Kallum Watkins to Return to Super League? (Merged Threads)

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

2 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

If you look at most sports, one massive aspect is the transition from defence to attack. We have pretty much 2. A slow restart or returning a kick. 

Dropped balls? Plus, how a kick is returned depends on the type of kick, and also the philosophy of the team returning it. Sometimes this aspect of the game is really exciting.

4 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

There is also is very little in terms of a defensive win, it basically exists as the other team making a mistake. 

Depends on your definition of a 'defensive win'.

8 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

If you look at most sports

But for me, I don't find any of them anywhere near as entertaining as RL, so I'm not inclined to want to change our rules to try and become more like those other sports.

[DoubleD]

Anyway, back on thread and it appears Toronto may not be able to sign Watkins, as the salary cap is based on players original value, not any reduction. Seems strange if that’s the case as surely increases/decreases in contracts are normal

https://www.totalrl.com/wolfpack-wait-for-rfl-approval-of-watkins-deal/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=wolfpack-wait-for-rfl-approval-of-watkins-deal

[Marty Funkhouser]

3 hours ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

But RU does have loads of injuries, just like league does.Just having had a quick look at the more recent research, it seems that it may even be the case that RU has higher injury incidence compared to a similar time period in league. Perhaps more pertinently, another comparable study suggests that injury rates were higher 25-30 years ago, with results obtained over a time-period that included the old 5m rule.

 

 

I was talking about RU as an overall sport. Even the most one-eyed RL fan would agree that RU is the much bigger, richer game despite having been professional for only 25 years.  They have never felt the need to move away from the zero metre defensive line and it is a fundamental part of that code of Rugby and yet they have still managed to make the game vastly more attractive than it used to be with some fantastic attacking play very akin to RL.

What I am suggesting is that the 10m rule is completely arbitrary and not fundamental to the sport of RL. Indeed it has existed for less than 30 years. We have previously had zero for many (the most) years, 3, 5 and now 10. Yet many people treat 10 metres as though it is a vital, fundamental, component of the game, that this is how it should be played and part of how it will attract a wider audience. It is not.  There is no similar sport with such a rule and  those similar or perceived "rival" sports in the market (RU, NFL, CFL, AFL etc) attract vastly more paying spectators. If 10 metres is our USP it is not working

I am struggling to see any positive it has brought or any exciting innovation in play that has happened because of it.  

[Lowdesert]

3 hours ago, Dunbar said:

One of the reasons why the wrestle in the tackle evolved was to combat the 'roll' that we say through scoots or one out plays seeing a team march downfield in a set of 6. The ability of teams to roll downfield completely negates the need to develop innovative attacking play.

Then we saw the scrappy play the ball tolerated as a way of giving the attacking player an advantage back in the play the ball.

If a 5m rule saw more collision tackling than wrestling, deeper attacking lines and more innovation in attack then I would be happy to see a trial of it.

Yes, that’s pretty much reiterating the links in Marty’s post.  

100% agree with PTB apathy too.  

With the 10m rule and the wrestle, teams are happy to defend their own line more than ever.  Many are comfortable giving a penalty away even if it means defending their line.  Great to see if your studying the technical aspects of defence but not as a spectacle to the fans.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

2 hours ago, Marty Funkhouser said:

I was talking about RU as an overall sport. Even the most one-eyed RL fan would agree that RU is the much bigger, richer game despite having been professional for only 25 years. 

Well that's fine, but in your previous post you did cite the injury toll on players being due to the 10m rule. I don't think the available evidence supports that conclusion at all.

2 hours ago, Marty Funkhouser said:

They have never felt the need to move away from the zero metre defensive line and it is a fundamental part of that code of Rugby and yet they have still managed to make the game vastly more attractive than it used to be with some fantastic attacking play very akin to RL.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as they say. Personally, I find the vast majority of attacking play in RU to be very laboured and a poorly executed imitation of the types of plays that we see regularly in league.

