World Divisional Rugby Competitions

World Divisional Rugby Competitions

Post by Per.. » Wed, 25 Jun 1997 04:00:00


John Harts suggestion of multi layered competition to my mind does not
solve the problem of mis matches.  How does one improve if you are not
playing against the benchmarks.  By seperating teams you are essentially
"ghettoising" the 2nd tier countries.

In the end will end up playing only 5 countries who are competitive, a
slight improvement on the RL scene but only slight.

What is needed is an attractive game so that TV is snared and that
potential atheletes are attracted to the game.  Thats the theory anyway?

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet

 
 
 

World Divisional Rugby Competitions

Post by Bruce Hamilt » Wed, 25 Jun 1997 04:00:00


Quote:

>John Harts suggestion of multi layered competition to my mind does not
>solve the problem of mis matches.  How does one improve if you are not
>playing against the benchmarks.  By seperating teams you are essentially
>"ghettoising" the 2nd tier countries.

To be fair to John Hart, he mentioned promotion and relegation components
in his off-the-cuff divisonal system. There is no reason why all games would
have to be divisional.

Also it's worth remembering that Michael Jones was greatly respected by his
teammates and they wanted to play the game for him, so they had a
compelling reason to keep scoring and play for the full 80 minutes.  

The Dominion cartoon highlighted the issue. An All Black with the number
93 on his back digging a grave for a coffin reading " Pumas 8 ", and
the Headstone reading " Amateur Rugby ".

I think that this year and last year I've watched more rugby than any time
over the past two decades, and I've been thrilled at the skill levels and
talent that make me watch right to the end, regardless of the score. Not
just Super 12, but even the tests have been excellent viewing.

Without introducing too much controversy into the rather dour IRB
comments, I do wonder if the change in the lineouts might be worth
reviewing to ascertain if it is encouraging competitiveness, especially
as sometimes sides don't even compete for the ball.

                      Bruce Hamilton

 
 
 

World Divisional Rugby Competitions

Post by Ian Diddam » Fri, 04 Jul 1997 04:00:00

Bruce hamilton wrote :

Quote:
> Without introducing too much controversy into the rather dour IRB
> comments, I do wonder if the change in the lineouts might be worth
> reviewing to ascertain if it is encouraging competitiveness, especially
> as sometimes sides don't even compete for the ball.

But an excellent discussion point; Paul Waite has mentioned this, and
there is an excellent article published in his "Rant & Rave" section of
his "Haka" website, written by a NZ referee...

Trecent remarks reported in the media from Hart complaining that in the
2nd test Argentina merelt tried to prevent NZ playing I believe merely
reflect Bruce's points...  Surely it is understandable that after the
1st test result, Argentina would want to limit the pasting they could
expect in the 2nd test.  Possibly realising that there were unable to
compete under current laws, there only options were to attempt to "mess
up" the NZ game.  It is arguable that they acheived this rather well, by
reducing their points conceded by 33%.

However by doing so, they sacrificed (from reports) any attempt to
actually compete for the ball, and concentrated on competing for the
man...

A sad indictment of the state of the game, but I am not sure how to
overcome it short of returning to the bad old days of continual pile ups
and line-out lotteries..

Didds.