Boring rugby to send fans packing
3 Dec 2009
Rob Andrew says the current laws make for a dull game and it won’t be long before the rugby public turn to other means of entertainment.
The Rugby Football Union’s director of elite rugby told the BBC he feels crowds will decline unless changes are made.
‘I think we’re seeing it already,’ Andrew said. ‘You just have to ask people in the game – some coaches say they’re turning the TV off when watching games.’
The ELVs were introduced in the Sanzar competitions in 2008, and the second version of the laws was implemented globally at the end of last year. There’s been a lot of criticism about how the breakdown laws and how they prescribe a more defensive approach.
The bottom line: You don’t want to get caught in your own territory because the laws favour the defending team at the breakdown. So you kick upfield.
‘There is a concern within the game. Now you’re better off without the ball than with it, which isn’t what rugby should strive for,’ said Andrew.
‘The risk in keeping the ball hand is too large. There are some fascinating stats from this year’s Tri-Nations, showing how little time South Africa had the ball yet they won the tournament.
‘In one match against New Zealand they made the lowest number of team passes in any Tri-Nations match ever, yet still won. The New Zealand scrumhalf made more than that on his own.’
There will be review of the laws early next year, but the IRB will not make any changes before the 2011 World Cup.
Martyn Thomas, the chairman of the RFU’s management board, said the support of English rugby could decline if things continue they way they are.
‘We’re all in agreement that the spectacle of the game has changed and that’s a concern.
‘There’s data to suggest that spectators are not comfortable with what’s going on. Hopefully sense will prevail if attendances dive and the spectacle is not what it should be. Clearly the IRB have to look at that.’
54 Comments
3 Dec 2009, 12:42 pm
oh well bye-bye then, enjoy rugby league.
3 Dec 2009, 12:43 pm
Pity.. cos we back to ‘playing to our strengths’
luckily for the ou doose they only going to revise these laws after RWC 2011, so Fdp and co. don’t have to retire just yet.
3 Dec 2009, 12:53 pm
What laws were used in the matches where Aus scored 4 tries against Wales and NZ v France?
3 Dec 2009, 12:55 pm
Wasn’t some of the law changes prompted by the fact that ‘too many’ tries were being scored. Basketball rugby they called it., not?
3 Dec 2009, 12:56 pm
@skopskiet: IF they made the breakdown more contestable i.e. going back to the 70′s where the ball could be contested on the ground players would be more adventurous.
3 Dec 2009, 13:01 pm
@Dantalian:
The exceptions that prove the rule…..
I’m not complaining though….The more FDP and good old Morne kick it into Robert Kearney the better….
3 Dec 2009, 13:04 pm
@Just Another Paddy: Weren’t the Boks the only team to score 4 tries in a match during the tri-nations?
How boring was the Lions series?
But yes less tries are being scored for sure.
Also not complaining.
3 Dec 2009, 13:04 pm
leave rugby how it is, idiots.
3 Dec 2009, 13:13 pm
Look I can understand how England fans are packing up and not being bothered anymore but that has nothing to do with the laws but simply because they are ****.
As far as test matches, Heineken Cup matches and even Guiness matches and CC proper matches goes the stadiums look pretty full to me…
3 Dec 2009, 13:13 pm
@Dantalian: Just shows what they can do when they decide to open it up a bit! I hate the aerial ping-pong garbage, would rather watch the Home channel…..
3 Dec 2009, 13:36 pm
I dunno, but for some reason this comment on the current state of play would have carried more weight if it wasnt coming from
ENGLAND !
@Atreides:
but I agree wholeheartedly. Im SICK of the aerial ping-pong too. RUN the fken thing !!!!
There are 1-eyed Bok supporters here who take such suggestions as a personal insult, but if they just put the monocle down for 5mins they would also recognise that keeping to that conservative gameplan is a real contributing factor behind their woeful NH tour. Fact remains that teams need to have more than just the boot and a strong fwd-pack to win games on away soil. Besides, its a crime having wingers like Habana who simply dont see any frontfoot ball.
