Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Death to the Rah Rah's

CHALLENGE CUP - TIME FOR A CHANGE

77 posts in this topic

It would completely devalue the competition's integrity. Sporting contests are about which team is the best in the same set of laws of the game. If a lower league team wins under a handicap, what does it really prove?

...

I think, without changing the game too much, having more substitutes on the bench and allowing more interchanges could be a positive for the cup. If players get tired in the lower team, they can have more rests. There's be more specialist cover in the bench instead if utility players. And for the higher teams, it would allow them to blood more youngsters, whilst keeping the odd star on the bench "just in case".

I can't say for definite, but I'm pretty sure that football allows for different numbers in the bench in different competitions (though you're only allowed 3 subs still).

 

Yes, I agree with you on that: there is a risk to having different rules for different teams. A difference in interchanges, I think, might be something that could be got away with, though.

 

You could argue that there is a big handicap in the cup now that isn't questioned: three very different salary caps on clubs in the top three leagues. We know why they exist, but that rule from the league competitions is impacting on the cup. I'm not suggesting lower league teams could afford to cover the difference, but they aren't being allowed to spend even part of it; maybe enough for one additional player.

 

There's an arguement that other sports don't massage their rules and that mismatches looks exaggerated in rugby league because of its nature. Rugby league isn't those other sports, however, maybe we need a unique solution. And clubs in the FA Cup don't have a salary cap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the plate and bowl idea, by the way. It would also remove some of the disadvantage in the league campaign for teams that remain in the cup longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The irony is that a Wembley appearance is far and away the single biggest marginal income generator for a club.

So you have a situation that the biggest money spinning game (the final) has a devalued series of rounds to get there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree with you on that: there is a risk to having different rules for different teams. A difference in interchanges, I think, might be something that could be got away with, though.

You could argue that there is a big handicap in the cup now that isn't questioned: three very different salary caps on clubs in the top three leagues. We know why they exist, but that rule from the league competitions is impacting on the cup. I'm not suggesting lower league teams could afford to cover the difference, but they aren't being allowed to spend even part of it; maybe enough for one additional player.

There's an arguement that other sports don't massage their rules and that mismatches looks exaggerated in rugby league because of its nature. Rugby league isn't those other sports, however, maybe we need a unique solution. And clubs in the FA Cup don't have a salary cap.

The salary cap isn't a law of the game though. It is a rule that clubs have to work by, but the actual game itself has nothing to do with quotas or caps. If you change any law of a game for just one team, it completely takes away any integrity that competition would have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a Plate and Bowl would be a great addition, but it's just finding a format that works. I think it would be far easier to sell than the NRC, which from what I gather on here is seen a lot as a Mickey Mouse competition. A trip to Wembley would interest a lot of people. The buzz on the radio about Grimsby getting to the FA Trophy final was great to hear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the plate and bowl idea, by the way. It would also remove some of the disadvantage in the league campaign for teams that remain in the cup longer.

It will also remove the prestige of the C Cup and they will be more lop sided scores as some clubs may not try as hard as they will have another, easier, chance to get to Wembley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will also remove the prestige of the C Cup and they will be more lop sided scores as some clubs may not try as hard as they will have another, easier, chance to get to Wembley.

How would it remove the prestige? And which clubs wouldn't try as hard in the cup?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More should be done to get maximum bums on seats. The London - Fev attendance was a joke, and theyr'e now playing Bradford on a Friday night! They should be made to play when visiting fans can get there! Likewise with other mid-week games involving long distance motorway journeys, it's not fair on the travelling support!

BTW about London:- If they can't get decent crowds, either kick them out or find a sponsor to pay so they can reduce prices, even if they have to pull folk in off the street for free! (For the time being at least!)

Club call would also be a good idea in the earlier rounds, especially involving the amateurs. Both sides would have to agree though, but ties like Fev v Sharlston, Halifax v Siddall, would create massive local interest and get even bigger crowds than against most Championship sides. Some of the top amateur sides might fancy their chances against the lower proffessional clubs, but they always seem to get drawn away. Maybe they should get home advantage at their nearest pro ground?

We seem to get matches played all over the weekend, afternoons and evenings from Thursday to Sunday, so why can't season ticket holders from neutral clubs be allowed in for half-price?

