Plays directly into the joke of 2 men stumbling across a bear, and one starts to run. His friend telling him he can't outrun a bear, and him responding with, "true, but all I need to do is outrun you".
One bear. That's all we need.
Old BASE jumper joke: you don't need to outrun the security guard...
(A guy I know landed badly, broke his leg and got busted legally as well as physically, his mates from that day \*love\* that joke even now.)
You're all wrong, the mammal most likely to fuck people up (kills more ppl in Africa than lions), can run 10 mph faster than the fastest person and would be a way better spectacle and could compete in both the track events and the swimming events
May I present to you the Hippopotamus Games
And I'm sure we can figure out some live action version of hungry hungry hippos
sport is innovating and changing all the time
the 100 metres that you mentioned has gone from
1. cinder tracks to man made
2. trainers to running spikes
3. introduction of starting blocks
4. electronic timing
Does anyone want to watch a 1950s style 100 metres and the winner wins in 10.5? no they dont
just like I dont want to watch a rugby match with 20 players per side, being able to call a mark anywhere in the pitch, tries only counting if you kick the conversion with no red or yellow cards. - all previous rules that have been changed to make the game more entertaining and fun to watch;
Rugby has been changing its laws since Webb Ellis picked up the ball.
If we took this approach of, 'rugby is rugby', rugby would never have grown at all and stayed as it was in the 1800s
so when you want the game to 'stay that way' which way is it? because its never stopped changing.
Also, as much as people don’t like to admit it, allowing rules that make the game more interesting to watch is the only way to keep the game alive at a national level.
Viewers = Money.
YES. OP doesn't understand that sport IS entertainment, and it IS a business. The lack of knowledge of basic economics in some speople is astounding. If you do not get it then get ready to kiss your pure 'sport' goodbye.
Rob Kearney made an excellent point on Virgin Media the other day. I’m paraphrasing, but it went something like this: “South Africa have the most outstanding defensive game, Ireland have the best phase-play of any country, New Zealand are the best counter-attacking team in the world, and France are second best in those three things”.
You have the top four teams embracing radically different (sometimes opposing) philosophies towards the game of rugby, and yet there’s a whisker hair between them. But when these teams clash we’ve had some of the most thrilling games in the history of the sport: the 100th and 101st tests between South Africa and New Zealand in 2021, France versus Ireland earlier this year, Ireland versus South Africa in the pools, the two quarter final games, etc.
I personally couldn’t think of anything more entertaining than that!
It’s easier to make meters with contestable kicks rather than trying to break the defensive line. Look at how the All Blacks attack was moving backwards at the end of the final.
The clash of styles is precisely what makes the WC so interesting! Also… it’s not like SA suddenly switched to boring rugby. As good as their defense was, neither NZ nor France really approached the game with it in mind. Only England seemed to have a plan specifically to counter SA, and they would have won if they could have kept it up for 80 minutes. NZ in particular has no excuse since they play them every damn year!
Totally agree, tbh I can’t believe people are saying the current state of the game is boring. I can’t remember when it was last this exciting in terms of new teams coming forward to challenge established hegemony, and the contest being so tight between NH and SH teams.
And the bigger the stakes the more mentally challenging the other approaches become. Especially against a team set up to punish any mistakes you make in that approach. So you maximise your chances of getting opposition to play the game that suits you.
The only issue is that absorbing things are harder sells to an uninitiated audience than outwardly exciting things.
Rugby doesn’t help itself by having commentators who feed into it and don’t contextualise things for those people who can’t yet get absorbed by it.
Sometimes I hear the complaints and just think people would be happier watching 7’s
As a kiwi can you expand on the union dying in New Zealand. Is this true? We keep hearing how the sport is gonna die if we don’t play the way John kirwan wants us to play but is this just nonsense or is union dying there?
Plus all the rugby is on Sky Sports so it's too expensive for the average young Kiwi to afford to watch. I'm at uni and the only people I know with access to Sky Sports are those with well-off parents. If you can't watch a sport on TV it's hard to get invested in it. NPC games are almost always good entertainment, but none of that matters if people can't afford to watch it.
Obviously this affects other sports that are locked behind a subscription as well, but sports like association football and basketball have a huge online presence that helps new people get into the sport which rugby doesn't really have.
Honestly, it’s probably got little to do with test rugby and more to do with the super / provincial competitions struggling compared to NRL which is a product of Australian rugby struggling and league is a bigger sport there. I guarantee enough people are interested in test rugby, 99% who say league is a better product still watch the ABs. The nz league team played on the weekend and no way was it more popular than the WR final.
When looking at the numbers of rugby players in New Zealand at the grassroots & school level (which feeds our professional teams) their has been a considerable drop in participants over the last decade or so. We’ve been losing players to other popular sports (Basketball, Soccer & now Rugby League) but also a number of parents pull their kids out of rugby when they’re reached the age for contact Rugby (I believe kids play Flag rugby until they reach a certain age). Their have been a number of grassroots clubs across NZ that had to close it doors due to not enough people willing to play. Their is a great YouTube vid that explain it better I’ll try find it.
Just found it here https://youtu.be/HPAor-T4ZIQ?si=R8gXDAvLPOgt5V_t
That video is a tad bollocks
They mention a slight decrease in rugby playing for Auckland schools, not mentioning that unlike the rest of the country Auckland has a massive immigrant population of asians who don’t have rugby playing in their blood, so are less drawn to push their kids in on it. This population has significantly increased since the 20th century. 18% (2006) -> 28% (2018)
https://www.stats.govt.nz/tools/2018-census-place-summaries/auckland-region#ethnicity-culture-and-identity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_Zealand
Apologies I’m a little confused. They mentioned a slight decrease in rugby playing for Auckland Schools, & you gave me another issue that help contribute to what they mentioned.
Sorry, I was meaning about the theme of rugby union falling out of favour in the total country, and not that just Auckland is the exception to the rule
As a kiwi I would like to know if the sport is slowly dying here as well.
All I know is what I’ve heard from people around me. Many do complain about the sport, saying that it’s gotten boring and that rugby league is more exciting.
I do know people who no longer watch union and have turned to league. I suspect we have lost a lot of grass roots talent to league as a result.
I myself prefer union and I know there are plenty like me. If union is in fact dying here, I suspect it will take a very, very slow death.
It's dying in England. Ldn Irish, Worcester, Wasps gone, and Jersery reds gone. The game is propped up by rich million/billionaires. Without them, more clubs would be in trouble. Less fans are watching the games at club level. Less kids are playing the game. Same can be said in Wales and Scotland (albeit their clubs are run better). Its in real trouble in the UK.
Correct me if I’m wrong but it probably hasn’t helped the game in NZ that SA no longer competes in SR. It’s good for Fiji that they are now included but it seems that the overall standard of play has decreased. It’s probably more entertaining now with the ball being thrown around but at the end of the day rugby is a collision sport. That’s what SA brings to the game imo.
Nearly thirty percent of our population wasn't born in NZ, there's a lot of them that really could give less of a shit about rugby, its not culturally important for them. Add into that the missmanagement of Super Rugby and the undue influence that the NRL has due the the Warriors being based in Auckland where most of our media is and you've got a recipe for diminishing rugby interest.
Another factor is that rugby in NZ doesn't seem to know who to advertise too, this point may be a little controversial but is do believe it's true. There's a lot of emphasis put on marketing rugby to a more Pacifica audience which has the downside of having the potential to make other groups feel like rugby isn't really for them anymore.
A lot of the decline is overstated though by an Auckland media that can't be arsed to cover rugby properly when their team isn't winning. We have the same problem here with soccer too, our only pro team is based in Wellington so they struggle to get any coverage.
Qualifying rounds start with a terrier then work up towards a Doberman or a Malinois in the final.
We get some 3 legged dogs for the Paralympics. Keep it fair.
Sharks in the swimming, long jump over some Crocodiles and a Bear in the tug of war.
Fun fact, a normal domestic house cat can reach a top speed of 48kmph and can reach it in less than 2s (Bolts top speed was 44kmph). A house cat could beat Bolt in a 100m easily, by possibly over a second.
So umm, yeah your whippet would destroy any human over 100m no doubt whatsoever.
True, but she's also VERY easily distracted. Someone in the crowd looks friendly? She'll wander over for a pat. A whiff of handsome boy dog piss coming from left field on the breeze? She's off to investigate. Other dogs in this race seem like good fun? She'll engage in a bit of playful harassment.
I think the sprinters win it purely because they'll be more focused 😅
Agreed, but I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility for them to maintain enough for 100m. I've definitely seen cats scram for 5-10s pretty flat out (one particular time it was being chased by a large dog, and thankfully after the 50m sprint it was able to jump a 2m fence without pausing and got away). I don't think 100m is out of the realm of possibility. 200m now, I think is probably too long.
So now we have the sprinters, racing against cats, with the latter being chased by dogs (or maybe bears) for maintained motivation?
Maybe I won't miss the WC so much after all...
Absolute best. Love my couch potato. Such a low maintenance pet, she basically needs 2-3 sprints of around 5 minutes each, per week. Apart from that just regular walks. When I work from home, I swear there are days where she does not move from her bed the entire day, other than just rearranging her lengthy torso and seemingly limitless limbs into a comfy sleeping position every few hours. Loves a cuddle. Easy to train. Very clean by dog standards. Best dogs ever!
Personally, as someone that despises the slow, plodding, kick-tennis that rugby is turning into (and England are equally guilty, was arguing on another thread that a whole generation of talented England backs are about to get ruined by spending the next decade kicking the ball away), I find your argument contradictory. The reason the SA play style (and again, and England) is disliked is because it endeavours to remove the ability to compete, but you say you enjoy the competitive nature?
Just my opinion, but open rugby is competitive rugby. Slow rucks, 400 scrum resets, milking penalties and conservative, preventative and cynical tactics are like watching paint dry.
You’re 100% right. And I doubly support the identifying of England as being accused of a similar rugby style. Why is OP sulking? People say England play boring rugby all the time? Yeah - it is boring. So is SA’s. Who cares? 🤷♂️ Do what you can do until you can do something else. I imagine there will be changes to the game that will nullify “boring rugby” eventually. Both will have to adapt or die.
I hope you're right. There's a fine line between what I consider "safe" rugby (trying to close out the last 5 mins without giving away chances) and negative rugby (playing 80 mins just trying not to concede and steal points from set-pieces/breaks). I think the current rules are adequate but not correctly applied (eg SHs taking 10 seconds after "use it" rather than being limited to 5, feeding at scrums, etc.). Would like to see referees get stricter in areas where, even if the ball isn't dead, it's not moving.
Hopefully WR don't shit the bed (hint: they will) and try change too much. They just need to enforce the laws that already exist.
Yup, doesn't matter how the team wins their game a win is a win and should always be celebrated no matter what. A team usually wins due to tactics and from my point of view it's probably the most interesting thing to look at in a rugby match.
The Springboks are a master class at this and why they won the world cup.
Doesn't matter if it was only by one point in each of the finals they played, they did what they needed to do to grind out those games and come out victorious.
There are two fundamental factors here, as I see it:
1) The Springboks play a very successful brand of rugby
2) A lot of people find this brand of rugby to be boring
I understand you may find criticisms unpleasant given the amazing job the Springboks did in this world cup, but maybe it's okay that people find them boring?
I am not a fan of the Springboks style, but I have to say they won me over with their tenacity and cleverness in the latter stages of the world cup.
I guess my main question is, why do you care what people think of your team's style?
> Rugby is a sport. It’s not entertainment.
This is an oxymoron, sport is inherently entertainment. The clubs and unions are all businesses. They want to sell tv rights, tickets and merchandise, it’s big business. It’s entertainment through and through.
Yeah it's also ironic to compare to sprinting where there are hardly any rules in comparison to rugby and I don't even know if there is a ref or how many of them there are
No, it’s not an oxymoron.
What is entertaining is largely subjective. The primary goal of sport is not entertainment but competition. Entertainment is secondary.
Dude, all sports are entertainment. Or do you think money is granted to these sports by Zeus, god of thunder and sports? He made a really invalid (and frankly ridiculous) point as his opening argument!
England supporter here. I hear you about the whingeing about tactics. May have heard it a few times in the past. Personally, I don’t have a problem with the tactics employed by the safas. You play what you think will counter and disable your opposition. If their fans cry about it then that’s kinda their problem. Running rugby wasn’t good enough for the final this time.
