Cerulean

Thank you for the full and thoughtful response. But - my opinion - the game doesn’t have to be like that. The officials could call held when forward progress is stopped, strictly enforce the offside defensive line reducing the line speed, not permit dragging into touch which encourages upright tackles, and many more interpretations which are actually in the laws. This would give more room for players like Alfie Langer, Roger Millward, Paul Charlton, and a sport in which evasion becomes more significant. And I know I’m in a small minority here: I believe the game is too hard, and could be equally or more thrilling, and more attractive, with a diferent emphasis. But most SL fans want the impact. As fans of Run It Straight want the impact.

Here’s what I wrote: I’m unconvinced that rugby league is working hard enough to reduce the risk of impact damage. The first impulse of the officials at a dubious tackle is to find mitigation; shuddering impacts are intensely celebrated; smashing a flat-footed ball carrier to the ground is a cause for much back slapping; line speed, where rule (law) interpretation encourages the defence to hit the attack line at high speed, is a match winning approach; considered and chosen rule interpretations constantly favour larger and heavier players and more significant impact. When did the sport become talked about as an impact sport? It was always regarded as a contact sport: you rode the tackle, a grounded player required no more than a hand to complete the tackle (still in the rules, I believe), evasion was so much more significant than now. I played as a twelve and a half stone second row in the 60s and 70s: I would have been terrified to attempt the sport as it is now. I would have been looking for a different activity. Additionally, it seems to me that the game is more and more defined by high speed collisions, almost its USP - to batter the defensive line until it breaks; to batter the ball carrier back and onto the ground with a pile of bodies on top to delay the play the ball; with the rule interpretations encouraging this; with coaches, training methods, recruitment, player development favouring larger, faster players who can deliver greater impact success. I see little or no retreat from this trend, in spite of the accumulating medical evidence. Other perspectives are available.

Yes, I understand, and I apologise for using your post to make a tangential point of my own. But I also believe that Rugby league is not taking sufficient heed of obvious lessons, and will come to regret its inaction.

I’m unconvinced that rugby league is working hard enough to reduce the risk of impact damage. The first impulse of the officials at a dubious tackle is to find mitigation; shuddering impacts are intensely celebrated; smashing a flat-footed ball carrier to the ground is a cause for much back slapping; line speed, where rule (law) interpretation encourages the defence to hit the attack line at high speed is a match winning approach; considered and chosen rule interpretations constantly favour larger and heavier players and more significant impact. When did the sport become talked about as an impact sport? It was always regarded as a contact sport: you rode the tackle, a grounded player required no more than a hand to complete the tackle (still in the rules, I believe), evasion was so much more significant than now. I played as a twelve and a half stone second row in the 60s and 70s: I would have been terrified to attempt the sport as it is now. I would have been looking for a different activity.

To tolerate is to accept: to accept is to condone: to condone is to encourage. The purpose of arm waving - generally accompanied by physical and audible expressions of disgust and contempt - is to redirect the officials’ attention, to suggest that the officials are missing something, to gain an unearned advantage; immediately with a six-again or a penalty; later with an altered perception by the officials. It’s rehearsed, encouraged by the coach, practised, perfected. The benefits are valuable. Those six-agains can turn a game or contribute to maintaining dominance. It may not be a total coincidence that the team that may be at the top of the arm-waving league is also the team at the top of the league table. It’s dissent, it’s offensive, it’s an attempt to highlight that the officials are not doing their job. It shows the sport in a poor light. It's not unlikely that it contributes to other levels of dissent. It probably contributes to spectator abuse of the officials. Perhaps it even reaches down to U14 level. It could be stopped completely within 15 minutes of the next round of fixtures, with an early released warning and few deserved penalties. Overstating my case, perhaps, but why isn't it stopped?

There was a time when rugby league belonged to every fan of every club, and the Challenge Cup final belonged to every rugby league fan, and over half of those attending were fans of clubs not actually competing; rugby league fans enjoying the ultimate day out for their sport. For reasons worth exploring, many, many fans of the sport no longer feel fully invested, actually feel disenfranchised. The final is now not much more than another club match. Exploring why this feeling of unity and belonging has evaporated could be interesting.

