The Rocket

I did not post last night Pedant because it all seemed a bit frivolous given what is going on, however I know that being morbid is not going to help. I did spend my evening doing a little bit of Google searching and found out a couple of things that may be of interest. The TryTagRugby site, yes they should change their name immediately and the fact that I refer to it as TTRL has been more an instinctual thing for me. Similar to the reaction of the Australian TryTag rugby teams you mentioned in a previous post, here the word rugby has completely different connotations. Getting back to what I was saying, the TryTag Rugby sites does have listed as its major partners the RFL and the International Tag Football Federation, ITFF, with a direct link to their home pages and vice versa. The ITFF has a picture of Bill Harrigan, although it does not say what he does, and also mentions Jeff Hardy, ex St. George and Illawarra Steeler. I suggest at least the NRL are running the show or at least up to their necks in it. Good news. Like you noted their previous three WCs in the southern hemisphere do not mention the word `rugby` in their title, however neither is League. Tag WC, OzTag WC & Tag Football WC. Not such an issue down here where League is entrenched, but unlike Ireland where TTRL WC would have more impact. Anyway now what I hope is some good news. When I searched the RFU and the England Rugby websites I could find no link to or mention of TTRL competitions. Instead I found a promotion for `Ready4Rugby` apparently a union alternative. Featuring a half hearted endorsement by League loving Eddie Jones. Have they abandoned the battlefield ? The troops may still be there but the generals have fled. My God this would seem like a major victory for Rugby League. It is imperative we must strike. The insertion of that key word at a time of such vulnerability could penetrate like a lance and perhaps be that small victory that signifies a changing of fortunes. The inclusion then in our World Cup would ram home the advantage. It seems like good news to me , the field lies open, we must advance.

It could work, my first thoughts were they wouldn`t touch it with a barge pole because of the strong union links that a lot of the teams would have, but when, as above, you consider it from a players perspective, the opportunity to play in a real WC, not a Tag/Touch WC, but one with real meat on its bones, culminating in a final potentially played at somewhere like Old Trafford. As you say "eye teeth". And if, like you said, we treated those TTR organisations with respect, i.e. equals, by having the RLIF offer them a formal invitation to compete in our WC. They could have a revolt on their hands if they said no. Either way the inclusion of TTRL in our WC would certainly make a lot of players of those versions of the sport sit up and maybe even start to lobby their admin bodies about why can`t we be part of that next time. So many exciting possibilities Irish, sometimes it seems like we just need someone to grab our sport by the scruff of the neck to really realise its full potential.

But do we even need them or their imprimatur? I agree we need to keep the names so that the comparison is continually made with any union rival and to remind all who`s game they are playing, or do we? I worry that creating some new name may end up sounding like and being viewed as some funny little offshoot . Again.

I think that is why we would have to go for the killer blow and put in the WC. WheelChair Cup Final, followed by the Final of the Men`s and Womens TTRL , and then of course the Mens and Womens Rugby League Cup Finals. The union can`t do that, surely a game simulating League in their big tournament would be a bridge too far, they can not offer it that prestige. Any way you live there, I do not, probably too much sun down here, you lose perspective.

You have made this assertion elsewhere with equal force and it is one that I have certainly agreed with for quite a while myself. Yet it seems often to be the dirty little secret that no true League loyalist would ever utter in public or even admit to. Yet in this era of declining birthrates, the consequent smaller families and the resultant over protective parenting as anxious mums and dads protect their diminished broods it is no wonder that parents are directing their only son or daughter into perceived less physical past times.( Chad Townsend is not helping things however). I witnessed a boy form an aspirational local family recently be made to wear headgear and a mouth guard while playing soccer. Poor kid, thank goodness he threw them away after about 20 minutes. Not much chance of him playing League though without full body armour. But getting back to your original point, your point is an astute one. And echoes a similar response that I was formulating for articchris, in regards his observation re: Kalyn Ponga and Shaun Johnson. My thought was that if there were sufficient numbers in TTRL then it would be very likely League talent scouts or even just local league coaches or their associates would be keeping a close eye on the talent in those formats . Ready to tap some kid on the shoulder and say "you interested in coming over and having a run with the u16`s". One of my proudest moments in sport was when our primary school rep team was short and the coach came to my year 5 class and in front of the class said Rocket " do you think you can play fullback for us this arvo ?". I dropped everything and walked out of that room feeling like the real Rocket. The story I heard regards Brian Fletcher ,Roosters, NSW and OZ star was similar, happy just playing `park` footy with his mates, spotted by a talent scout, convinced to give it a go and the rest is history. Yes , I think you are right It could be another way of easing people into the game.

You should, because I think " the somebody on these page(who) recently referred..." was yourself. Your previous references to Ireland and the lack of profile League has in that nation , despite the popularity of TTRL forms of the game, was certainly something I had in mind when thinking about their World Cup participation in one of these forms of the game. Even the process of selecting a national team, with so many competitions obviously having no League affiliation, yet wanting to select the very best players, may involve treading on a few union toes. However the enticement of playing in high profile RLWC, and possibly representing your nation in front of 50 000 at Old Trafford ( is that where the WC final will be held?)as the introductory game and Final in itself, before the Womens and Mens World Cup Finals, would surely tempt any prospective code-hopper. And I would be very surprised, if for example an Irish TTRL team made it deep into the tournament, that it would not garner a fair amount of publicity back home and attract more than a few eyeballs if not even attendees. If not devotees. This scenario I would like to think would apply to any country where League plays second fiddle to union yet where the non-contact version of our sport is popular.