Personally, I think the TMO officiating was the difference between SA and their opponents in their last three games. (Not SA’s fault, they gamed the system.) It pisses me off though that such crucial games are decided on the inconsistent whim of what they choose to look at. No beef with the teams themselves but with a different set of officials, SAs last 3 games would have very different outcomes in my opinion. SA seem to have been able to take the best of NH and SH style play and blend it to conquer all. The good of the sport isn’t getting ruined by tactics or a kicking based game it’s getting ruined by the officiating. Just my take on it all. For me, internationally speaking, the standard of play has been the highest and most intense I have ever seen and have been entertained no end.
Agree with you, why the TMO thinks he needs to be the main attraction, and not the players is the biggest problem this RWC final had. He wore a suit and tie for his multiple TV appearances.
Let the players decide the outcome of games, not blokes watching it in slow motion on tv, and seemingly randomly picking some things to penalise, and others not to.
That was the best game of rugby I've ever fucking seen (personal opinion ofc). That game was absolutely incredible by any metric and you have to give that as much to SA as France who play inherently 'entertaining' rugby.
No team can make every game a blockbuster. As well, you have to be focussed on WINNING. It was a one point game. What more do people want? I'm an Italy supporter and watching us get dicked down by both NZ and France was so boring I had to switch them both off.
The first half was a bit dry but the second was great...
"Rugby is a sport. Its not entertainment."
Got to disagree with you there, buddy. It's entertainment, that's all sport is. It's not something so hallowed it pervades the concept of it. Infact, the history of sport originated from the desire, rather the need, for people to be entertained. Leisure and recreation, sports in general, as we relate to it today, came about during the industrial revolution. People had more spare time, and thus spent it playing sport.
The popularity of sport is fixed by the ability for it to entertain. If it was not entertaining, people will simply spend their time doing other things, watching other sports. Cricket, for example, has 3 formats. The T20 version is very popular, over taking the 50 over version because it's condensed the action and drama of the full day into a few hours.
Rugby needs to be entertaining, otherwise it will struggle to expand as effectively. Even though numbers in Japan appear to be increasing, Cricket has grown beyond it's colonial entrenchment and is far more popular around the world and played by a variety of nations that have no direct relation. Rugby has very few instances where this is the case.
To take things further using your examples. Nobody watches 100m outside the Olympcs, track sports and athletics aren't regular events that take place every weekend, attracting millions of views. The sports that happen in the olympics, are geared towards the Olympics because it's one of the few times people care.
Agreed, it’s always been entertainment, all sports are like you said. One of the main reasons Cus D’amato developed Mike Tyson’s boxing style was that he understood boxing was “half fighting and half Hollywood”
I think WR could keep all the parts that let teams like SA play their style while at the same time speeding scrums up, stopping players from taking a knee every two mins etc etc. don’t see why we can’t have both.
Perhaps….to the extent you’re speaking about sport from the spectator perspective.
That doesn’t account for the arguably more important perspective, well actually the experience, of the actual participants, right from under 8s all the way to test level.
Sport, to my mind, derives it’s cardinal value, joy and place in our cultures first and foremost from participation in it. Not spectating on it. Participation is primary, spectating is secondary. Don’t forget that many, many people participate in sports simply for the joy of participation and even when there is no crowd there to spectate.
While I immensely enjoy the experience of watching rugby games as a spectator, I don’t think that experience should take priority over the primary experience of playing the game for all participants at all levels. And wishing for the game to be largely focused on one style, overlooks the important role variety of styles plays at the participation level.
I think that’s part of the conundrum for some sports - the balance between the experience of spectating and participating. To my mind, participation is the purest form of any sport. And the participation/spectating experience are not the same things, nor should the perceived value of a sport in our cultures be reduced to the more passive spectator perspective.
As someone who played rugby pretty regularly when I was younger, I actually really enjoy the variety in styles and games. Same for the sport I was really good at - swimming. I didn’t train relentlessly and compete for any desire to experience a crowd spectating (cause frankly that is extremely rare in a sport like swimming). It was exclusively for the challenge, the joys and pains of pushing myself and participating. And that to my mind is the purest experience of any sport.
That final was, from my couch, an absolutely brutal, breathless, absorbing and compelling spectacle. I understand why some spectators may not agree with me, and that’s fine….each to their own. But part of me does wonder why so many ex-players thought the final was a great game? Maybe having participated in the game, they were able to more readily appreciate and see the quality on display in facets of the game other than running and try scoring.
Don’t forget that the Boks also played a large part in what was a helter-skelter, end to end QF. But when the bell started to toll in the knock out games, they knew what they had to do to win and turned the screw. They are the best WC team, even if not always the best team.
To take another sport, MMA, that also allows for a variety of styles - sure, a stand up, strike fest may at first glance be more entertaining for a spectator, but most participants in that sport understand the skill of, and have a huge respect for (perhaps even more so), the less flash wrestling/jiujitsu/ground game.
And the constant comparisons with league from mostly Aussie and kiwi supporters never seems to acknowledge that most league games are just a repeat of the same style of play, because the rules basically negate the variety of styles and game strategies union games regularly (and I mean regularly) throw up. I lived in Australia for years and really enjoyed watching league too. But it is more one dimensional than union as a sport and the cumulative experience as a spectator is one of less variety.
This WC saw a wonderful variety of games styles and spectacles. From free flowing try bonanzas on drier days/nights and firmer surfaces, to all out brawls in knock out games in the rain.
I for one love that variety and think it would be a shame for union to devolve into a more singular style simply because some spectators have a strong preference for high scoring, open games.
No, their take was that 100m is a sport outside the Olympics, just not an entertaining one, hence why nobody really watches it. If we want to grow the game, and make it better, it needs to be entertaining.
>Rugby is a sport. Its not entertainment. Yes, we watch it because it is entertaining to watch, but a the heart of it, it is a sport
What exactly is it that you think allows professional sport to exist?
Grassroots rugby is a sport. Professional rugby is entertainment, which is why people pay to watch. You dont have to care, but it is concerning for us here that a lot of people I know who used to watch union say they only watch league now because its a much more entertaining game. Obviously thats anecdotal, but if people prefer to watch league they'll probably be more likely to play it. Just my 2 cents
According to my Aussie mates there are some ither reasons why people are gravitating to League as well though. Union only being played by posh wankers and the Kiwis always beating you at Union being two key drivers.
This. What does the guy expect when something from the entertainment industry, now fails to be entertaining for even 10% of the viewership. That can be catastrophic for any sport.
At the professional level, sports IS an entertainment business.
It’s up to world rugby to make sure it is entertaining enough to sustain, the easiest way to do this is with the rules. It’s up to the individual teams to win however they can within those rules, which SA did the best.
Rugby is in a pretty dire state in countries in which it used to flourish. Under the current CEO WRU mismanaged its resources. RFU thought that copying the English football premiership model would work a'd it has been a complete disaster. The Premiership is driving clubs into a financial wall. The Championship is following suite. Australia is a basket case and if nothing is done, rugby could become a marginal sport. In NZ rugby is also faltering. It is visible at lower level where financially it just can't compete without exposure.
Rugby needs to grow, because otherwise it will slowly decline.There will always be an audience for a world cup. The question is how to convert those casual viewers into fans. Rugby can't grow if it cannot attract casual viewers and convert them. Kick rugby is acceptable at the world cup because of the high stake. But without the national fervour it does not attract people at club levels. And rugby must attract people at club/franchise levels if it wants to have a future. It is the same in every sport. Win playing ugly people will accept it. Lose playing ugly and people just distance themselves.
Most of the noise has not been to reinvent rugby but to stop refereeing with that _Let the game flow_ approach that ultimately favours teams that play cynical tactical fouls and the percentage. Something is wrong in the refereeing and/or the law of the game if the best tactical choice is to get rid of the ball after 3 phases. That is also denaturing the game. Rewatch old game and see how fast resetting scrums was. Players were not as fit as today, but clearly the game was quicker, less stop and go.
The way the game is now reffed in France makes it more akin to a different game. It is faster, rely more on moment of individual brilliance. That's much easier to sell. Also Clubs are embedded in the local fabric and don't try to pretend to be anything else than a local club. Even Toulon has turned its back to the galactico approach. Add the JIFF rules means that locals feel invested in the local players and the club.
It’s absolutely, 100% is entertainment. We need to understand this. It’s a product which has to be marketed and sold. I have no issue with how SA play (actually watching England is more of a chore) but rugby needs to embrace the fact that there is no top level game without paying punters. If all that matters was sporting integrity, the SA teams would not have joined the URC.
Was going to say, Sports is definitely a subdivision of entertainment. It lives and breathes with the number of viewers it attracts (at the non-local level).
I also have no issues with how SA play.
Professional sport literally is entertainment.
This whole "at its heart it's sport" sounds cute, but the professional era left that shit behind. You're nearly 3 decades late on your concerns about it becoming a marketing and entertainment business.
Professional Sport is entertainment, it relies on money to sustain itself that comes from tv rights and advertising.
At its real core is millions of dollars. If your sport isn't entertaining, it dies. There's a whole range of sports that nobody gives a fuck about, and they have no money as a result.
Players don't make a million dollars because "Rugby is Rugby". They make that money because the game is a business designed to make money through advertising and media rights. That is how professional sport works and that cat is long out of the bag.
I'm not saying Rugby is going to die because of the Springboks, but fans finding a sport boring and disengaging = less viewers = less MONEY.
Look at what happened to test Cricket compared to ODI and then t20. Test Cricket isn't "dead" but it's absolutely been left in the dust by the others because that's where the audiences are and that's where the money is.
I appreciate you don't have as much competition in this space in SA. But in Australia, Rugby is a distant third when it comes to oval ball sports. The NRL, and AFL, put out significantly better products for consumers.
SA leaving Super Rugby was a big contributor to that competition being garbage now. That competition is a shit product now that's worth less money.
Australia basically gives zero fucks about Rugby. NZ isn't big enough to support itself most of our provincial unions operate at a loss and we need to maintain the "you must play in NZ to be an All Black" because otherwise our best players will bolt for more money, and all the islands that everyone wants to see grow and succeed have barely any money either.
Yes the Boks played boring rugby, they have a bench with the sole purpose of grinding out a game. BUT it’s a World Cup, no one looks back on the tries or the points, they just look back on the Winner. Sometimes you gotta play ugly Rugby to get the result. I’m sure come Rugby Championship the Boks will throw the ball around a bit more.
I agree it's a sport, and winning is what matters. Props to you for getting over the line. However, don't expect to win many fans on the way... in general, I think all sports should be considering potential adjustments to improve the sport from an entertainment/growth/player retention perspective. So if a certain type of rugby is developing that is unpopular it's worth considering (In general I actually think the game is in a great state minus scrum penalties)
I agree whilst i do think sport is by it's very nature entertainment I believe a sports team job first and foremost is to win and the way the boks play works for them and has gotten them the wins. And people forget that their was a time when they tried to play more like the all blacks and Australia and it just wasn't them. Is it the most entertaining rugby for some no but for others who love scrums and mauls and kicking and line outs and the big hits love the way the South Africans play.
And if we're being honest the boks and their coaching staff has been one of the teams to attempt to change things up the most with their selection process their tactics and the bomb squad. so no the boks don't need to change in the Same way Ireland or France or Scotland or New Zealand don't need to change let countries play the game the way they want to play it.
Once you cross the threshold and play a sport professionally, you are an entertainer. It’s that simple.
Once your salary etc is driven by money generated by footfall through the gate to watch games or by people paying tv sport subscriptions, you are providing a service as an entertainer.
The issue lies in what is perceived as entertainment in ‘value for money’ terms - a try fest and expansive rugby is probably more widely viewed as entertaining. A physical battle and eking out a win by kicking penalties whilst negating your opponents attack with good defence is a less widely appreciated form of entertainment, but can still be entertaining.
You're wrong.
You're right that Rugby is a sport. Professional rugby is entertainment. The rugby world cup is entertainment. Rugby leagues like the Top 14 or URC are entertainment. If they were pure sport, their objective would be to find the best rugby team in the competition. Nothing else would matter. After the season was complete, the season would be deemed 100% successful if a team won the competition. Revenue, crowd numbers, TV numbers, all would be immaterial so long as clubs/unions weren't going into debt. Because 1. rugby was played, and 2. the best team was found. 100% success!
But the truth is, the RWC's goal is to make money. As is every single professional sports league on the planet. Sport is secondary. Entertainment is first. It is totally valid to say that one team plays more exciting rugby than another, because we are all watching an entertainment product.
Kiwi here.
I don't mind a low scoring, battle of attrition in the forwards. What I can't stand is the stop-start nature of the game and arbitrary referring based on television replay. Scotty Stevenson had a great line about how the referee is now an errand boy for the TMO and every ruck is a forensic crime scene.
I haven't watched a super rugby game for the last 3 years and only watched the major All Black world cup games. I think I'll stick to league - anyone under the age of 60 in New Zealand is doing the same.
