The game needs to reduce the number of interchanges

[The Daddy]

Spin off from another thread where tgis had been suggested.

A reduction in the number of interchanges would improve the game a great deal. I think the sport now especially in the NRL has become centred around robotic bodybuilders who are overcoached and not so skilful. 

I watched the Cowboys-Canberra game this morning and the Canberra number 6 looked like a prop which would never have happened back in the day. 

RL has become too much about size and less about stamina which makes it a less enjoyable product. 

[deluded pom?]

Ever heard of Olsen Filipaina?

[DavidM]

34 minutes ago, deluded pom? said:

Ever heard of Olsen Filipaina?

I was having a look on YouTube the other day of highlights of the infamous 1985 series with Australia he played in . They had the policy of getting weighed in and boy did they do it . Worth a look if you haven’t seen it , classic mix of scintillating fast play and good old fashioned brutality

[EastLondonMike]

Blake Austin looks like a prop?.. 

[ELBOWSEYE]

But the wingers are going to the opposite direction a few seasons ago they were a bit like fast second rowers but now they show acrobatics to score sensational tries. The size of rugby league forwards are still capable of speed and footwork and with years of full-time conditioning you expect physical athletes. 

[kier]

Would be in favour of reducing the number of interchanges as it would allow the half backs the opportunity to play in the extra space and time that fatigue creates. RL is a collision sport but there always has to be the place for skill and speed.

The only issue would be the potential rise in additional scoots from dummy half that tired defenses would encourage. I'd be inclined to change the marker rule to allow the second marker to stand back up to 5m from the ptb. This way the defensive arc that the second marker could defend will be greatly increased and scoots would be easier to shut down.

In NZ at the moment there's an increasing discussion around young players getting put off either code of rugby because of the physical damage that smaller players can encounter. It's easy to dismiss this as over-protective parents/soft modern living but the reality is that there are many other sporting options available and it would be a real shame if the variety of physical builds in RL (which has always IMO been the true rugby code "for all shapes and sizes*") were no longer catered for in the sport.

*so long as you're fit enough.

 

[Dunbar]

19 hours ago, The Daddy said:

Spin off from another thread where tgis had been suggested.

A reduction in the number of interchanges would improve the game a great deal. I think the sport now especially in the NRL has become centred around robotic bodybuilders who are overcoached and not so skilful. 

I watched the Cowboys-Canberra game this morning and the Canberra number 6 looked like a prop which would never have happened back in the day. 

RL has become too much about size and less about stamina which makes it a less enjoyable product. 

Sorry, I can't agree with this.  The NRL may be a well coached league with some big powerful players but it also has plenty of skill and flair.

One of the flair players is Blake Austin the Canberra 6.  No way would I suggest he looks like a prop.... as somebody has said, put him side by side with Olsen Filipaina or Wally Lewis and he would look like a 12 year old boy (well one with  beard anyway).

[EastLondonMike]

Are we asking for a reduction in interchange because we think it will make the game better? or because currently our players/coach's in SL can't breakdown defences unless they are tired?.. And games become dull. And thats when defences in SL aren't actually that tough to breakdown.

Seems to me too often we look for the easy option in RL.

A reduction in interchange IMO is just asking for more runs from dummy half late in the game, which in turn will just lead to more penalties at marker/offside. i dont think it would encourage more creative play, not in SL anyway.

I co-sign Ganson's recent comments about players and coach's taking some responsibility in how they play the game. Say what you like about the NRL, but the vast majority of players/teams, to me at least, always look like they just want to play. When tackled they want to get up and play the ball, or when making a tackle, get up and get on with the game (there are obviously a few exceptions.. Melbourne), in SL i think we just want to win penalties to make things easier. A piggy back down field to a better position.

I think we have an attitude problem.

[deluded pom?]

28 minutes ago, EastLondonMike said:

Are we asking for a reduction in interchange because we think it will make the game better? or because currently our players/coach's in SL can't breakdown defences unless they are tired?.. And games become dull. And thats when defences in SL aren't actually that tough to breakdown.

Seems to me too often we look for the easy option in RL.

A reduction in interchange IMO is just asking for more runs from dummy half late in the game, which in turn will just lead to more penalties at marker/offside. i dont think it would encourage more creative play, not in SL anyway.

I co-sign Ganson's recent comments about players and coach's taking some responsibility in how they play the game. Say what you like about the NRL, but the vast majority of players/teams, to me at least, always look like they just want to play. When tackled they want to get up and play the ball, or when making a tackle, get up and get on with the game (there are obviously a few exceptions.. Melbourne), in SL i think we just want to win penalties to make things easier. A piggy back down field to a better position.

I think we have an attitude problem.

I wouldn’t disagree with that. Maybe refs need to use the yellow card more often if they believe players are deliberately trying to milk a penalty?

[EastLondonMike]

It might be hard to implement, but i think a points system for players who give away penalties could go some way to eradicating certain negative tactics. Kind of like in Football where you pick up so many points for a yellow card.

For instance, 4 points for a high tackle, 3 points for PTB infringements, 2 points offside etc etc, and when a player hits 20 points he picks up a 2 or 3 game ban. Once the ban is over his points tally drops to 10, if he hits 20 again he picks up another ban.

You might then see some players trying to con the ref more, but if these things are reviewed you can tell when a player is trying to blag a penalty, and retrospectively that player would incur points also..

Maybe not exactly as i've described, but something similar maybe.

Regarding player/team creativity, i used to love watching the Tim Sheens coached Wests Tigers, as he was a coach who would always look to try and implement new and creative plays. I don't see coach's in SL doing that much at all these days. Beyond the split/lead, and now also the runaround off the first receiver, then into a split/lead, i don't see much variety in attacking 'plays'. Daryl Powell could maybe be exempt from that accusation as he did seem to do some good stuff with Cas over the last couple of years.

Do coach's these days actually work on new attacking set-pays?