In the days after the World Cup quarter-finals, global media were waxing lyrical about one of the greatest weekends of rugby ever produced.
There was genuine wonderment about how brilliantly the four games played out – showcasing the fundamentals of the sport and the quirks that set it apart.
The pace, intensity and skill level of the New Zealand versus Ireland and France versus South Africa games were incredible.
There was set-piece crunch, brilliant attack, brave defence, a desire to take risks and a breathlessness that took all four teams to the brink of their aerobic capacities.
The other two encounters didn’t have the same intensity or skill-level, but they were compelling in their own ways – and certainly no one who paid to watch England beat Fiji or Argentina beat Wales, would have felt they didn’t get value for money, or that they wouldn’t want to buy a semifinal ticket.
But here we are now, six weeks after the final in which South Africa sneaked past New Zealand 12-11 and the conversation in the Southern Hemisphere has switched to trying to determine ways in which to fix the game.
The mood in New Zealand changed in the weeks after the final, to one of concern that international rugby needs a re-set to help produce a consistently entertaining product.
Specifically, Kiwis believe there is a need to clear-up the role of the TMO and how they interact with the referee.
Executives, coaches, players and media have all had their say on this topic – unanimously agreeing that they would like to return to a world where the referee is unambiguously in charge, with light support from the TMO available on request.
NZR chief executive Mark Robinson is leading the charge, telling media in Auckland last week that: “We saw some incredible rugby at the tournament [RWC], and early on we saw, especially in southern France, some incredible scenes around fans being able to get close to teams. We saw some great footy, and some significant upsets.
“It’s fair to say as the tournament grew there was fan frustration around some elements of the game.
“We are very interested to be part of the ongoing discussion that’s going to take place in the near future to look to address that.
“We are very clear in New Zealand, and we believe in Australia, and we believe other parts of the world are starting to acknowledge that the fan has to be far more greatly considered in our consideration of what we’re going to do with the future state of the game.”
It’s understandable that there is some angst in New Zealand about the role technology plays in the game, after a World Cup final that was at times confusing in the way it was officiated.
And probably Robinson is right that most other countries are keen to get this area tidied up and to better establish the referee as the primary official.
But New Zealand’s concern about the state of international rugby runs a little deeper, and it’s apparent that they feel they want more done to facilitate a faster, aerobic contest.
The feeling in New Zealand is that the quarterfinal weekend was the exception rather than the rule, and that international rugby frequently disappoints fans by producing low-tempo contests that are punctuated with too many unnecessary stoppages.
The stats out of the World Cup certainly support New Zealand’s general sense of the game being less fluid and more kick driven.
According to data from Opta, the average number of phases per possession dropped to 1.8 in 2023, compared with three in 2019.
The numbers also showed that the average number of offloads per game was down to 13.8, which compares with 30 in 1987, 17 in 2011 and 15 in 2019, while 25 per cent of all kicks were classified as box kicks, compared with just five per cent in 1987.
These numbers suggest rugby is more conservative than it has ever been with teams preferring to play without the ball and kick high and short.
And, with several games extending past 100 minutes in total due to the length if time taken to review decisions, New Zealand’s mission to see if things can be changed seems valid.
However, what’s interesting to ponder is whether New Zealanders would be on this crusade had Jordie Barrett kicked a late penalty in the final to win it for the All Blacks.
If they had won the final, would they still think the TMO and referee had a confused relationship, and that fans were let down by the constant stoppages?
What’s also true is that New Zealand, and to some extent Australia, has its own, defined, singular take on what type of rugby it likes.
The prevailing view in Oceania is that international rugby should be high-tempo, ball-in-hand and focused more on attacking space, scoring tries and producing aerobic contests.
This year’s Bledisloe Cup test in Melbourne saw the ball-in-play for a staggering 44 minutes – staggering because the average at the World Cup was about 34 minutes.
That sort of open, running rugby suits the athletes both New Zealand and Australia seem to naturally produce and aligns with the style that is predominantly seen in Super Rugby where games can often produce 10-12 tries.
Robinson seems to think there is growing support among his Northern Hemisphere colleagues to put the game under scrutiny and ask hard questions about whether it is producing the sort of entertainment qualities that he says fans everywhere want.
“We will be looking at the challenge of making the game more fan-centric at the international level,” Robinson said.
“There will be key meetings at the end of February in Europe between ourselves, our Sanzaar partners, the Six Nations and World Rugby and right at the heart of the conversation is how we look to continue to make sure we’re more consistently seeing the kind of rugby we believe all fans want to see.
“A number of key strands go into that work. We’ve got to have the right information so we’re clear on what fans want to see. How does that then impact on our laws?