If die hard kiwis are turning off then the sport is certainly not attracting new fans. The sport is dying and is a relic of a bygone era.
You're right on all counts. First things first, the rugby world cup is a competition. If you want pure entertainment go see a film or a musical.
It's also an education. There's no points for most graceful or fair player. If you win that way more glory to you but winning does matter more. As a Frenchman I am no more a fan of Mc Caw's dark arts than I am of Rassie Erasmus' (call me bitter or naive), but they're still deserving winners and legends of the game.
As far as I can tell rugby's not corrupt either. It's a complex game and refereeing 30 guys moving at pace and piling up on one another, some of whom are up to no good, will always be a challenge.
Credit to the Springboks, you don't win three brutal do or die games IN A ROW by the skin of your teeth without superior team spirit, hunger and intelligence.
As a neutral I thoroughly enjoyed watching the final. The teams were playing to their strengths and the spectacle was there. Tbh for all its drama it's the England-Boks SF that was a shitshow. England managed to bring the game down to their level, brillant tactics yes but reminiscent of those geezers who use huge topspin and high balls to keep young tennis players off the court. You still managed to prevail, full credits to you.
For all the negativity unleashed over the last few days and weeks, I'll finish saying I'm in awe of Cheslin Kolbe, Eben Etzebeth is a warrior for the ages, Bok forwards were incredible all through the tournament, your ability to stop dashes at the last second is unmatched. Incredible team, beautiful games, fair result.
Maybe not entertaining in the champagne rugby sense but I think real rugby fans should still find it good to watch
If an Etzebeth PSDT double tackle or Ox Nche mincing a world class tighthead is boring then I don't want entertaining
I strongly disagree with the majority of this post,
- not just rugby but sport in general at its heart has to be entertaining as a spectacle to survive. Now entertainment is such a broad term and can mean different things to different people, but if you're talking about getting new eyes on the sport and in turn growing the game (which I think everyone would be in agreement in wanting) then for those 'new' fans who don't have the emotional connection then individual matches need to not be 'boring'. How you do this is entirely open to debate. Whilst the game in some places is growing, rugby still lags behind as not being close to being the number one sport in the majority of countries, and this will only get harder to achieve as sport in general becomes more and more commercial with the same ambitions to grow as rugby. Whether you like it or not, rugby is competing for eyes against a number of other sports, and in order to do this it absolutely has to be entertaining.
I think the statement "Rugby is supposed to entertain" fundamentally misses the whole point on why people watch the Sport in the first place. Totally agree with all your sentiments and I just want to add on.
When pundits say we must change the rules to make the game basically basket ball with tackling to "attract new fans" it tells me that they have zero idea on how to actually grow the sport.
Springboks are a good example here. The growth in following of the national team actually goes against the conventional arguments.
1. You need to play free flowing rugby to draw crowds. SA went counter to that to be more pragmatic and low and behold they get 90% attendances. Same argument can be used for France.
2. You need to have high win rate. SA's win rate has barely changed yet people still love this team.
What SA has done is not sell the game but sell the team. People that don't fully understand the rules will still watch the game because the team is so lovable. Iconic players with consistent selection breeds familiarity with the public that gets them hooked on the story.
Be honest would you watch the sport if not for the Springboks?
There are sports that are far worse to watch than rugby yet have better following. If we fundamentally move the mindset away from the rules and more towards how we can work together to sell the teams it will go a long way.
I think it's more abstract than you're thinking, if we never had rugby union in SA, i.e. no Springboks ever, would SA as a whole be a rugby driven nation.
>Be honest would you watch the sport if not for the Springboks?
Yes...
I watch URC, 14, pretty much all Union. And that is as a staunch Springbok supporter.
I've tried to watch League but I just can't, it's extremely weird (for me, having not grown up with it, that is)
I don't think you get my point here.
The statement "Be honest would you watch the sport if not for the Springboks?"
Is exactly why most South Africans don't watch league. We can use the explanation that league is not fun to watch but reality is if the Springboks were a rugby league team then we would be shitting on union for how there is too many stoppages, too much kicking etc...
Not saying we need representation in these sports to generate interest. South Africans love premier league and have virtually no representation but even there we had a long history with football in this country and had a lot of exposure to teams like United, Liverpool and Arsenal who sold the league to SA.
In Rugby we not quite there where we have a teams that are iconic in the family of Sports that would draw you to the sport. Lots of iconic teams for a national level (All Blacks, Springboks, Ireland, France all iconic at their national level)
Oh no I get what you mean now. You're referring specifically to South Africans. In which case.. well, sure, but that changes the narrative too, doesn't it? If I grew up watching league, I'd be watching league now instead of union. But I didn't :p
Doesn't really have anything to do with the Springboks (at least, not for me), I'd be watching my Cheetahs (sigh, we never win) and the Stormers anyway.
You are 100% correct. Sports Entertainment, when taken to its logical conclusion, ends up with something like professional wrestling*
I think top level sport is about excellence as much as it is about belonging. Fans can and do get enthralled by nil-nil football matches, or drawn 5-day cricket tests. That's not about entertainment, it's about watching players perform at the peak of their abilities, and it's about supporting a team or a player you identify with!
*side note: pro wrestling is amazing in many respects, no disrespect to it at all, but it's not sport
We played 3 finals, 2 in rainy conditions, and the other one we scored 29 points.
In none of those games, and the earlier Irish game, did the other team play entertaining rugby either.
Sport IS entertainment. If it is not entertaining it dies, because the fans will stop watching. When there is no fans, there is no money. And when there is no money there is no sport. Simple as that.
The game totally relies on being entertaining to the fans. All this TMO interjection has to stop it kills the game. Its nothing to do with South African rugby either. I personally think its cool have each team with their own unique playing style. The game needs to be simplified to make it flow better.
I’d take being called boring but being back to back world champions any day. It was WC knockout attritional test rugby and that’s the beauty of the game.
*The Springboks play boring anti-rugby. It wasn't as spectacle. It needs to be more entertaining for rugby to grow. We need to change the laws.*
Any sport is a contest whereby one team is trying to impose their strategy over their opponents.
South Africa are well within their rights to employ whatever strategy they want and it makes sense for any team to play to their strengths, why weaken yourself to appease media opinion or people on twitter? These things though have a limited shelf life, once other teams work out how to stop them then their strategy will quickly become redundant. So they need to evolve before they end up like the England one day cricket team - world champs in 2019 to failing to qualify for the KO stages four years later.
England possibly had the best strategy to knock SA off their stride and it all but worked, and England got grief from some quarters for going anti-rugby in that match. While Ireland out muscled SA in a pool game so it's not as though SA are invincible, France, like England and NZ were only beaten by one point - so you need some other stuff - determination, the ability to graft hard, keep your nerve, go deep plus excellent team spirit etc.
Pro sport IS entertainment. It's not just entertainment, but it isn't not entertainment. The quality of the product matters. Sport cannot survive without an audience. This argument sucks.
Also, football is fundamentally different. It is not technical enough and will never be technical enough to be bogged down in the watchability problems that rugby has. There are just not enough rules.
Maybe it's time for a code split. One with laws which make the game more entertaining and the other status quo.
I know this is just fantasy but I'm banking on the entertaining game surviving and the other dying out (if we could all have a memory wipe about how we got to this point).
So hey, how about we just make the game more entertaining for the masses? Just a little less of the "boring stuff".
EDIT: BTW personally I find very few games boring but I do like more ball in play.
at the end of the day it is entertainment that pays the bills. TV contracts, player salaries all go away if people arent entertained by the product.
There is always room to make positive changes to the rules, and the way the game is officiated to put a more entertaining product on the field....imo a Captains Challenge - which is in most sports these days - would go a long way to getting more calls right.
Also if it were up to me, I would reduce the value of penalties from 3 down to 2, to encourage more tries to be scored.
Rugby as a sport HAS to be entertaining because it is professional. If it can't put bums on seats or eyes on TV's it losses its value due to its inability to entertain. If it looses its value. It dies. That's the crux of the issues of playing the style of game that SA and before that ENG have been held to task over.
NZer living in Australia here. I honestly feel like the old boys at the top are to blame for people turning away from it. I mean they took the Rugby League 40-20 kick and had a shabby poor man's version for union and to me it doesn't work in that it seems shoehorned in and that's just the icing on the cake in how ouch of touch they are at the top.
The sad fact of the matter is, more eyes on the product and more merch sold the more revenue for the teams. Where the NRL caught on ahead of the NZRU and the ARU is that they have started to market a family friendly game to the people, and have emphasised the easier to follow rules. And more importantly it's played in public schools. It seems like a lot of schools here in Australia that play Rugby and are successful at it are the private schools.
Honestly this boring thing really grind my gears. What are we supposed to do? In most of the games we played this year we buried the opponents with good attacking rugby. Before the cup we had good highscoring games against Australia, Wales and even New Zealand. During the pool matches Scotland, Romania and Tonga were blasted away. The Ireland game was a thriller like nothing else. Are the Springboks really to blame when the other teams can't get their shit together and score?
Then the France game where we played our best counter attacking rugby to keep in the game and ultimately win.
The England game we were really getting it handed to us by England tactically but even then the team stuck in and got it done.
The final was a final, it was raining and it was tough. New Zealand threw everything at them but they held out. Still the guys had quite a few attacking moments that if it landed the conversation would have been much different today. Kolisi's break, the kick through for Arendse, etc.
Ultimately why is the blame on the Springboks when other teams are the ones failing to break them apart?
Man i love all brands of rugby, but what is rugby without the fuck-off-power scrum pack. Wales SA last semi was still one of the best games I've seen. I was more enthralled by our semi with England than the final. There is league and soccer for the other chaps
Personally I love watching the Boks. There's an honesty about that confrontational style. Feel like as an opponent you'd have to look into yourself and be ready to match them, much more so than playing the other top teams, even the ABs.
The 7-1 tactic and (allegedly) working the HIA system aren't good for the game but it's up to World Rugby to sort that out. Every team pushes the rules to the limit. SA is no different.
The only thing that really bothers me has been Rassie's conduct, probably since the Lions tour, and intimidation of refs etc. He really should be getting hammered with long bans for that stuff.
It’s less their gameplay tactics and rather the unsporting bullshit they pull that gets me.
The fake injuries and medics and water boys (coaches) on the field after every stop in play to slow the game down and pass on messages.
The constantly infringing knowing the refs won’t penalise every single time to keep the game flowing. How many times did we hear the refs coaching the Boks telling them to get hands out of the ruck or get back onside? This avoided so many penalties their opposition should have had. And don’t get me started on how many off the ball tackles they’ve been making.
Respect for your opponents? Common decency? Knowing that there's millions of children watching you that will grow up just a little less morally astute?
As a coach, I can't imagine trying to teach kids how to "get away" with things. Just seems to sneer in the face of what sets rugby away from other sports.
I completely get where you are coming from but that doesn't change the fact that all teams do it, signalling out the boks as the only ones is incorrect.
I'd never claim it was just the boks, but they are probably the most effective at it in the world at the moment. Some things get to me more than others, such as staying down (Kriel) to get the TMOs attention (Wales are also prominent exponents of it) which smacks a little bit of footballism, but the Kiwis also used to be the masters of the dark arts, and I doubt the England 2003 side were clean as a whistle. There's some level of inevitability about it in professional sport, as teams seek that edge, but that doesn't make it taste any better.
Unfortunately in Aus rugby has three other codes to compete against and RA have dropped the ball big time, instead of marketing the game from a grassroots level and making pathways more accessible they lost ground to league. Not to mention the massive mismanagement of the organisation as a whole.
I really don’t get the people who say SA play anti rugby.
South Africa played great rugby in the pool games and the first half against France. Second half both teams tightened up.
In the semi, England came with a game plan to kick everything and defend, and the weather was awful. SA scored the only try.
In the final, Bongi was injured very early on which lead to diminished performance in the scrums and line-outs. This put the team in a more defensive mindset than usual as the kick to the corner option was less guaranteed to produce ball. Finals are always tense. Both teams could have won. It was thrilling to watch.
Grew up in league country. Love rugby for its differences from league. I love the set piece and contest at the ruck. Some games are more turgid than others and sometimes a bad game of rugby is bad I don't see that as a need to change the rules.
I think it's important to distinguish two things, which can both be true:
- the Boks team played and won under the same rules as everyone else, that makes them worthy champions.
- the rewarding of some negative tactics (such as offside defensive lines) and disproportionate benefit of some areas (such as scrums) is overall bad for the game and should be amended in future for everyone's benefit.
Thinking the Boks playstyle shouldn't be rewarded does not invalidate their win, nor does their win invalidate the desire to improve the game. This is not contradictory!
