now to 10 years ago, completely different...not to mention 20/30 years ago.

It's unrealistic, but it's true. The only thing I wan't to change is the scrum, but you have to be very cautious when you fiddle with that as it's an imperative part of the game.

Hell, the notion of getting rid of knock ons basically eradicates the scrum. Might as well go watch rugby league if that's what you're into.

molloyjh

The direction in which the ball is allowed to travel is a pretty fundamental aspect of the game. Allowing knock-ons is a one way street to allowing forward passes and sure we're almost at NFL there already.

I've tried to watch NFL before a few times and I just can't. It's starts, no wait it stopped for a few mins. Ok here we go. No hang on its stopped again. Right lets see what this is....how the hell can they have stopped again already!? For an NFL coach to call rugby too stop-start is laughable.

Rugby is building it's support well enough, as plenty of American fans will tell you. It's certainly a lot more global a sport than American Football. So with all of the above considered I'm happy enough to ignore that article.

Swiwi.

There might be more money in NFL, but as a worldwide sport, rugby has much broader appeal, and is growing rapidly with the advent of rugby 7s in the Olympics.

Rugby clearly has more competitive nations than when I started watching rugby in the 1980s, and I think in 20 years or so, there should be maybe 15 fairly decent countries competing.

As for getting rid of knock-ons, no thanks.

P_1

Also it's worth noting that that article is nearly 2 years old. There are some aspects of american football that I wouldn't mind seeing in rugby, mainly the coaches challenge. But you could argue that that's starting to creep in with the TMO's scope being increased.

Jedwardian

NFL Coach wrote:

Some rugby officials claim they’re in the sports business, not the entertainment business, but any pro sport, if it’s televised – and you’ll be pauperized if it isn’t – is in the entertainment biz. Therefore, you have to entice the folks into watching, and keep them from switching channels.

http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/01/18/an-nfl-coach-looks-at-rugby/

This is what it all boils down to for me. In the greater scheme of things, rugby clubs aren't competing with each other, the sport is competing with other forms of entertainment be it televised football, reality shows, live music.

Rugby is a relatively young sport given that it's been professional for less than 20 years. It would be wise to take pointers from, and learn from the mistakes of, more established professional sports like Football, American Football, Aussie Rules and Rugby League on how to cater for a larger audience.

I don't agree with the coach's views about knock ons in open play and splitting the game into quarters. I do think certain things could easily be implemented without changing the fabric of the game. For example:

1. Move the goalposts to the dead ball line rather than the try line. It would basically takes the goalposts out of play and gives teams no obstruction when attacking/defending the try line. Also, penalties awarded between the 10 metre and half way line are often now within kickers range. Moving the posts back to the dead ball line would theoretically mean teams would have to go for the corner more since kicks at goal from distance may become out of range. It does a little to promote attacking rugby.

2. Modify Rugby League's 40-20 rule into a Union setting. In League, if a team kicks the ball out of play from within their own 40 metre line to within their opponents 20 metre, they get head and feed into a scrum from where the ball went out of play. In Rugby Union, this could be adapted from kicking from within the 10 metre line in your own half to the opposition 22 and the reward being a lineout on your own throw. This rewards accurate kicking and also means defences must move a player back to combat this. Less players in the defensive line makes attacking easier.

3. Re-examine the size of the ball. Ball handling in Rugby League and American Football seems, without a scientific study on my part to back it up, to be of a higher standard than Rugby Union. Balls in those sports are more pointed, lighter, easier to carry and pass. A tweak in the size of the ball doesn't change the fabric of the sport but if it reduces ball handling errors and makes the game faster and more open, it should be looked at in my opinion.

Swiwi.

Jedwardian wrote: »

http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/01/18/an-nfl-coach-looks-at-rugby/

This is what it all boils down to for me. In the greater scheme of things, rugby clubs aren't competing with each other, the sport is competing with other forms of entertainment be it televised football, reality shows, live music.

Rugby is a relatively young sport given that it's been professional for less than 20 years. It would be wise to take pointers from, and learn from the mistakes of, more established professional sports like Football, American Football, Aussie Rules and Rugby League on how to cater for a larger audience.

I don't agree with the coach's views about knock ons in open play and splitting the game into quarters. I do think certain things could easily be implemented without changing the fabric of the game. For example:

1. Move the goalposts to the dead ball line rather than the try line. It would basically takes the goalposts out of play and gives teams no obstruction when attacking/defending the try line. Also, penalties awarded between the 10 metre and half way line are often now within kickers range. Moving the posts back to the dead ball line would theoretically mean teams would have to go for the corner more since kicks at goal from distance may become out of range. It does a little to promote attacking rugby.

2. Modify Rugby League's 40-20 rule into a Union setting. In League, if a team kicks the ball out of play from within their own 40 metre line to within their opponents 20 metre, they get head and feed into a scrum from where the ball went out of play. In Rugby Union, this could be adapted from kicking from within the 10 metre line in your own half to the opposition 22 and the reward being a lineout on your own throw. This rewards accurate kicking and also means defences must move a player back to combat this. Less players in the defensive line makes attacking easier.

3. Re-examine the size of the ball. Ball handling in Rugby League and American Football seems, without a scientific study on my part to back it up, to be of a higher standard than Rugby Union. Balls in those sports are more pointed, lighter, easier to carry and pass. A tweak in the size of the ball doesn't change the fabric of the sport but if it reduces ball handling errors and makes the game faster and more open, it should be looked at in my opinion.

I don't want rugby competing with the likes of live music for entertainment. It's first and foremost a game for the players and genuine fans, and I don't think it's doing too bad at being a commercially viable product.

Definitely no to Points 1 & 2 from me, but there might be merit in examining the ball itself, although I suspect that has been done already, with the amount of technology these days.

thebaz

2 completly different games , personally I much prefer rugby , and have played rugby in US , really enjoyed it - the NFL whether on telly or live was a bit like going to the circus - not going to knock it lots of Americans love it , but has it ever produced the global excitemtment of say say france v NZ in '99 ? i do feal rugby is getting very Americanised already , for better or worse.

Jedwardian

Le vieux renard wrote: »

I don't want rugby competing with the likes of live music for entertainment.

It already is. It's competing with all forms of entertainment for our money. Do I watch the Pro 12 on RTE or Coronation Street on TV3? Do I go to the RDS to see Leinster play or the o2 for Leonard Cohen?

I'd argue that rugby isn't yet commercially viable. Just a month ago "less than half the 3,700 available tickets (for the Aviva Stadium) were sold meaning the board only managed to make €14 million after expecting to bank around €40 million". Thomond Park hasn't been a financial success. The Heineken Cup split is all about increasing revenues for English and French teams. In the Aviva Premiership, only Leicester, Northampton, Gloucester and Exeter are profitable. NZ lost about £15m on the 2011 Rugby World Cup.

Ideally Rugby would cater for the players only but that won't pay the bills. More commercialization and changing of the rules (like the poorly conceived ELVs) is inevitable to make the game more spectator and television friendly.