The Future: How to make rugby more appealing to the masses

[hopwood]

How do we make rugby more appealing to the masses?

Is the game (as it stands) that watchable?
Is it too confusing for outsiders?
Too much kicking?
Too many reset scrums and rulings that fresh visitors don't understand?

New ideas are going to be needed.
And maybe a different format - a condensed version - is required to raise finance so that the traditional form of the game can survive.

Don't berate Stuart Barnes, because he's just throwing ideas out there...without weeks of contemplation and consideration....but the game needs fresh, out the box, thinking to raise considerable funds to survive.

Here's part of his column today...

The patriotic allure of Test match rugby — just like Test match cricket — is the only game in town, especially from the perspective of television broadcasters.

Forget everything else, the Six Nations is the holy grail financially. Test match cricket has oodles of cash but the county game needs help with the commercial reality at the bread and butter level. The ECB benefits from county cricket nurturing young talent and is increasingly willing to recompense these sides. Without the central support, the county game would wither.

And then there is the Hundred. It functions on two levels. One, it generates a new audience and, secondly, it is as a source of fresh income. The rugby club game needs to think anew and find its own “Hundred”. Call it “The 50” (as in minutes played), cut out all time wasting, limit each side to ten kicks in open play, do away with conversions, award ten points for tries originating in a side’s own 22 with a downward scale until it is only two points for a driving maul. These are thoughts from the top of my head; a base from which to think through ways to add excitement while, importantly, not sacrificing skills and decision making.

The academy and fringe players would have a greater opportunity to get their hands (and only occasionally their feet) on the ball. The potential TV income generated would assist in troubled times. Wasps and Worcester remind us that rugby needs to find the right fit between pipe dreams and economic reality.

England’s success is more important than ever. Whether the clubs like it or not, that is the reality of rugby union in England. The RFU depends on the clubs for their players. Right now they should be as generous as possible. Insolvent clubs are not a good look, for neither clubs nor country.

To clarify.
I'm not saying 'do away' with the traditional game that we love (but needs ongoing adjustment).
But could another concept supplement the traditional game?
Money has got to come from somewhere.
And so do a younger generation of supporters...who have very different attention spans.

[hopwood]

Summarising Barnes' idea of The 50

“The 50” (as in minutes played),
* cut out all time wasting
* limit each side to ten kicks in open play,
* do away with conversions,
* award ten points for tries originating in a side’s own 22 with a downward scale...
...until it is only two points for a driving maul.

Could this be used as a base from which to think through ways to add excitement while, importantly, not sacrificing skills and decision making.

What do other people think?

And can anyone add any further creative ideas around the concept of The 50?
Could it work?
What else might peak interest in younger people who have never seen the game before?

[matelot22]

Isn't 7s the equivalent of his "50" in reality?

[Jac A]

I often see people say that rugby has become unwatchable due to the stoppages and technical nature but I think there is a general ‘rose tinted glasses’ view of rugby in the past.

Using statistics from World Cup games:
Ball in play time is up (1987 – 28:11, 1995 – 25:45, 2019 – 34:21. That is almost a 22% increase from 1987 to the last world cup.)
Number of scrums are down (1987 – 32, 2019 – 14. A 56& decrease), scrum penalties are up (from 3 a game to 3.7 per game), wins against the head are down (11% to 5%)
Numbers of lineouts are down (1987 – 45, 2019 – 25. A 44% decrease)
Phases per possession has increased (1987 – 1.4, 2019 – 3. A 114% increase) as teams keep hold of the ball more and actually kick less than they did.

In terms of Barnes’ idea, no, I don’t like it, I don’t think it will work and I don’t think it has very much going for it at all. To suggest that rugby is not a game of kicking is just wrong. It always has been. To limit the amount a team can kick is just bizarre to me – no grubbers or little chips over the top, cross field kicks for a winger to run on to etc because let’s be honest if you only have 10 kicks, you save them for clearing your lines. Calculating where a move started to work out how many points it’s worth? Really? Refs do everything they can to cut out time wasting but players will always seek to gain whatever advantage they can, that is professional sport.

I do think that rugby doesn’t work at the moment and the domestic game is dying. There are lots of reasons for this and I do think that Barnes is right about needing a massive shake up. Personally, I would back a franchise system similar to NZ – 6 big teams who only play when there are no internationals, URC is too big so try and get Wales or Scotland to join for an 8 or 10 team league plus these teams in Europe. Current clubs can continue in more of a Mitre 10/Currie Cup style. Big push on 7s and try to have the clubs put out proper 7s teams in the summer and make these big events like the Hundred with four team round robins on summer evenings with cheap tickets for families.