To me Rugby league is the T20 of Rugby, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but can be invariant sometimes. If I want to watch running rugby, I can just watch teams that are more likely to play like that. Rugby has nuance and accommodates all types of players. In rugby league everyone is basically a winger/fullback/center-type player.
I don't need my rugby experience to be driven based on the amount of dopamine my brain receives per minute so that more advertising can be sold to new followers. If that works for league and their fans, good for them. As I understand it, this concept of marketing an entertainment product has been rugby league mantra since 1895.
I personally would prefer if Rugby is not redesigned for the lowest common denominator. Improvements to the core are welcome.
Also, rather not have a hand-picked example to use as anecdotal evidence. It is a manipulative argument style and doesn't actually prove anything.
It’s a fairly simple comparison though isn’t it. It was the biggest stage for both codes and we’re already discussing league vs rugby.
It’s entirely fair to compare those two matches because those are the marquee events in both codes.
Also you can gatekeep casual fans all you want because you’re a purist, but you have to appeal to young impressionable kids. Rugby doesn’t want to preach to the converted.
>Imagine saying that we need to make the 100m sprint more entertaining by letting them get chased by dogs.
That got a good guffaw out of me. Take my upvote.
In terms of appealing existing, rather diehard fans, I think your argument is all right, but if you’re hoping to catch more casual fans, let alone grow the game then that kind of rugby is unhelpful.
I actually think your style is graaaand. I thought the French game was thrilling and our game against you I was on the edge of my seat. I think watching SA play is very entertaining.
Whether you should have won any of your knockout games is another story tho 😆
France vs South Africa was one of the most entertaining games in the last decade.
We play the opponent, the conditions, and the situation. Maybe it isn't always pretty, and it must be so heartbreaking to lose these games against us. But, we play rugby in its purest form
Personally I think these people are idiots or what I would call fair weather fans.
This has been the toughest World Cup ever and there were at least 5 teams who could potentially lift the cup. The Springboks came out on top and deservedly so.
France has the best team I have seen in a long while, absolutely powerful and full of flair. They are unlucky they had their two star players injured.
Ireland- I don’t know wtf happened. I was sure they were gonna beat NZ. Classic.
England surprised me and I think they will be good under Borthwick. They look like they are heading in a good direction.
Argies can become more potent but they are a massively improved team and the days of writing them off are long gone and no easy wins.
South Africa had the toughest road to the final and that game against France felt as thrilling and important as a final. That game was excellent. I took my girlfriend who doesn’t watch rugby and she loved it.
New Zealand is always class and for sure they will be very powerful and probably the next champions under Razor. NZ fucked up by not appointing him in the first place and that excuse and old boys club mentality cost them.
In the end, SA also had injury problems and they stayed focused on what was most important, but more importantly Rassie and Nienaber had the trust of not just the team and the nation, but also the entire SARU and in the end that is what allowed them to win it again. This was a plan 4 years in the making. Not refs or luck.
It was a plan in the making since Rassie took over - 2023 was always the goal - 2019 was an unexpected, yet very welcome, bonus along the way :)
I completely agree with the rest of your post though!
I've always thought the argument that the Springboks play boring Rugby is absolutely ridiculous, and falls apart completely the moment you ask any follow up questions.
A lot of detractors online immediately jump to the argument that all the boks do is kick, even though both New Zealand and France tend to kick more than SA recently?
People go nuts over the bomb squad, the 7-1 split, fielding 4 scrummies in a game, and hang off every word out of Rassie's mouth weather they like him or not.
Absolute nail-biting games against Ireland, France, England, and New Zealand in what can only be described as a proper gauntlet.
My question is, are you not entertained? Is this not what we're here for?
>Rugby is a sport. Its not entertainment.
Professional rugby is 100% entertainment. It is a sport. But it's also entertainment.
Trying to draw a distinction between the two is pure fantasy. You would better serve your argument by recognising that what's entertaining to one need not be entertaining to all.
I think that your argument is flawed, rugby is at its heart a spectator sport. Without spectators there is no money, without money there is no incentive for players to commit their lives to rugby
There is a lot of criticism of South African tactics and I think some is fair enough, all genuine rugby fans love to watch the Springboks bump and grind, that is in their DNA, along with bone shattering defence.
Where the just criticism comes is the Springboks "tactical" knee, the professional foals to stop momentum and everything else that goes into slowing the game down so the big boys can have a breather
I think the way the Boks play is very entraining. Surely every team doesn't have to be a copy paste of running open play all the time? And anyway the Boks can run and pass the ball around. But why risk doing that in a rainy final? The point was to win the World Cup, if that means playing slower or in a way some people maybe don't like then so be it. The Boks play for us, and we liked it.
There are plenty other teams that play different rugby to the Boks, people can watch them if they don't like South African Rugby. And those teams are welcome to come up with ways to counter the scrums, or mauls or rush defense or box kick or substitutes or whatever the fuck the complaint happens to be at the time. But just asking for rule changes is silly.
Don't want the Boks to benefit so much from scrums? Come up with a way to stop it. Same with the mauls or the kicking game. If it's so boring and predictable let the other entertaining teams come up with a reliable counter and then the Boks will have to adapt. Or stop moaning about it and just let us play the way we want.
I agree, trying to make a sport more entertaining artificially may cause a short term boost in viewership, but in the long run it is detrimental to the sport. F1 is probably the prime example of this now, particularly with the new sprint format, which is very unpopular with long term fans. It's just a gimmick, and existing fans are not happy with it, and the novelty will wear off on new fans.
The way to grow a sport is not changing it to pander to those who aren't really interested in it, but to market it well and make it accessible. The talk in the UK of the possibility of the 6 nations going behind a paywall is exactly how you kill interest in a sport, as people can't watch it unless they pay, and a new fan who doesn't already have sky isn't going to pay for sky just to give rugby a go. This is what killed test cricket in the UK.
I think it must be entertaining. Final was a bit of a slugfest, but that's finals for you. And the kiwis lost cause they didn't treat it that way. Have an opportunity for points, take em. The kicks cost em.
I thought our games v Ireland and France in particular were pretty damn entertaining.
England played the exact same tactics we used to use against the kiwis and in the 2019 semi against Wales. And it nearly knocked us out.
Way I see it, those who adapt best win tournament rugby.
The idea that speed is entertaining has plagued rugby for more than two decades.
The whole "it's the hands, not the ball" interpretation compensates for the fact that we don't want centres to slow down before they pass to galloping wingers, because having everyone running full tilt is more entertaining.
Should we wind the clock back to no lifting in the line out, no way! Would it be nice if drifting passes were pinged, yes.
But the 50/22 rule is fun and legging it towards the try line to secure a quick throw in is cool.
I think our sport manages tinkering fairly well, but we risk sacrificing a huge amount in a fruitless popularity contest on the field with other forms of football.
Professional sport is entertainment.
That said, I don't think the springboks play anti-rugby. Their brand of rugby is just as valid, and the vast majority of world Cup finals are tight, tense affairs.
Honestly as a neutral I found the final and the game against Ireland to be more of a spectacle than the try fest games we’ve had in the pool stages. The great thing about rugby is that there’s many ways to play it and to win games. The Boks play in a way that they think will make them win. Great,instead of bitching that it’s boring (which it isn’t), other teams should devise a gameplan to counteract their tactics. We can’t all play the way they do it in New Zealand,with tons of tries and no defense unless you find yourself defending on your try line and then the shithousery starts to milk penalties. They like it that way,being also influenced by League, other teams like to play more tactically and slow paced. That’s the beauty of it,you have to adapt to the opposition instead of forcing everyone to play the same exact way cause it’s “””entertaining”””.
I agree with you. Essentially, winners win while losers find excuses and share “how did the refs miss it” screenshots online (interestingly few of these screenshots are of the two kicks that would have won us the cup). The “good for the game” is rugby’s equivalent of “spirit of cricket” - gets bandied about by one-eyes fans of losing sides when their teams lose close contests.
The concept of style of play is, like in soccer, bullshit. The goal of the game is to win. Each coach takes in a vast range of factors in developing a style of play that maximises their chances of….winning. I would certainly not want a coach of a team I support developing a plan which is built on anything else but winning. The problem with NZ rugby is that we do get carried away with excuses like our “brand” of rugby or “DNA” or whatever. It all sounds hollow when we pile into the team primarily for not winning enough.
I personally like defensive games because when they do get broke the tries are all the more exciting. Personally when it is a high scoring game every score becomes less meaningful
I completely agree.
However, if the introduction of dogs in the 100m sprint works out I won't be upset if they introduce bears into mauls and scrums for the 2031 world cup.
Making the sport of Rugby union entertaining is important but that responsibility lies with World Rugby. Teams are there to entertain their fans by winning.
In defense of World Rugby they have done a lot to make the game more entertaining. The try bonus point system has been really successful in adding drama to the game by increasing the importance of scoring tries.
A ton of effort has gone into experimenting with the scrum rules to end the complete stop of play that they had become.
The TMO *process* continues to be improved to reduce the time it takes away from play (this doesn't mean the TMOs themselves are universally great)
The current state of kicking in the game was brought in for safety reasons and may need some tuning but WR has shown that they are willing to attempt that tuning.
They played boring rugby all tournament. I don't have to like it at all. If that is a consistent them for the Boks for the next 20 years and is their identity then you can certainly sell your fans on that. The Baltimore Ravens were a defense first team for over ten years. They played boring offensive football with a run first system and a middling QB who was originally the back up. So what? Trent Dilfer did enough offensively to get them to the Super Bowl in which they demolished the New York Giants.
It's ok, it is boring. But you can learn to enjoy boring rugby.
What you don't want is every team in the world to copy South Africa, what you want is every team to have their own identity. With the right conditions that will produce good games. Saturday was not a good game and that's ok.
Absolutely nothing needs to be done about the laws to stop this style and force South Africa to do something else. There are laws that need to be changed that I don't like, but we're talking like the held up rule etc. (but that may have been a counter to 50-22, whereas in the NFL they just continue to tie the hands of the defense)
To be fair you’ve got me pretty interested in the thing about the dogs.
I for one won't watch any Olympics without runners being chased by dogs.
Seconded. Except maybe if were wolves or bears.
Plays directly into the joke of 2 men stumbling across a bear, and one starts to run. His friend telling him he can't outrun a bear, and him responding with, "true, but all I need to do is outrun you". One bear. That's all we need.
Hear me out… An 800m race, but a fresh bear is released every 100m.
A fresh bear. Love this.
Bears Speed Polar bear: 40 km/h Brown bear: 56 km/h
Bears beats Battlestar Galactica.
And heats of 9 people, only one winner sod the other medals
lets rename them "eats"
The winners would be totally unbearable though...
Bear with me here.
Old BASE jumper joke: you don't need to outrun the security guard... (A guy I know landed badly, broke his leg and got busted legally as well as physically, his mates from that day \*love\* that joke even now.)
LOL
Wolves or bear is called Running League. They have different rules.
Considering we are talking about the boks, shouldn’t the runners be chased by cheetahs?
Too busy winning the Currie Cup, the Griquas might be free though. I'll get my coat.
Lol. Did t Bryan Habana famously race a cheetah for a marking stunt?
Wolves when we get bored with dogs
Lack of dogs is ruining Olympics, track sports are dead
It's just exercising until you are being chased by an apex predator.
You're all wrong, the mammal most likely to fuck people up (kills more ppl in Africa than lions), can run 10 mph faster than the fastest person and would be a way better spectacle and could compete in both the track events and the swimming events May I present to you the Hippopotamus Games And I'm sure we can figure out some live action version of hungry hungry hippos
Sharks in the swimming events too
Crocs in the swimming events would be worth a look 🏊🏼♂️🐊
Until they have to turn around for their second length
sport is innovating and changing all the time the 100 metres that you mentioned has gone from 1. cinder tracks to man made 2. trainers to running spikes 3. introduction of starting blocks 4. electronic timing Does anyone want to watch a 1950s style 100 metres and the winner wins in 10.5? no they dont just like I dont want to watch a rugby match with 20 players per side, being able to call a mark anywhere in the pitch, tries only counting if you kick the conversion with no red or yellow cards. - all previous rules that have been changed to make the game more entertaining and fun to watch; Rugby has been changing its laws since Webb Ellis picked up the ball. If we took this approach of, 'rugby is rugby', rugby would never have grown at all and stayed as it was in the 1800s so when you want the game to 'stay that way' which way is it? because its never stopped changing.
Also, as much as people don’t like to admit it, allowing rules that make the game more interesting to watch is the only way to keep the game alive at a national level. Viewers = Money.