How ironic is it now with the Poms/Brits blaming the rules for the kicking whereas less than 12mths ago they were blaming it on self-serving Kiwis/Aussies ? And the papers are full of ‘bring back rucking’, like Andrews here, and yet 12mths ago they were saying ‘leave the rules alone’.
One thing is for sure. When its the POMS saying rugby is boring, then the game is in giant strife.
3 Dec 2009, 13:45 pm
@Dantalian: Can’t make up their minds, can they? Not a fan of the aerial stuff being kicked ad nauseam. Bores the **** out of me.
3 Dec 2009, 13:47 pm
al they need to do is make the breakdown an even contest otherwise not much to change.
I am all for hands in the ruck as long as you are on your feet and on side. dont care how many hands just stay on your feet.
You will see some serious fit boys come to the fore and some strong dudes as well to clear out the ruck area.
3 Dec 2009, 13:49 pm
@Dantalian:
My comment wasn’t a dig at the boks….
The problem is endemic at all levels of the game with the exception of the All Blacks….
The Lions series was fantastic, with alot due to the intensity and passion of the game as opposed to free flowing rugby…….
3 Dec 2009, 13:50 pm
In one game RSA played 25 minutes of the game was spent lining up the ball for a penalty kick. This was a result of an up and under kick and chase.
it was vs the AB’s. i gave up watching the game not because rsa was winning but it was so boring for a 2 am game. raher best off sleeping.
3 Dec 2009, 13:51 pm
@wallabie.: Players don’t want to spread the ball out wide in case they get isolated but if they could still contest the ball or protect it on the ground you will see far more adventurous play. Negative rules make for negative play. Make it more interesting for the side in possession to attack by giving them more options with the ball on the ground.
3 Dec 2009, 13:51 pm
As a Saffa in the UK I can attest to the fact that in the eyes of the LOCALS, Rob Andrew is one of the most disliked figures in the National rugby setup in England.
All he’s trying to do with this nonsense is:
a) Justify his existence and position
b) Divert attention from English Rugby’s shite state at present
3 Dec 2009, 13:52 pm
The AB’s and to some extent the wallabies have a game plan for the kick and chase. It has taken the wallabies some time to work it our due to their young squad.
3 Dec 2009, 13:53 pm
Bring back rucking and the proper hit at scrum time.
I have a strange feeling the Super 14 will be the turning point and end to the aerial ping-pong. SH tends to set rugby trends;)
3 Dec 2009, 13:55 pm
@PissAnt:
Not hard to fill the Guiness match stadiums to be fair…they’re tiny!
3 Dec 2009, 14:21 pm
@Yetirat:
Lions crowds of late wont fill them!
3 Dec 2009, 14:26 pm
Rob Andrew can’t talk, when he was at the helm with England between 1989 -94 England played one of the most disliked and boring brands of rugby ever. There was a running joke that he finally was introduced to Jeremy Guscott after they had played 20 tests together and Guscott played outside him!.
Its simple the Abs showed it’s not just the rules to blame for the standard of rugby, there can be great games under them, judging by there performance the other night against France and also Aussie in Cardiff. A lot of it is to do with poor and lazy coaching with coaches playing safe and hoping for a win no matter what. Its a lot easier to coach one player to kick the ball high and 14 other to chase and then defend like mad and force mistakes than it is to coach a team to play counter attacking rugby from kicked ball.
In the last few autumn internationals there were a few rays of hope that a couple of teams had thrown out the wasted kicking gamelan and were starting to counter attack from the deep and these paid off for Aus and NZ. Its just pity NZ don’t have Lomu Cullen and Wilson as there back three , Aussie don’t have tune, roff and lathem and the boks don’t have Joubert , Small, and Williams, did anyone kick the ball down the middle to these guys??? no way because it was try time if they did!!
3 Dec 2009, 14:30 pm
There will always kicking in rugby and i enjoy the tactical kicking side of the game. The game is so much faster than before, yes the rucking and scrum laws must be sorted out as there is so much confusion between teams, refs and countries.