In a nutshell, it's all about getting bums on seats (Oh! And making the ground look full on TV!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would it remove the prestige? And which clubs wouldn't try as hard in the cup?

see my example earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

see my example earlier.

I think there's a structure that can be out in place to make sure that all Championship teams can be involved in a Plate competition regardless of how well they do in the Cup up to a certain point. It would however most likely involve seeding the 4th Round (which I think they should do anyway).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's a structure that can be out in place to make sure that all Championship teams can be involved in a Plate competition regardless of how well they do in the Cup up to a certain point. It would however most likely involve seeding the 4th Round (which I think they should do anyway).

yep - i like the idea, just thought the execution had a major flaw last time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More should be done to get maximum bums on seats. The London - Fev attendance was a joke, and theyr'e now playing Bradford on a Friday night! They should be made to play when visiting fans can get there! Likewise with other mid-week games involving long distance motorway journeys, it's not fair on the travelling support!

I've posted elsewhere that this fixture could be a disaster. The problem for London is that they have undoubtedly the biggest catchment area for their own fans and travelling across the London area on Friday evening is going to be chaotic, which may well mean that many London fans will be unable, or won't even bother trying, to get to the Stoop before Kick off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree there needs to be a shake up to increase interest and reduce winning margins. I am not qualified to answer this question, however would a 5m rule (instead of 10m) for the Challenge Cup increase interest and/or reduce margins? Personally It would do because (1) a major difference between pro and amateur teams are fitness levels, a 5m rule would reduce this advantage. (2) a substantial rule change usually brings about an increase in interest (especially as it's a throw back to the olden days).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree there needs to be a shake up to increase interest and reduce winning margins. I am not qualified to answer this question, however would a 5m rule (instead of 10m) for the Challenge Cup increase interest and/or reduce margins? Personally It would do because (1) a major difference between pro and amateur teams are fitness levels, a 5m rule would reduce this advantage. (2) a substantial rule change usually brings about an increase in interest (especially as it's a throw back to the olden days).

But then it's not the same sport any more.

Any ideas to muck around with the actual laws of the sport on the field will not happen, nor should it. It would take away all integrity of the sport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But then it's not the same sport any more.

Any ideas to muck around with the actual laws of the sport on the field will not happen, nor should it. It would take away all integrity of the sport.

 

Cricket has different laws depending on the competition - it's still cricket.

 

In principle, for rugby, I think you're right but it's not necessarily clear cut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cricket has different laws depending on the competition - it's still cricket.

In principle, for rugby, I think you're right but it's not necessarily clear cut.

It's advertised as a different form of cricket though. Test cricket, one day cricket and international cricket.

Are we suggesting having Rugby "League" and Rugby "Cup"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree there needs to be a shake up to increase interest and reduce winning margins. I am not qualified to answer this question, however would a 5m rule (instead of 10m) for the Challenge Cup increase interest and/or reduce margins? Personally It would do because (1) a major difference between pro and amateur teams are fitness levels, a 5m rule would reduce this advantage. (2) a substantial rule change usually brings about an increase in interest (especially as it's a throw back to the olden days).

 

 

Cricket has different laws depending on the competition - it's still cricket.

 

In principle, for rugby, I think you're right but it's not necessarily clear cut.

 

wow, I never even contemplated this. What a great opportunity to test new ways to make our sport even better. Agree GJ, there is nothing wrong with playing under minor law changes. Whether taking it back to 5m or not is the right one I am not so sure Southerner, but definitely worth exploring on another feed about new laws we would think to enhance our game and then try them out (not all at once) in the Challenge Cup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or, in some ways contrary to my thoughts on another thread, what if the CC became the WCC and a return to a mid season World club KO competition that international SL started in the 90's.

 

Now that is a way to preserve the CC but take it to a greater scale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow, I never even contemplated this. What a great opportunity to test new ways to make our sport even better. Agree GJ, there is nothing wrong with playing under minor law changes. Whether taking it back to 5m or not is the right one I am not so sure Southerner, but definitely worth exploring on another feed about new laws we would think to enhance our game and then try them out (not all at once) in the Challenge Cup.

That's what friendlies are for, not a century+ cup competition. It's not for experimenting with the laws.

