How would you improve the game

[Harry Stottle]

11 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

The 5m defensive line isnt enough with todays players 

It would be with only 2 subs, and offenses then having deeper lines to make room instead of the usual 2 flat lines that oppose each other in most games. What joy to get rid of the 10 minute behomoths.

[Dave T]

26 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

It would be with only 2 subs, and offenses then having deeper lines to make room instead of the usual 2 flat lines that oppose each other in most games. What joy to get rid of the 10 minute behomoths.

I do think you are being a little unfair here Harry. There are not many players who could be described as a '10 minute behemoth' in our game I don't think. By having the number of subs as they are it just allows the starting forwards to really go at it, knowing that at the 20 to 25 minute mark they will get a breather. If not, all that happens is you end up with slower play as they conserve energy.

Later in the game the standards will drop as fatigue sets in.

We need to be really careful about unintended consequences.

[FearNothing]

One thing I would like to see outlawed is the nasty habit you see all the time these days of the tackler lying on the player in posession and forcing their face/head into the floor.....what is the need for that?? It should count as a head-shot and be penalised.

[JonM]

In general, I'd be in favour of any changes that make the game go back to being more about what happened between play-the-balls and less about the tackle and PTB itself. It's difficult to see what those changes could be though - everything sooner or later has unintended consequences.

Also any changes that reduce the influence of the referee and/or make the job of the referee(s) simpler. There's too many situations (e.g. ball steal vs knock-on) where the referee has to guess and it has too big of an influence compared to the past.

I think we have missed a trick over the last few decades by making the game too hard to play. There needs to be much more emphasis on cutdown versions of the sport that don't have the same requirements in terms of strength & fitness, potential for injury and need for squads of dozens.

[phiggins]

On 18/04/2018 at 1:42 PM, scotchy1 said:

Id also clamp down on the late hits on kickers and passers. Adds nothing to the game.

I think if a kicker is hit late, it should play all attackers onside. It's become too easy for a defender to clatter the kicker and claim they were committed to it, and the defender catching the ball then gets 10m from anyone challenging him.

[JonM]

39 minutes ago, phiggins said:

I think if a kicker is hit late, it should play all attackers onside. It's become too easy for a defender to clatter the kicker and claim they were committed to it, and the defender catching the ball then gets 10m from anyone challenging him.

I think that's a good suggestion. At the same time, though, I'd say that a charge down of a kick does not reset the tackle count. At the moment, the percentage play is for the defender to avoid the chargedown and play the man instead.

[Guest]

14 hours ago, phiggins said:

I think if a kicker is hit late, it should play all attackers onside. It's become too easy for a defender to clatter the kicker and claim they were committed to it, and the defender catching the ball then gets 10m from anyone challenging him.

I'd take it a step further,as in if the kicker is taken late the penalty is awarded from were the ball lands,in play.

[JonM]

4 hours ago, SL17 said:

I'd take it a step further,as in if the kicker is taken late the penalty is awarded from were the ball lands,in play.

Isn't that the case already? The laws say (when discussing where a penalty is taken from)  "in the case of obstruction, where the ball next bounces or is caught, in the field of play, or ten metres opposite the point of entry if the ball enters touch on the full, or ten (10) metres from the goal line if the ball crosses the goal line on the full, whichever is to the greater advantage of the nonoffending team."

[Harry Stottle]

22 hours ago, Dave T said:

I do think you are being a little unfair here Harry. There are not many players who could be described as a '10 minute behemoth' in our game I don't think. By having the number of subs as they are it just allows the starting forwards to really go at it, knowing that at the 20 to 25 minute mark they will get a breather. If not, all that happens is you end up with slower play as they conserve energy.

Later in the game the standards will drop as fatigue sets in.

We need to be really careful about unintended consequences.

With due respect David, your last sentance is how you perceive those suggested changes would effect the game in a negative way, my perceptions differ in that I consider they would be nothing but positive.

