NFL Coach's View of Rugby

Madworld

http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/01/18/an-nfl-coach-looks-at-rugby/

It's an old Australian article from 2009 but there are some very interesting points in there. I'd personally be against some of the changes he suggests but he definitely makes some great points about potential impoverishments regarding commercialisation of the game.

There are just some personal suggestions but I'd love to see teams releasing stats similar to the NFL combine wherby we could find out what players are lifting and what speeds they're running 100m.

Madworld

Edit

Teferi

A lot/most of his suggestions would essentially turn it into American Football. You're grand thanks. I love American Football but if you watch a game on TV it's essentially an advertising omnibus with some football in between and watching a game live is fairly mental too, loads of advertising blimps floating around, cheerleaders driving trucks around the stadium perimeter shooting T-shirts into the crowd etc.

irishbucsfan

No thanks. I have no interest in turning rugby into a sport made for the lowest common denominator.

Stereomaniac

There are some that would argue that that is what it is already. What's your opinion on that?

Swan Curry

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No thanks. I have no interest in turning rugby into a sport made for the lowest common denominator.

God forbid the plebs start watching our glorious gentlemanly game.

Morf

The level of sport science seen in American Football will continue to grow in rugby.

The NFL are throwing so much money at athletic performance/predicting future performance/conditioning etc. that rugby coaches would be mad not to take advantage of it.

Hazys

Why is the assistant unnamed? For all we know he could have been a ball boy for the 49ers

irishbucsfan

Swan Curry wrote: »

God forbid the plebs start watching our glorious gentlemanly game.

Didn't say anything even remotely like that

davyjose

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Didn't say anything even remotely like that

Did the NFL coach?

irishbucsfan

davyjose wrote: »

Did the NFL coach?

Yes he did. Get rid of the knock on rule because it frustrates some people?!

P_1

I have to say it's a bit rich of an NFL coach to accuse rugby of being too 'stop-start'. Every single down of american football can be considered to be the definition of 'stop-start'.

irishbucsfan

We can learn a lot about the business side of things from the NFL. But we don't need to Americanise the sport itself to do so.

P_1

irishbucsfan wrote: »

We can learn a lot about the business side of things from the NFL. But we don't need to Americanise the sport itself to do so.

Yeah that's true. If there's one thing they do right it's the sense of drama and hype they bring to each game. It makes Barnes and Harrison in the last minutes of a Heineken Cup match seem like they're reading out the BBC classified football results on a Saturday evening.

Hazys

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Yes he did. Get rid of the knock on rule because it frustrates some people?!

I don't think its that bad of an idea. It used to be if a team knocked the ball on the whistle blew straight away. No chance of advantage for the opposition team.

I'm sure when they changed the knock on rule to allow advantage, people complained then but I don't think you'll have many people wanting to reverting back to the old way now for the purity of the game.


His points about sacrificing the 'purity' or need for perfection of the game to make the game more exciting to a wider audience are pretty intriguing. There is definitely room to make the game less stop/start and more free flowing. Its the reason the IRB brought in advantage after the knock on rule.

The game will always need to constantly evolve.

Pudsy33

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No thanks. I have no interest in turning rugby into a sport made for the lowest common denominator.

American football can be incredibly complex, even more so then rugby. How does this equate to a sport made for the lowest common denominator?

With regards this coaches comments, I think they're absurd. He criticises rugby for blowing up the smallest of errors, yet his game stop 30 seconds for every 10 of play.

P_1

Hazys wrote: »

I don't think its that bad of an idea. It used to be if a team knocked the ball on the whistle blew straight away. No chance of advantage for the opposition team.

I'm sure when they changed the knock on rule to allow advantage, people complained then but I don't think you'll have many people wanting to reverting back to the old way now for the purity of the game.


His points about sacrificing the 'purity' or need for perfection of the game to make the game more exciting to a wider audience are pretty intriguing. There is definitely room to make the game less stop/start and more free flowing. Its the reason the IRB brought in advantage after the knock on rule.

The game will always need to constantly evolve.

