The 10m rule

[Cofi]

In the August edition of RLW, Alex Murphy (Guest Room) was asked if he thought that the 10m rule was responsible for killing off ball-playing halfs and forwards.

He said that he would get rid of the rule immediately saying that it's one of the things that disappoints him the most in today's game.

Apologies in advance if this has been debated before but I don't think it has since I've been a member (January, this year).

What are the advantages of the 10m rule? Is Alex Murphy right about getting rid of it and, if so, why so?

[Smog]

10M is good for the game - Alex is looking back at the past through rose tinted spectacles.

[steef]

I reckon the 10m rule is good but would love to see a game played under the 5m rule just to see what it'd be like. kicks would be the most potent form of attack in my opinion.

[jannerboyuk]

I reckon the 10m rule is good but would love to see a game played under the 5m rule just to see what it'd be like. kicks would be the most potent form of attack in my opinion.

Wasn't it played under 5m for a while? Or am i mis-remembering? Would like to see some footage of that to compare.

[steef]

it was 5m when i started watching but changed very soon after and i was only 8 or 9 at the time so can't remember much about it.

[goldcard]

IIRC, when the 5m rule was in force, most sides were part-time players, no-where near as fit as today's guys.

PTBs were slower, and folks still didn't get back the 5.

Defensive planning wasn't anything like it is now, the line would move up, but more slowly, so halves etc had time still to pick options, in an attacking side which was more off-the-cuff than a structured game-plan approach.

It's the better coaching that has negated the specialised positions rather than how far apart they are.

Maybe Murph has overlooked that aspect, and just blamed 5/10m rather than gameplans in attack and defence, and fitter defenders.

Just a thought...

[RL1908.com]

Fairly sure that was my question - glad to see Alex's views.

The back and forth of the 10m over 80 minutes generates a lot of wasted energy, for no particular purpose - it requires an enormous amount of training just to be fit enough to play, and stops many amateurs from taking up the game.

Nothing happens in a game of RL until the defence and attack actually meet - no attacker can "put a move" on a defender until they have come into close proximity, so the defence might as well be 5m back instead of 10m.

The most repugnant aspect of it all is that the defence is punished every time it does its job! Successfully make a tackle, your team is "rewarded" by being sent back 10m.

The logic behind the 10m rule was it would create space (nothing about speed) for the attack to do something with the ball.

Fifteen years on, the majority of runs in RL are now dummy-half scoots or one of the ruck "hit ups", all aimed at eating up the free 10m the attack has been gifted for being tackled on the preceding play, and tiring your opponent (so you can glory in scoring tries against a tired defence).

Ironically, RL already had a decent and equitable 10m rule - it required BOTH teams to be 5m from the ruck (something that could have worked well under a 2 referees system).

The 10m rule pushes genuine footballers out of the game in favour of fitter athletes, but less skilled "footballers". If anything, I would have thought it was the England team that had more to be gained by a return (or trial) of the 5m rule.

The space that should have been opened up on the field should not have been between the two teams (ie the 10m rule), but across the field (11 a-side under a 5m rule).

[steef]

teams do not make 10m every tackle by any means, often considerably less.

[RL1908.com]

teams do not make 10m every tackle by any means, often considerably less.

They do if you have your opponent in "retreating defence" mode - something that eventuates from the earlier scoots and hit-ups wearing down the wall.

Let's not forget that the 10m rule also demands that the blight of wrestling be a prominent part of modern RL too.

[EastLondonMike]

10m is good for the game..t he biggest problem our players seem to have with the 10m rule is that so many of them arent fit enough to make it is as often as they should..

[ehbandit]

totally agree with rl1908. 10 m rule just means that the attacking line can play flat,if the defence was closer to the attacking side,then the attacking team would just play with a deeper attacking line.

[thirteenthman]

It would be interesting to see today's full time players play under the 5metre rule. I know going back to 5 has some supporters (Seem to recall Wayne Bennett saying something along those lines) but the switch to 10 did open the game up. The downside is the running from dummy half which the extra room has encouraged. At times it can be just a bit too easy to make metres.

The biggest problem the sport has inregards to the 10m rule is for the guys who play at amateur level. The sheer physicality of the sport is a big thing for newcomers to the sport, with the constant movement particularly in defence. The sport might just be a bit too tough for people who just fancy a try. You can play a game of football in the park for fun - it's a bit harder to do that with RL. Some people have suggested the amateur game reverts to 5metres, but then you're more or less creating 2 different games.

[Cofi]

Fairly sure that was my question - glad to see Alex's views.

The back and forth of the 10m over 80 minutes generates a lot of wasted energy, for no particular purpose - it requires an enormous amount of training just to be fit enough to play, and stops many amateurs from taking up the game.