Firstly, yes I was taking it to the extreme stating "10 minute" players, but such are the number of interchanges allowed - is it 8 or 10 in 2018? Whatever even the lower figure would allow for a change every 10 mins.

We keep decrying the fact that we do not produce nowhere near enough exiting creating half's anymore, I would say that having the facillity available to keep exchanging players in the middle of the field nullifies the effect of the half's somewhat with them being targeted by the introduction of "fresh" defenders.

If we had less interchanges, those taking the field would be required to have a greater anaerobic capacity and we well know those larger units do not posses that quality, effectively they become surplus to requirement.

I also consider the reduction of substitutes would has the game prolongs have a positive effect, take players like your own Ben Curry who effectively plays "out-wide" even though recognised as a "second row", these players who every club employs would as the game goes on would most probably be required to come "in-field" to assist those as you term fatigued, in turn that would create space on the flanks for the aforementioned half's to exploit, pitting the skills of the three quarters in opposition to each other.

Coupled with a return to a 5 mtr defensive line which would force teams to adopt a 'deeper' line stratergy and stop a lot of the 5 drives and a kick so common place today, I believe the standards of the game will improve and will be a better spectacle to watch.

So on the contrary David, I see a lot of intended consequencies from my suggestions.

[CmonTheBorough]

This is probably slightly off topic but someone on here will know the answer.  Currently, when an attacking player is held up over the try line, the tackle count resumes with a play-the-ball ten metres from the line.

I seem to remember that in the 70's and 80's, in the days of contested scrums, the game was restarted with a scrum ten yards out with head and feed to the attacking side, which at least gave the defending side a chance to win the ball.  Am I hallucinating again?

[Spidey]

4 minutes ago, CmonTheBorough said:

This is probably slightly off topic but someone on here will know the answer.  Currently, when an attacking player is held up over the try line, the tackle count resumes with a play-the-ball ten metres from the line.

I seem to remember that in the 70's and 80's, in the days of contested scrums, the game was restarted with a scrum ten yards out with head and feed to the attacking side, which at least gave the defending side a chance to win the ball.  Am I hallucinating again?

Yes that was always the case, however on the last the defending team got the head and feed 

[CmonTheBorough]

12 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Yes that was always the case, however on the last the defending team got the head and feed 

Thanks for that.  I was having a rant about this during a televised match last week.

[Dave T]

28 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

1 - With due respect David, your last sentance is how you perceive those suggested changes would effect the game in a negative way, my perceptions differ in that I consider they would be nothing but positive.

2 - Firstly, yes I was taking it to the extreme stating "10 minute" players, but such are the number of interchanges allowed - is it 8 or 10 in 2018? Whatever even the lower figure would allow for a change every 10 mins.

3 - We keep decrying the fact that we do not produce nowhere near enough exiting creating half's anymore, I would say that having the facillity available to keep exchanging players in the middle of the field nullifies the effect of the half's somewhat with them being targeted by the introduction of "fresh" defenders.

4 - If we had less interchanges, those taking the field would be required to have a greater anaerobic capacity and we well know those larger units do not posses that quality, effectively they become surplus to requirement.

5 - I also consider the reduction of substitutes would has the game prolongs have a positive effect, take players like your own Ben Curry who effectively plays "out-wide" even though recognised as a "second row", these players who every club employs would as the game goes on would most probably be required to come "in-field" to assist those as you term fatigued, in turn that would create space on the flanks for the aforementioned half's to exploit, pitting the skills of the three quarters in opposition to each other.

6 - Coupled with a return to a 5 mtr defensive line which would force teams to adopt a 'deeper' line stratergy and stop a lot of the 5 drives and a kick so common place today, I believe the standards of the game will improve and will be a better spectacle to watch.

So on the contrary David, I see a lot of intended consequencies from my suggestions.

1 - Of course they are, and happy to discuss whether you agree with them or not.