Perhaps tangential to the point that you were covering, but responding to your final paragraph and the "really important things", most of the discussion concerns a few teams around the bottom of the Super League structure - or more important to those few teams comfortably lodged at the top of the structure, about who will make up their list of opponents, which seems to be the unstated basis for most of the conversations here. What has not been significantly and seriously examined is the appearance and the playability of the sport, its profile amongst the wider population of those who may be prepared to contribute enthusiasm and commitment to the sport, a genuine attempt to create interest wider than already exists. Shuffling around the composition of the top division will have little impact on the game’s appeal: changing the perception (and ask around amongst those outside the sport, or peripheral to it, to find what that perception is) from a high-speed battering contest played by a very few teams with any sort of national awareness under a label which is not even the name of the sport, to a sport which can be enjoyed for its playability, its accessibility, for rugby league’s undoubted qualities of thrilling ball movement, running, evasion, positional awareness, and many other elements now hidden behind a near-incomprehensible battle to control what happens at the end of each tackle. If the game wants new customers, it needs to offer and promote something different: if it wants to continue to please a few comfortable teams, then rearranging their opponents can be argued over. Just possibly, a new review might address wider issues.

Many thanks.

This looks like an entertaing game on a nice afternoon for my first match for 2 years. I do not buy online, so can anyone tell me, please, if the £10 age concession is still available at the ground; or if, as seems common nowadays, there is a surcharge for paying at the ground. Thank you

Sorry for the lack of clarity: I turned the commentary off. Once, the best commentators in sport came from a journalistic background, and often honed their skills on radio. Different world now, but the sport needs commentators more than it needs ex-players commenting.

Rugby League is my sport in more ways than you can count, but I was disappointed with the game, as a contest, and as an exhibition. Samoa looked underprepared and disorganised and made unsatisfactory opponents. England slowed the play-the-ball down by prolonging the tackle and by pushing and pulling the tackled player back, permitted and encouraged in Super League: Samoa slowed the play-the-ball down by piling tacklers on, not allowed in Super League, and penalised. There seemed an awful lot of pushing, pulling, twisting, wrestling, shirt and arm holding, pleading for a penalty, which, I suspect, may have surprised a casual observer trying out the game. England’s (as with Super League) moving forward off the mark when playing the ball adds to the untidiness and confusion. This would take 10 minutes of the first round next season to cure, and I don’t understand why it’s not been cured yet. The commentary was awful, though it may have improved after the first 15 minutes: I wouldn’t know because I’d turned it off. Some of the ball handling after the defence had been disrupted was a delight. England’s defence organisation was excellent, and while it may not be the the most obvious attraction of the sport, it’s worth focusing on. Williams was outstanding, and more should be made of this star player.

You seem to be getting upset. To select a few teams to bump along the bottom of Super League for a few years, you can take a year to assess them against a list of ill-defined and mostly arbitrary and spurious measurements, or you can use on-field performance, or you can select the most positive member of this forum to make the choice. Don’t be surprised if one of those three methods is going to cause frustration and disappointment similar to your own.

Whingey fans get an unfair press. Whingey fans have absolutely no influence on the sport: they have no effect on the decisions made, no one who makes the decisions listens to them, they are not responsibility for what happens to the sport, except for still turning up to support the game and paying for their entry and subscriptions. Whingey fans do not block possible changes. The only people who take any notice of what whingey fans say are those on this forum who wish to deflect responsibility. If there really are problems in the sport, look harder and find the real culprits. Yours sincerely, a whingey fan

Excellent descriptions of some of the primary reasons the game isn't as attractive as it should be, suggesting that no matter what adjustments are made to the league structure and the marketing and promotion, progress is likely to be limited. The visual product is simply not as saleable as it could be.

From W B Yeats, whose world view is worth exploring: "The best lack all convictions, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity."