General Rugby Discussion

LuckyGent88

Well that could be it. Bristol have really taken advantage of the yellow card. All tries down that wing

razorblunt

That's how you maximize the man in the bin. Clinical.
Robinson may not be the best 10 but his range of passing is fantastic.

total former

Holy sheeet

This is great fun

LuckyGent88

Well this should be a ridiculously good last 5 mins now

LuckyGent88

Bristol butchered that turnover. Needed a better pass or just kick to the corner

total former

Aaaaaaaaaaaggggghhhhh

LuckyGent88

What a game. What a series.

Tovey will have nightmares for years over that knock on with the overlap, 150 seconds left, 3 v 1, 6 points up...

total former

Balls of steel from Lamb

Also fair play to JP Doyle.

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

Tovey will have nightmares for years over that knock on with the overlap, 150 seconds left, 3 v 1, 6 points up...

Whoever that 12 is should be put in the stocks in Bristol for the weekend, a woeful pass, wouldn't blame Tovey. Tover played well for a ranga.

Buer

Not sure who I wanted to win. Disappointed for Jack O'Connell but Niall Annett has a big opportunity now with Creevy departing.

What a mad game. Robinson and Lamb are so talented but so inaccurate. There's a reason that both were so hit and miss in the Premiership.

Would like to see Worcester do well in the top flight but I'm not too sure. They're certainly better placed than LW but it will still be a shoot out between themselves and Newcastle, I reckon.

razorblunt

Deleted User wrote: »

Tovey will have nightmares for years over that knock on with the overlap, 150 seconds left, 3 v 1, 6 points up...

It was as if he knew it too. Passer shouldnt have attempted the skip anyway it needed to go through Tovey not over him.

Brilliant game though, Bristol and their big players languishing around for another year, at least it's only London Welsh that are coming down to join them.

thomond2006

Bristol will get back up eventually. Aren't they backed by a billionaire?

CatFromHue

Hartley banned until 21 Sep, 4 weeks, so misses the first RWC game against Fiji.

aimee1

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/rugby-union/

hartley got 4 weeks

sydneybound

So, it's Bath, Leicester and Northampton for Worcester and it's Jersey, Doncaster and Ealing Trailfinders for Bristol.

irishbucsfan

sydneybound wrote: »

So, it's Bath, Leicester and Northampton for Worcester and it's Jersey, Doncaster and Ealing Trailfinders for Bristol.

Until they scrap relegation of course...

sydneybound

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Until they scrap relegation of course...

Yes of course, they'll have to wait another 12 months for that however both Bristol & Worcester (given their infrastructure & resources) should be playing in the premiership. Leeds have have a great academy supplying many underage players to English teams and also geographically positioned in an area of potential union growth in the north of the country. Give Leeds another season and they'll be competitive with the likes of Worcester, Newcastle, London Irish and Sale as they are pumping money into the club to be prepared for the jump up.

After that no clubs in the championship including London Welsh have the resources to be able to compete at a higher level unless a millionaire comes in and bank rolls them.

irishbucsfan

sydneybound wrote: »

Yes of course, they'll have to wait another 12 months for that however both Bristol & Worcester (given their infrastructure & resources) should be playing in the premiership. Leeds have have a great academy supplying many underage players to English teams and also geographically positioned in an area of potential union growth in the north of the country. Give Leeds another season and they'll be competitive with the likes of Worcester, Newcastle and London Irish and Sale as they are pumping money into the club to be prepared for the jump up.

After that no clubs in the championship including London Welsh have the resources to be able to compete at a higher level unless a millionaire comes in and bank rolls them.

It wasn't very long ago that people would have included Exeter in that group. But they're so easily forgotten now.