“How can we support our match officials, and our players and coaches, to make sure the product can be truly spectacular and special so more and more fans around the world want to gravitate towards it?”
But are the Australasians correct, that this is the style of rugby fans everywhere want to see and that due consideration should be given to looking at ways – be it through experimental law changes or other means – to adapt the current game to enhance the likelihood of more test matches having more running content?
Is fast and furious the only means by which to ensure fans around the world will be hooked on international rugby?
Despite Robinson’s confidence, it seems unlikely that South Africa and the Six Nations view the game through the same lens and that New Zealand will struggle to gain much traction with any hard pitch that that is seen to play into the All Blacks’ hands tactically.
Rugby, after all, is a game built on the premise that it is for all shapes and sizes and that makes scrums and lineouts a critical part as they remain the primary reason the sport needs 125kg props, 2.02m locks and 1.7m scrum-halves.
The North still build much of their tactical planning around the set-piece and its often the clash of styles that makes test rugby so compelling.
The final was a case in point – South Africa picking seven forwards on their bench, gambling they could physically crush a New Zealand team, with the risk that if they were wrong, the All Blacks could run them off their feet.
The week before in the semi-final, England kicked almost all their possession – a tactic that was widely condemned in New Zealand, with media describing the encounter as one of the worst games of the tournament.
But the English media had an entirely different take – seeing it as the best performance of the Steve Borthwick era and a tactical masterclass that came up just two minutes short of producing a remarkable victory.
This is the magic of rugby – it is physical chess with teams having to play to their strengths while protecting their weaknesses and ultimately, what New Zealand will have to accept, is that fans will equate entertaining rugby with winning rugby.
The Kiwis may be adamant that faster, more open rugby equals more entertaining, but the rest of the world isn’t so sure.
Not much “naturally produce” when 9/33 players in AB’s.. aka the Pacific Lions 2023 RWC squad where not born in NZ. If NZ has the best rugby system in the world, prove it, recruit and select your own “naturally produced” players. Lets see what happens in 2024. Add Sevu Reece and you have 10 Non NZ born players.
Frankly, when NZ win, however, the world is fine. When they don’t, it is not. If they want to speed up the game and run faster, by all means, go for it. Try and outsmart the opposition, who have recently been outsmarting you. The game has a lot of ways to play, find your way to win, then win. Until then, please stop moaning that the Springboks have beaten NZ twice in the finals, etc etc
Does NZ understand that they are in the minority. So world rugby should grow the game by listening to its smallest fan bases?
WR must abandon their mandate of protecting SA at all costs if the game is to remain watchable by genuine rugby fans. Simple as that.
Cute little flower petal Nigel has quickly stopped giving his husband a BJ so he can jump on the comments section to complain again 😂😂😂. Nigel don’t deny your husband a gobble, get back and make him happy. Good boy.
Please no!…I’ve seen enough 7s and Rugby league to know we have a brilliant product!…slight changes perhaps but as your article states if AB won its unlikely dramatic changes would be demanded!
rugby is lost as a sport if the way the Bok play becomes the norm.
It was a Tournament. Many tournaments are like that even at school level. Sport, Hockey, cricket rugby has a different freedom throughout the year. Then tournament week, becomes less risk taking. Logical.
Boks can open it up eg BOK v AB’s at twickenham
However, what’s interesting to ponder is whether New Zealanders would be on this crusade had Jordie Barrett kicked a late penalty in the final to win it for the All Blacks.
Yes we would. Most emphatically. Ive stopped watching after playing and following for 60 yrs. ….and my kids and grandies arent interested either. The game is excruciating to watch.
probably - they have in fact been saying this for over a decade now. A decade in which they have won far more than they have lost against SA
Stopped watching? Well maybe you should stop posting opinions, then. How can you comment if you are not watching? Did you just watch the highlights or just read the title?
If you are still watching then you have lied. Said you stopped. Unreliable witness your honor. remove.
All nations use different EVLs to improve rugbies spectacle, so why aren’t some of these ELVs used to improve the philosophy of rugbies spectacle even more?
Won’t tweaking and adding some more experimental variation laws create a better spectacle with more ball in play, while creating more time for the precision of the TMO to make sure the right teams wins. Like reviewing some tries back five phrases for fouls. Otherwise any team could win a Super rugby game or the RWC by cheating and many people would stop watching it.
1/ The TMO ref alone must become the sole judge of maul or ruck tries, to help the field-ref avoid being called BIAS because they haven’t got an eagle-eye. All ruck or maul tries or any technicalities leading up to a try must be checked by the TMO within the last five phrases before rewarding a try or the game of rugby will become a joke, because that stops teams from cheating to win. Or lose some spectators!