2 hours ago, Marty Funkhouser said:

What I am suggesting is that the 10m rule is completely arbitrary and not fundamental to the sport of RL. Indeed it has existed for less than 30 years. We have previously had zero for many (the most) years, 3, 5 and now 10. Yet many people treat 10 metres as though it is a vital, fundamental, component of the game,

Again, this is somewhat subjective. It may not be fundamental to what you enjoy about the game, but it may be fundamental to what some other people enjoy about the game. I never saw any games with a 3m defensive line, but I've found the game to be equally enjoyable when it was both 5m and 10m defensive lines.

3 hours ago, Marty Funkhouser said:

There is no similar sport with such a rule and  those similar or perceived "rival" sports in the market (RU, NFL, CFL, AFL etc) attract vastly more paying spectators. If 10 metres is our USP it is not working

Are you suggesting that if RL reverted to a 5m line then it would become more popular than these other sports? Or are there other, more significant factors at play?

3 hours ago, Marty Funkhouser said:

I am struggling to see any positive it has brought or any exciting innovation in play that has happened because of it.  

Again, this is a matter of personal preference and will depend on what you personally enjoy about the game.

My suspicion - and this is just opinion as we'll never know either way - is that the onset of full time professionalism has had more of an impact on the evolution of the game than changing the 5m rule to 10m. When the rule changed in 1993, I don't remember the style of play suddenly changing. Instead, it has evolved in the subsequent years as coaching methods, tactics and trends have changed. Watching the 2003 Wigan Saints derby on Sky on Good Friday, and the style of play was considerably different then from how it is today.

Whilst I'm not completely against the idea, if we did revert to a 5m defensive line, I'm not convinced that it would bring the positive changes to the game that you would like it to. I think it could potentially bring lots of unintended consequences. A major one being that the significantly lower aerobic demands due to less running (as mentioned in the study by Meir that you cited earlier), could therefore lead to players becoming bigger and stronger, potentially increasing the levels of impact and consequently injury rates.

[Marty Funkhouser]

1 hour ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Well that's fine, but in your previous post you did cite the injury toll on players being due to the 10m rule. I don't think the available evidence supports that conclusion at all.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as they say. Personally, I find the vast majority of attacking play in RU to be very laboured and a poorly executed imitation of the types of plays that we see regularly in league.

Again, this is somewhat subjective. It may not be fundamental to what you enjoy about the game, but it may be fundamental to what some other people enjoy about the game. I never saw any games with a 3m defensive line, but I've found the game to be equally enjoyable when it was both 5m and 10m defensive lines.

Are you suggesting that if RL reverted to a 5m line then it would become more popular than these other sports? Or are there other, more significant factors at play?

Again, this is a matter of personal preference and will depend on what you personally enjoy about the game.

My suspicion - and this is just opinion as we'll never know either way - is that the onset of full time professionalism has had more of an impact on the evolution of the game than changing the 5m rule to 10m. When the rule changed in 1993, I don't remember the style of play suddenly changing. Instead, it has evolved in the subsequent years as coaching methods, tactics and trends have changed. Watching the 2003 Wigan Saints derby on Sky on Good Friday, and the style of play was considerably different then from how it is today.

Whilst I'm not completely against the idea, if we did revert to a 5m defensive line, I'm not convinced that it would bring the positive changes to the game that you would like it to. I think it could potentially bring lots of unintended consequences. A major one being that the significantly lower aerobic demands due to less running (as mentioned in the study by Meir that you cited earlier), could therefore lead to players becoming bigger and stronger, potentially increasing the levels of impact and consequently injury rates.

I am not necessarily saying 5m is the answer but as you rightly point out the game has evolved since '93 and not all of it, in fact not much of it, has enhanced the viewing experience. It is worth having an exploration or study or discussion within the game. Some in the NRL have suggested 7 or 8m but that poses difficulties all of its own.

