General Rugby Discussion

Felix Jones is God

Whatever happens to the idea being floated of saffer teams being introduced to NH competition?

DGRulz

Felix Jones is God wrote: »

Whatever happens to the idea being floated of saffer teams being introduced to NH competition?

I think that was just a threat when they were renegotiating the Super rights.

LeinsterDub

http://www.rugbydump.com/2016/08/5294/explanation-and-feedback-on-the-new-law-trials-in-place-in-new-zealand

ELVs being trailed in New Zealand

swiwi_

molloyjh wrote: »

Heaslip will still only play a max of around 16-17 games a year for Leinster though. And at least 6 of those will be in Europe. He generally only plays around 10 in the Pro12. Adding more games just adds more games without the internationals. And that just adds to the problem, solving nothing along the way.

The issues are:

1. Player Availability - this is not going to increase, at least not in any meaningful way.
2. Weaker Teams - the Italians specifically, and adding more at that level will only make it worse.
3. Lack of Money - The above issues, as well as the disparate markets, means that it isn't worth as much as a competition when compared to the AP and T14.

We need to address those issues and adding an American side or a piss poor English side or a Georgian side isn't going to address the second issue. Adding more games is only going to highlight the first issue even more. And neither will lead to more money.

For the record, I'm not selling any particular solution here. I just think that we need to think outside the box to set ourselves apart without making the issues worse or highlighting them even more.

I do wonder if we could piggy back on the summer tour schedule in some way. Send the clubs to the country the national side is touring for a few mid-week games and have return fixtures during the Autumn. I was concerned costs would be prohibitive, but surely it'd be cheaper to do that then send teams over one by one to the US over the course of the season? It's something nobody else is doing and could be sold as part of the overall Pro12 rights (and be part of season tickets too)?

From a neutral point of view

1) Insist on the top players being available at all times (injury permitting) for the Pro 12

2) Wales/Ire/Scot agree only to select from the Pro 12

3) Dump the Italians. They are viewing poison. With the odd exception, a mixture of poor quality Italians and ITM cup Kiwis on a bit of a jaunt. I'd honestly rather watch a team from America than the Italians.

I personally think the Pro 12 is in trouble, but as long as the best Irish/Scottish/Welsh players play in it, there is hope.

Kiwis are going to follow the Aviva or Top 14 though, with the number of better quality exports plying their trade there rather than in the Pro 12.

salmocab

a major problem is the Welsh, they have never really bought into it and would be off if anyone else would have them. Instead of just dumping the Italians I think a plan needs to be put in place for them to improve or pi55 off.

Clearlier

LeinsterDub wrote: »

http://www.rugbydump.com/2016/08/5294/explanation-and-feedback-on-the-new-law-trials-in-place-in-new-zealand

ELVs being trailed in New Zealand

I'm always annoyed that new rules are mostly trialled in the SH, it gives them a head start in thinking about how best to adapt to them. IIRC, it was the NH unions who didn't want the experiments in the past - I hope that's no longer the case because it's a stupid and selfish policy.

The points adjustment seems a bit strange. Basically increasing the value of a try to 9 points and a conversion to 3 under the current points system. When the points for a try were increased from 4 to 5 we spent a lengthy period of time watching defences do anything to avoid conceding a try. It doesn't take a fortune teller to foresee the same thing happening again. Contrary to what I expect is popular belief if you want to increase the number of tries in the game you'd probably have more success by reducing the value of a try rather than increasing it. It's the defending team that determine how easily tries are scored not the attacking team.

bilston

Teams that kick the ball in to touch from a penalty after the full time whistle will have to play the lineout. Is that not how 50% of games end! Some games will go on forever!

former total

bilston wrote: »

Teams that kick the ball in to touch from a penalty after the full time whistle will have to play the lineout. Is that not how 50% of games end! Some games will go on forever!

Quick tap, then boot it out.

awec

former total wrote: »

Quick tap, then boot it out.

What's the reason for this specific change? Seems odd.

Or is it the side effect of another change for another reason?

stephen_n

Can't see much difference with most of these but..


1. A breakdown is formed when an attacking player is over the ball on their feet.
2. At this point an offside line is in place.
3. The breakdown offside line for defenders is the hindmost foot.
4. Players joining the breakdown must do so from behind the offside line and join behind the midpoint of the breakdown.
5. Players joining the breakdown must bind onto any player, using their whole arm.
6. Players must be on their feet for the duration of the breakdown. (will lead to a lot on penalties)
7. A player may be in the halfback position and remain behind the hindmost foot offside line.
8. A player in the halfback position may lift the ball from the breakdown.
9. Once the ball emerges from the breakdown it has ended. (that is open to interpretation as to what constitutes emerged.)

molloyjh

awec wrote: »

What's the reason for this specific change? Seems odd.

Or is it the side effect of another change for another reason?