Funny thing that, my brother-in-law played league all through his youth and into his twenties until it became a bit too demanding, especially having to go to work every day. He took up union and it was quite funny because he was slaying them, despite only ever being a run-of-the mill Leaguie. Since he hit his 40`s he now plays soccer. This only highlights the need we have in providing something like what you described above to keep them in the game especially when they are introducing their own children into sport. His son, my nephew, now plays union. He is a stocky little fellow and they play him on the wing, every time I see him I say " there is money in halfbacks", because he is an intelligent little fellow and I reckon he would make a pretty good little organising League halfback. There is an excellent post by Unapologetic Pedant at the bottom of page three ` Growth of the Game` thread describing the various varieties of TTRL and their suitability for different scenarios.

Every point you blokes make are legitimate reasons why this version of the sport should be considered part of the Rugby League family. Like it or not RL is a physically demanding sport where not everyone can participate in the full contact version, it should not reduce their right to participate in a fully fledged and affiliated version of the sport . What other business would let their product be sold under a different name and not take advantage of having developed that product. Because that is what we are effectively doing by not reaping the rewards of a very popular offshoot of our product.

But we have to have TTRL unquestionably associated with Rugby League to gain full value from it. By having a version of it at our WC would allow us to claim it as our own. Especially with countries competing to send their best team to the Rugby League World Cup. In OZ the figures in 2019 were 170 000 registered contact RL players, 680 000 playing non-contact versions. I bet those proportions are the same everywhere. We have to change the public perceptions of origins of TTRL.

Somebody on these pages recently referred to " both the contact and the non-contact versions of Rugby League". For the sake of the game TTRL must be claimed under the Rugby League banner world wide. There can be no doubt that these versions of the code are unequivocally RL orientated. TTRL should be a part of the Rugby League World Cup as soon as 2025. With 16 of the worlds best mens and womens teams representing their home nations. If the other code reciprocates it will only highlight to all who watch how much TTR is more like our game than theirs. It is important as a code that we send a message to players of TTR world wide, no matter what code their allegiance is with, the sport they play every week is born from Rugby League. Henceforth TTR playing numbers, no matter what their allegiance, should be included in Rugby League participation numbers. It must be recognised there are two versions of our code. The contact and the non-contact version. For too long we have allowed this variation of the game to be hijacked by union. By including it in our World Cup it will be a bold statement staking our rightful claim to be the originator of these forms of the sport. An added advantage is that companies and potential sponsors may start to view it the same way.

Totally agree, when I saw him in the WCC I couldn`t wait to see him come over here and do the same thing. On TV on the weekend I forgot he was out there until I saw him in the huddle after a try. I really expected him to be like how you describe in your second sentence in the Adrian Morley mould.

You beat me to it, the poms are having a field day tonight.

I`m an Aussie and believe me from what I`ve seen of him he has definitely added to Canberra`s game. Even Bateman`s great overhead pass on the previous weekend was preceded by Williams darting back and forth across in front of the defence although he got no credit for the uncertainty that he created in the defensive line from the commentary team.

I think your initial point is significant and when looked at from the point that in no other part of the game can a player deliberately knock the ball forward and not be called a knock on. Which shows that the original rule makers either considered this a significant achievement worth rewarding or a poor kick deserving punishment. You could almost consider this as `precedent ` as in the legal sense for allowing further law changes which we are trying to formulate. So, in your post you are saying that the ref will make a case by case judgement on the spot and call either `charge down` or `knock on `. But say the play is ten metres out and on the attack, grubber goes through ,leg gets stuck out and rebounds into attacking teams hands, is that a legitimate charge down attempt? the player has deliberately blocked the ball with his leg, he would say no six again, that was a charge down. It would be a charge down at the other end of the field if he ran at the kicker jumped in the air and the ball rebounded off his legs. If the same rule doesn`t apply all over the field it won`t work. Or you are saying your grubber kick wasn`t good enough ,didn`t thread the needle, therefore no six again , play on. Might be hard to sell. If you get a chance read ` Yakstorms` post in the `Private Equity` thread, I would be interested to hear your opinion. Bedtime.

Think a blanket coverage of those mentioned above as charge downs would work best. If we start getting into distances it would start to get too difficult to administer. Therefore they are all charge downs and no six again. An area that concerns me more is down the other end of the field. Is blocking a grubber kick into the in- goal with your leg considered a charge down. And if that is technically a charge down doesn`t that then mean you could block it with your hand or arm. I don`t think the Rugby Leave loving public would tolerate this change. The scenario of team attacking the try-line, grubber kick goes in and is blocked and six-again only tends to ramp up the tension. The only way I can see to avoid this conflict is to have the rule only apply in your opponents half of the field. That is, the new rule would only applies to teams coming out of their own end. The defending team could almost block the kick in any matter and not concede six-again. This could act as an incentive for teams to get out of their own half before kicking or alternatively giving the defending team extra motivation to keep a team pinned in their half before they have a chance to kick. Once a team has crossed the half way line with the ball then the old rules apply. Could work.