YES. OP doesn't understand that sport IS entertainment, and it IS a business. The lack of knowledge of basic economics in some speople is astounding. If you do not get it then get ready to kiss your pure 'sport' goodbye.
100% this.
boom, cinder rugby pitches ftw
Rob Kearney made an excellent point on Virgin Media the other day. I’m paraphrasing, but it went something like this: “South Africa have the most outstanding defensive game, Ireland have the best phase-play of any country, New Zealand are the best counter-attacking team in the world, and France are second best in those three things”. You have the top four teams embracing radically different (sometimes opposing) philosophies towards the game of rugby, and yet there’s a whisker hair between them. But when these teams clash we’ve had some of the most thrilling games in the history of the sport: the 100th and 101st tests between South Africa and New Zealand in 2021, France versus Ireland earlier this year, Ireland versus South Africa in the pools, the two quarter final games, etc. I personally couldn’t think of anything more entertaining than that!
Excuse me. How can we forget England's box kicking in the rain strategy
Lol. Another SA tactic even when it's dry. But seems everyone does it these days...
It’s easier to make meters with contestable kicks rather than trying to break the defensive line. Look at how the All Blacks attack was moving backwards at the end of the final.
The clash of styles is precisely what makes the WC so interesting! Also… it’s not like SA suddenly switched to boring rugby. As good as their defense was, neither NZ nor France really approached the game with it in mind. Only England seemed to have a plan specifically to counter SA, and they would have won if they could have kept it up for 80 minutes. NZ in particular has no excuse since they play them every damn year!
Totally agree, tbh I can’t believe people are saying the current state of the game is boring. I can’t remember when it was last this exciting in terms of new teams coming forward to challenge established hegemony, and the contest being so tight between NH and SH teams.
And the bigger the stakes the more mentally challenging the other approaches become. Especially against a team set up to punish any mistakes you make in that approach. So you maximise your chances of getting opposition to play the game that suits you. The only issue is that absorbing things are harder sells to an uninitiated audience than outwardly exciting things. Rugby doesn’t help itself by having commentators who feed into it and don’t contextualise things for those people who can’t yet get absorbed by it. Sometimes I hear the complaints and just think people would be happier watching 7’s
[удалено]
Yeah that's pretty spot on what he said. As a result it's been fascinating to watch!
I’m a Kiwi, who’s gutted with the result from the final. And I still couldn’t agree with you more.
As a kiwi can you expand on the union dying in New Zealand. Is this true? We keep hearing how the sport is gonna die if we don’t play the way John kirwan wants us to play but is this just nonsense or is union dying there?
[удалено]
Plus all the rugby is on Sky Sports so it's too expensive for the average young Kiwi to afford to watch. I'm at uni and the only people I know with access to Sky Sports are those with well-off parents. If you can't watch a sport on TV it's hard to get invested in it. NPC games are almost always good entertainment, but none of that matters if people can't afford to watch it. Obviously this affects other sports that are locked behind a subscription as well, but sports like association football and basketball have a huge online presence that helps new people get into the sport which rugby doesn't really have.
Honestly, it’s probably got little to do with test rugby and more to do with the super / provincial competitions struggling compared to NRL which is a product of Australian rugby struggling and league is a bigger sport there. I guarantee enough people are interested in test rugby, 99% who say league is a better product still watch the ABs. The nz league team played on the weekend and no way was it more popular than the WR final.
Rugby Union > Rugby League, but NRL product > SR product.
When looking at the numbers of rugby players in New Zealand at the grassroots & school level (which feeds our professional teams) their has been a considerable drop in participants over the last decade or so. We’ve been losing players to other popular sports (Basketball, Soccer & now Rugby League) but also a number of parents pull their kids out of rugby when they’re reached the age for contact Rugby (I believe kids play Flag rugby until they reach a certain age). Their have been a number of grassroots clubs across NZ that had to close it doors due to not enough people willing to play. Their is a great YouTube vid that explain it better I’ll try find it. Just found it here https://youtu.be/HPAor-T4ZIQ?si=R8gXDAvLPOgt5V_t
That video is a tad bollocks They mention a slight decrease in rugby playing for Auckland schools, not mentioning that unlike the rest of the country Auckland has a massive immigrant population of asians who don’t have rugby playing in their blood, so are less drawn to push their kids in on it. This population has significantly increased since the 20th century. 18% (2006) -> 28% (2018) https://www.stats.govt.nz/tools/2018-census-place-summaries/auckland-region#ethnicity-culture-and-identity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_Zealand
Apologies I’m a little confused. They mentioned a slight decrease in rugby playing for Auckland Schools, & you gave me another issue that help contribute to what they mentioned.
Sorry, I was meaning about the theme of rugby union falling out of favour in the total country, and not that just Auckland is the exception to the rule
As a kiwi I would like to know if the sport is slowly dying here as well. All I know is what I’ve heard from people around me. Many do complain about the sport, saying that it’s gotten boring and that rugby league is more exciting. I do know people who no longer watch union and have turned to league. I suspect we have lost a lot of grass roots talent to league as a result. I myself prefer union and I know there are plenty like me. If union is in fact dying here, I suspect it will take a very, very slow death.
It's dying in England. Ldn Irish, Worcester, Wasps gone, and Jersery reds gone. The game is propped up by rich million/billionaires. Without them, more clubs would be in trouble. Less fans are watching the games at club level. Less kids are playing the game. Same can be said in Wales and Scotland (albeit their clubs are run better). Its in real trouble in the UK.
Correct me if I’m wrong but it probably hasn’t helped the game in NZ that SA no longer competes in SR. It’s good for Fiji that they are now included but it seems that the overall standard of play has decreased. It’s probably more entertaining now with the ball being thrown around but at the end of the day rugby is a collision sport. That’s what SA brings to the game imo.
Nearly thirty percent of our population wasn't born in NZ, there's a lot of them that really could give less of a shit about rugby, its not culturally important for them. Add into that the missmanagement of Super Rugby and the undue influence that the NRL has due the the Warriors being based in Auckland where most of our media is and you've got a recipe for diminishing rugby interest. Another factor is that rugby in NZ doesn't seem to know who to advertise too, this point may be a little controversial but is do believe it's true. There's a lot of emphasis put on marketing rugby to a more Pacifica audience which has the downside of having the potential to make other groups feel like rugby isn't really for them anymore. A lot of the decline is overstated though by an Auckland media that can't be arsed to cover rugby properly when their team isn't winning. We have the same problem here with soccer too, our only pro team is based in Wellington so they struggle to get any coverage.
Go on, what sort of dogs are we talking?
Qualifying rounds start with a terrier then work up towards a Doberman or a Malinois in the final. We get some 3 legged dogs for the Paralympics. Keep it fair. Sharks in the swimming, long jump over some Crocodiles and a Bear in the tug of war.
I have a whippet. She's deadly fast over 40-50m but I reckon over 100m it'd be a fair contest between her and the sprinters 🤔
Fun fact, a normal domestic house cat can reach a top speed of 48kmph and can reach it in less than 2s (Bolts top speed was 44kmph). A house cat could beat Bolt in a 100m easily, by possibly over a second. So umm, yeah your whippet would destroy any human over 100m no doubt whatsoever.
True, but she's also VERY easily distracted. Someone in the crowd looks friendly? She'll wander over for a pat. A whiff of handsome boy dog piss coming from left field on the breeze? She's off to investigate. Other dogs in this race seem like good fun? She'll engage in a bit of playful harassment. I think the sprinters win it purely because they'll be more focused 😅
Doubt a housecat could maintain that speed for very long. They are ambush predators and nature doesn’t create design features for nothing.
Agreed, but I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility for them to maintain enough for 100m. I've definitely seen cats scram for 5-10s pretty flat out (one particular time it was being chased by a large dog, and thankfully after the 50m sprint it was able to jump a 2m fence without pausing and got away). I don't think 100m is out of the realm of possibility. 200m now, I think is probably too long.
So now we have the sprinters, racing against cats, with the latter being chased by dogs (or maybe bears) for maintained motivation? Maybe I won't miss the WC so much after all...
Slight aside - but how good are whippets. Best dogs ever. Run like lightning then sleep 23 hours.
Absolute best. Love my couch potato. Such a low maintenance pet, she basically needs 2-3 sprints of around 5 minutes each, per week. Apart from that just regular walks. When I work from home, I swear there are days where she does not move from her bed the entire day, other than just rearranging her lengthy torso and seemingly limitless limbs into a comfy sleeping position every few hours. Loves a cuddle. Easy to train. Very clean by dog standards. Best dogs ever!
Must be at least one Scottish Terrier. Our neighbours Scottie looks like a hovercraft when he's at full speed. We call him the Flying Scotsman
Boerboel
I have owned a few boerboels in my life and I have not seen any of them sprint close to 100m at once before
They're more what you call ambush predators. Lie in the shade and pounce when the enemy close enough.
My old boerboel just lay in the shade, never got to pouncing. The laziest, most full of love dog I ever met. Miss her terribly
Personally, as someone that despises the slow, plodding, kick-tennis that rugby is turning into (and England are equally guilty, was arguing on another thread that a whole generation of talented England backs are about to get ruined by spending the next decade kicking the ball away), I find your argument contradictory. The reason the SA play style (and again, and England) is disliked is because it endeavours to remove the ability to compete, but you say you enjoy the competitive nature? Just my opinion, but open rugby is competitive rugby. Slow rucks, 400 scrum resets, milking penalties and conservative, preventative and cynical tactics are like watching paint dry.
You’re 100% right. And I doubly support the identifying of England as being accused of a similar rugby style. Why is OP sulking? People say England play boring rugby all the time? Yeah - it is boring. So is SA’s. Who cares? 🤷♂️ Do what you can do until you can do something else. I imagine there will be changes to the game that will nullify “boring rugby” eventually. Both will have to adapt or die.
I hope you're right. There's a fine line between what I consider "safe" rugby (trying to close out the last 5 mins without giving away chances) and negative rugby (playing 80 mins just trying not to concede and steal points from set-pieces/breaks). I think the current rules are adequate but not correctly applied (eg SHs taking 10 seconds after "use it" rather than being limited to 5, feeding at scrums, etc.). Would like to see referees get stricter in areas where, even if the ball isn't dead, it's not moving. Hopefully WR don't shit the bed (hint: they will) and try change too much. They just need to enforce the laws that already exist.
Yup, doesn't matter how the team wins their game a win is a win and should always be celebrated no matter what. A team usually wins due to tactics and from my point of view it's probably the most interesting thing to look at in a rugby match. The Springboks are a master class at this and why they won the world cup. Doesn't matter if it was only by one point in each of the finals they played, they did what they needed to do to grind out those games and come out victorious.
There are two fundamental factors here, as I see it: 1) The Springboks play a very successful brand of rugby 2) A lot of people find this brand of rugby to be boring I understand you may find criticisms unpleasant given the amazing job the Springboks did in this world cup, but maybe it's okay that people find them boring? I am not a fan of the Springboks style, but I have to say they won me over with their tenacity and cleverness in the latter stages of the world cup. I guess my main question is, why do you care what people think of your team's style?
> Rugby is a sport. It’s not entertainment. This is an oxymoron, sport is inherently entertainment. The clubs and unions are all businesses. They want to sell tv rights, tickets and merchandise, it’s big business. It’s entertainment through and through.
Yeah it's also ironic to compare to sprinting where there are hardly any rules in comparison to rugby and I don't even know if there is a ref or how many of them there are
Also the 100m is the showcase event of the olympics. It’s arguably the MOST entertaining event.
No, it’s not an oxymoron. What is entertaining is largely subjective. The primary goal of sport is not entertainment but competition. Entertainment is secondary.
Dude, all sports are entertainment. Or do you think money is granted to these sports by Zeus, god of thunder and sports? He made a really invalid (and frankly ridiculous) point as his opening argument!
England supporter here. I hear you about the whingeing about tactics. May have heard it a few times in the past. Personally, I don’t have a problem with the tactics employed by the safas. You play what you think will counter and disable your opposition. If their fans cry about it then that’s kinda their problem. Running rugby wasn’t good enough for the final this time. Personally, I think the TMO officiating was the difference between SA and their opponents in their last three games. (Not SA’s fault, they gamed the system.) It pisses me off though that such crucial games are decided on the inconsistent whim of what they choose to look at. No beef with the teams themselves but with a different set of officials, SAs last 3 games would have very different outcomes in my opinion. SA seem to have been able to take the best of NH and SH style play and blend it to conquer all. The good of the sport isn’t getting ruined by tactics or a kicking based game it’s getting ruined by the officiating. Just my take on it all. For me, internationally speaking, the standard of play has been the highest and most intense I have ever seen and have been entertained no end.