2 - The point is still a bit silly, with respect. You only have 4 on the bench and 13 players (6 forwards), so even if you just rotated all props and 2nd rowers, with bench players, they would still play around half a game each. There is no need to use extreme examples to argue your case, as we have reality, and the reality is that we just don't have these 10 minute behemoths, so to try and fix an exaggerated issue is not a good starting point.

3 - I'm not convinced just giving halves tired defences to run at improves skillset. Surely if defences are better and fresher their skills have to be better? That you perceive they are not is probably more around coaching levels early on imho.

4 - I think this is the point that we disagree on. I'm not sure why you are against the big lads in the middle? I have no desire to either a) remove them from the game (by meaning they have to have smaller fitter lads) or b ) see these big lads running round far less effectively - I can't see an alternative to that tbh.

5 - Maybe, but many of the 2nd rowers are making 30-50 tackles and plenty carries a game already, so not sure they just have the extra bandwidth to cover for knackered props.

6 - Maybe, and I suppose we won't know until it was tested, but I think players are fitter than ever, and I'm not sure the return to 5m will encourage wider play, I think they will have less space and it would be easier for defences to snuff out attacks and dominate territory.

[Harry Stottle]

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

1 - Of course they are, and happy to discuss whether you agree with them or not.

2 - The point is still a bit silly, with respect. You only have 4 on the bench and 13 players (6 forwards), so even if you just rotated all props and 2nd rowers, with bench players, they would still play around half a game each. There is no need to use extreme examples to argue your case, as we have reality, and the reality is that we just don't have these 10 minute behemoths, so to try and fix an exaggerated issue is not a good starting point.

3 - I'm not convinced just giving halves tired defences to run at improves skillset. Surely if defences are better and fresher their skills have to be better? That you perceive they are not is probably more around coaching levels early on imho.

4 - I think this is the point that we disagree on. I'm not sure why you are against the big lads in the middle? I have no desire to either a) remove them from the game (by meaning they have to have smaller fitter lads) or b ) see these big lads running round far less effectively - I can't see an alternative to that tbh.

5 - Maybe, but many of the 2nd rowers are making 30-50 tackles and plenty carries a game already, so not sure they just have the extra bandwidth to cover for knackered props.

6 - Maybe, and I suppose we won't know until it was tested, but I think players are fitter than ever, and I'm not sure the return to 5m will encourage wider play, I think they will have less space and it would be easier for defences to snuff out attacks and dominate territory.

1. Thank you for reply.

2. I did concede I was being pedantic with my comments, but please even with your statement they "will play around half a game each", without the extended interchanges would they be employed?

3. Really, the NRL have reduced the number of interchanges and I don't think it is coincidental that the half's have become more expressive in their play, obviously recognised by the coaches who are encouraging them to play that way.

4. I am not against them in particular, for reasons that I have stated if they can show their worth in playing much longer in a reduced number of interchanges they are most welcome.

5. You say "maybe" that says you probably see some value in my suggestion which would encourage a different structure to the way the game is played.

6. Again a "maybe" and I agree we won't know until it was tested, I also agree that players are probably at their peak of fitness collectivley, ever. Of course they would have less space to perform in, so do offences just capitulate or find alternatives to the  numerous one out drives every set which we have become accustomed to or would they most probably be getting the ball along the line, in the close proximity of a 5mtr defensive lines offences are the only ones who can increase that space by having a deeper line. I would agree with you if we still employed the unlimited tackles rules but we don't we have a set number of tackles to make ground and territory.

Not so long ago David, in the last couple of weeks there has been a thread suggesting the game as become stale and dare I say boring, I am tending to agree, albeit I will never abandon my passion, but I honestly believe that reducing the number of interchanges alone will alter the stereotype approach our coaches are seemingly taking and promote a better more appealing game, in my view.

[Copa]

More flying wedges!!. Sure they’re dangerous and will probably result in serious injuries but they are fun to watch. 