We can tinker about with the system and structure and administration as much as we want but unless people actually want to watch what is on the field it is all pointless. The loss of the use of the shoulder, whilst probably understandable in the modern world, has taken away one of RL's big selling points. Just look at all the big hit videos on YouTube and the number of views. Then compare them with the views of a "wrestle" or a block play. We have lost one of the reasons the casual viewer might watch.  

You are right it is personal preference but there are a full generation of people who just know RL as the 10m game it is now. They know nothing of a vast myriad of tactics now lost amongst the one size fits all approach. It often seems we have just issued a standardised playbook for the competition and that only the jerseys are different. The game is not exactly taking off, in fact it is contracting in all ways.  Of course there are many reasons for this but it is certain that we have lost many of the more casual viewers.

The 10m makes it a very hard sport to play and not especially attractive to watch , especially in the way it is now coached. We have an excellent bunch of athletes but they are playing the wrong type of game. We have some fairly average Rugby League players playing SL (and NRL) because they can achieve the required stats and measurements and not because they are great at RL. We lose some potentially great players at an early stage because of how the game is. If we could get the modern athletes playing an attractive style and more of them then we could be on to something.

I remember back in the day the Sport for All motto. Professional RL is no longer that, it has become a niche sport that is getting nicher by the year and 10m is one of the drivers of that.

[graveyard johnny]

nothing like going so far off thread you have go back and check the title to remember what is was about

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

1 hour ago, Marty Funkhouser said:

I am not necessarily saying 5m is the answer but as you rightly point out the game has evolved since '93 and not all of it, in fact not much of it, has enhanced the viewing experience.

This is a very fair point. For all the tinkering of various rules, I can't say it's made the game more entertaining, as it was already bloomin good to start with.

1 hour ago, Marty Funkhouser said:

The loss of the use of the shoulder, whilst probably understandable in the modern world, has taken away one of RL's big selling points. Just look at all the big hit videos on YouTube and the number of views. Then compare them with the views of a "wrestle" or a block play. We have lost one of the reasons the casual viewer might watch.  

Again this is a good point. I too miss the shoulder charge, but I will defer my lack of specialist knowledge to the sports medicine experts.

1 hour ago, Marty Funkhouser said:

You are right it is personal preference but there are a full generation of people who just know RL as the 10m game it is now. They know nothing of a vast myriad of tactics now lost amongst the one size fits all approach. It often seems we have just issued a standardised playbook for the competition and that only the jerseys are different. 

I do believe much of this is due to the coaching methods and philosophies as opposed to the 10m rule specifically. I found the constant block plays from the Shaun Wane Wigan era very dull.

1 hour ago, Marty Funkhouser said:

We lose some potentially great players at an early stage because of how the game is. If we could get the modern athletes playing an attractive style and more of them then we could be on to something.

Again, very fair point here.

1 hour ago, Marty Funkhouser said:

I remember back in the day the Sport for All motto. Professional RL is no longer that, it has become a niche sport that is getting nicher by the year and 10m is one of the drivers of that.

I'm still not convinced the 10m rule is the primary cause of this though, although I concede it may be one of many factors.

[Allora]

Get back on thread.

I have never seen a thread wander so far away from the topic as this one.

Private message each other if you want to talk about 5 or 10 metre rules.

[Davo5]

12 minutes ago, Allora said:

Get back on thread.

Is that 5m or 10m back ?

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

2 hours ago, Allora said:

Get back on thread.

I have never seen a thread wander so far away from the topic as this one.

Private message each other if you want to talk about 5 or 10 metre rules.

The discussion evolved. That's what happens on discussion forums.

[graveyard johnny]

so - since it was over a month ago kw quit the nrl and this thread slid down 5 pages how is his dad now? as him having covid at the time was the main reason this story hit the headlines

[graveyard johnny]

guess no one knows then

[Harry Stottle]

On 26/04/2020 at 16:21, Marty Funkhouser said:

Correct Scotchy, we ARE currently selecting players from a young age on size and "athleticism" rather than skills or talent, based on how the game is currently played and coached. However it doesn't HAVE to be that way and almost certainly will not always be that way. In fact it is bemusing why teams do it because it does NOT bring success. At least not since perhaps the Bradford model.