Only a few tries need checking, which wastes very little time. You can see everything that the TMO sees on the big screen as common-sense anyway. Just as having “no” field-refs ‘soft or hard’ decision given, “could” influence the TMOs eagle-eye to become blind?
To use the TMO correctly only takes very little game TIME. To not use the technology correctly when it suits, is to make the wrong team win the game like sanctioned undetectable cheating. Why watch this game if the spectators don’t get the vital decisions judged correctly?
2/ To combine Australasia’s 20-minute red card with the RWCs TMO bunker system. Which would eliminate most pedantic penalty sanctions as technicalities while speeding the game up!
3/ Why is the field ref legally allowed to sanction any player with a CARD without a quick TMO review?
4/ Using the TMO as a timeclock would eliminate a lot of dead time making 20-minute quarters very necessary. Having 20-minute quarters helps rehydrate a team and can speed the game up, by only allowing subbing in every quarter (Subbing during game slows the game up). Why aren’t 10 subs allowed on the bench to avoid golden oldy scrums, while creating heaps of extra combinations and extra coaching to keep the game simple?
5/To make all attempted intercepts that aren’t intercepted to be at least a scrum advantage or when they stop a try from being scored to be an automatic yellow-card sanction.
6/ To allow only one scrum to stop penalties, then a free kick. All scrum infringements should be free-kicks. This will stop teams scrumming for penalties and matches won’t be decided by contentious penalties.
7/ To make all 50/50 calls within the oppositions twenty-two, to be given to the attacking team to help the field-ref avoid bias as he hasn’t got the TMOs eagle-eyes, that will obviously create more tries.
8/ To limit four consecutive penalties within the twenty to be a YELLOW CARDED sanction.
9/ For every twelve penalty in a game to be a team sanctioned penalty as a YELLOW CARD.
10/ To not allow any advantage to go passed 5 phases (use it or lose it), as a team could take a scrum.
11/ To only allow the golden-point rule as a tie-breaker to be used only in the playoffs where the first try is the winner of the game. (kicking goals should be irrelevant as the wind can do that by itself).
12/ If a player catches the ball on the full from any kick outside the twenty-two, they can call ‘mark’ tap and go. This will discourage teams from doing box kick after box kick and actually attack with the ball. The kicks they should use should be grubbers or chips to find grass. Then bounce of the ball could go either way.
13/ Players cannot ‘jackleg’ for the ball at rucks (e.g. can’t put their hands on the ball in a ruck). Players aren’t trying to win the ball, but rather win a penalty. To turn the ball over, they will need to counter ruck and take that space. This should lead to more clean turnovers, take the referee out of the game, plus make the breakdown safer.
14/ To only have a losing ‘bonus point’ for a loss of five points and under and to ditch the four try ‘bonus point’ as a team’s ‘for and against’ shows that stat anyway?
Yes, someone with brains. Experimental variation laws, yes use them to evaluate things and use straight after World cups to get ready for next one! To make a better game, improve. Some great ideas in here. Hope the right decision making power people read this.
I’m inclined to let Northen & Southern styles exist the sa me as is,! However I believe both sides agree that tha TMO needs putting back in the box & only adjudicating on a specific request from the Ref. This trawling back thru multiple phases for something that the Ref & his 2 sideline pimps have not seen has to be killed off. Let’s have 1 year of that before altering the game dramatically.
Most of what is being talked about will be similar I reckon. 20min red cards, some reduction in the other delay tactics the lesser teams try to crux on like huddles at lineouts. Maybe bench laws or talk of something around the ruck that helps the ref make better easier calls.
There seems to be a feel of antagonism towards running rugby as this article is coming out of Super Rugby, all you need to play like that is intent, laws don’t change that. The spectacle referred to is just that nothing is happening a lot of the time in rugby, not that what is happening is more boring than running rugby. That includes SR, where there are other articles saying they are working on that competition as well still. The fact that World Rugby is having similar discussions next year is why this context is including everyone.
I like it like it is. Thanks.
This article is conflating multiple points.
What is true is that there must be less stoppages during the game. The TMO is one side of things, but also the physios constantly running onto the field, 2 minute water breaks etc… The combination of these two things make the game very hard to watch at times. You can have 10 mins of watching time for 2 mins of rugby.
I don’t think there is much support to make the game more “open” or incentivise the “southern hemisphere” style of play, if that’s what you want to call it. 12 tries don’t make a rugby match exciting - it’s the stakes and how close the scores are. I think there could be a couple of tweaks to make teams actually want the ball:
1) you can only take a shot at goal for a penalty if you are in possession of the ball, and staggered points on offer depending on where the penalty is awarded - penalty awarded inside 22: 3 points, 22-halfway: 2 points, in your own half: 1 point.