;-)

 

 

 

[Dave T]

59 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

1. Thank you for reply.

2. I did concede I was being pedantic with my comments, but please even with your statement they "will play around half a game each", without the extended interchanges would they be employed?

3. Really, the NRL have reduced the number of interchanges and I don't think it is coincidental that the half's have become more expressive in their play, obviously recognised by the coaches who are encouraging them to play that way.

4. I am not against them in particular, for reasons that I have stated if they can show their worth in playing much longer in a reduced number of interchanges they are most welcome.

5. You say "maybe" that says you probably see some value in my suggestion which would encourage a different structure to the way the game is played.

6. Again a "maybe" and I agree we won't know until it was tested, I also agree that players are probably at their peak of fitness collectivley, ever. Of course they would have less space to perform in, so do offences just capitulate or find alternatives to the  numerous one out drives every set which we have become accustomed to or would they most probably be getting the ball along the line, in the close proximity of a 5mtr defensive lines offences are the only ones who can increase that space by having a deeper line. I would agree with you if we still employed the unlimited tackles rules but we don't we have a set number of tackles to make ground and territory.

Not so long ago David, in the last couple of weeks there has been a thread suggesting the game as become stale and dare I say boring, I am tending to agree, albeit I will never abandon my passion, but I honestly believe that reducing the number of interchanges alone will alter the stereotype approach our coaches are seemingly taking and promote a better more appealing game, in my view.

1 - You're welcome  

2 - unfortunately the stats do not show minutes played, so hard to show this one, but I do think we see 25 minute stints for props as the norm, which I personally don't have an issue with.

3 - I'm not sure about that one tbh. You may be right, but I'm not convinced that NRL halves play more expansively due to a reduction in interchanges. In SL it is generally accepted that the game is a little more expansive and less structured than the NRL, but I don't think that means more quality at halves. But that is subjective.

4 - Who are you referring to here? If I look at the stats for the Wire pack v Salford game for example:

Hill - 33 tackles, 17 carries

Clarke - 39 tackles, 6 carries

Cooper - 35 tackles, 10 carries

Currie - 30 tackles, 14 carries

Hughes - 33 tackles, 8 carries

Westwood - 24 tackles, 15 carries

Crosby - 26 tackles, 10 carries

Akauola - 21 tackles - 9 carries

Philbin - 25 tackles - 8 carries

I think the above is a good example of sharing the workload and keeping the quality higher. I don't see too much of an issue with 10 minute wonders.

5 - I am not completely against a reduction in interchanges, I don't think it will drastically change anything though, but I am not a fan of 5m. I also like Currie playing out wide, and the above workload of 30 tackles and 14 carries shows that they are not stood out there trying to keep warm.

6 - I share some of your concerns around the nature of tactics employed, but i'm not sure allowing the defence to be closer to the attack is the best solution. I'm not sure what the answer is to conservative play, I sometimes think clubs lose the way in remembering they are in the entertainment business rather than grinding out wins - but that is not unique to RL, all sports can be played in negative ways. I'm not against any changes being tested as such, I'm just not sure your proposal is the best way to go. Definitely not the reduction to 5m, but I could live with a reduction in interchanges.

[Harry Stottle]

4 hours ago, Dave T said:

1 - You're welcome  

2 - unfortunately the stats do not show minutes played, so hard to show this one, but I do think we see 25 minute stints for props as the norm, which I personally don't have an issue with.

3 - I'm not sure about that one tbh. You may be right, but I'm not convinced that NRL halves play more expansively due to a reduction in interchanges. In SL it is generally accepted that the game is a little more expansive and less structured than the NRL, but I don't think that means more quality at halves. But that is subjective.