I would imagine it's less about sides who are in the lead ending the game and more about giving the side who is behind the opportunity for one last set piece. Or a team looking for a TBP or whatever. If a defending team gives away a penalty after the 80 it can effectively disadvantage the attacking team as they can only tap and go right now.

b.gud

awec wrote: »

What's the reason for this specific change? Seems odd.

Or is it the side effect of another change for another reason?

My guess is that it's to give an advantage to the attacking team if the defending team are trying to kill the game and give away a penalty. This way the attacking team have the option of a tap and go or kicking to the corner to try and score off a set piece

awec

stephen_n wrote: »

Can't see much difference with most of these but..


1. A breakdown is formed when an attacking player is over the ball on their feet.
2. At this point an offside line is in place.
3. The breakdown offside line for defenders is the hindmost foot.
4. Players joining the breakdown must do so from behind the offside line and join behind the midpoint of the breakdown.
5. Players joining the breakdown must bind onto any player, using their whole arm.
6. Players must be on their feet for the duration of the breakdown. (will lead to a lot on penalties)
7. A player may be in the halfback position and remain behind the hindmost foot offside line.
8. A player in the halfback position may lift the ball from the breakdown.
9. Once the ball emerges from the breakdown it has ended. (that is open to interpretation as to what constitutes emerged.)

And when a player is pulled or pushed off his feet what happens?

Swan Curry

rugby's greatest running joke is mathieu bastareaud getting turnovers, every single ruck he falls on top of it and lies there until the whistle blows, which is bizarrely often in his favour

irishbucsfan

Swan Curry wrote: »

rugby's greatest running joke is mathieu bastareaud getting turnovers, every single ruck he falls on top of it and lies there until the whistle blows, which is bizarrely often in his favour

He basically stays legal by propping himself up by resting his stomach on his own thighs, it is an art: Crouching Jackal, Hidden Fatman.

Adbrowne

RTE website article with quotes from Mark McCafferty about how lions tours in current format are unsustainable. Cant link from phone

bilston

http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/2016/0828/812452-lions/

He is basically saying the schedule is too punishing for players and that while nothing can be done for the forthcoming tour it will be up for re-negotiation for the 2021 tour and beyond. He specifically references the need for midweek matches, or at least so many midweek matches.

On the one hand I have some sympathy for his argument. However when you consider the Premiership plans to increase to 14 clubs soon then that sympathy is short lived.

In short expect Lions tours to continue in the future but they will most likely be reduced to two, maybe three warm up games and then three test matches.

One thing though, the guys that play the midweek matches are usually the guys who don't play the test matches so cutting the midweek games out will probably have a limited effect anyway.

irishbucsfan

Mark McCall is giving out about it as well. Probably best if McCafferty doesn't talk about things like this though given his reputation.

Clearlier

I'm a bit torn on this one. In its current format I can only ever see the lions being successful against a relatively weak team ala Australia last time out. The length of the tour already mitigates against the players gelling very well, making it shorter turns it into a barbarians tour in a red jersey.

The obvious solution to me would be anathema to McCafferty - we need to shorten the domestic season probably best done by reducing the number of teams in the league. I value international rugby much more highly than club rugby and I'd prioritise it. I'd be surprised if McCafferty had considered the possibility that the domestic season might be the problem and the source of a solution.

A kind of fudge would be to prevent players who had played in lions tours from playing for their clubs (same goes for normal internationals) and somehow compensate clubs who have players in these teams.

former total

What McCafferty is saying is absolutely fine, but McCafferty could say the sky is blue and people would still object.

He is absolutely right that on one hand, trying to reduce the number of games and, on the other to schedule 10 or 11 Lions games of varying significance is a bit mad. Some guys will play 6 or 7 games in New Zealand.

I don't know what the solution is, but his points are sound enough. Also, you can't shorten the domestic season for something that happens every four years.

OldRio

The cash cow needs pumping, The one and only reason it exists.

awec

former total wrote: »

What McCafferty is saying is absolutely fine, but McCafferty could say the sky is blue and people would still object.

He is absolutely right that on one hand, trying to reduce the number of games and, on the other to schedule 10 or 11 Lions games of varying significance is a bit mad. Some guys will play 6 or 7 games in New Zealand.

I don't know what the solution is, but his points are sound enough. Also, you can't shorten the domestic season for something that happens every four years.

They have played at least ten games the past three tours. This is nothing new or different.

irishbucsfan

awec wrote: »

They have played at least ten games the past three tours. This is nothing new or different.

Noone claims it is anything new of different

Clearlier

former total wrote: »

Also, you can't shorten the domestic season for something that happens every four years.

Add in the world cup and you need it every 2nd year. I'm very possibly in a minority but I want to see club rugby work around international rugby not the other way around.

former total

Clearlier wrote: »

Add in the world cup and you need it every 2nd year. I'm very ppossibly in a minority but I want to see club rugby work around international rugby not the other way around.