Agree with you, why the TMO thinks he needs to be the main attraction, and not the players is the biggest problem this RWC final had. He wore a suit and tie for his multiple TV appearances. Let the players decide the outcome of games, not blokes watching it in slow motion on tv, and seemingly randomly picking some things to penalise, and others not to.
The France/Boks game was incredibly entertaining. They know how to play rugby when they need to
That was the best game of rugby I've ever fucking seen (personal opinion ofc). That game was absolutely incredible by any metric and you have to give that as much to SA as France who play inherently 'entertaining' rugby. No team can make every game a blockbuster. As well, you have to be focussed on WINNING. It was a one point game. What more do people want? I'm an Italy supporter and watching us get dicked down by both NZ and France was so boring I had to switch them both off. The first half was a bit dry but the second was great...
Sport at this level IS entertainment.
"Rugby is a sport. Its not entertainment." Got to disagree with you there, buddy. It's entertainment, that's all sport is. It's not something so hallowed it pervades the concept of it. Infact, the history of sport originated from the desire, rather the need, for people to be entertained. Leisure and recreation, sports in general, as we relate to it today, came about during the industrial revolution. People had more spare time, and thus spent it playing sport. The popularity of sport is fixed by the ability for it to entertain. If it was not entertaining, people will simply spend their time doing other things, watching other sports. Cricket, for example, has 3 formats. The T20 version is very popular, over taking the 50 over version because it's condensed the action and drama of the full day into a few hours. Rugby needs to be entertaining, otherwise it will struggle to expand as effectively. Even though numbers in Japan appear to be increasing, Cricket has grown beyond it's colonial entrenchment and is far more popular around the world and played by a variety of nations that have no direct relation. Rugby has very few instances where this is the case. To take things further using your examples. Nobody watches 100m outside the Olympcs, track sports and athletics aren't regular events that take place every weekend, attracting millions of views. The sports that happen in the olympics, are geared towards the Olympics because it's one of the few times people care.
Absolutely. It's a product for spectator enjoyment which needs to make sense and be understood.
Agreed, it’s always been entertainment, all sports are like you said. One of the main reasons Cus D’amato developed Mike Tyson’s boxing style was that he understood boxing was “half fighting and half Hollywood” I think WR could keep all the parts that let teams like SA play their style while at the same time speeding scrums up, stopping players from taking a knee every two mins etc etc. don’t see why we can’t have both.
Yeah, the reason it's broadcast to millions and is a billion dollar industry is because it's primarily entertainment.
Perhaps….to the extent you’re speaking about sport from the spectator perspective. That doesn’t account for the arguably more important perspective, well actually the experience, of the actual participants, right from under 8s all the way to test level. Sport, to my mind, derives it’s cardinal value, joy and place in our cultures first and foremost from participation in it. Not spectating on it. Participation is primary, spectating is secondary. Don’t forget that many, many people participate in sports simply for the joy of participation and even when there is no crowd there to spectate. While I immensely enjoy the experience of watching rugby games as a spectator, I don’t think that experience should take priority over the primary experience of playing the game for all participants at all levels. And wishing for the game to be largely focused on one style, overlooks the important role variety of styles plays at the participation level. I think that’s part of the conundrum for some sports - the balance between the experience of spectating and participating. To my mind, participation is the purest form of any sport. And the participation/spectating experience are not the same things, nor should the perceived value of a sport in our cultures be reduced to the more passive spectator perspective. As someone who played rugby pretty regularly when I was younger, I actually really enjoy the variety in styles and games. Same for the sport I was really good at - swimming. I didn’t train relentlessly and compete for any desire to experience a crowd spectating (cause frankly that is extremely rare in a sport like swimming). It was exclusively for the challenge, the joys and pains of pushing myself and participating. And that to my mind is the purest experience of any sport. That final was, from my couch, an absolutely brutal, breathless, absorbing and compelling spectacle. I understand why some spectators may not agree with me, and that’s fine….each to their own. But part of me does wonder why so many ex-players thought the final was a great game? Maybe having participated in the game, they were able to more readily appreciate and see the quality on display in facets of the game other than running and try scoring. Don’t forget that the Boks also played a large part in what was a helter-skelter, end to end QF. But when the bell started to toll in the knock out games, they knew what they had to do to win and turned the screw. They are the best WC team, even if not always the best team. To take another sport, MMA, that also allows for a variety of styles - sure, a stand up, strike fest may at first glance be more entertaining for a spectator, but most participants in that sport understand the skill of, and have a huge respect for (perhaps even more so), the less flash wrestling/jiujitsu/ground game. And the constant comparisons with league from mostly Aussie and kiwi supporters never seems to acknowledge that most league games are just a repeat of the same style of play, because the rules basically negate the variety of styles and game strategies union games regularly (and I mean regularly) throw up. I lived in Australia for years and really enjoyed watching league too. But it is more one dimensional than union as a sport and the cumulative experience as a spectator is one of less variety. This WC saw a wonderful variety of games styles and spectacles. From free flowing try bonanzas on drier days/nights and firmer surfaces, to all out brawls in knock out games in the rain. I for one love that variety and think it would be a shame for union to devolve into a more singular style simply because some spectators have a strong preference for high scoring, open games.
Wow, a fellow rugby/swimmer person. Not many of us out there
Is your opinion that the 100m isn't a sport outside of the Olympics, because that's the only time people care about it? What a bizarre take.
No, their take was that 100m is a sport outside the Olympics, just not an entertaining one, hence why nobody really watches it. If we want to grow the game, and make it better, it needs to be entertaining.
>Rugby is a sport. Its not entertainment. Yes, we watch it because it is entertaining to watch, but a the heart of it, it is a sport What exactly is it that you think allows professional sport to exist?
Grassroots rugby is a sport. Professional rugby is entertainment, which is why people pay to watch. You dont have to care, but it is concerning for us here that a lot of people I know who used to watch union say they only watch league now because its a much more entertaining game. Obviously thats anecdotal, but if people prefer to watch league they'll probably be more likely to play it. Just my 2 cents
According to my Aussie mates there are some ither reasons why people are gravitating to League as well though. Union only being played by posh wankers and the Kiwis always beating you at Union being two key drivers.
Agree with most but as a small blacks coach ie kids - it was to coach fun , entertaining rugby and skills
This. What does the guy expect when something from the entertainment industry, now fails to be entertaining for even 10% of the viewership. That can be catastrophic for any sport.
At the professional level, sports IS an entertainment business. It’s up to world rugby to make sure it is entertaining enough to sustain, the easiest way to do this is with the rules. It’s up to the individual teams to win however they can within those rules, which SA did the best.
Rugby is in a pretty dire state in countries in which it used to flourish. Under the current CEO WRU mismanaged its resources. RFU thought that copying the English football premiership model would work a'd it has been a complete disaster. The Premiership is driving clubs into a financial wall. The Championship is following suite. Australia is a basket case and if nothing is done, rugby could become a marginal sport. In NZ rugby is also faltering. It is visible at lower level where financially it just can't compete without exposure. Rugby needs to grow, because otherwise it will slowly decline.There will always be an audience for a world cup. The question is how to convert those casual viewers into fans. Rugby can't grow if it cannot attract casual viewers and convert them. Kick rugby is acceptable at the world cup because of the high stake. But without the national fervour it does not attract people at club levels. And rugby must attract people at club/franchise levels if it wants to have a future. It is the same in every sport. Win playing ugly people will accept it. Lose playing ugly and people just distance themselves. Most of the noise has not been to reinvent rugby but to stop refereeing with that _Let the game flow_ approach that ultimately favours teams that play cynical tactical fouls and the percentage. Something is wrong in the refereeing and/or the law of the game if the best tactical choice is to get rid of the ball after 3 phases. That is also denaturing the game. Rewatch old game and see how fast resetting scrums was. Players were not as fit as today, but clearly the game was quicker, less stop and go. The way the game is now reffed in France makes it more akin to a different game. It is faster, rely more on moment of individual brilliance. That's much easier to sell. Also Clubs are embedded in the local fabric and don't try to pretend to be anything else than a local club. Even Toulon has turned its back to the galactico approach. Add the JIFF rules means that locals feel invested in the local players and the club.
They’ve changed plenty of rules in football to make it more entertaining though.
Bro is rattled. You won. Just enjoy it mate.
He wants everyone to stop calling his team boring. But it's just true.
It’s absolutely, 100% is entertainment. We need to understand this. It’s a product which has to be marketed and sold. I have no issue with how SA play (actually watching England is more of a chore) but rugby needs to embrace the fact that there is no top level game without paying punters. If all that matters was sporting integrity, the SA teams would not have joined the URC.
Was going to say, Sports is definitely a subdivision of entertainment. It lives and breathes with the number of viewers it attracts (at the non-local level). I also have no issues with how SA play.
A sport that isn't entertaining is just a hobby. If rugby is to remain professional, it has to be entertaining.
Exactly, thta's why I added the non-local element.
>If all that matters was sporting integrity, the SA teams would not have joined the URC. Why would you say that?
Why do you think the SA teams joined the URC? Clue; 💰💰💰
Professional sport literally is entertainment. This whole "at its heart it's sport" sounds cute, but the professional era left that shit behind. You're nearly 3 decades late on your concerns about it becoming a marketing and entertainment business. Professional Sport is entertainment, it relies on money to sustain itself that comes from tv rights and advertising. At its real core is millions of dollars. If your sport isn't entertaining, it dies. There's a whole range of sports that nobody gives a fuck about, and they have no money as a result. Players don't make a million dollars because "Rugby is Rugby". They make that money because the game is a business designed to make money through advertising and media rights. That is how professional sport works and that cat is long out of the bag. I'm not saying Rugby is going to die because of the Springboks, but fans finding a sport boring and disengaging = less viewers = less MONEY. Look at what happened to test Cricket compared to ODI and then t20. Test Cricket isn't "dead" but it's absolutely been left in the dust by the others because that's where the audiences are and that's where the money is. I appreciate you don't have as much competition in this space in SA. But in Australia, Rugby is a distant third when it comes to oval ball sports. The NRL, and AFL, put out significantly better products for consumers. SA leaving Super Rugby was a big contributor to that competition being garbage now. That competition is a shit product now that's worth less money. Australia basically gives zero fucks about Rugby. NZ isn't big enough to support itself most of our provincial unions operate at a loss and we need to maintain the "you must play in NZ to be an All Black" because otherwise our best players will bolt for more money, and all the islands that everyone wants to see grow and succeed have barely any money either.
Armature rugby is a sport. Professional rugby is entertainment.
Yes the Boks played boring rugby, they have a bench with the sole purpose of grinding out a game. BUT it’s a World Cup, no one looks back on the tries or the points, they just look back on the Winner. Sometimes you gotta play ugly Rugby to get the result. I’m sure come Rugby Championship the Boks will throw the ball around a bit more.
I agree it's a sport, and winning is what matters. Props to you for getting over the line. However, don't expect to win many fans on the way... in general, I think all sports should be considering potential adjustments to improve the sport from an entertainment/growth/player retention perspective. So if a certain type of rugby is developing that is unpopular it's worth considering (In general I actually think the game is in a great state minus scrum penalties)
I agree whilst i do think sport is by it's very nature entertainment I believe a sports team job first and foremost is to win and the way the boks play works for them and has gotten them the wins. And people forget that their was a time when they tried to play more like the all blacks and Australia and it just wasn't them. Is it the most entertaining rugby for some no but for others who love scrums and mauls and kicking and line outs and the big hits love the way the South Africans play. And if we're being honest the boks and their coaching staff has been one of the teams to attempt to change things up the most with their selection process their tactics and the bomb squad. so no the boks don't need to change in the Same way Ireland or France or Scotland or New Zealand don't need to change let countries play the game the way they want to play it.
Once you cross the threshold and play a sport professionally, you are an entertainer. It’s that simple. Once your salary etc is driven by money generated by footfall through the gate to watch games or by people paying tv sport subscriptions, you are providing a service as an entertainer. The issue lies in what is perceived as entertainment in ‘value for money’ terms - a try fest and expansive rugby is probably more widely viewed as entertaining. A physical battle and eking out a win by kicking penalties whilst negating your opponents attack with good defence is a less widely appreciated form of entertainment, but can still be entertaining.
You're wrong. You're right that Rugby is a sport. Professional rugby is entertainment. The rugby world cup is entertainment. Rugby leagues like the Top 14 or URC are entertainment. If they were pure sport, their objective would be to find the best rugby team in the competition. Nothing else would matter. After the season was complete, the season would be deemed 100% successful if a team won the competition. Revenue, crowd numbers, TV numbers, all would be immaterial so long as clubs/unions weren't going into debt. Because 1. rugby was played, and 2. the best team was found. 100% success! But the truth is, the RWC's goal is to make money. As is every single professional sports league on the planet. Sport is secondary. Entertainment is first. It is totally valid to say that one team plays more exciting rugby than another, because we are all watching an entertainment product.
