(Marvin Dangerfield photo)
|
I’m talking about comparing the two codes in terms of which one has more drawing power, and therefore, which one might have more appeal to American sports fans and TV networks alike.
Rugby has struggled for decades to gain a foothold in the US, and 30 years after the formation of the national governing body it’s still trying to carve out a niche for itself on the American sporting landscape.
The most recent thinking has centered on using Sevens to introduce rugby to US sports fans, and the USA Sevens highlights package that aired on ABC in February garnered reasonably encouraging numbers.
The one-hour show was seen in 1.2 million homes and got a 1.1 rating - okay but not earth shattering. It should be noted that it followed an NBA game that ran overtime on a Sunday and was sandwiched in between that and the 6 o’clock news (on the East Coast) so those factors may have inflated its numbers.
Be that as it may, the end goal is to get rugby football on American TV and the ongoing conundrum is finding the right product to get it done.
Assuming that the main target market is football fan, NFL or college or both, the next thing to figure out is how to pique their interest. We already know that they watch football because they like the aggression, the collisions, and the physical nature of the game, so knowing that, the question is which version of rugby would they relate to more easily?
Which code offers all of the things they like about football, yet is more easily understood by the uninitiated?
As I’ve been back in Australia for the last little while, I’ve been able to watch the Super 14, NRL, and European Super League, very often on the same day, and to my mind it’s obvious - rugby league by far and away is the better product.
The fact of the matter is that while league possesses all the qualities that football fan craves, it’s also a much faster game with fewer stoppages. Although those purists might not like to hear it, rugby union is way too stop-start, it’s way too over officiated, and it has become a kick fest.
New Eagle head coach Eddie O’Sullivan says the S14 is so boring he can’t watch it, and he has a point.
For the most part the game gets bogged down more often than not, and when in doubt everybody hoofs the ball as if they were playing a game of force ‘em backs. Yep, that’s pretty boring.
Rugby League, on the other hand, offers end to end action, big hits, and for the most part is played at break neck speed. Think of it this way, if you liked football and had never seen either code of rugby, which one do you think would be more appealing? And which one do you think you would get?
There are two innovations in the NRL that I think have improved the game, and they could be borrowed by union to make it a better product.
The first is the 40-20 rule. That’s when the attacking team kicks the ball from inside its own 20 meter line and bounces it into touch inside the opposition’s 20 meters. The attacking team retains possession at the ensuing scrum and consequently is then in a very good attacking position.
Conversely, if the ball doesn’t bounce into touch at the other end, the defending team gets the put-in to the scrum at the point from which the ball was kicked. There’s a big risk involved in punting the ball from inside your own quarter if it doesn't work, but if you do it right you get rewarded for taking that risk.
Compare that to the aimless up-and-unders in a union match these days. If union adopted the 40-20 rule, the attacking team would get a lineout inside the opposition’s 22m, and if the kick doesn’t bounce into touch the defending team would have the put-in to the scrum at the point from where the ball was kicked.
What the 40-20 does is it encourages a team to either try to gain territory with a well-judged punt or run the ball, rather than repeatedly putting up nothing kicks in the vain hope that you might eventually gain a territorial advantage.
The other thing the NRL has introduced is two referees. One ref stays behind the attacking team to patrol the rucks while the other ref patrols the 10 meter gap between the sides. They swap roles at every change over.
That speeds up the game and allows it to flow more freely, and generally speaking if one whistleblower misses something the other guy will pick it up. There are also touch judges and separate in-goal judges, as well as a match official in the box to rule on replays.
The end result is a better TV product, and after all, isn’t that what we want in America so that rugby football can finally become more than just a blip on the US sporting radar?