[Vespula Vulgaris]

I honestly believe that only two things are needed to make rugby more popular, and neither of them involve changing the rules of the game. Anyone that thinks rugby is too complicated for kids has never been initiated into the joys of Warhammer...

1) Make going to rugby a genuinely enjoyable experience win or lose.
2) Make players more accessible through social media and in person apearances.

We've talked about 1 in the main relegation thread, and I think unless we attempt to do this the sport is ultimately doomed. Going to see the team play in person should be an amazing exprience. We could learn a lot from US sports like ML Baseball.

2 however is an interesting one. Communication from the clubs has always been terrible, Wasps more so than most, but it is entirely in the clubs' power to give fans the behind the scenes experience, to allow them to get to know the players, to build rapport and be default engagement. The reason they don't is that historically players move around a lot and no-one wants to invest in a player who might be gone in two years time.  But I believe that players are more likely to stay at clubs who are helping them develop their brand (not in a Haskell way necessarily) as it gives them a potential income post retirement.

Who actually knows what makes Nemo tick, what Charlie Atkinson does in his spare time. Who would be more inclined to follow a team if they realised they share a passion with one of the players? A small amount of investment in creating an effective, enjoyable, engaging YouTube channel instead of the measly scraps of training footage and game day replays would go a long way to creating a decent following in the younger generations.

[Gaz]

Barnes is on to something in my view.

Do away with the premiership cup, find a proper sponsor, get some decent prize money and elevate the profile of the Premiership 7s, played on free to air TV over the course of a few weeks (like the Hundred). Use it to experiment with the laws, bring in more colour and razzmatazz - again just like The Hundred to attract younger fans.

The 15s game is what it is, it's there for the purists, if you tweak it too much you're in danger of turning it into League.

I like to watch an England Test (cricket), and I also enjoy a Twenty20 - they are different games for me, but I don't think one could survive without the other.

[NellyWellyWaspy]

Let us take Rugby's American cousin, American Football.

Just as confusing rules.
Games take way longer than rugby matches.
Just as dangerous to play.

Played extensively in schools. Not so with rugby.
Sports scholarships available. Not so with rugby.
Widely televised. Rugby is behind a paywall, but that paywall decides what matches you can watch, not you.
Most games are sellouts, with high ticket prices. Even lower league and junior matches have very high turnout crowds. Not so with rugby.

How is rugby getting on in the USA? From the matches I have watched, they seem to good attendance. How?

In the UK rugby is seen as a private school game, run by an old boys network. In the main, that is because it is. To the average person, rugby is a game for 'them', not 'us'. And they are right.

[Lwasp]

But you don't save Rugby by inventing a new game. You might save the clubs by having them play a more lucrative sport, Wasps should just play soccer.

Rugby already has 7s, just like cricket had T20. The 100 was not invented to save cricket, it was invented to wrest control of the short format game from the counties and give it to the ECB via directly awarded franchises. After the first season, seen as a viewing success, numbers are said to have been much reduced this season. The 100 merely cannibalises the audience from T20. Combined with a resurgent men's Test team and suddenly the new crisp sponsored short form is less attractive.

I agree with VV, what needs looking at is the product that is offered and how it is presented. PRL does a terrible job of marketing the Premiership, as an example their website this morning was a horror show of poor formatting in the Results and Fixtures page, all the club logos were different sizes (Chrome on Windows 10 Pro since techies like that sort of info). it's the kind of thing that might make people say "I can't be bothered".

*Edit - is working fine now *

Scrapping the mid-week Prem Cup and running it as a 3 weekend festival of rugby during the 6 Nations and/or Autumn Internationals break? Maybe as 7s competitions to give wider squad players game time. More back 2 back fixtures with the women's teams or academy teams to make going to the rugby more than an 80 minute pay off?

There are certainly things that can change, although almost all would need money up front and as we know no-one has any. But saying "that sport makes more money than us and they use a round ball, let's change the ball shape" isn't one of them IMHO.

[Laterontoday]

One thing the RFU could do is look at league and why is league so popular. It cannot be because it does not have any competition from other sports because soccer is big across the M62 band of the country.

