Keep Rugby Ugly - Eddie Jones

When Jones says that the poor start to the Premiership is a refereeing issue, that the sport is in danger of being simplified to extinction, that England are too conservative, that New Zealand are dumb, that South Africa are more potent when their players, as opposed to their coach, make decisions, and that Martin Johnson needs to find, and stick with, a new spine of his team if England are going to progress, it is worth taking more than a passing interest.

Rubbish rugby first. "The reason for the lack of quality is that sides are unsure of the way the games are going to be refereed. There has been such an emphasis on the ELVs that a lot of the other laws have not been administered. Sides are not being penalised for offside because the referee is focusing almost exclusively on the breakdown, and that kills the space, which makes it more difficult to attack well."

I'm with Eddie on this one, but I think there is a bigger issue. My contention is that rugby is so complex to referee and play that it is inherently flawed, and that any desire to simplify, which is what the ELVs are essentially all about, will merely shunt the problems on to different aspects of play. In short, the game's dysfunctional; live with it.

"I agree. There's beauty in that ugliness," Jones said. "Rugby is one of the few sports that has a genuine contest for possession and the uncertainty of the outcome adds to the intrigue. Look at rugby league. In order to make the game faster and have fewer penalties they stripped the contest elements out. The challenge facing union is to maintain the dynamic between continuity and competition."

Does that mean, then, that union has nothing more to pillage from league after a period during which the 15-man code nicked its defensive systems, copied aspects of its kicking strategy and enticed over some of its most accomplished coaches and players? "I don't think you ever learn all you can. But the height of league's influence over union probably reached its peak two or three years ago."

Yet, if league is now a redundant resource, and with the top teams around the world pretty much level-pegging across a whole raft of indicators, where next to search for an edge? According to Jones, a new challenge is emerging: that of confronting and confounding national stereotypes.

"I think national teams reflect the character of their countries. Look at Australia in rugby and cricket. They've generally produced attacking teams. We're seen as being brash and arrogant. England are the opposite. They tend towards conservatism. They play the odds. I watched a game of rugby at my daughter's school the other day and the lack of ball-passing was the thing that stood out. You can see from an early age that English players are discouraged from taking risks, and encouraged to use their power and strength."

Full Article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/3093470/Keep-rugby-ugly-says-Saracens-Eddie-Jones.html
 

Define ugly rugby. If the rugby of the 70's, 80's and early 90's was ugly then I'll take ugly any day......thats was real rugby as far as I'm concerned.

I have to agree with you UShark, but that descriptor aside, I agree with him entirely. Rugby Union in the end is not dictated by attack, but defence. That's just the way it is. If all those little facets ruin the entertainment for some, then League is there. As Eddie pointed out, it was specifically designed for it. So lets not dissolve Union into League.

Good rugby has always been a blend between attack and defence. Trouble today is that the loose forwards etc fan out and breaking the defence has become very difficult.

Easy solution is to reintroduce the rule that the side going forward gets an advantage.