.
3 Dec 2009, 14:30 pm
@wallabie.: The only team with a game plan in the 3 nations were the Boks. Actually the All Blacks and Yellows could have had a game plan, ‘drop every ball you can’.
3 Dec 2009, 14:31 pm
@Yetirat: Ha, you right about this, tiny stadiums that you can only fit one man and his dog in.
3 Dec 2009, 14:37 pm
So, is Springbok rugby past its peak and on a downward trend, thats more worrying than taking about the darn entertainment value than the game? The IRB make so much money they struggle to spend it, so why change it – trust me – i know.
Rob Andrews is a **** anyway and said nothing about the boring game when he was at the helm. Doooooooos
Actually, this is a **** thread.
3 Dec 2009, 14:59 pm
Should have kept the ELV`s. Even the old doose got used to them and they managed to win a S14 with said rules.
Most exciting game of the year was surely the S14 final.
How the old doose cranked it up that day!
3 Dec 2009, 15:08 pm
Rob Andrew, I can make you one really boring rugby team. England.
Ouch, I forgot, you are the High Boss of that very team.
3 Dec 2009, 15:11 pm
@who cares:
Yep, and the only team with the same gameplan now is the Boks too.
Too inflexible, too rigid. A Plan B could have pulled better results in Toulouse and Dublin.
The Blacks, stupidly, ran everything from everywhere in Bloem. The smart teams learn and adapt and the Blacks havent done that since.
3 Dec 2009, 15:21 pm
There’s nothing wrong with rugby. If teams want to kick it then let them kick it. Do you want all teams to play the same generic brand of running rugby? pfft.
3 Dec 2009, 15:32 pm
The laws are fine.
Teams will adapt and start running the ball. We have this argument every year!!
3 Dec 2009, 15:36 pm
@PissAnt: PA, I have to disagree strongly with you. The boks were so succesful because the rules rewards the team that sits back and defends.
The fact that an attacker has no chance of retaining possession when tackled and isolated is concerning. The tackler can more easily can back to his feet and contest the ball.
I’m not too fond of the rugby officials and delighted that we had so much success this year, but this fundemental flaw needs to be adjusted.
And of course the nonsense with the scrums.
3 Dec 2009, 15:37 pm
@west: Westy you hit the nail on the ehad with Rob Andrew – hahaha i have also heard that joke.
Space has closed up in rugby because defences have become so good in the pro era – take NZ for example who havnt conceded a try on European soil since the French *** f**ked us in the world cup..
What has gone missing is the old adage that the ball will always beat the man. If you can clear ball quickly from consecutive rucks and speed the game up there become holes for players to run into. For example in the yawn fest at twickenham the All Blacks scored after a series of instant pick and go’s from the base of the ruck to suck the players in. All it needed then was quick hands from McCaw and the ball did all the work..
Its a teams ability not just to make it to the advantage line but to produce fast ball and put defences on the back foot. I still play the game so dont forget its alot harder than it sounds to get onto the front foot but that is the oject of the game for me…..it is all about momentum. Starting at a scrum or a lineout and building momentum before SNAP, tha pattern breaks into a flick pass, a fancy move or burst down the blind. trying it without a head of steam will make you look like the bumbling All Blacks that played 2 tests in the Republic this year.
Look i could go on all bloody night but the problem lies up front in the forwards. The rules need to change to make it easy to hold onto the ball when your team has it. In the old days you could go off your feet and seal off the ball if you were the attacking team – seal it off real easy – now you cant cause the *****’s think thats too dangerous. But would this lead to more continuity – or more killing of the ball??
Right now the 1st guy to the ruck pretty much wins the ball for his team – if its the tackler he will get it and if its your team-mate you will retain it. You see this typiaclly when teams are attacking inside the 22 and the defence fans as soon as the tackle is made. Shouldnt we be making the ruck even more of a contest so it sucks more guys in to create the outside space? No. I say make it easy to seal off and retain possesion so we see more ball in hand contact. its the players job to win the game of rugby, but sadly its now the interpretaiton and exploiting of the rules that decides matches.