Ah but there's a massive difference between allowing the other team to have the potential to take advantage of another team committing a foul and letting a team who has just committed a foul continue on as if nothing happened.

F1ngers

Madworld wrote: »

Edit*** Could the Mods edit the thread title please for the typo. ***

Click "Edit" and then "Go Advanced" and edit the title yourself.

Hazys

P_1 wrote: »

Ah but there's a massive difference between allowing the other team to have the potential to take advantage of another team committing a foul and letting a team who has just committed a foul continue on as if nothing happened.

Well it wouldn't be a foul if they removed the rule.

Hagz

If you told me the laws and traditions of rugby wouldn't change one iota from now till the day I die, I'd be more than satisfied.

Keep yer filthy mitts of my beloved rugby.

P_1

Hazys wrote: »

Well it wouldn't be a foul if they removed the rule.

Sure if you did that you'd basically have american football without downs.

Why do I feel like I've been suddenly transported 110 years back to when they were debating about allowing forward passes :pac:

Hazys

Hagz wrote: »

If you told me the laws and traditions of rugby wouldn't change one iota from now till the day I die, I'd be more than satisfied.

Keep yer filthy mitts of my beloved rugby.

Thats completely unrealistic.

Compare the game now to 10 years ago, completely different...not to mention 20/30 years ago.

irishbucsfan

Pudsy33 wrote: »

American football can be incredibly complex, even more so then rugby. How does this equate to a sport made for the lowest common denominator?.

Its presented in a way that hides the complexity as much as possible.

Ameeican sports are made for TV. Short bursts of action that will keep the attention of people who can't handle european sports which are drawn out over 40/45 minutes without a break. American viewers find that very hard to endure.

Hagz

Hazys wrote: »

Thats completely unrealistic.

Compare the game now to 10 years ago, completely different...not to mention 20/30 years ago.

It's unrealistic, but it's true. The only thing I wan't to change is the scrum, but you have to be very cautious when you fiddle with that as it's an imperative part of the game.

Hell, the notion of getting rid of knock ons basically eradicates the scrum. Might as well go watch rugby league if that's what you're into.

molloyjh

The direction in which the ball is allowed to travel is a pretty fundamental aspect of the game. Allowing knock-ons is a one way street to allowing forward passes and sure we're almost at NFL there already.

I've tried to watch NFL before a few times and I just can't. It's starts, no wait it stopped for a few mins. Ok here we go. No hang on its stopped again. Right lets see what this is....how the hell can they have stopped again already!? For an NFL coach to call rugby too stop-start is laughable.

Rugby is building it's support well enough, as plenty of American fans will tell you. It's certainly a lot more global a sport than American Football. So with all of the above considered I'm happy enough to ignore that article.

Swiwi.

There might be more money in NFL, but as a worldwide sport, rugby has much broader appeal, and is growing rapidly with the advent of rugby 7s in the Olympics.

Rugby clearly has more competitive nations than when I started watching rugby in the 1980s, and I think in 20 years or so, there should be maybe 15 fairly decent countries competing.

As for getting rid of knock-ons, no thanks.

P_1

Also it's worth noting that that article is nearly 2 years old. There are some aspects of american football that I wouldn't mind seeing in rugby, mainly the coaches challenge. But you could argue that that's starting to creep in with the TMO's scope being increased.

Jedwardian

NFL Coach wrote:

Some rugby officials claim they’re in the sports business, not the entertainment business, but any pro sport, if it’s televised – and you’ll be pauperized if it isn’t – is in the entertainment biz. Therefore, you have to entice the folks into watching, and keep them from switching channels.

http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/01/18/an-nfl-coach-looks-at-rugby/

This is what it all boils down to for me. In the greater scheme of things, rugby clubs aren't competing with each other, the sport is competing with other forms of entertainment be it televised football, reality shows, live music.

Rugby is a relatively young sport given that it's been professional for less than 20 years. It would be wise to take pointers from, and learn from the mistakes of, more established professional sports like Football, American Football, Aussie Rules and Rugby League on how to cater for a larger audience.

