How would you improve the game

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

Are the points scored at OT particularly low. Especially considering they are a game between the two best sides and games between the better sides are generally lower scoring.

There have been plenty seasons without the top 2 competing at OT.

[shaun mc]

1 hour ago, Cumbrian Fanatic said:

This tends to be my view. Even at National Conference level the line speed is so quick that a 5m defensive line would mean that the attack would be under so much pressure it would probably go backwards. I watched a game last Fri between Egremont A and Wath Brow A where even at that level the line speed was pretty impressive until late in the game. At its most extreme we might even end up with that turgid dross in RU where a forward picks it up or receives a pass and immediately ends up on the ground again, then repeat 30+ times

But you'd then enforce the 5m more, and delay slightly the defensive line coming forward (as they are too quick now IMO) to offset the gains that the defence has from 5m gap. Personally I'd go with 7-8 metres rather than 5

[Dave T]

55 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

This seems an odd argument. If all teams start the season with the ultimate aim of winning the GF, as we know they do, then by definition the best two sides in the comp are the ones competing at Old Trafford.

But that seems somewhat irrelevant, is the GF noticeably lower scoring than games between the top sides?

Feel free to go and start an argument with somebody else. 

Ive presented some stats, do your own research if you want to bring other stats into it rather than asking me to do it for you.

[Dave T]

52 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

U ok hun?

Im at a complete loss at why you have taken such a simple and neutral question to heart.

we've been here time and again, it usually goes the same way, an argument about a point you introduce that nobody is claiming or making. 

And I am fine thanks. In a great mood, life is good, hence not interested in this debate. But you have asked the same question twice without being prepared to do your own research, and I have no desire to do it for you. Not a big deal, just gonna leave it there.

[yipyee]

A penalty kick to touch shouldn't reset the tackle count. It should be reset the tackle count OR a kick to touch. 

At the moment it's a double punishment if on 4th or 5th tackle.

Also it would irradicate the silly punt to touch for a penalty whilst on the opponents line.

 

I would also put the ball back into the middle of the scrum. Wouldnt change the outcome of who's got the ball but would mean the team has to pack down properly and improve plays off the scrum.

[RP London]

To me there is a slight irony of wanting less interchanges to tire out players and wanting a 5m defensive line. A huge amount of work is done shuttling back 10m and also making at least the first 5m “up fast” when in the defensive line. By reducing to 5m you are basically allowing the defensive team to run 1/2 the distance during a match. Therefore you’re  not tiring people out as much. 

As a player it was getting back 10 that often hurt the most and became more and more difficult. And you had to make sure you moved up as you didn’t want to be 10m away at anytime, if the line was set 5m away you can easily get back and then not actually move up because 5m is an ok distance to be from the play the ball if not direcltly involved and is a distance that can be made up if they reverse play or there’s is an offload, 10 is not so you are moving no matter which side of the pitch you are defending. 

I would reduce subs but if your aim is to tire out players then to couple that with a 5m defensive line IMHO cancels itself out. 

I would be interested to play a game at 5m to see if people are right about the expansiveness as I agree with spidey and see it as a Rose tinted specs argument. But happy to be proved wrong. Just don’t think it will fix any of the issues it is claimed to do. I think a lot of that comes from the coaching and attitude to risk and reward. 

[fairfolly]

Dave T, is that not what Brian McDermott was saying in his interview last week. The G.F. and the 8,s are not refereed like the rest of the season.Could that be the reason why the G.F is massively different to the rest of the season?Or do you think McDermott was clutching at straws?

[chuffer]

4 hours ago, RP London said:

To me there is a slight irony of wanting less interchanges to tire out players and wanting a 5m defensive line. A huge amount of work is done shuttling back 10m and also making at least the first 5m “up fast” when in the defensive line. By reducing to 5m you are basically allowing the defensive team to run 1/2 the distance during a match. Therefore you’re  not tiring people out as much. 

As a player it was getting back 10 that often hurt the most and became more and more difficult. And you had to make sure you moved up as you didn’t want to be 10m away at anytime, if the line was set 5m away you can easily get back and then not actually move up because 5m is an ok distance to be from the play the ball if not direcltly involved and is a distance that can be made up if they reverse play or there’s is an offload, 10 is not so you are moving no matter which side of the pitch you are defending. 

I would reduce subs but if your aim is to tire out players then to couple that with a 5m defensive line IMHO cancels itself out. 

I would be interested to play a game at 5m to see if people are right about the expansiveness as I agree with spidey and see it as a Rose tinted specs argument. But happy to be proved wrong. Just don’t think it will fix any of the issues it is claimed to do. I think a lot of that comes from the coaching and attitude to risk and reward. 

I think the emphasis is less on wanting to tire players out....fatigue in such a high contact sport can be dangerous...i think the aim of reducing the 10m line to 5m is to encourage more creative play in the halves rather than 5 drives n a kick or scooting from dummy half which the 10m allows more of. Reducing the number of inter changes....yes, if the defensive line has to do less running then perhaps interchanges would be required less....but this is probably a good thing. Have 2 subs in case of injury but dont have a strategic bench to maximise impact at cert ain times of the game

[chuffer]

4 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

Just to point out why that question was relevant, and why I asked you it rather than give the figures was that your argument infers that for all the reasons you listed an attacking side struggle at Old Trafford. Logically this would only make sense if the Grand Final was a low scoring game. It wouldnt make sense for an attacking side to struggle in a high scoring game.

So i was asking whether you thought the GF was a particularly low scoring game. Or with less points than you would think it should have considering it involves the best two sides in the competition. The averages and stats wont work there because how many points should a game between two of the best sides have? This season Leeds have played a game against wigan where only 17 points were scored and a games against Cas and Saints where 49pts and 48 pts were scored. Would it surprise anyone to see one of those games in the GF?

So do you think the GF has fewer points than it should? because it doesnt strike me as a particularly defensive game or one which an attacking side would struggle, the last GF had 30pts, the one before that 18, then 42, then 20, then 46, then 44, then 48, then 32, then 28, then 40, then 39.  Do those figures strike you as less than they should be? Because it can only be what you think because we dont know how many points a game like that should have.

My recollection of games in the GF is that, due to the october weather ( i.e. the ####### rain), games are not particularly attractive spectacles....they tend to be old-school, "up the jumper" rugby that is more suited to teams woth good kickers and game management (such as leeds) rather than teams who like to chuck it about (such as cas)

[RP London]

4 hours ago, chuffer said:

I think the emphasis is less on wanting to tire players out....fatigue in such a high contact sport can be dangerous...i think the aim of reducing the 10m line to 5m is to encourage more creative play in the halves rather than 5 drives n a kick or scooting from dummy half which the 10m allows more of. Reducing the number of inter changes....yes, if the defensive line has to do less running then perhaps interchanges would be required less....but this is probably a good thing. Have 2 subs in case of injury but dont have a strategic bench to maximise impact at cert ain times of the game

Not sure I agree with your take on subs.. the old “subs if injured” is time and again shown to be unworkable in umpteen sports. Therefore you just have to accept that you get strategic subs, it’s part of the chess game. 

I agree that the 5m discussion should be about does it encourage more creative play but I would argue it doesn’t and that watching games with the 5m rule in the past there were still as many bad games as good as there is now and I don’t believe the skill levels were any higher. It’s the lack of imaginative coaching and adversity to fail that is the issue the skill level is there but when the risk is too high they don’t try things and revert to the game plan.