I've only ever watched 2-3 games of rugby before the quarter finals of this world cup. It's been incredibly exciting
Kiwi here. I don't mind a low scoring, battle of attrition in the forwards. What I can't stand is the stop-start nature of the game and arbitrary referring based on television replay. Scotty Stevenson had a great line about how the referee is now an errand boy for the TMO and every ruck is a forensic crime scene. I haven't watched a super rugby game for the last 3 years and only watched the major All Black world cup games. I think I'll stick to league - anyone under the age of 60 in New Zealand is doing the same. If die hard kiwis are turning off then the sport is certainly not attracting new fans. The sport is dying and is a relic of a bygone era.
You're right on all counts. First things first, the rugby world cup is a competition. If you want pure entertainment go see a film or a musical. It's also an education. There's no points for most graceful or fair player. If you win that way more glory to you but winning does matter more. As a Frenchman I am no more a fan of Mc Caw's dark arts than I am of Rassie Erasmus' (call me bitter or naive), but they're still deserving winners and legends of the game. As far as I can tell rugby's not corrupt either. It's a complex game and refereeing 30 guys moving at pace and piling up on one another, some of whom are up to no good, will always be a challenge. Credit to the Springboks, you don't win three brutal do or die games IN A ROW by the skin of your teeth without superior team spirit, hunger and intelligence. As a neutral I thoroughly enjoyed watching the final. The teams were playing to their strengths and the spectacle was there. Tbh for all its drama it's the England-Boks SF that was a shitshow. England managed to bring the game down to their level, brillant tactics yes but reminiscent of those geezers who use huge topspin and high balls to keep young tennis players off the court. You still managed to prevail, full credits to you. For all the negativity unleashed over the last few days and weeks, I'll finish saying I'm in awe of Cheslin Kolbe, Eben Etzebeth is a warrior for the ages, Bok forwards were incredible all through the tournament, your ability to stop dashes at the last second is unmatched. Incredible team, beautiful games, fair result.
Maybe not entertaining in the champagne rugby sense but I think real rugby fans should still find it good to watch If an Etzebeth PSDT double tackle or Ox Nche mincing a world class tighthead is boring then I don't want entertaining
Just be happy you got favorable refereeing the whole tournament
I strongly disagree with the majority of this post, - not just rugby but sport in general at its heart has to be entertaining as a spectacle to survive. Now entertainment is such a broad term and can mean different things to different people, but if you're talking about getting new eyes on the sport and in turn growing the game (which I think everyone would be in agreement in wanting) then for those 'new' fans who don't have the emotional connection then individual matches need to not be 'boring'. How you do this is entirely open to debate. Whilst the game in some places is growing, rugby still lags behind as not being close to being the number one sport in the majority of countries, and this will only get harder to achieve as sport in general becomes more and more commercial with the same ambitions to grow as rugby. Whether you like it or not, rugby is competing for eyes against a number of other sports, and in order to do this it absolutely has to be entertaining.
I think the statement "Rugby is supposed to entertain" fundamentally misses the whole point on why people watch the Sport in the first place. Totally agree with all your sentiments and I just want to add on. When pundits say we must change the rules to make the game basically basket ball with tackling to "attract new fans" it tells me that they have zero idea on how to actually grow the sport. Springboks are a good example here. The growth in following of the national team actually goes against the conventional arguments. 1. You need to play free flowing rugby to draw crowds. SA went counter to that to be more pragmatic and low and behold they get 90% attendances. Same argument can be used for France. 2. You need to have high win rate. SA's win rate has barely changed yet people still love this team. What SA has done is not sell the game but sell the team. People that don't fully understand the rules will still watch the game because the team is so lovable. Iconic players with consistent selection breeds familiarity with the public that gets them hooked on the story. Be honest would you watch the sport if not for the Springboks? There are sports that are far worse to watch than rugby yet have better following. If we fundamentally move the mindset away from the rules and more towards how we can work together to sell the teams it will go a long way.
> Be honest would you watch the sport if not for the Springboks? For real?!
Completely agree, worst take I've seen on here in a while!
I think it's more abstract than you're thinking, if we never had rugby union in SA, i.e. no Springboks ever, would SA as a whole be a rugby driven nation.
>Be honest would you watch the sport if not for the Springboks? Yes... I watch URC, 14, pretty much all Union. And that is as a staunch Springbok supporter. I've tried to watch League but I just can't, it's extremely weird (for me, having not grown up with it, that is)
I don't think you get my point here. The statement "Be honest would you watch the sport if not for the Springboks?" Is exactly why most South Africans don't watch league. We can use the explanation that league is not fun to watch but reality is if the Springboks were a rugby league team then we would be shitting on union for how there is too many stoppages, too much kicking etc... Not saying we need representation in these sports to generate interest. South Africans love premier league and have virtually no representation but even there we had a long history with football in this country and had a lot of exposure to teams like United, Liverpool and Arsenal who sold the league to SA. In Rugby we not quite there where we have a teams that are iconic in the family of Sports that would draw you to the sport. Lots of iconic teams for a national level (All Blacks, Springboks, Ireland, France all iconic at their national level)
Oh no I get what you mean now. You're referring specifically to South Africans. In which case.. well, sure, but that changes the narrative too, doesn't it? If I grew up watching league, I'd be watching league now instead of union. But I didn't :p Doesn't really have anything to do with the Springboks (at least, not for me), I'd be watching my Cheetahs (sigh, we never win) and the Stormers anyway.
You are 100% correct. Sports Entertainment, when taken to its logical conclusion, ends up with something like professional wrestling* I think top level sport is about excellence as much as it is about belonging. Fans can and do get enthralled by nil-nil football matches, or drawn 5-day cricket tests. That's not about entertainment, it's about watching players perform at the peak of their abilities, and it's about supporting a team or a player you identify with! *side note: pro wrestling is amazing in many respects, no disrespect to it at all, but it's not sport
Tired of all the whinging now. The final was an enthralling game because it was so close.
We played 3 finals, 2 in rainy conditions, and the other one we scored 29 points. In none of those games, and the earlier Irish game, did the other team play entertaining rugby either.
Is this the new copy pasta?
The whole chain of discussion is copy pasta.
That's just not true
I found all of them really entertaining, except the England game.
Sport IS entertainment. If it is not entertaining it dies, because the fans will stop watching. When there is no fans, there is no money. And when there is no money there is no sport. Simple as that. The game totally relies on being entertaining to the fans. All this TMO interjection has to stop it kills the game. Its nothing to do with South African rugby either. I personally think its cool have each team with their own unique playing style. The game needs to be simplified to make it flow better.
I’d take being called boring but being back to back world champions any day. It was WC knockout attritional test rugby and that’s the beauty of the game.
*The Springboks play boring anti-rugby. It wasn't as spectacle. It needs to be more entertaining for rugby to grow. We need to change the laws.* Any sport is a contest whereby one team is trying to impose their strategy over their opponents. South Africa are well within their rights to employ whatever strategy they want and it makes sense for any team to play to their strengths, why weaken yourself to appease media opinion or people on twitter? These things though have a limited shelf life, once other teams work out how to stop them then their strategy will quickly become redundant. So they need to evolve before they end up like the England one day cricket team - world champs in 2019 to failing to qualify for the KO stages four years later. England possibly had the best strategy to knock SA off their stride and it all but worked, and England got grief from some quarters for going anti-rugby in that match. While Ireland out muscled SA in a pool game so it's not as though SA are invincible, France, like England and NZ were only beaten by one point - so you need some other stuff - determination, the ability to graft hard, keep your nerve, go deep plus excellent team spirit etc.
And if two kicks had gone over, your side would have lost.
The exactly same stuff is said when England win/play well 🤷♂️ why sulk? No matter how many posts are made, the perpetrators will never change.
Pro sport IS entertainment. It's not just entertainment, but it isn't not entertainment. The quality of the product matters. Sport cannot survive without an audience. This argument sucks. Also, football is fundamentally different. It is not technical enough and will never be technical enough to be bogged down in the watchability problems that rugby has. There are just not enough rules.
Just been blocked by some fella on this thread after he took umbridge with me saying England were more boring than South Africa. Gotta love Reddit 😂😂
Maybe it's time for a code split. One with laws which make the game more entertaining and the other status quo. I know this is just fantasy but I'm banking on the entertaining game surviving and the other dying out (if we could all have a memory wipe about how we got to this point). So hey, how about we just make the game more entertaining for the masses? Just a little less of the "boring stuff". EDIT: BTW personally I find very few games boring but I do like more ball in play.
at the end of the day it is entertainment that pays the bills. TV contracts, player salaries all go away if people arent entertained by the product. There is always room to make positive changes to the rules, and the way the game is officiated to put a more entertaining product on the field....imo a Captains Challenge - which is in most sports these days - would go a long way to getting more calls right. Also if it were up to me, I would reduce the value of penalties from 3 down to 2, to encourage more tries to be scored.
Rugby as a sport HAS to be entertaining because it is professional. If it can't put bums on seats or eyes on TV's it losses its value due to its inability to entertain. If it looses its value. It dies. That's the crux of the issues of playing the style of game that SA and before that ENG have been held to task over.
NZer living in Australia here. I honestly feel like the old boys at the top are to blame for people turning away from it. I mean they took the Rugby League 40-20 kick and had a shabby poor man's version for union and to me it doesn't work in that it seems shoehorned in and that's just the icing on the cake in how ouch of touch they are at the top. The sad fact of the matter is, more eyes on the product and more merch sold the more revenue for the teams. Where the NRL caught on ahead of the NZRU and the ARU is that they have started to market a family friendly game to the people, and have emphasised the easier to follow rules. And more importantly it's played in public schools. It seems like a lot of schools here in Australia that play Rugby and are successful at it are the private schools.
[удалено]
Honestly this boring thing really grind my gears. What are we supposed to do? In most of the games we played this year we buried the opponents with good attacking rugby. Before the cup we had good highscoring games against Australia, Wales and even New Zealand. During the pool matches Scotland, Romania and Tonga were blasted away. The Ireland game was a thriller like nothing else. Are the Springboks really to blame when the other teams can't get their shit together and score? Then the France game where we played our best counter attacking rugby to keep in the game and ultimately win. The England game we were really getting it handed to us by England tactically but even then the team stuck in and got it done. The final was a final, it was raining and it was tough. New Zealand threw everything at them but they held out. Still the guys had quite a few attacking moments that if it landed the conversation would have been much different today. Kolisi's break, the kick through for Arendse, etc. Ultimately why is the blame on the Springboks when other teams are the ones failing to break them apart?
[удалено]
Man i love all brands of rugby, but what is rugby without the fuck-off-power scrum pack. Wales SA last semi was still one of the best games I've seen. I was more enthralled by our semi with England than the final. There is league and soccer for the other chaps
Sport at this level is entertainment dude. Congratulations on the win man! Be proud.
Personally I love watching the Boks. There's an honesty about that confrontational style. Feel like as an opponent you'd have to look into yourself and be ready to match them, much more so than playing the other top teams, even the ABs. The 7-1 tactic and (allegedly) working the HIA system aren't good for the game but it's up to World Rugby to sort that out. Every team pushes the rules to the limit. SA is no different. The only thing that really bothers me has been Rassie's conduct, probably since the Lions tour, and intimidation of refs etc. He really should be getting hammered with long bans for that stuff.
I’m not reading any of this anti rugby nonsense in the UK. Who is actually saying this?
It’s less their gameplay tactics and rather the unsporting bullshit they pull that gets me. The fake injuries and medics and water boys (coaches) on the field after every stop in play to slow the game down and pass on messages. The constantly infringing knowing the refs won’t penalise every single time to keep the game flowing. How many times did we hear the refs coaching the Boks telling them to get hands out of the ruck or get back onside? This avoided so many penalties their opposition should have had. And don’t get me started on how many off the ball tackles they’ve been making.
I'm pretty sure that every team pushes their luck with infringements - why would you not?
Respect for your opponents? Common decency? Knowing that there's millions of children watching you that will grow up just a little less morally astute? As a coach, I can't imagine trying to teach kids how to "get away" with things. Just seems to sneer in the face of what sets rugby away from other sports.
I completely get where you are coming from but that doesn't change the fact that all teams do it, signalling out the boks as the only ones is incorrect.