I don't agree with the coach's views about knock ons in open play and splitting the game into quarters. I do think certain things could easily be implemented without changing the fabric of the game. For example:

1. Move the goalposts to the dead ball line rather than the try line. It would basically takes the goalposts out of play and gives teams no obstruction when attacking/defending the try line. Also, penalties awarded between the 10 metre and half way line are often now within kickers range. Moving the posts back to the dead ball line would theoretically mean teams would have to go for the corner more since kicks at goal from distance may become out of range. It does a little to promote attacking rugby.

2. Modify Rugby League's 40-20 rule into a Union setting. In League, if a team kicks the ball out of play from within their own 40 metre line to within their opponents 20 metre, they get head and feed into a scrum from where the ball went out of play. In Rugby Union, this could be adapted from kicking from within the 10 metre line in your own half to the opposition 22 and the reward being a lineout on your own throw. This rewards accurate kicking and also means defences must move a player back to combat this. Less players in the defensive line makes attacking easier.

3. Re-examine the size of the ball. Ball handling in Rugby League and American Football seems, without a scientific study on my part to back it up, to be of a higher standard than Rugby Union. Balls in those sports are more pointed, lighter, easier to carry and pass. A tweak in the size of the ball doesn't change the fabric of the sport but if it reduces ball handling errors and makes the game faster and more open, it should be looked at in my opinion.

Swiwi.

Jedwardian wrote: »

http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/01/18/an-nfl-coach-looks-at-rugby/

This is what it all boils down to for me. In the greater scheme of things, rugby clubs aren't competing with each other, the sport is competing with other forms of entertainment be it televised football, reality shows, live music.

Rugby is a relatively young sport given that it's been professional for less than 20 years. It would be wise to take pointers from, and learn from the mistakes of, more established professional sports like Football, American Football, Aussie Rules and Rugby League on how to cater for a larger audience.

I don't agree with the coach's views about knock ons in open play and splitting the game into quarters. I do think certain things could easily be implemented without changing the fabric of the game. For example:

1. Move the goalposts to the dead ball line rather than the try line. It would basically takes the goalposts out of play and gives teams no obstruction when attacking/defending the try line. Also, penalties awarded between the 10 metre and half way line are often now within kickers range. Moving the posts back to the dead ball line would theoretically mean teams would have to go for the corner more since kicks at goal from distance may become out of range. It does a little to promote attacking rugby.

2. Modify Rugby League's 40-20 rule into a Union setting. In League, if a team kicks the ball out of play from within their own 40 metre line to within their opponents 20 metre, they get head and feed into a scrum from where the ball went out of play. In Rugby Union, this could be adapted from kicking from within the 10 metre line in your own half to the opposition 22 and the reward being a lineout on your own throw. This rewards accurate kicking and also means defences must move a player back to combat this. Less players in the defensive line makes attacking easier.

3. Re-examine the size of the ball. Ball handling in Rugby League and American Football seems, without a scientific study on my part to back it up, to be of a higher standard than Rugby Union. Balls in those sports are more pointed, lighter, easier to carry and pass. A tweak in the size of the ball doesn't change the fabric of the sport but if it reduces ball handling errors and makes the game faster and more open, it should be looked at in my opinion.

I don't want rugby competing with the likes of live music for entertainment. It's first and foremost a game for the players and genuine fans, and I don't think it's doing too bad at being a commercially viable product.

Definitely no to Points 1 & 2 from me, but there might be merit in examining the ball itself, although I suspect that has been done already, with the amount of technology these days.

thebaz

2 completly different games , personally I much prefer rugby , and have played rugby in US , really enjoyed it - the NFL whether on telly or live was a bit like going to the circus - not going to knock it lots of Americans love it , but has it ever produced the global excitemtment of say say france v NZ in '99 ? i do feal rugby is getting very Americanised already , for better or worse.

Jedwardian

Le vieux renard wrote: »

I don't want rugby competing with the likes of live music for entertainment.

It already is. It's competing with all forms of entertainment for our money. Do I watch the Pro 12 on RTE or Coronation Street on TV3? Do I go to the RDS to see Leinster play or the o2 for Leonard Cohen?