P.S Springboks deserved 2009 Champs and Autumn form doesnt mean ****….until we meet again
3 Dec 2009, 15:44 pm
@NZMaori: Interesting read.
I think people tend to disagree with Rob Andrew because of who he is and not on what he actually says – which is just plain true.
3 Dec 2009, 16:07 pm
@Dumb Supporter:
Nope cannot agree to that.
The laws are quite simple and effective, where it falls flat is in the interpretation.
For instance, at the ruck situation the laws clearly state that the tackler must released the tackled player FIRST, and that the tackled player must be allowed to place the ball.
What happens is that teams support of cleaners arrive too late, or they just have piss poor technique at the breakdown (in SA especially in presenting the ball at rucks or driving over the ball which is stupid).
Dynamic rugby (pace on the ball) will always beat static rugby (the was SA plays) if executed correctly…
No defensive system has an answer to pace on attack or dynamic rugby.
In rugby, you can still only score points if you have the ball, aimlessly kicking it away serves no purpose.
Where NZ and Aus suffered this year in particular is their transgressions in their own half through stupid rugby which cost them points.
It is impossible for a team to average 200 tackles a game every game and still win.
Rugby does not favour defensive rugby in my view, it favours territorial dominance or territorial rugby but that has been the aim of the game for the last 100 years, i.e. get in their half and score points…
3 Dec 2009, 16:42 pm
@PissAnt: Naas Botha played the same game for years. Would kick onto the opposition deep into their 22 in the hope that they would kick it out and allow his side the throw in, in a more favourable position. Boring as hell rugby, yet effective.
3 Dec 2009, 19:50 pm
Nowadays its all abt winning whether its rugby or soccer bt to imagine a game were a scrumhalf makes more passes than da opposition-its jst boring. Bt when da BOKS start play passing rugby, i think u knw wat they will dominate world rugby nd lets face da fact Northern hemis teams dnt knw score tries they jst DROP GOAL ND SLOT.JST ASK JOHNNY AND SETON or SEXTON WHOEVER.
3 Dec 2009, 21:28 pm
leave the laws
deflate the ball
no more kicking
vote ed for irb president
3 Dec 2009, 21:41 pm
Robby my boy, you need an excuse for the kuk job you are doing as director of rugby. I suggest you quit now while you are losing.
We all know this law thing is ****, nearly all of the elv’s were implemented except for the sanctions that the kiwis wanted. The same sanctions that the Poms rejected because they feared losing to the islanders like they lose to the 3N teams.
I say bring back the free kick elv and allow hands in the ruck … the result will be the same 3N teams kicking 6N *** and the islanders will join in on the action too.
4 Dec 2009, 00:15 am
It is a pity it comes from Rob Andrews, because he is not wrong.
It is not so much about seeing 50 point games every week, but seeing sides play with ambition would be nice. The best game of the Autumn season was the AB v French. The ABs played total rugby. The forwards did not have it all their own way, but the backs played fantastically against the big lumps the French backs selected.
Get it back to backs that are selected to run not just tackle. Let the forwards be big & strong to bash it up.
We all just want to watch the game we grew up with, which had a bit of everything…
4 Dec 2009, 01:24 am
Well – i am sure the tune would be different if England were winning under these rules. Its not always pretty but I can recall dull affairs when we had different laws in place. Its all about the players, the importance of the game and various other factrs suhc as weather , wind etc. ITs not all down to the rules.
In my mind there are only two type of rugby to be played: winning rugby and losing rugby.
4 Dec 2009, 05:11 am
Offsides at rucks and scrum time is too blame.
Flat defense by Jake white caused the Woblies and Chokers to kick more. The defensive line at rucks should be the same as line outs, giving the back more running space. These days the forwards are breaking off the scrum early (KANO getting pinged every game) and the defensive line is always offside. Last mans feet, my ***!