Nothing happens in a game of RL until the defence and attack actually meet - no attacker can "put a move" on a defender until they have come into close proximity, so the defence might as well be 5m back instead of 10m.

The most repugnant aspect of it all is that the defence is punished every time it does its job! Successfully make a tackle, your team is "rewarded" by being sent back 10m.

The logic behind the 10m rule was it would create space (nothing about speed) for the attack to do something with the ball.

Fifteen years on, the majority of runs in RL are now dummy-half scoots or one of the ruck "hit ups", all aimed at eating up the free 10m the attack has been gifted for being tackled on the preceding play, and tiring your opponent (so you can glory in scoring tries against a tired defence).

Ironically, RL already had a decent and equitable 10m rule - it required BOTH teams to be 5m from the ruck (something that could have worked well under a 2 referees system).

The 10m rule pushes genuine footballers out of the game in favour of fitter athletes, but less skilled "footballers". If anything, I would have thought it was the England team that had more to be gained by a return (or trial) of the 5m rule.

The space that should have been opened up on the field should not have been between the two teams (ie the 10m rule), but across the field (11 a-side under a 5m rule).

Interesting points - thanks. Seems that Murphy agrees with you about the rule being responsible for diminishing ball handling skills.

totally agree with rl1908. 10 m rule just means that the attacking line can play flat,if the defence was closer to the attacking side,then the attacking team would just play with a deeper attacking line.

What is more difficult to defend against: a flat attacking line or a deeper attacking line? Is a deeper attacking line harder to read and, therefore, harder to defend?

[Cofi]

It would be interesting to see today's full time players play under the 5metre rule. I know going back to 5 has some supporters (Seem to recall Wayne Bennett saying something along those lines) but the switch to 10 did open the game up. The downside is the running from dummy half which the extra room has encouraged. At times it can be just a bit too easy to make metres.

The biggest problem the sport has inregards to the 10m rule is for the guys who play at amateur level. The sheer physicality of the sport is a big thing for newcomers to the sport, with the constant movement particularly in defence. The sport might just be a bit too tough for people who just fancy a try. You can play a game of football in the park for fun - it's a bit harder to do that with RL. Some people have suggested the amateur game reverts to 5metres, but then you're more or less creating 2 different games.

I'm new to the sport and I personally enjoy watching the dummy-half make these runs - it's often exciting, like Buderus's run and offload today. I also understand your point about easy yardage though. Isn't it true that, in the past, the dummy-half lost possession if he were tackled after a scoot?

[goldcard]

What is more difficult to defend against: a flat attacking line or a deeper attacking line? Is a deeper attacking line harder to read and, therefore, harder to defend?

If a player is running at you from deeper, you are mentally less inclined to try to hit him at speed yourself, running to meet him.

More likely you'll stop and set, and go low to stop him running and let him have the yard over you as he gets up.

Shallow runners have less momentum to stop, so meeting them yourself is more of a viable option, and a higher block tackle can be employed.

IMO.

[jannerboyuk]

I'm new to the sport and I personally enjoy watching the dummy-half make these runs - it's often exciting, like Buderus's run and offload today. I also understand your point about easy yardage though. Isn't it true that, in the past, the dummy-half lost possession if he were tackled after a scoot?

I agree with you cofi. I like seeing the half backs take on a tired set of forwards on the scoot. They are still risking it and seem to twist and turn trying to gain every advantage. Leeds taking on the saints around the ruck opened up the game today, giving it a more broken field feel. Personally i would like to see the interchanges reduced to encourage this a bit more, making coaching decisions in this area more tactical.

[Manx RL]

Wasn't it played under 5m for a while? Or am i mis-remembering? Would like to see some footage of that to compare.

Quite a few games this year have been played under the 5m rule, complete with experiments of 6m, 7m, 8m and 9m. In a few cases the experiment has seen all scenarios played out in the same game.

[dkw]

Quite a few games this year have been played under the 5m rule, complete with experiments of 6m, 7m, 8m and 9m. In a few cases the experiment has seen all scenarios played out in the same game.

Ive seen some where 12m seems to be the rule, but the ref will allow the players to "creep" 2m. Great rule that is.

[Cofi]

I agree with you cofi. I like seeing the half backs take on a tired set of forwards on the scoot. They are still risking it and seem to twist and turn trying to gain every advantage. Leeds taking on the saints around the ruck opened up the game today, giving it a more broken field feel. Personally i would like to see the interchanges reduced to encourage this a bit more, making coaching decisions in this area more tactical.

Interesting point about reducing the number of interchanges to create a more 'broken field'.

[Lobbygobbler]

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

[steef]

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.

[Lobbygobbler]

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)

[Cofi]

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

[dallymessenger]

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

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

[Maximus Decimus]

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.