I'd argue that rugby isn't yet commercially viable. Just a month ago "less than half the 3,700 available tickets (for the Aviva Stadium) were sold meaning the board only managed to make €14 million after expecting to bank around €40 million". Thomond Park hasn't been a financial success. The Heineken Cup split is all about increasing revenues for English and French teams. In the Aviva Premiership, only Leicester, Northampton, Gloucester and Exeter are profitable. NZ lost about £15m on the 2011 Rugby World Cup.

Ideally Rugby would cater for the players only but that won't pay the bills. More commercialization and changing of the rules (like the poorly conceived ELVs) is inevitable to make the game more spectator and television friendly.

P_1

Jedwardian wrote: »

1. Move the goalposts to the dead ball line rather than the try line. It would basically takes the goalposts out of play and gives teams no obstruction when attacking/defending the try line. Also, penalties awarded between the 10 metre and half way line are often now within kickers range. Moving the posts back to the dead ball line would theoretically mean teams would have to go for the corner more since kicks at goal from distance may become out of range. It does a little to promote attacking rugby.

2. Modify Rugby League's 40-20 rule into a Union setting. In League, if a team kicks the ball out of play from within their own 40 metre line to within their opponents 20 metre, they get head and feed into a scrum from where the ball went out of play. In Rugby Union, this could be adapted from kicking from within the 10 metre line in your own half to the opposition 22 and the reward being a lineout on your own throw. This rewards accurate kicking and also means defences must move a player back to combat this. Less players in the defensive line makes attacking easier.

3. Re-examine the size of the ball. Ball handling in Rugby League and American Football seems, without a scientific study on my part to back it up, to be of a higher standard than Rugby Union. Balls in those sports are more pointed, lighter, easier to carry and pass. A tweak in the size of the ball doesn't change the fabric of the sport but if it reduces ball handling errors and makes the game faster and more open, it should be looked at in my opinion.

1. Interesting idea but I can't see it working too well given the difference in the size of the in-goal areas of different grounds. Imagine that in Murrayfield, a penalty on the 10 meter line would be a Goliath of a kick.

2. It works for league I'll grant you that but it could devalue a defensive penalty.

3. The ball is fine as it is

irishbucsfan

Jedwardian wrote: »

http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/01/18/an-nfl-coach-looks-at-rugby/

This is what it all boils down to for me. In the greater scheme of things, rugby clubs aren't competing with each other, the sport is competing with other forms of entertainment be it televised football, reality shows, live music.

Rugby is a relatively young sport given that it's been professional for less than 20 years. It would be wise to take pointers from, and learn from the mistakes of, more established professional sports like Football, American Football, Aussie Rules and Rugby League on how to cater for a larger audience.

I don't agree with the coach's views about knock ons in open play and splitting the game into quarters. I do think certain things could easily be implemented without changing the fabric of the game. For example:

1. Move the goalposts to the dead ball line rather than the try line. It would basically takes the goalposts out of play and gives teams no obstruction when attacking/defending the try line. Also, penalties awarded between the 10 metre and half way line are often now within kickers range. Moving the posts back to the dead ball line would theoretically mean teams would have to go for the corner more since kicks at goal from distance may become out of range. It does a little to promote attacking rugby.

2. Modify Rugby League's 40-20 rule into a Union setting. In League, if a team kicks the ball out of play from within their own 40 metre line to within their opponents 20 metre, they get head and feed into a scrum from where the ball went out of play. In Rugby Union, this could be adapted from kicking from within the 10 metre line in your own half to the opposition 22 and the reward being a lineout on your own throw. This rewards accurate kicking and also means defences must move a player back to combat this. Less players in the defensive line makes attacking easier.

3. Re-examine the size of the ball. Ball handling in Rugby League and American Football seems, without a scientific study on my part to back it up, to be of a higher standard than Rugby Union. Balls in those sports are more pointed, lighter, easier to carry and pass. A tweak in the size of the ball doesn't change the fabric of the sport but if it reduces ball handling errors and makes the game faster and more open, it should be looked at in my opinion.