Not the same because the World Cup involves everyone. If you include a seven-week Lions tour for only 40-odd players in a global calendar, what does everyone else do during that period?

I would also like to see internationals getting the prime calendar slots but that's a very Irish perspective because of the hierarchy we have between IRFU and provinces. It's hard to see the AP and Top 14 rolling over for that.

molloyjh

former total wrote: »

What McCafferty is saying is absolutely fine, but McCafferty could say the sky is blue and people would still object.

He is absolutely right that on one hand, trying to reduce the number of games and, on the other to schedule 10 or 11 Lions games of varying significance is a bit mad. Some guys will play 6 or 7 games in New Zealand.

I don't know what the solution is, but his points are sound enough. Also, you can't shorten the domestic season for something that happens every four years.

I'd completely agree with you FT if it weren't for the fact that the AP are looking to go to 14 teams. The internationals would normally play 3 Tests in June every year so in reality the Lions tour only adds 2-3 games to their schedule. That's 2-3 games every 4 years. The AP want to add 4 games every year. It's hard not to look at what McCafferty says as anything other than "there's too many games in the Lions tour for us to add more games to the AP".

Also, with the money and squads the AP are developing at the moment they should be more than capable of covering the loss of a couple of players per team for 2 games or so every 4 years. The Pro12 sides have to cover proportionally far more and aren't whinging about it.

Clearlier

former total wrote: »

Not the same because the World Cup involves everyone. If you include a seven-week Lions tour for only 40-odd players in a global calendar, what does everyone else do during that period?

I would also like to see internationals getting the prime calendar slots but that's a very Irish perspective because of the hierarchy we have between IRFU and provinces. It's hard to see the AP and Top 14 rolling over for that.

It's not the same for us, it's not a huge difference for the AP - maybe an average of 2-3 players per team in world cup year instead of 1-2 in lions years.

For the teams that are greatly affected such as the Pro 12 teams I'd be looking to arrange short tours to rugby's developing countries.

Yeah, I'm well aware that it'll be a cold day in hell before the AP or Top 14 would agree. I'm being idealistic here not realistic!

I'm not considering a global calendar at all for this question. That changes everything and I think it would be potentially a real step forward but I'll believe it when I see it.

irishbucsfan

Clearlier wrote: »

It's not the same for us, it's not a huge difference for the AP - maybe an average of 2-3 players per team in world cup year instead of 1-2 in lions years.

For the teams that are greatly affected such as the Pro 12 teams I'd be looking to arrange short tours to rugby's developing countries.

Yeah, I'm well aware that it'll be a cold day in hell before the AP or Top 14 would agree. I'm being idealistic here not realistic!

I'm not considering a global calendar at all for this question. That changes everything and I think it would be potentially a real step forward but I'll believe it when I see it.

There's a massive difference between the Lions and the World Cup. The World Cup takes place during a completely different part of the calendar, outside of any international period, and the clubs are compensated financially to accomodate that. The Lions tries to sneak into the summer test window but doesn't remotely fit because they need to play touring games first.

irishbucsfan

molloyjh wrote: »

I'd completely agree with you FT if it weren't for the fact that the AP are looking to go to 14 teams. The internationals would normally play 3 Tests in June every year so in reality the Lions tour only adds 2-3 games to their schedule. That's 2-3 games every 4 years. The AP want to add 4 games every year. It's hard not to look at what McCafferty says as anything other than "there's too many games in the Lions tour for us to add more games to the AP".

Also, with the money and squads the AP are developing at the moment they should be more than capable of covering the loss of a couple of players per team for 2 games or so every 4 years. The Pro12 sides have to cover proportionally far more and aren't whinging about it.

The AP have 12 teams currently. Not 14.

Whatever about them wanting to go to 14 teams, they haven't done it yet. If they expanded and started playing extra games without agreeing with the RFU how they should be fitted into the calendar then this would be a valid point. Until then it's just blaming those clubs for something they haven't done yet, and this isn't Minority Report.

If the Lions paid out to compensate clubs they'd be perfectly happy to accomodate the team in the calendar. Just as they accomodate the World Cup. The Lions would be unsustainable if they had to do that, and the reason for that is the extra games the Lions play are not financially worth the time they take up in a packed calendar.

Clearlier

irishbucsfan wrote: »

There's a massive difference between the Lions and the World Cup. The World Cup takes place during a completely different part of the calendar, outside of any international period, and the clubs are compensated financially to accomodate that. The Lions tries to sneak into the summer test window but doesn't remotely fit because they need to play touring games first.

Yeah, I'm pushing the analogy too far. The main issue is that there's very little opportunity for players involved in the lions to have a pre-season. Would it be too complicated to compensate clubs ala the world cup and insist that they not be available to play for the first 3 weeks of the season (to cover the 3 extra weeks that the lions tour compared to national team summer tests)?

Just to add that IMO the lions need the longer tour to be competitive. Without it, I think that they stop being competitive and over time they become an anachronism.