Regardless, a 14 team league with no relegation is going to be a big step backwards in terms of competetiveness, there will be nothing to play for in the bottom half of the league, even if they expand the playoffs to 6 teams (which will be a minimum requirement). Not only that, but they're putting a financial and geographical ceiling on their growth. It's going to be a big step backwards for quality of rugby for the sake of financial gain. Getting rid of relegation is a mistake and if they have any sense they'll look to the south and follow the example of their French compatriots instead.

sydneybound

To be fair Exeter are the only club to have stayed in the premiership fully. Other championship winning clubs like Bristol, Worcester and Leeds have yo-yo'ed between the divisions. Exeter are in a relatively rugby stronghold in Devon beside Cornwall. Having 14 clubs in the premiership would have a great geographical spread around England. Clubs like Sale have tried to tap into the Manchester market but it's difficult, in rugby league Salford are on their knees trying to tap into the same city getting crowds of less than 2,000 for a super league club. Newcastle need to do more however its another football city. Growth would be great in Liverpool, Birmingham and Sheffield but I can't see any club going up the leagues from these areas. The championship consists of the likes of Jersey, Doncaster, Bedford, Eailing all of which could never sustain a premiership team.

I think the league should go to 14 (which it will) and maybe have a payoff between the bottom placed premiership and top placed championship club, this still being very unlikely. Many championship clubs like London Scottish don't want to get promoted, they don't have the resources and don't want to go broke by trying to stay in the prem.

ouncer

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It wasn't very long ago that people would have included Exeter in that group. But they're so easily forgotten now.

Regardless, a 14 team league with no relegation is going to be a big step backwards in terms of competetiveness, there will be nothing to play for in the bottom half of the league, even if they ethe playoffs to 6 teams (which will be a minimum requirement). Not only that, but they're putting a financial and geographical ceiling on their growth. It's going to be a big step backwards for quality of rugby for the sake of financial gain. Getting rid of relegation is a mistake and if they have any sense they'll look to the south and follow the example of their French compatriots instead.

This idea of relegation makes me wonder if a pro12 should be a pro24 or pro36 (ie a number of divisions) with promotion/relegation rather than the same again each year

irishbucsfan

sydneybound wrote: »

To be fair Exeter are the only club to have stayed in the premiership fully. Other championship winning clubs like Bristol, Worcester and Leeds have yo-yo'ed between the divisions. Exeter are in a relatively rugby stronghold in Devon beside Cornwall. Having 14 clubs in the premiership would have a great geographical spread around England. Clubs like Sale have tried to tap into the Manchester market but it's difficult, in rugby league Salford are on their knees trying to tap into the same city getting crowds of less than 2,000 for a super league club. Newcastle need to do more however its another football city. Growth would be great in Liverpool, Birmingham and Sheffield but I can't see any club going up the leagues from these areas. The championship consists of the likes of Jersey, Doncaster, Bedford, Eailing all of which could never sustain a premiership team.

I think the league should go to 14 (which it will) and maybe have a payoff between the bottom placed premiership and top placed championship club, this still being very unlikely. Many championship clubs like London Scottish don't want to get promoted, they don't have the resources and don't want to go broke by trying to stay in the prem.

There isn't really a doubt that the league should go to 14 teams now with the investment that's there and the financial power behind it. Exeter aren't the only example of clubs establishing themselves since the foundation of the premiership, they're just the most recent example.

The bottom line is that the removal of relegation from the league is what they're discussing and it will be a dreadful mistake. They definitely need to revise the current model to avoid another London Welsh but killing promotion will just kill competitiveness and interest in the bottom half of the league.

Hmmm, Huget has had a bad PR season already...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNb-twSS5gg

Look at the right of screen from 4seconds...

Buer

Sweet mother. That should be his RWC over. Clearly looks down and deliberately stamps.

I haven't heard anything about a ban, though, and it's Thursday. Was he even cited?

Buer

Buer wrote: »

Sweet mother. That should be his RWC over. Clearly looks down and deliberately stamps.

I haven't heard anything about a ban, though, and it's Thursday. Was he even cited?

no

Buer

That's a complete disgrace.

Shouldn't be playing rugby for 6 months. It's not like it wasn't completely obvious.

molloyjh

Yeah that's as bad as it gets. Pretty shocking that he wasn't cited.

shuffol

That is a complete farce, somebody should be strung out for that escaping a citing. Disgraceful.

There's a real legitimacy problem in rugby with some of the bans going around, the people in charge of these matters seem to be affected by a definite conflict of interest.

