Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 400 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, 38 years of history from Open Rugby to the present day.
Click here for the digital edition to read online via smartphone, tablet and desktop devices including iPhone, iPad, Android & Kindle HD.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 400
/ View a Gallery of all 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 400
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

The 10m rule


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#21 steef

steef
  • Coach
  • 1,438 posts

Posted 10 August 2010 - 09:31 PM

The lack of shocks in cups is down to the fact that the top clubs are full time and the rest are not. The 10m rule doesn't help that but when its full v part time, full will win 95% of the time wether 5 or 10 meters.
"surely they've got to try somthing different now, maybe the little chip over the top?2


http://www.flickr.com/photos/stufod/

http://www.facebook....156268557729980

#22 Lobbygobbler

Lobbygobbler
  • Coach
  • 5,770 posts

Posted 11 August 2010 - 08:23 AM

QUOTE (steef @ Aug 10 2010, 10:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The lack of shocks in cups is down to the fact that the top clubs are full time and the rest are not. The 10m rule doesn't help that but when its full v part time, full will win 95% of the time wether 5 or 10 meters.


There would be more chance of upsets under the 5m rule, because there would be less emphasis on fitness and more on skill (which is less dependant on being ful time)

#23 Cofi

Cofi
  • Coach
  • 460 posts

Posted 11 August 2010 - 08:31 AM

Some more of Sean Fagan's views on the matter quoted from his blog:

"The 10m rule pushes genuine footballers out of the game in favour of fitter athletes who are less skilled “footballers”.

"11-a-side under a 5m rule would have encouraged players to pass the ball to take up the free space (laterally), instead of encouraging (under the 10m rule) teams to simply run forward (scoots and hit-ups) to take the free space."




#24 dallymessenger

dallymessenger
  • Coach
  • 20,928 posts

Posted 11 August 2010 - 08:55 AM

the 10 m. rule encourages boring attack ie dummy half runs.

id like to see 5 m. trialed again, or even 7 m.

#25 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,677 posts

Posted 11 August 2010 - 09:10 AM

QUOTE (Lobbygobbler @ Aug 10 2010, 03:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I personally hate the 10m rule, which was brought in by the Aussies, and benefits them most of all

It only seems to work when you have two very evenly matched teams, who are fit in the sense of running backwards and forwards. If we'd been a global game with RL the number 1 sport in many countries, it would have been perhaps a logical way forward. However we are not. Now its almost impossible to see cup or international shocks, based purely on this silly 10m fitness and the knock on effect of the added momentum. The best way to grow the sport are to make suprises more plentiful by encouraging the skill side of the game

The negatives are plently:

- Widens gap between full time and part time encounters (bad for cup matches and internationals)
- Causes more injurys (players used to play far more games even when they were part time)
- Leads to more blow-out scorelines
- Makes it too easy to score (on the whole)
- Bad for encouraging people to take up RL for leisure/amateur level. Also people retire sooner or go off and play Union when they get older

So although maybe 20% games in SL might be superb spectacles under the 10m rule, you'll end up with far more blowouts, silly scorelines, no cup shocks and no international shocks which doesn't help develop the game. On the whole I could take a slightly less open game if the scorelines were vastly reduced with more shocks

Get shut of it now


I'm not convinced that 10 metres is best for the game but I think you're guilty of what net geeks like to call a 'Post hoc ergo propter hoc' argument, assuming something is the cause of an event merely because it happened before that event.

There are many other reasons for the lack of shocks, full time professionalism being probably the main one. This has fundamentally changed the way the game is played. The game used to be more off the cuff and obviously skillful to the untrained eye but somewhere along the line somebody has come along and realised that a structured game plan produces better results, everybody then changes suit. Later, somebody realised that wrestling techniques would improve defence and then everybody changes suit.

The game constantly evolves and full-time professionalism linked to the mass availability of games on TV and the internet has seen this happen at a much quicker rate than before. You just need to look at how Football, Union, Tennis, Golf etc have all changed relatively rapidly also in the past 15 years.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users