I never questioned once the brilliance of the men who turned the Rugby Union `ruck` into the Rugby League `play-the-ball`. An incredible piece of lateral thinking. Was always taught that `limited tackle` was brought in to tame the 11 premiership winning Dragons side of the 50`s & 60`s. Is it possible that the idea was floated here and perhaps taken to you for approval and initial implementation. In an era where we may have `doffed our cap ` to you a little more. Please correct me if I am wrong. Don`t see much Union, but they do a lot of it in afl and don`t seem to break too many legs. Maybe a simple rule like the charge downee not being able to leave their feet , i.e. no diving ,would help prevent that collision between 110kg behemoth and tibia and fibula. As an aside, down field kicks are usually of a much lower trajectory than bombs, therefore anyone attempting to make a charge down on a down field kick would not need to be as close to the kicker to block it. However there is still the issues of bombs. I am confounded by this. My interpretation of a ` red herring ` is a false trail or something placed to mislead. Please explain what convoluted thinking went into this accusation. Anyway, enjoy the rest of your day.

https://www.qt.com.au/news/scottys-a-true-prince-among-men/2012752 I am pretty sure that the incident involved Prince`s kicking leg making contact with a player diving at the ball. In the process of the follow through. Resulting in a very ugly compound fracture. You know, like dangling lower leg at weird angle. As I said previously I thought that this suggested rule change would be very difficult to have implemented here because of that incident. I am not bringing it up to shoot my own suggestion down. However if another League took the initiative and implemented it, showing that it could be a success then it may be adopted here. Would your League have adopted 40/20, 7 tackle restart, six again, corner post rule, 20m tap for taking kick on full in goal, if the NRL hadn`t. Or do you just follow us? I`d be very interested to know what innovative rule changes have been adopted in the NH. It`s easy to mock but a bit unmanly and I can`t bring myself to play silly games. It`s a bit degrading.

Yes it would defeat the purpose of the rule change, however just like V`landy`s six again I still think it be worth experimenting with.

Scotty`s a true Prince among men/ Queensland Times. https://www.qt.com.au/news/scottys-a-true-prince-among-men/2012752. I`m not making it up, as I said, it is still talked about as what can happen when the charge down goes wrong. P.S. I have another radical idea to open up the game, wouldn`t change the structure of the game but may be a bridge too far.

And the scope for increasing that is limited if not zero, they are not going to bring back ` striking at the play the ball `. Therefore a little flexibility on this rule could bring back a sustained contest for the ball were both teams are scrambling to gather a charged down kick. I am pretty sure it was either you or one of your mates, Dunbar et. al. who said that we have to listen to the ` casual viewer ` to see what they think are the deficiencies in RL, a common refrain was monotony i.e. 5 tackles and kick.

Sorry mate I am making a hash of this , no he was the kicker. This is the sort hash that happened last night when I originally posted this idea. I`ve been ruminating on this for a while and the `Death of the scrum` thread with its posts on the monotony of RL galvanized my thoughts about what we can do to add a little variation. However the response was non-existent and after 40 views and nil comments I turned the computer off and sat there feeling a little deflated. I tried to read but couldn`t concentrate so I switched back on to discover Wiltshire`s post about the confusion surrounding my suggestion, thankfully yourself and DavidM weighed in then and got the ball rolling in what I thought was a pretty positive response. Roy Masters, you probably remember me referring to him, said what Rugby League needs is ` less technocrats and more mad scientists `. You can probably relate to that given your recent travails on ` Skeletal tracking of forward passes `.

When Prince was the next big thing at the Broncos there was an attempted charge down of a kick that he made that went terribly wrong and he suffered , look my memory is a bit vague now, I thought I recalled a really nasty break or though might have been knee, either way people still refer to it of what can happen when a charge down goes wrong. What you`re saying is perfectly legitimate and what their saying is probably due to the kamikaze style nature of some of our players who have no fear at diving right at the feet of the kicker. Players like Ron `Rambo `Gibbs didn`t care about where they dived as long as they stopped the kick.

Hadn`t considered that but dead right. I can see scenarios where teams would have charge down specialists: one to block the kick and maybe another one or two ready to dive on the ball. Therefore the team attempting the charge down would have both wingers back ready for the kick and two or three attempting the CD, this shortened defensive line may have the effect of teams running the ball on the last play and the mayhem that can sometimes occur from that scenario.

15 years in the top grade, can`t knock that, just looks a little bulked up to me and probably lacks a bit of acceleration.

UP, this for me was one of the main reasons I thought that the idea might have had merit. Another is when the game is on the line and a team is desperate to get possession, especially in a big game , that sudden turn around in momentum, i.e. from defence straight into attack 20-30 metes out, after a big set in defence holding the team with the ball deep inside their own territory and then attacking to win the game.