Rugby's bid for 2016 Olympics

Rugby's bid for 2016 Olympics

May 17, 2008 - 6:07PM

The decision on rugby union's Olympic future will be taken in October 2009, International Rugby Board president Bernard Lapasset said today.

Lapasset, speaking at a press conference in the Argentinian capital city at the end of a three-day visit to rugby officials and the National Olympic Committee, said: "In October 2009, a decision will be taken on whether rugby will be an Olympic sport or not."

The aim of Lapasset's visit was to negotiate a strategic financial plan to help Argentina, which still has amateur status, to join "rugby's world elite."

Argentina last year achieved its best ever World Cup performance, finishing third in the tournament held in France.

AFP

it would have to be 7s

About bloody time, it's a disgrace ribbon twirling is an olympic sport but rugby isn't.

the ribbon twirlers should be the half time entertainment

It'll be sevens, but I have my concerns. The game plan as outlined by the IRB is get sevens in the Olympics and all the colleges in the US will start playing it. Once that happens, they see it as a short hop to Union taking a real strong foothold. My problem with that is that, with a large collection of 7s players, it would surely be much easier to form League teams than Union, and League is a lot closer to the American Football they know. If that were to happen, it would be a very significant change to the relative fortunes of the two codes.

For mine, they should be looking at 10s rather than 7s.

I wanna see some 10s too ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyS

It'll be sevens, but I have my concerns. The game plan as outlined by the IRB is get sevens in the Olympics and all the colleges in the US will start playing it. Once that happens, they see it as a short hop to Union taking a real strong foothold. My problem with that is that, with a large collection of 7s players, it would surely be much easier to form League teams than Union, and League is a lot closer to the American Football they know. If that were to happen, it would be a very significant change to the relative fortunes of the two codes.

For mine, they should be looking at 10s rather than 7s.

---

Andy, the intent is to have Rugby Union, or simply Rugby, recognised as an Olympic sport..format is a comparatively minor issue. Once this occurs, collegiate rugby (which already is of some worth) will hopefully get its NCAA accreditation (women's rugby is already part of the NCAA) meaning increased funding, scholarships, etc, and therefore encourage more into the game (Rugby that is..not the other).

Regarding 10s, therefore, why get a "new" format in when 7s is obviously doing well internationally?

Could have it so its a U23's squads so for all up and coming players?????? Would be top quality games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seldom

Could have it so its a U23's squads so for all up and coming players?????? Would be top quality games.

---

I think the soccer system would be good, I think they are allowed around three over 23's nd the rest need to be under....it'll keep the majority of the team youngins while still having a few marquee players....of course because it is sevens maybe only the captain can be over 23....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KenyaQuin

Andy, the intent is to have Rugby Union, or simply Rugby, recognised as an Olympic sport..format is a comparatively minor issue. Once this occurs, collegiate rugby (which already is of some worth) will hopefully get its NCAA accreditation (women's rugby is already part of the NCAA) meaning increased funding, scholarships, etc, and therefore encourage more into the game (Rugby that is..not the other).

Regarding 10s, therefore, why get a "new" format in when 7s is obviously doing well internationally?

---

I thought the reason rugby wasn't an accredited NCAA sport was because the college teams in the US are clubs (like here) rather than actual varsity programs?

I agree with you about 10s though - stick with 7s...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beige

I thought the reason rugby wasn't an accredited NCAA sport was because the college teams in the US are clubs (like here) rather than actual varsity programs?

I agree with you about 10s though - stick with 7s...

---

Not 100% sure Beige. From what I gathered awhile back, there are/were afew factors why it isn't/wasn't NCAA accredited and what they have today is as a result (rather than the other way around). I believe the college teams would like to get into the NCAA if they could because they would get more support.

Sorry, still on about rugby in the US.

Spotted this opinion and I think it gives a little insight into the challenge for rugby to become part of the NCAA.

"The men's college game looks like it'll stay a club sport unless massive efforts are made to
1. Educate Athletic Directors and promote the sport as a very cost effective sport addition to a program; and
2. Create so many high school and youth programs that there is a demand from incoming students for rugby at an institution.

The men face the competition that there are already contact sports on campus with stronger traditional cultural ties, but maybe, just maybe, schools will recognise that the demand is such that they need to at the very least create a tier above club sport level, yet not varsity, that will allow the men's game to be adopted." Should Rugby be an NCAA Varsity Sport? by Tony Brown college, exercise, rugby | Gather

Reading other bits of online info regarding NCAA Women's rugby, such as on the USARugby website (under NCAA Women's rugby they touch on "myths") or ESPN - First-ever NCAA women's rugby match increases sport's exposure - College Sports, will give some idea of the challenge for NCAA men's rugby. Getting into the Olympics, therefore, may go some way into facilitating the demand needed to encourage Unis into incorporating rugby in their NCAA programs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KenyaQuin

Andy, the intent is to have Rugby Union, or simply Rugby, recognised as an Olympic sport..format is a comparatively minor issue. Once this occurs, collegiate rugby (which already is of some worth) will hopefully get its NCAA accreditation (women's rugby is already part of the NCAA) meaning increased funding, scholarships, etc, and therefore encourage more into the game (Rugby that is..not the other).

Regarding 10s, therefore, why get a "new" format in when 7s is obviously doing well internationally?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beige

I thought the reason rugby wasn't an accredited NCAA sport was because the college teams in the US are clubs (like here) rather than actual varsity programs?

I agree with you about 10s though - stick with 7s...

---

I think the view is that, as soon as the sport becomes part of the Olympics, the college system will pick it up (in the same way that the college scene has always underpinned the athletics). I think that is a fairly likely outcome in that there are established intermural sporting structures to leverage off to attract government sports funding, but like most college sports what do the players do after graduation? If the expectation is that they will join Rugby Union clubs, my observation is that 15 sevens players will struggle more in Union that 13 will in League - just no fat boys. At least tens would require some development of forward play.

Andy, just to keep this going. Maybe I'm missing something in your comments but bear with me.

The sport we are talking about is Rugby and not 7s..7s being the by-product or abbreviated version of 15s rugby. With this in mind 15s rugby would be played in colleges as now except it (Rugby) would be a recognised Olympic sport (irrespective of format).

The idea then is that these players would normally be playing 15s rugby at college/uni. and would be eligible for selection to the Eagles 7s team just as they would be to the Eagles XV.

If this is the case, then it would not be necessary to have a 10s format for the Olympics as the players will already be of Union 15s background.

Except I don't think it will be 15s that would be funded - instead, with no background in the game, the Americans would view 7s as a sport complete in itself. They would specifically fund 7s, not throw money at 15s and hope to get a decent olympic team as a byproduct.

From their point of view, it would be 15s that would be the esoteric offshoot for blokes too big and slow to go to the Olympics. It is not inconceivable that the playing of 15s could end up being viewed as an admission of failure in a country that has no attachment or background in the game. At least 10s would place a value on forward play, increase the inclusiveness of the game and make the jump to 15s smaller...just a few more forwards, rather than "what the hell are those big blokes for?".

Think of it like someone stumbling across the IPL and developed a liking for 20/20 - they could conceivably stretch to one day cricket, but how really would they view Test cricket?