Buer

shuffol wrote: »

That is a complete farce, somebody should be strung out for that escaping a citing. Disgraceful.

There's a real legitimacy problem in rugby with some of the bans going around, the people in charge of these matters seem to be affected by a definite conflict of interest.

Won't be sorted until there are genuinely independent panels created. The T14 and AP are notably different in their approaches to the Pro12 and S15 who have several countries involved in their discipline process.

For professional rugby, the IRB needs to step in and appoint independent panels under specified guidelines and direction. A first choice test player getting away with that with the RWC around the corner is one of the most corrupt decisions I've seen.

razorblunt

Wow, that's incredible, did the lock not say anything to the ref at the time?

thomond2006

That's up there with the Calum Clark assault.

.ak

thomond2006 wrote: »

That's up there with the Calum Clark assault.

It's not.

It's stupid, and pretty scummy, but probably hot headed and he seemed to instantly regret it. Defo deserves a considerable ban but it's not in the same league as Clark

thomond2006

.ak wrote: »

It's not.

It's stupid, and pretty scummy, but probably hot headed and he seemed to instantly regret it. Defo deserves a considerable ban but it's not in the same league as Clark

Ok, now that I think about it, it's not. Still can't believe that wasn't picked up by citing.

Beery Eyed

That could have done some horrible damage. Anything to do with stamping near the head is up there among the worst crimes in the game.

Surely there has to be some action on this. Even if it's supposedly past the point where a citing should have been made, it's as clear as day that this is very wrong

Clearlier

.ak wrote: »

It's not.

It's stupid, and pretty scummy, but probably hot headed and he seemed to instantly regret it. Defo deserves a considerable ban but it's not in the same league as Clark

It's twenty years on and everything has changed but it reminded me of the Claw's stamp on Roumat which nearly ended his career. The paradox of it was he ended up spending some time with Queensland which he probably wouldn't have done if he hadn't received his ban and I thought that it had a very positive effect on his career.

I think that this incident probably merits a ban about the length of Clark's but that's only because I think Clarke's was remarkably lenient and I'd much prefer never to see him on a rugby pitch again.

Beery Eyed

Deleted User wrote: »

Rounds 1 - 3 during RWC Pool stages
Rounds 4 - 6 during the RWC Knock Out Stages
Rounds 14 - 17 during the 6Nations

Which sides will reap rewards? Someone like Dragons, with minimal international impact could get off to a decent start...

I didn't get to discuss this here when it was announced, but does anyone else feel that there should have been an alternative league structure this season, given that it's a World Cup year?

From the schedule above, that's 10 games that are directly impacted by major competitions. Not to mention the time after the WC when internationals will be rested, as well as before & after the 6N. That's over half of the league fixtures when 2nd/3rd/4th choice players are being fielded, which kind of belittles the competition overall.

It's never ideal to have to change your primary league structure, but in the interest of keeping the competition relevant during a WC year there could have been a different approach taken. As it is, there will be a lot of games being played with minimal attention & crowds, but these will ultimately decide the majority of the league points.

One alternative would have been 2 groups of 6 teams, playing home & away, with a playoff setup at the end of the league. That would have given us 10 league games & 2 playoff games. With that setup they could have avoided the WC period entirely & given the top players sufficient time to be involved in 6N as well, without impacting the quality of the league.

Fewer games would mean lower gates overall, but it would be a higher average gate per game & it would avoid the dead games that we currently get during the 6N's.

In the past this wasn't so much of an issue, since European qualification wasn't as dependent on league position. When that was the case each team could blood young players & rest experienced guys without too much of an issue. However, this season it could really end up costing teams badly.

Anyway, just a suggestion

The Lost Sheep

Beery Eyed wrote: »

I didn't get to discuss this here when it was announced, but does anyone else feel that there should have been an alternative league structure this season, given that it's a World Cup year?

From the schedule above, that's 10 games that are directly impacted by major competitions. Not to mention the time after the WC when internationals will be rested, as well as before & after the 6N. That's over half of the league fixtures when 2nd/3rd/4th choice players are being fielded, which kind of belittles the competition overall.

