Take the jump to read more.
It make sense to make the change for The Rugby Championship. Every team goes into that tournament on equal footing and each will have four games to make adjustments. Whether or not a team can make the adjustments and win doesn't really matter. Sure, all teams want to win the best competition in the world, but it's not as if more than IRB rankings are at stake. The same can't be said about the WCQ series between the U.S. and Canada. Both teams have spent all summer preparing for this series and now the IRB changes the rules on them. These teams only have a few matches to qualify for the World Cup and now this changes their approach.
One change to the overall game isn't going to be the only difference in the final scores, but it doesn't help. It would be interesting to know if the IRB warned the U.S. and Canada about the change? I highly doubt it. You would have to think that the change will hurt the U.S. more. After what was a strong scrumming November the Eagles scrum gradually fell apart of the summer and now lacks confidence. Making a change midstream making mistakes bound to happen, isn't going to help their confidence.
The front three of Eric Fry, Shawn Pittman, and Chris Biller had done better in November before being obilterated this summer. All three were extremely frustrated by Pastrana at times, but if you remember, not all the scrum problems went away with Pastrana. The U.S. scrum still had amples of trouble against Fiji and Japan under referee Greg Garner.
On the bright side, the U.S. won't have referee Francisco Pastrana to deal with. The IRB has selected Leighton Hodges from Wales and JP Doyle from England as referees for the two-leg series. Hodges will handle the match in Charleston while Doyle will handle the match in Toronto.
The Rugby Championship doesn't really matter? Are you nuts! All four of the unions get a huge amount of their annual revenue from it. If they're not playing well, the stadiums aren't full, licensed merch isn't sold, existing and prospective sponsors grow concerned, broadcast rights lose value in that country, etc.
ReplyDeleteYou don't know what you're talking about. Stick to reporting on imaginary drafts where you seem to be an expert.
Tom,
DeleteIt's showing the contrast between using the changes in a competition with World Cup implications for both teams and a tournament that doesn't have those same implications. I think that is pretty clear.
It is clear. You don't understand the finances of international rugby. The last RWC the NZRU was complaining that the cost of participation coupled with loss of revenue (i.e. shorted Rugby Championship) would cause them to evaluate their future participation in the RWC. Now it is clear this is a negotiating ploy to get favorable terms regarding future internationals, but the point was valid. The SH nations need the Rugby Championship and the fall internationals to survive (i.e. keep best players at home and fund the development of players). To say that the timing of the enforcement of scrum laws changes doesn't impact them because their matches are not RWC qualifiers is just ignorant and shows your complete lack of knowledge about the international game in other countries.
DeleteThis scrum engagement is a positive thing and will actually benefit the USA scrum. The point of the "bind" (which is actually old school) puts less emphasis on the initial hit and should eliminate the penalty-lottery that occurs at scrum time, which is something that has greatly affected the Eagles so far this summer.
ReplyDeleteMy hope is that is works by taking us back in time before the crouch, touch pause, engage business. Scrums should collapse less, need to be reset less and in turn speed up the game around scrums.