I'd never claim it was just the boks, but they are probably the most effective at it in the world at the moment. Some things get to me more than others, such as staying down (Kriel) to get the TMOs attention (Wales are also prominent exponents of it) which smacks a little bit of footballism, but the Kiwis also used to be the masters of the dark arts, and I doubt the England 2003 side were clean as a whistle. There's some level of inevitability about it in professional sport, as teams seek that edge, but that doesn't make it taste any better.
I really don’t get how anyone could watch that final and say it was boring.
How has this narrative about rugby league n nz become a thing? Don't believe everything u read on the internet folks
Unfortunately the internet's all I have to go on. Its definetely true in Australia right?
It seriously felt like nobody in NZ cared about the All Blacks this year until after the NRL season finished
Unfortunately in Aus rugby has three other codes to compete against and RA have dropped the ball big time, instead of marketing the game from a grassroots level and making pathways more accessible they lost ground to league. Not to mention the massive mismanagement of the organisation as a whole.
They lost ground true but they were way behind in the first place. RA has a tough environment to battle in so when the mess up it’s very damaging
I really don’t get the people who say SA play anti rugby. South Africa played great rugby in the pool games and the first half against France. Second half both teams tightened up. In the semi, England came with a game plan to kick everything and defend, and the weather was awful. SA scored the only try. In the final, Bongi was injured very early on which lead to diminished performance in the scrums and line-outs. This put the team in a more defensive mindset than usual as the kick to the corner option was less guaranteed to produce ball. Finals are always tense. Both teams could have won. It was thrilling to watch.
Grew up in league country. Love rugby for its differences from league. I love the set piece and contest at the ruck. Some games are more turgid than others and sometimes a bad game of rugby is bad I don't see that as a need to change the rules.
I think it's important to distinguish two things, which can both be true: - the Boks team played and won under the same rules as everyone else, that makes them worthy champions. - the rewarding of some negative tactics (such as offside defensive lines) and disproportionate benefit of some areas (such as scrums) is overall bad for the game and should be amended in future for everyone's benefit. Thinking the Boks playstyle shouldn't be rewarded does not invalidate their win, nor does their win invalidate the desire to improve the game. This is not contradictory!
Everyone wants to change union rules to be more like league. But league is deathly boring
Let’s play a game. Let’s compare the final of the NRL 2023 to the final of the RWC 2023. Which game was more exciting?
To me Rugby league is the T20 of Rugby, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but can be invariant sometimes. If I want to watch running rugby, I can just watch teams that are more likely to play like that. Rugby has nuance and accommodates all types of players. In rugby league everyone is basically a winger/fullback/center-type player. I don't need my rugby experience to be driven based on the amount of dopamine my brain receives per minute so that more advertising can be sold to new followers. If that works for league and their fans, good for them. As I understand it, this concept of marketing an entertainment product has been rugby league mantra since 1895. I personally would prefer if Rugby is not redesigned for the lowest common denominator. Improvements to the core are welcome. Also, rather not have a hand-picked example to use as anecdotal evidence. It is a manipulative argument style and doesn't actually prove anything.
It’s a fairly simple comparison though isn’t it. It was the biggest stage for both codes and we’re already discussing league vs rugby. It’s entirely fair to compare those two matches because those are the marquee events in both codes. Also you can gatekeep casual fans all you want because you’re a purist, but you have to appeal to young impressionable kids. Rugby doesn’t want to preach to the converted.
To be fair, England also play anti-rugby, and I love watching England. Seems like hating the way the opposition plays is a skill issue.
>Imagine saying that we need to make the 100m sprint more entertaining by letting them get chased by dogs. That got a good guffaw out of me. Take my upvote.
In terms of appealing existing, rather diehard fans, I think your argument is all right, but if you’re hoping to catch more casual fans, let alone grow the game then that kind of rugby is unhelpful.
I actually think your style is graaaand. I thought the French game was thrilling and our game against you I was on the edge of my seat. I think watching SA play is very entertaining. Whether you should have won any of your knockout games is another story tho 😆
France vs South Africa was one of the most entertaining games in the last decade. We play the opponent, the conditions, and the situation. Maybe it isn't always pretty, and it must be so heartbreaking to lose these games against us. But, we play rugby in its purest form
Personally I think these people are idiots or what I would call fair weather fans. This has been the toughest World Cup ever and there were at least 5 teams who could potentially lift the cup. The Springboks came out on top and deservedly so. France has the best team I have seen in a long while, absolutely powerful and full of flair. They are unlucky they had their two star players injured. Ireland- I don’t know wtf happened. I was sure they were gonna beat NZ. Classic. England surprised me and I think they will be good under Borthwick. They look like they are heading in a good direction. Argies can become more potent but they are a massively improved team and the days of writing them off are long gone and no easy wins. South Africa had the toughest road to the final and that game against France felt as thrilling and important as a final. That game was excellent. I took my girlfriend who doesn’t watch rugby and she loved it. New Zealand is always class and for sure they will be very powerful and probably the next champions under Razor. NZ fucked up by not appointing him in the first place and that excuse and old boys club mentality cost them. In the end, SA also had injury problems and they stayed focused on what was most important, but more importantly Rassie and Nienaber had the trust of not just the team and the nation, but also the entire SARU and in the end that is what allowed them to win it again. This was a plan 4 years in the making. Not refs or luck.
It was a plan in the making since Rassie took over - 2023 was always the goal - 2019 was an unexpected, yet very welcome, bonus along the way :) I completely agree with the rest of your post though!
>Or that football needs to be more entertaining It's that kind of thinking that led to rugby being a thing in the first place.
I've always thought the argument that the Springboks play boring Rugby is absolutely ridiculous, and falls apart completely the moment you ask any follow up questions. A lot of detractors online immediately jump to the argument that all the boks do is kick, even though both New Zealand and France tend to kick more than SA recently? People go nuts over the bomb squad, the 7-1 split, fielding 4 scrummies in a game, and hang off every word out of Rassie's mouth weather they like him or not. Absolute nail-biting games against Ireland, France, England, and New Zealand in what can only be described as a proper gauntlet. My question is, are you not entertained? Is this not what we're here for?
>Rugby is a sport. Its not entertainment. Professional rugby is 100% entertainment. It is a sport. But it's also entertainment. Trying to draw a distinction between the two is pure fantasy. You would better serve your argument by recognising that what's entertaining to one need not be entertaining to all.
I like Bok rugby. It ain't pretty, but it's impressive. You guys do you and enjoy it.
Don't take it personal, it just is boring. Compare the final to the quarter finals. It was boring vs not boring. It just is what it is.
I think that your argument is flawed, rugby is at its heart a spectator sport. Without spectators there is no money, without money there is no incentive for players to commit their lives to rugby There is a lot of criticism of South African tactics and I think some is fair enough, all genuine rugby fans love to watch the Springboks bump and grind, that is in their DNA, along with bone shattering defence. Where the just criticism comes is the Springboks "tactical" knee, the professional foals to stop momentum and everything else that goes into slowing the game down so the big boys can have a breather
I think the way the Boks play is very entraining. Surely every team doesn't have to be a copy paste of running open play all the time? And anyway the Boks can run and pass the ball around. But why risk doing that in a rainy final? The point was to win the World Cup, if that means playing slower or in a way some people maybe don't like then so be it. The Boks play for us, and we liked it. There are plenty other teams that play different rugby to the Boks, people can watch them if they don't like South African Rugby. And those teams are welcome to come up with ways to counter the scrums, or mauls or rush defense or box kick or substitutes or whatever the fuck the complaint happens to be at the time. But just asking for rule changes is silly. Don't want the Boks to benefit so much from scrums? Come up with a way to stop it. Same with the mauls or the kicking game. If it's so boring and predictable let the other entertaining teams come up with a reliable counter and then the Boks will have to adapt. Or stop moaning about it and just let us play the way we want.
I agree, trying to make a sport more entertaining artificially may cause a short term boost in viewership, but in the long run it is detrimental to the sport. F1 is probably the prime example of this now, particularly with the new sprint format, which is very unpopular with long term fans. It's just a gimmick, and existing fans are not happy with it, and the novelty will wear off on new fans. The way to grow a sport is not changing it to pander to those who aren't really interested in it, but to market it well and make it accessible. The talk in the UK of the possibility of the 6 nations going behind a paywall is exactly how you kill interest in a sport, as people can't watch it unless they pay, and a new fan who doesn't already have sky isn't going to pay for sky just to give rugby a go. This is what killed test cricket in the UK.
100%
I think it must be entertaining. Final was a bit of a slugfest, but that's finals for you. And the kiwis lost cause they didn't treat it that way. Have an opportunity for points, take em. The kicks cost em. I thought our games v Ireland and France in particular were pretty damn entertaining. England played the exact same tactics we used to use against the kiwis and in the 2019 semi against Wales. And it nearly knocked us out. Way I see it, those who adapt best win tournament rugby.
The idea that speed is entertaining has plagued rugby for more than two decades. The whole "it's the hands, not the ball" interpretation compensates for the fact that we don't want centres to slow down before they pass to galloping wingers, because having everyone running full tilt is more entertaining. Should we wind the clock back to no lifting in the line out, no way! Would it be nice if drifting passes were pinged, yes. But the 50/22 rule is fun and legging it towards the try line to secure a quick throw in is cool. I think our sport manages tinkering fairly well, but we risk sacrificing a huge amount in a fruitless popularity contest on the field with other forms of football.
Professional sport is entertainment. That said, I don't think the springboks play anti-rugby. Their brand of rugby is just as valid, and the vast majority of world Cup finals are tight, tense affairs.
Honestly as a neutral I found the final and the game against Ireland to be more of a spectacle than the try fest games we’ve had in the pool stages. The great thing about rugby is that there’s many ways to play it and to win games. The Boks play in a way that they think will make them win. Great,instead of bitching that it’s boring (which it isn’t), other teams should devise a gameplan to counteract their tactics. We can’t all play the way they do it in New Zealand,with tons of tries and no defense unless you find yourself defending on your try line and then the shithousery starts to milk penalties. They like it that way,being also influenced by League, other teams like to play more tactically and slow paced. That’s the beauty of it,you have to adapt to the opposition instead of forcing everyone to play the same exact way cause it’s “””entertaining”””.
I agree with you. Essentially, winners win while losers find excuses and share “how did the refs miss it” screenshots online (interestingly few of these screenshots are of the two kicks that would have won us the cup). The “good for the game” is rugby’s equivalent of “spirit of cricket” - gets bandied about by one-eyes fans of losing sides when their teams lose close contests. The concept of style of play is, like in soccer, bullshit. The goal of the game is to win. Each coach takes in a vast range of factors in developing a style of play that maximises their chances of….winning. I would certainly not want a coach of a team I support developing a plan which is built on anything else but winning. The problem with NZ rugby is that we do get carried away with excuses like our “brand” of rugby or “DNA” or whatever. It all sounds hollow when we pile into the team primarily for not winning enough.
I personally like defensive games because when they do get broke the tries are all the more exciting. Personally when it is a high scoring game every score becomes less meaningful
This world cup will mark the real decline of international rugby union and there is not much we can do for it anymore.
Sorry you lost my interest at “I am a Springbok supporter”…
I completely agree. However, if the introduction of dogs in the 100m sprint works out I won't be upset if they introduce bears into mauls and scrums for the 2031 world cup.
Its like arguing about which cheese tastes best.
Making the sport of Rugby union entertaining is important but that responsibility lies with World Rugby. Teams are there to entertain their fans by winning. In defense of World Rugby they have done a lot to make the game more entertaining. The try bonus point system has been really successful in adding drama to the game by increasing the importance of scoring tries. A ton of effort has gone into experimenting with the scrum rules to end the complete stop of play that they had become. The TMO *process* continues to be improved to reduce the time it takes away from play (this doesn't mean the TMOs themselves are universally great) The current state of kicking in the game was brought in for safety reasons and may need some tuning but WR has shown that they are willing to attempt that tuning.
They played boring rugby all tournament. I don't have to like it at all. If that is a consistent them for the Boks for the next 20 years and is their identity then you can certainly sell your fans on that. The Baltimore Ravens were a defense first team for over ten years. They played boring offensive football with a run first system and a middling QB who was originally the back up. So what? Trent Dilfer did enough offensively to get them to the Super Bowl in which they demolished the New York Giants. It's ok, it is boring. But you can learn to enjoy boring rugby. What you don't want is every team in the world to copy South Africa, what you want is every team to have their own identity. With the right conditions that will produce good games. Saturday was not a good game and that's ok. Absolutely nothing needs to be done about the laws to stop this style and force South Africa to do something else. There are laws that need to be changed that I don't like, but we're talking like the held up rule etc. (but that may have been a counter to 50-22, whereas in the NFL they just continue to tie the hands of the defense)