1. No thanks. It would mean uniformity in pitches and that's not something we can do.

2. More kicking is not going to excite fans. If anything they'll reduce kicking with the trial law of allowing a mark anywhere in your own half.

3. If making the ball smaller would improve things then that'd be fine. If it means teams can kick it 80 meters easilly then not thanks.

.ak

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

irishbucsfan

Well to be fair there's a guy on the bench for Leinster u19s today called Tom Brady. So we are taking SOME measures to make the sports more similar.

awec

The lack of contested breakdowns makes it boring for me. It's the same reason that I can't watch rugby league. In fact it's worse than rugby league given that everything stops after each down and everyone re-lines up again.

Sure it takes about 5 hours for them to get through the superbowl. How long of that is actually play?

irishbucsfan

awec wrote: »

The lack of contested breakdowns makes it boring for me. It's the same reason that I can't watch rugby league. In fact it's worse than rugby league given that everything stops after each down and everyone re-lines up again.

Sure it takes about 5 hours for them to get through the superbowl. How long of that is actually play?

There is about 11 minutes of football in an NFL game.

awec

irishbucsfan wrote: »

There is about 11 minutes of football in an NFL game.

That's the problem for me.

And it's broken down into 5 second segments.

Bores the face clean off me.

molloyjh

awec wrote: »

That's the problem for me.

And it's broken down into 5 second segments.

Bores the face clean off me.

Ditto. The wife dragged me to one if the college games in Donnybrook last year and I did make an effort to get into it. But try as I might I couldn't. We'd been there over 30 mins and the clock hadn't even moved 10 mins. It was excruciating.

Pudsy33

I love the nfl and college football, and I firmly believe anyone who sits down and watches a game with someone who can talk them through the intricacies, will start to enjoy it.

That's said, rugby is my first love and I don't want to see it dumbed down to attract an audience. The rugby world cup is already the 3rd biggest event in the world.

irishbucsfan

I enjoy watching the NFL and college football and have done so for 10 years now. Hence my username. I was actually posting in this thread while watching the Bucs/Dolphins game yesterday.

But rugby is a superior sport in almost every area. The NFL is just a better business run by a few very very intelligent businessmen.

Buer

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Hence my username.

For the first year that I posted here, I thought you were from Athlone.

Macy0161

Hagz wrote: »

It's unrealistic, but it's true. The only thing I wan't to change is the scrum, but you have to be very cautious when you fiddle with that as it's an imperative part of the game.

If anything, what happened with the scrum since the 1990's shows what messing with it and/ or not enforcing the rules can do to elements of the game!

Nermal

Suggestions for the NFL:

- you do not need separate teams for attack and defence, or a guy just to kick. Players of sports in other countries are expected to perform many tasks well.
- as you will not be having squads of people running on and off the field, you will now be able to reduce the play clock to 5 seconds, removing commercial breaks other than between the quarters.
- finally, given (1) and (2) above, players with the aerobic capacity and size of a rhino will no longer be playing, so helmets and pads may be dispensed with and players may finally learn to tackle correctly.

jamiedav2011

Nermal wrote: »

Suggestions for the NFL:

- you do not need separate teams for attack and defence, or a guy just to kick. Players of sports in other countries are expected to perform many tasks well.
- as you will not be having squads of people running on and off the field, you will now be able to reduce the play clock to 5 seconds, removing commercial breaks other than between the quarters.
- finally, given (1) and (2) above, players with the aerobic capacity and size of a rhino will no longer be playing, so helmets and pads may be dispensed with and players may finally learn to tackle correctly.

Know you're being facetious here, but tackling correctly is subjective!
Some of the tackling in NFL is insane, that's a good part of the reason why it's America's #1 sport.

I don't understand why the comparison between NFL & rugby crops up so often, they're completely different games, with almost completely different skillsets.

Hazys

jamiedav2011 wrote: »

Know you're being facetious here, but tackling correctly is subjective!
Some of the tackling in NFL is insane, that's a good part of the reason why it's America's #1 sport.