It's never ideal to have to change your primary league structure, but in the interest of keeping the competition relevant during a WC year there could have been a different approach taken. As it is, there will be a lot of games being played with minimal attention & crowds, but these will ultimately decide the majority of the league points.

One alternative would have been 2 groups of 6 teams, playing home & away, with a playoff setup at the end of the league. That would have given us 10 league games & 2 playoff games. With that setup they could have avoided the WC period entirely & given the top players sufficient time to be involved in 6N as well, without impacting the quality of the league.

Fewer games would mean lower gates overall, but it would be a higher average gate per game & it would avoid the dead games that we currently get during the 6N's.

In the past this wasn't so much of an issue, since European qualification wasn't as dependent on league position. When that was the case each team could blood young players & rest experienced guys without too much of an issue. However, this season it could really end up costing teams badly.

Anyway, just a suggestion

No because that means less money for the provinces, less opportunities for game time for all players especially academy and fringe squad members.
The "dead games" we get in the international periods can sometimes be better than others with more young and inexperienced pros playing and its chance to see new players trying to make it at that level.
Doing as you propose wouldn't be good for the league.
Having games on during the world cup is actually a good thing. There will be an overload of rugby on peoples tv with tv3/itv showing every game and people may watch world cup games and especially if Ireland do well in the world cup people may go out to watch their province/join clubs. Having games on in world cup is a good thing

irishbucsfan

They could have moved the schedule around a little, played 2 weeks later in the year and converted other games to midweek games like in the Top 14, playing during the world cup COULD have been avoided, but I guess they decided that playing during the world cup isn't a big deal.

Beery Eyed

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

No because that means less money for the provinces, less opportunities for game time for all players especially academy and fringe squad members.
The "dead games" we get in the international periods can sometimes be better than others with more young and inexperienced pros playing and its chance to see new players trying to make it at that level.
Doing as you propose wouldn't be good for the league.
Having games on during the world cup is actually a good thing. There will be an overload of rugby on peoples tv with tv3/itv showing every game and people may watch world cup games and especially if Ireland do well in the world cup people may go out to watch their province/join clubs. Having games on in world cup is a good thing

I understand where you're coming from, but I can't say that I agree.

I'm all for younger players getting more game time, but I would prefer it to happen in a more structured way. In that regard I think we have always fallen far behind the southern hemisphere. They are far more willing to alter their setup to improve the overall system, whereas we try to shoehorn all of our competitions into a limited number of weeks in a very haphazard way, instead of conceding to some necessary changes to improve the season overall.

I do think the point about less revenue for the provinces is relevant though, and I think that is the deciding factor. However, staging games costs a lot of money too, and if the clubs don't get enough people through the gates for these games I wonder how much they will actually make. Sure, the Irish provinces have good season ticket sales, but some of the other clubs could struggle for numbers.

Again, I'm all for young players getting high level gametime, but given that European qualification is directly linked to league position now, I don't think that it's a great setup to have the majority of league points decided while your best payers aren't even available. Seems very unfair on squads who have developed players into full internationals.

For instance, if a team with fewer internationals, take Dragons for instance, ends up qualifying for Europe over Ospreys because they win their games that are impacted during the WC & 6N periods (over half the season), but then get hammered the rest of the season when the other sides are full strength, do they really deserve their place? (Sorry to pick on Dragons!)

aimee1

Beery Eyed wrote: »

I understand where you're coming from, but I can't say that I agree.

I'm all for younger players getting more game time, but I would prefer it to happen in a more structured way. In that regard I think we have always fallen far behind the southern hemisphere. They are far more willing to alter their setup to improve the overall system, whereas we try to shoehorn all of our competitions into a limited number of weeks in a very haphazard way, instead of conceding to some necessary changes to improve the season overall.

I do think the point about less revenue for the provinces is relevant though, and I think that is the deciding factor. However, staging games costs a lot of money too, and if the clubs don't get enough people through the gates for these games I wonder how much they will actually make. Sure, the Irish provinces have good season ticket sales, but some of the other clubs could struggle for numbers.