If they want to try this 5m change to see if it would make it more competitive, roll it out in a few friendlies first. Personally, I don't believe it'll make any difference. If it did, we'd have brought it in by now to make SL more competitive!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few sensible contributors on here make the case or simply state that in their opinions: the CC has run it's course and should be passed to history; I agree.

 

I have often been called a dinosaur by others on here, many of these are ones generally that tend to make quotes to the effect: we are in the 21st century now......etc, whatever that means? Yet they are in the main also, ones who are stating the case for the CC on the grounds of it having such historical and traditional items about it that make it essential to be retained at all costs, why? 

 

The CC is now so often, an embarrassment insofar as the visual effect that the so-called crowds display to the casual viewer when televised, the games are generally second rate in to many instances and the lack of atmosphere (not at them all) is absolutely un-R/L like. The CC is in the way of the season proper as the trend of coaches and players now it seems is to seek less games not more, then this is the obvious way to achieve that also.

 

So without much reflection on the subject I would say that the most obvious direction to take is to abandon it and put it to rest before it dies a natural death. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello all, first post here so bear with me.

Personally, I love the idea of the Challenge Cup but am too much like many of you aware of its problems. I've just written my university dissertation on the role of Wembley and the Challenge Cup in the history of Rugby League, so it's almost ideal timing to voice my opinion on it.

It needs to be revitalised somehow. This is how I would do it.

Firstly, give it an international feel. Invite the champions of Serbia, Russia, Italy, Czech Rep (teams that take part in Euro Shield / Bowl) over for entry into one of the early rounds against amateur teams, that in itself must entice some local RL fans that support a pro club to go down to their local amateur club to see something that they may never witness again.

Secondly, in the later rounds, have all SL teams play away from home with no foreign players allowed unless they were playing in an all SL tie. I see somebody noted how 1,400 at Keighley was not as valuable to them as 4,000 at Warrington. My solution, to make these rounds the only RL games in the country I.e. no amateur games that weekend.nget the communities involved,mback to he example of Keighley have their players spend the weeks prior to the game visiting a handful of schools nearest Cougar Park attempting to flog £5 child tickets. If a child goes, so does a parent. The cup can only help improve community relations with the championship and championship one teams.

The cup is special and unique, we have to market it that way!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few sensible contributors on here make the case or simply state that in their opinions: the CC has run it's course and should be passed to history; I agree.

I have often been called a dinosaur by others on here, many of these are ones generally that tend to make quotes to the effect: we are in the 21st century now......etc, whatever that means? Yet they are in the main also, ones who are stating the case for the CC on the grounds of it having such historical and traditional items about it that make it essential to be retained at all costs, why?

The CC is now so often, an embarrassment insofar as the visual effect that the so-called crowds display to the casual viewer when televised, the games are generally second rate in to many instances and the lack of atmosphere (not at them all) is absolutely un-R/L like. The CC is in the way of the season proper as the trend of coaches and players now it seems is to seek less games not more, then this is the obvious way to achieve that also.

So without much reflection on the subject I would say that the most obvious direction to take is to abandon it and put it to rest before it dies a natural death. :(

Isn't the CC Final the highest grossing RL game of the year in this country? I think that gives it reason enough to be retained!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the CC Final the highest grossing RL game of the year in this country? I think that gives it reason enough to be retained!

yup. Absolutely astounding that people want to scrap it just because 'its not as good as when I were a lad'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what friendlies are for, not a century+ cup competition. It's not for experimenting with the laws.

If they want to try this 5m change to see if it would make it more competitive, roll it out in a few friendlies first. Personally, I don't believe it'll make any difference. If it did, we'd have brought it in by now to make SL more competitive!

Wellsy - A 5m rule was a Rugby League rule for many years, so to say it wouldnt be rugby league any more is wrong. The Aussies pushed successfully to extend it to 10m as a knee jerk reaction to enhance the attack their own game (rather than trialling out other alternatives for several years). Unfortunately this single rule change has led to wider score margins, more predictable game, and less shocks. The game has more fitness emphasis on the bonkers running back and forward by 10m rather than flair and core rugby skills of running passing and tackling.

Personally I despise the 10m rule and would drop it overnight.

The aim should be to have close scores far more than allowing the attack to have far too much room

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if we need to change the laws of the game to even out a cup game....then the cup has had its day imo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 24th July 2017

Rugby League World - August 2017