I don't understand why the comparison between NFL & rugby crops up so often, they're completely different games, with almost completely different skillsets.

Exactly, the 49ers assistant wasn't comparing the game of rugby and the game of football. He was comparing them as entertainment products.

Even if you don't want to change the rules on the field of the game rugby, there is so much that can be done to make the game more exciting as an entertainment product.

Nearly all decisions in the NFL are based on making the game more exciting, therefore more fans and more profitable (Although lately its about safety, probably mostly out of the fear of getting sued). Rule changes usually favor the offense.

The salary cap and the best draft picks given to the worst teams keeps the league the most competitive league in all sports. More games in the NFL are decided by the last score than any other team field sport.

The game is stop start but watching it on TV you don't notice at all (you do in the stadium). The average play takes 6 seconds and after each play there is about 20 seconds in-between each play. The 20 seconds between each play is taken up by a replay of the previous play, sideline reporters, mic'd up players, stats, highlights from other games, etc.

The league is only played from September to February but fans are engaged all year round with televising of the Draft, Combine, pro bowl, hall of fame, training camp, etc. Other things like ridiculous amount of access the media has to players, there is constant trades and speculation which means the NFL is on TV 24/7. Access to game highlights and NFL content is free and available immediately. Also Fantasy football is huge too.

One of the problems the NFL is facing now with how good the TV product has become, is that its starting to hurt stadium attendance so thats something they are trying to fix.

Nermal

I would like to see an equivalent of HBO's Hard Knocks, though I know they're having trouble getting teams to do it.

Swiwi.

Jedwardian wrote: »

It already is. It's competing with all forms of entertainment for our money. Do I watch the Pro 12 on RTE or Coronation Street on TV3? Do I go to the RDS to see Leinster play or the o2 for Leonard Cohen?

I'd argue that rugby isn't yet commercially viable. Just a month ago "less than half the 3,700 available tickets (for the Aviva Stadium) were sold meaning the board only managed to make €14 million after expecting to bank around €40 million". Thomond Park hasn't been a financial success. The Heineken Cup split is all about increasing revenues for English and French teams. In the Aviva Premiership, only Leicester, Northampton, Gloucester and Exeter are profitable. NZ lost about £15m on the 2011 Rugby World Cup.

Ideally Rugby would cater for the players only but that won't pay the bills. More commercialization and changing of the rules (like the poorly conceived ELVs) is inevitable to make the game more spectator and television friendly.

The RWC made a huge profit...but the host nation only gets to keep the money from ticket sales. The value to NZ from finally winning the damn thing would be huge for jersey sales etc, though.

I don't think you can compare concerts with rugby etc. In this country, no matter how attractive rugby is, (English) soccer & GAA will always have a bigger following.

I think rugby has put a slow down on endless tinkering with the laws, after the farce of the ELVs, it's more revisiting the interpretations, although I do like the new scrum call.

Swiwi.

I actually quite like the posts where they are - adds a bit to the tactics, and also to the skill of the defending team. I remember once taking a clearing kick from the in-goal area, and watching in horror as the ball hit the upright and bounced back in goal. I can't find video footage, but I remember Tana Umaga cheekily and deliberately scoring against the goalpost too.

irishbucsfan

Also there was that try in the Toulouse/Leinster semi final. If I'm remembering the right game.

ArmaniJeanss

Pudsy33 wrote: »

That's said, rugby is my first love and I don't want to see it dumbed down to attract an audience. The rugby world cup is already the 3rd biggest event in the world.

Under what metric; viewership, money generated, fans in attendance?

Assuming FIFAWC and the summer Olympics are the first two, I'd still have thought there were a good half dozen events that are bigger than the RWC, great as it is.

****************
Re NFL I think the mistake most people make is by looking at the Superbowl as their first game. It can be a self indulgent mess and the stopping/starting & general lack of flow is at its most extreme. Seems counter intuitive but the biggest game of the year is actually your worst possible introduction.

Watching a regular season game week with 4 or 5 games on at once is a much better way to start watching.