4 - Who are you referring to here? If I look at the stats for the Wire pack v Salford game for example:

Hill - 33 tackles, 17 carries

Clarke - 39 tackles, 6 carries

Cooper - 35 tackles, 10 carries

Currie - 30 tackles, 14 carries

Hughes - 33 tackles, 8 carries

Westwood - 24 tackles, 15 carries

Crosby - 26 tackles, 10 carries

Akauola - 21 tackles - 9 carries

Philbin - 25 tackles - 8 carries

I think the above is a good example of sharing the workload and keeping the quality higher. I don't see too much of an issue with 10 minute wonders.

5 - I am not completely against a reduction in interchanges, I don't think it will drastically change anything though, but I am not a fan of 5m. I also like Currie playing out wide, and the above workload of 30 tackles and 14 carries shows that they are not stood out there trying to keep warm.

6 - I share some of your concerns around the nature of tactics employed, but i'm not sure allowing the defence to be closer to the attack is the best solution. I'm not sure what the answer is to conservative play, I sometimes think clubs lose the way in remembering they are in the entertainment business rather than grinding out wins - but that is not unique to RL, all sports can be played in negative ways. I'm not against any changes being tested as such, I'm just not sure your proposal is the best way to go. Definitely not the reduction to 5m, but I could live with a reduction in interchanges.

Good debate enjoyed that.

[Spidey]

Players are too quick in the modern game for 5m. Referees would be under even more scrutiny to enforce it, and it would be mire difficult to do so, it’s just not a practical change to implement. Is it me or does it come across as a nostalgia thing - “back in my day”

[Harry Stottle]

2 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Players are too quick in the modern game for 5m. Referees would be under even more scrutiny to enforce it, and it would be mire difficult to do so, it’s just not a practical change to implement. Is it me or does it come across as a nostalgia thing - “back in my day”

No Spidey, it is not a nostalgia throwback on my part, and yes it would be a challenge to overcome those close proximity defences and as I stated the offence lines would have to be much deeper to make the required space and be much more expansive with the ball than we see at present, I doubt it will ever be tried, but that does not mean it would not be an improvement on the flat line forward pass inducing attacks employed in the modern game.

[Dave T]

12 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

No Spidey, it is not a nostalgia throwback on my part, and yes it would be a challenge to overcome those close proximity defences and as I stated the offence lines would have to be much deeper to make the required space and be much more expansive with the ball than we see at present, I doubt it will ever be tried, but that does not mean it would not be an improvement on the flat line forward pass inducing attacks employed in the modern game.

I could be wrong, but I think one of the big challenges with expansive Rugby League in this country, is that the Grand Final is quite often a massively different game to other games that year, more so than any other games we see. I don't know whether it is the event, the small pitch, the often wet conditions, or whatever, but the below stats are true of the last 10 years:

- Best attacking team in a season has won the LLS 80% of the time.

- Best attacking team in a season has won the Grand Final only 20% of the time.

- LLS winners won Grand Final only 40% of the time.

This poses a couple of challenges to me - it shows that a) you do not have to have the best attack to win SL, and b ) you do not need to finish top of the league to win SL - and I think that encourages teams to worry less about having great attack or going all out for 1st place, but teams often seem happy to be able to grind out wins and be happy with a top 4 finish.

Now the stats don't tell the whole story, it is just a snapshot, as Leeds have been a particularly good Grand Final team and they usually play a nice style of Rugby, but they have taken the title from 5th with mediocre attack twice in 10 years.

[Spidey]

2 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

This idea that a 5m defensive line would make the attack go to a deeper attacking line is idiotic. Teams would end up constantly going backwards. 

We don't have a deep attacking line because defenders are two fast these days. They aren't going up against a slow chubby prop and beating him for pace.

If a deep attacking line worked it would the 10metre lone that encouraged it. As the extra space would allow you to recover their ground before the defensive line got up.

A 5m defensive line and a deep attacking line would see a set defensive line a couple of metres further up field than the ptb by the time the ball reached the second receiver. 

Yep. That’s how I see it, if you watch games from the 80s you see those deep lines. But the speed of the games is much slower. It simply wouldn’t work in today’s games where the players are quicker and more powerful.