As defences have become so good, especially at international level, I don’t think it makes sense that 2 penalties kicked from inside your own half, won while defending, are worth more than a try.
2) If not the above, then tries are worth 7. Do away with conversions.
Also “ball in play time” is a red herring and doesn’t make a game any better or worse to watch, other than it means the game finishes sooner when high - What we should be aiming for is game completion time, not ball in play time. The referees have to be empowered to force teams to stop messing around, and captains and players need to be incentivised to ensure games are finished within a certain window. E.g if a scrum is awarded both teams have 30 seconds to be ready to engage. No excuse for someone being, or pretending to be injured. They either join the scrum/line out or leave the field, or else a penalty is conceded.
Great way to ensure sides are actually earning their 3 points by needing them to have already been in possession of the ball. This includes lineouts and scrums, as although sides have the advantage (feed or throw) no side is actually deemed in possession of the ball (they designed to be contests for the ball), so no shots at goal from set piece penalties would go a long way to ensure they remain facets as intended and do not reward negative play.
You are also correct that ball not in play time is just, even ‘more’ really, as important as ball in play. It is a very difficult situation however, as in your situation an injured player can’t leave the field - because he is in fact injured. The processes on the field still need to revolve around player safety and what needs are in real injury situations. Forcing a player to leave the field before, within say 5 seconds, before a physio can judge the extent, i’m afraid is not a safe action (have to assume, not a physio). Some ideas would be that the game still gets stopped, but the player goes to the sideline. They can immediately return in football? I feel that wouldn’t be a deterrent, maybe in rugby it should be from the halfway line, the officials allowing players on the field always stay at halfway, so any player stalling and whose team is on defence, has a long way to go to get back onside (not something required of them in football). There are a few other ideas but one of the strangest things to me has been that injury replacements in rugby are deemed ineligible to return to the field, while tactically subbed players are allowed. Change in the way the bench is used is a necessity now that SA have proved that changing out your whole forward pack is the most logical way to play now. I think it might be better to allow unlimited injury replacements, so a player can just instantly be swapped and looked at on the sidelines, and limit the number of tactical subs. Creating a far more interesting tactical and organic bench use.
“The All Blacks feel the need for speed” - the AB’s get their speed from Fiji.
?
I had replied to this nonsense on an earlier Rugby pass article.
I will repeat.
I call BS. The emperor has no clothes on. Fan-centric what hogwash. I want high performance, I want competition between two teams. That’s what I want to see. I chose sport not entertainment. Go back to the board room this is our game.
Also lies, there were no fans in the stands at Super Rugby Pacific. There were more fans in Dublin, Limerick, Capetown, Treviso etc France top 14, URC, Gallagher Premiership. European Rugby Champions Cup and European Challenge Cup.
Sit down and shut up. You have little sway now, the gold Standard is Africa, Ireland, UK, France and Europe. What say they?
Fan -centric, oh before you score that try please do a triple reverse backflip. When you emerge out of a collapsed scrum or maul, remember to smile and wave to the crowd. When you break your leg, please crawl off the field as soon as you can and go directly to changing rooms do not talk to media.
Fan-centric like when the Gladiators were instructed to make it more exciting.
Oh excuse me Mr William Webb Ellis or who ever picked the ball up. Did you pick the ball up to score, have fun, physically test your opposition or did you do it for the dog on the sideline?
Do not have fun and enjoy the game, the challenge and focus on absolute high performance, your best game. Don’t forget to wave to the crowd. In fact at half time can you stay on the field and either do a dance performance or interact with the crowd.
Who cares if the fans are frustrated or not entertained.
In the 2000 movie Gladiator, Maximus says, "Are you not entertained? Are you not entertained?
Go to the movies for your entertainment. Go to Hollywood for your fan-centric. Marketing speak and too many “yes” people involved in that decision and press release I think.
If TMOs used so what, I don’t care if the game takes 4 hours I will love every second of it.
European Rugby Champions Cup teams play the best players of multiple countries every year. best of the best, or shall we listen to New Zealand Rugby CEO. Backwards and downwards.
The IRB has a 7’s rugby circuit where it can be fan-centred circus, dress ups allowed. Leave our game alone. You are not a key decision maker, you have no voice. World rugby makes their own evidence based decisions in discussion with Players, officials and key stakeholders.
If you want to play to the crowd, Super, keep it in your super dupa backyard. We are not following you.