One thing about league is it does not stop as much. Scrums are almost inconsequential; play does not really continue on the ground so no rucks/mauls. One of the frustrations with Union is scrum resets just get so boring. Penalties are awarded for minute offences in a ruck or maul which if you are sitting on the opposite side of the field, you have no idea what has happened. First and foremost, we need to allow new fans to understand the game by explaining it more clearly.  Currently the game is a mystery of laws that if you do not know what they are then you lose interest quickly in the play and the stoppages on the field.

A couple of simple and quick changes that could be tried.

Big screen to work all game and to explain as far as possible why the game has stopped or what an infringement is.

Give ref links away free so fans can follow the game and the play. Can you even buy a reflink at CBSA? It often does not work anyway. New fans will at least understand or have the opportunity to know why something has happened or why a TMO decision has been made. (I know I enjoy and can follow the game more when I know why a try wasn’t given or a penalty has been awarded?  Last week I did not know why Joes try had been ruled out and yet we had penalty advantage.

Fan engagement – fan villages of the type seen previously at CBSA cost huge sums and are not sustainable. What do other clubs do?  You need something to allow young fans to engage with the sport and the club.

Engage fans with music. Purists will hate it. Where have the drum crew gone at the CBSA? the brass section also roused noise albeit it in a very soccer style but kids enjoy it.

Most of all create atmosphere. Yes most of that comes from what happens on the field but the CBSA is cold cold place with no noise, no music and a game continually stopping without explanation.

[Westy68]

Younger supporters want to see the top players and have access to those players.

Missing half the season just isn’t going to make people want to come to games.

During the the 6 nations at times you will see some teams playing most of their 2nd and 3rd string players. You will not get a lot of people wishing to watch that. You can’t even get as much people watching a reserve game in football then a first team game.

The big teams get the most supporters because they have the best players, who people want to watch.

You can’t sell a product that is one thing and then expect people to pay the same or be interested in something that’s not as good.

Autumn internationals will sell about 320,000 tickets over 4 games at about an average of over £100 a ticket. Because we can see great players playing.

If the top players want big money then they have to be able to bring the crowds in

[RogerE]

My views:

Do away with the last remaining obstruction that doesn't get punished - the rolling maul.

Scrums are a competition to restart the game therefore:
Remove most scrum penalties and replace them with free kicks. Keep penalties for  obvious foul play in scrums though.
Enforce straight feed.
Once a ball has entered scrum it has to be played unless free-kick or penalty awarded.
Time-off for scrums from moment awarded to moment ball leaves SH hands

All conversions to be drop kicks taken within 30 seconds.

Lineouts:
No changing position once lineout has formed.
Throw to be taken within 30 seconds (stop the incessant "board meetings") or else reverse.

Restrict number of kicks back and forth to stop the aerial tennis.

Like the idea of extra points for tries originating from further out, but can see problems, for example a 5m rolling maul is stopped and ball then passes through 8 pairs of hands, including going back to the 22m line, until grounded.

[Tervueren]

Big screen to work all game and to explain as far as possible why the game has stopped or what an infringement is.

Agreed, also show information about substitutions/cards etc. Where we sit the tannoy is about as audible as a 1970's British Rail announcement and the ref-link often does not work. We go to loads of matches and sometimes find following what is going on difficult, anyone new to it might well be mystified.

[Westy68]

Big screen to work all game and to explain as far as possible why the game has stopped or what an infringement is.

That is a good idea, tell people what has just happened.

Agreed, also show information about substitutions/cards etc. Where we sit the tannoy is about as audible as a 1970's British Rail announcement and the ref-link often does not work. We go to loads of matches and sometimes find following what is going on difficult, anyone new to it might well be mystified.

[hookender]

Big screen to work all game and to explain as far as possible why the game has stopped or what an infringement is.

That is a good idea, tell people what has just happened.

Agreed, also show information about substitutions/cards etc. Where we sit the tannoy is about as audible as a 1970's British Rail announcement and the ref-link often does not work. We go to loads of matches and sometimes find following what is going on difficult, anyone new to it might well be mystified.

Could be why a lot of us go home to rewatch the match to find out what happened.

[Egret]

If you cut out all the time wasting and play 50 minutes, ball in play time will approach, if not exceed, current ball in play time for 80 minute games (from Jac A's post above).

As a supplementary tournament, it could be great for Rugby Tens

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_tens