As a result, you now see a lot of blatant obstructive play, ala Woblies and Rugby league, where the backs pass and run behind players who are offside. Some fat forward just hanging about in the middle of the field obsrtructing play.
Come lets see more tries but more importantly better refs.
4 Dec 2009, 07:28 am
The laws before 2007 were fine, the only good change was the 22m kick rule, IRb is bunch of plonkers, who give awards to those who don’t deserve it.
4 Dec 2009, 08:39 am
@Breakdown Boy:
Strangely enough, it’s the 22m kicking rule that’s responsible for the “ping pong” tactic. I think the rule is a good one, but the resultant consequences need to be addressed, or at least reduced. A lot of the problems are caused by the coaches, who seem to have taken the easy way out by just hoping that the other side will make a mistake when receiving the ball.
One way to make the punt ahead a bit more of a gamble is to change the “mark” rule and allow the resulting kick for touch to be treated as the kicking sides ball.
4 Dec 2009, 08:50 am
the only problem is the ruck laws. no-one, ref included, knows what the fluck is going on.
what other sport do you have the ref coaching the players on the field during a game – HANDS OFF, RUCK, HANDS OUT, ETC?
make the ruck laws simpler. anyone can have hands in as long as they are on their feet and on-side.
4 Dec 2009, 13:55 pm
Have to agree with Kev, PA, NZ Maori et al and disagree with Dumb. If you keep kicking to the opposition and they field the ball cleanly run at you and support the ball carrier you have problems. He can break through running at full pace, you have to make the tackles so you are tired and you haven’t got the ball so can’t score tries.
As has been said it works when the Wallies and AB’s can’t cope and stuff up ball after ball. But they learnt and so did the Frogs and Oirish. If you kick to a Kearney type and don’t even contest – you will be punished.
SA must evolve. Our players are not bigger or more skilled (yet). We must skill them up and concentrate on better tactics, plans, set pieces etc. As for Rob Andrew – he looked best sniffing the bottom of Lomu’s Size 15 boot.
4 Dec 2009, 15:08 pm
@the peanut gallery:
The refs know whats going on its the other refs watching TV who have no flucking idea.
Refs are not perfect but need to be consistent.
4 Dec 2009, 16:22 pm
@Dantalian:
No just too many tries against the hOme Nations, who dominate the racist Gerrymander aka IRB. What a laugh that no one supported them this week.
4 Dec 2009, 16:24 pm
@WakaNathan:
Here here! Incompetent hypocrites!
4 Dec 2009, 22:18 pm
People also say you have to win cups to draw the crowds in… Newlands has the highest attendance record in SA and reached the 500 000 mark before Loftus which had a semi final and 2 finals
6 Dec 2009, 00:43 am
I really believe the Breakdown and off side line really ruins rugby, the refs need to ping players if you havent latched onto the ball in the first 2 secs than let it go so the attacking team can keep the flow going, if you latched on within the 1st 2secs and the opposition players havent cleared you than you can lift it up to lay it back to your side or get a penalty but if the Ref states ruck formed than let go, as with the off side line too many players are coming in from the side and are making the ruck area a mess. defences are not getting back behind the most hind feet, they should play like rucks are like scrums you can only have post pillar key on both sides the backs have to be back five metres back this would really open the game up.
6 Dec 2009, 10:18 am
How about changing one simple rule – make every kick, irrespective of where it lands, markable. You kick badly, the catcher marks it, you have to retreat 10 metres and an attack is launched against you – wouldn’t this go some way to stopping aimless kicking?
6 Dec 2009, 14:39 pm
@SpringbokSarah:
The reason…loftus has seen the wooden spoon in the cabinet many more times than Newlands.
7 Dec 2009, 05:49 am
@Hooker22: Only problem with this it could slow the game down anywhere on the field, we would have to wait till teams will go back 10m from the kicker, I really think we have lineouts and scrum where the forwards have a rest now Marks, that would be no good for the game.
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.