[Harry Stottle]

9 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

This idea that a 5m defensive line would make the attack go to a deeper attacking line is idiotic. Teams would end up constantly going backwards. 

We don't have a deep attacking line because defenders are two fast these days. They aren't going up against a slow chubby prop and beating him for pace.

If a deep attacking line worked it would the 10metre lone that encouraged it. As the extra space would allow you to recover their ground before the defensive line got up.

A 5m defensive line and a deep attacking line would see a set defensive line a couple of metres further up field than the ptb by the time the ball reached the second receiver. 

Amen,

This idiot bows to your greater knowledge, by the way how did you require it, in practicallity or theory?

[Harry Stottle]

41 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I could be wrong, but I think one of the big challenges with expansive Rugby League in this country, is that the Grand Final is quite often a massively different game to other games that year, more so than any other games we see. I don't know whether it is the event, the small pitch, the often wet conditions, or whatever, but the below stats are true of the last 10 years:

- Best attacking team in a season has won the LLS 80% of the time.

- Best attacking team in a season has won the Grand Final only 20% of the time.

- LLS winners won Grand Final only 40% of the time.

This poses a couple of challenges to me - it shows that a) you do not have to have the best attack to win SL, and b ) you do not need to finish top of the league to win SL - and I think that encourages teams to worry less about having great attack or going all out for 1st place, but teams often seem happy to be able to grind out wins and be happy with a top 4 finish.

Now the stats don't tell the whole story, it is just a snapshot, as Leeds have been a particularly good Grand Final team and they usually play a nice style of Rugby, but they have taken the title from 5th with mediocre attack twice in 10 years.

Food for thought those stats David, probably never better highlighted than last year with the season Castleford had up to the GF although the disruption caused by the Zak Hardacre scenario so close to the final did not help, they were a breath of fresh air and a joy to watch.

Considering the title of this thread is " How would you improve the game" I construed that to mean to improve it as a spectacle for those who matter i.e. the paying public, have I got it wrong is improvement down to winning trophies by whatever the method.

What I have put forward is my theory to make the game more expansive utilising the component parts I have suggested, it is a theory I wish could be tried, would it work, I would hope so, but I do not know, but as I said earlier to even debate a thread that states the game is becoming sterotyped and boring and even this thread with its title, says to me that the way the game is being played is causing concern to some.

[Dave T]

13 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Food for thought those stats David, probably never better highlighted than last year with the season Castleford had up to the GF although the disruption caused by the Zak Hardacre scenario so close to the final did not help, they were a breath of fresh air and a joy to watch.

Considering the title of this thread is " How would you improve the game" I construed that to mean to improve it as a spectacle for those who matter i.e. the paying public, have I got it wrong is improvement down to winning trophies by whatever the method.

What I have put forward is my theory to make the game more expansive utilising the component parts I have suggested, it is a theory I wish could be tried, would it work, I would hope so, but I do not know, but as I said earlier to even debate a thread that states the game is becoming sterotyped and boring and even this thread with its title, says to me that the way the game is being played is causing concern to some.

I think we are getting at the same point. I dont necessarily agree witg your proposals, but i do the principles.

I brought those stats in to show that the incentives for teams to go for all out aytack and be the best in that area is not there as the years best team or best attack usually fails to list the trophy.

I do think playing at OT in Oct plays a big part in that.

[Cumbrian Fanatic]

1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

This idea that a 5m defensive line would make the attack go to a deeper attacking line is idiotic. Teams would end up constantly going backwards. 

We don't have a deep attacking line because defenders are two fast these days. They aren't going up against a slow chubby prop and beating him for pace.

If a deep attacking line worked it would the 10metre lone that encouraged it. As the extra space would allow you to recover their ground before the defensive line got up.

A 5m defensive line and a deep attacking line would see a set defensive line a couple of metres further up field than the ptb by the time the ball reached the second receiver. 

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