Again, I'm all for young players getting high level gametime, but given that European qualification is directly linked to league position now, I don't think that it's a great setup to have the majority of league points decided while your best payers aren't even available. Seems very unfair on squads who have developed players into full internationals.

For instance, if a team with fewer internationals, take Dragons for instance, ends up qualifying for Europe over Ospreys because they win their games that are impacted during the WC & 6N periods (over half the season), but then get hammered the rest of the season when the other sides are full strength, do they really deserve their place? (Sorry to pick on Dragons!)

Revenue for the provinces wont be hit much. A lot of it is STHs and sponsors. The national side is the cash cow for irish rugby

The Lost Sheep

Beery Eyed wrote: »

I understand where you're coming from, but I can't say that I agree.

I'm all for younger players getting more game time, but I would prefer it to happen in a more structured way. In that regard I think we have always fallen far behind the southern hemisphere. They are far more willing to alter their setup to improve the overall system, whereas we try to shoehorn all of our competitions into a limited number of weeks in a very haphazard way, instead of conceding to some necessary changes to improve the season overall.

I do think the point about less revenue for the provinces is relevant though, and I think that is the deciding factor. However, staging games costs a lot of money too, and if the clubs don't get enough people through the gates for these games I wonder how much they will actually make. Sure, the Irish provinces have good season ticket sales, but some of the other clubs could struggle for numbers.

Again, I'm all for young players getting high level gametime, but given that European qualification is directly linked to league position now, I don't think that it's a great setup to have the majority of league points decided while your best payers aren't even available. Seems very unfair on squads who have developed players into full internationals.

For instance, if a team with fewer internationals, take Dragons for instance, ends up qualifying for Europe over Ospreys because they win their games that are impacted during the WC & 6N periods (over half the season), but then get hammered the rest of the season when the other sides are full strength, do they really deserve their place? (Sorry to pick on Dragons!)

The structured way of the normal season allows young players get game time. This is slightly different in a world cup year and I see the change to the normal season as a positive.
The Southern Hemisphere has a completely different system and its impossible to compare. In SA/NZ there is a whole tier of pro competitions like Currie Cup etc

The world cup is a time when rugby is getting as much coverage as possible. I don't see how playing less rugby for the provinces is good for the sport.
You make some fair points but a curtailed league doesn't benefit anyone from players especially fringe provincial players, fans, money men, tv etc.

Wang King

Dragons center Ashley Smith has retired today due to continuous concussions

errlloyd

I wouldn't change the pro12 structure for the WC. It doesn't need to be first teamers always, unlike Europe. Fringe players make their names during this period.

Beery Eyed

Fringe players getting involved & proving themselves is one thing, but it will be the majority of the season this time around. 10 games are directly impacted, and there will be a week either side of the 6N, & maybe a couple after the WC, where players are rested/unavailable. So conservatively that's 12 out of 22 games being played without full squads. Meaning that if a particular club has a small squad & is left short without their internationals, they will only have a maximum of 10 league games to make up the points dropped in the other 12.

The league is no longer the testing ground for young/fringe players. Not since the changes to European qualification. Each team is battling for the lucrative European places, and with so much of this coming season being disrupted there could be some big clubs losing out as a result.

irishbucsfan

How are there 10 games directly impacted? Not seeing that, I thought it was 4 game weeks planned during the world cup?

bilston

irishbucsfan wrote: »

How are there 10 games directly impacted? Not seeing that, I thought it was 4 game weeks planned during the world cup?

I think he was including the 6Ns in that.

Frontline players probably only play about 10 regular season games anyway so it probably won't make that much differemce to them.

total former

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/may/29/nz-rugby-report-reveals-overseas-offers-not-ballooning

Interesting comments from Steve Tew here, suggests that the figures that we heard being thrown around for Piutau might not be accurate.

aimee1

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/rugby-union/32931690

hartley to be dropped by england according to this

Grandpa Hassan

aimee1 wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/rugby-union/32931690

hartley to be dropped by england according to this

Missed two WC and a lions tour because of his stupidity on the pitch. Such a waste....he's a talented rugby player.