“elevate the fan consideration” oh dear what gobbledygook, jibber-jabber, Gibberish
You’re not seeing high performance though. Just look at South Africa’s performance in the Rugby World Cup Final. It was very weak and insipid, it contained only one or two tactical patterns and both were of the most basic skill aspect in rugby. They did the easiest thing possible.
Conversely, what do you mean by competition? Because if you put a team trying to use 15 players up against a team trying to use only 9 or 10, you don’t get an even contest between those first 8-10 players.
You should actually try and pay attention to what is being talked about in this articles would be my suggestion to you.
EXACTLY!
Woah, who hurt you bro? So angry. Irish fan?
Rugby is a game with rucks, mauls, scrums and lineouts apart from backline play. Embrace and become great at the whole game instead of pushing this one-dimensional backline-centred game. And if you don’t want to, there is always rugby league which NZ seems to be hell-bent on converting rugby union to.
What do you mean by backline centred game? Are you getting defensive and assuming that’s not what your team is doing? I think you’d be surprised to know what now knock out rugby is over for another 4 years this is actually how your team will be playing!
But yes! Those are the areas that need fixing, not backline play. Or are you happy accepting that any steal at a ruck or turnover has a 50/50 chance of being allowed or penalised? That your teams building attack was stopped as a result? Do you like 4 people but joined at a maul ass on head and waiting 6 seconds for the halfback to roll the back and kick it? Do you like that there is not a fair competition when your teams defending a lineout maul because the ref allows the attacks to join and block from anywhere?
Surely you must have something you think rugby could be better for? Most people I know think the what rucks have turned into are a uncompetitive joke and nothing more than a League play of the ball these days.
Worth noting that NZ are very strong in these facets of the game. I think they are trying to return it to how it was played 30+ years ago which was an undeniably better spectacle, rather than league. With the decreasing aerobic aspect, leading to much bigger players, and far more stoppages to accommodate them it’s getting more similar to NFL as a spectacle.
The key point is we need to get back to the one ref. The TMO was over ruling the ref in the world cup final and even rubbed out a try that he had no right to involve himself in. The TMO seemed to be passionate about checking whether tries were correctly awarded but had no problem with nonsense penalties being awarded or knocking on at the base of the scrum and not putting the ball into the scrum when set was okay too as was ‘retiring’ into the ball being passed. The TMO penalizing tries from being scored whilst letting blatant obstruction go largely unpunished is a serious issue slowing the game.
What are “nonsense penalties”? I have never heard of them.
Ball was not put in because AB’s Hit was early and the scrum was moving. Great experience shown by halfback for holding on to the ball. Most you would get anyhow would be a free kick or another scrum if it was deemed to be delaying putting the ball in. As for “retiring” into the ball being passed -seems the AB’s might have the world record for throwing ball directly into players for a penalty.
You forgot referee’s from that list.
Certainly. They are required to eek out every little bit of value given their predicament. You have to take what NZR with a grain of salt though, they are in the business of increasing followers.
No, that is not really the purpose. Doing that erodes their own aerobic advantage. It is about player safety. NZ and Aus have those 140kg kids running around if they needed them/thought that strategy was best. Is that health though? Reducing size reduces injuries, not allow teams to take stoppages is just the safe necessity. Law changes having been about favoring attacking rugby, its about not rewarding negative (adds nothing to the game) rugby, and not turning away new (or old) fans when one minute your team is penalized for an action that the next minute the opposition is not penalized for.
All signs from SA are that they are onboard, Rassie has often iterated that. Ireland is obviously onboard with their universal adoption from fluid rugby. Scotland and France appear to be re-igniting that flair as well. I think it is more about which nations are going to be the hurdles.
What is abundantly clear, is that the All Blacks play the best brand of winning rugby. There is simply no other way the success of such a tiny nation can be explained. Which undoubtedly Ireland, and even France, have shown. Whether it’s more entertaining, ie more people are interested in watching it, will be known in the pudding (like your description to the reaction of the quarter final weekend).
Well said, the high scoring nature of Super Rugby is one of the things that makes it less watchable for me. Don’t get me wrong we want to see tries and line breaks but watching attack vs defence, with competitive rucks and set piece is also amazing to watch, it’s what separates it from league.
Yep, I think that’s the prevailing attitude, we love rugby but as it is rugby can’t be the best in can be because sports like League and NFL are better visual attractions and so lure most of the money. So while you’re right about the SR brand, SR still has all those other facets, they just take a back seat in the production value.
The good news is that there might be more investment placed in SR’s appeal, so not only will new changes produce a better quality of running rugby, but you could also see that emphasis placed on the traditional set piece aspects.