The multi grand final winners Leeds were far from the biggest of the SL teams and nor are the current champions Saints who number the 79 kg Fages , 81 kg Coote , 81 kg Grace and 85 kg Roby among their ranks. They are far smaller overall than say Catalans but are a far superior squad results and otherwise. This also happens in other sports, Man City eg one of the smallest teams in Europe.

I would further say that if RL is to survive and prosper we need to need to lose some of this "bigger, faster, heavier" mantra. It excludes/discourages hundreds of kids/people from playing the game and ensures some very, very good players are lost at an early stage. The Burrows, Millwards, Gregorys, Elwells should not be an absolute exception, they should be part and parcel of a multi-faceted sport.

In any event RU will always have, and need, the bigger men and so we are caught in between two stools in an ever shrinking pool.  Unfortunately the 10 m rule promoted perhaps a natural but avoidable evolution to the current way of playing with the stupefyingly boring wrestle et al and the desire for 6 ft, 100 kg players across the board. However it will NOT result in an ever expanding  professional RL talent pool as we are now well on the way to seeing. 

 

Sorry being very late in response but that is a absolutely spot on, the game only needs to do one thing to put the last 20 years into reverse, just reduce the number of interchanges to a level that it does not rely on behomoths, three subs would be a good number, if that is done coaching and tactics will alter immediatley the power game will make way for a faster more skillful spectacle to watch.

[Dunbar]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Sorry being very late in response but that is a absolutely spot on, the game only needs to do one thing to put the last 20 years into reverse, just reduce the number of interchanges to a level that it does not rely on behomoths, three subs would be a good number, if that is done coaching and tactics will alter immediatley the power game will make way for a faster more skillful spectacle to watch.

 

35 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Thats absolute nonsense Harry.

What you seem to be missing is that modern coaching and nutrition and conditioning allows players to be bigger, faster and play at a high intensity for longer.

Reduce the number of subs to 3 and you swap players chosen for their ball handling and impact for tacke machines. 

You couldnt hide a Rob Burrow in your defensive line when your forwards cant interchange. You cant play a ball handling loose forward, who cares if he can throw a cut out pass he needs to defend like a prop, who cares about your hookers distribution he needs to make 60 tackles every game not just because he has to play 80mins but because so does his pack.

You throw the ball around against fresh players with your lighter, weaker ball players. On going to send 17st tackle machines running at you for 80mins wait for them and the forwards who are having to make up the difference  to inevitably fatigue and walk through the gaps in your defensive line.

I suspect the real answer (as always) is somewhere between these two extremes.

If we were to significantly reduce the interchanges allowed are revert back to a 3 or 4 substitution system, where a player is subbed and not to return, then the game would change.

Lot's of middle forwards would have to play the full 80 minutes.  Many current players would adapt as they are quality athletes - but their body shapes would change as the balance between power and endurance would change as they move from 30 minutes a game to 80 minutes.  Some wouldn't adapt but most would.  Of course the big,, mobile middles who can do 80 minutes now with power (think Jason Taumalolo) would be even more valuable.

I don't think a change like this would speed the game up as fatigue would be a bigger factor.  But this is no bad thing as fatigue allows for more breaks later in the game.  I like the idea of forwards winning the battle in the middle and actually being rewarded for it more than they are today.

The overall size of the team would reduce and I hope it would allow more variable sized players but I suspect the forwards and outside backs would just default to a 6' 2" 16st conformity and so even less variation than today.

[Harry Stottle]

12 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

What you seem to be missing is that modern coaching and nutrition and conditioning allows players to be bigger, faster and play at a high intensity for longer.

8 interchanges completley obliterates that statement Scotchy.

[Harry Stottle]

13 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

Thats absolute nonsense Harry.

What you seem to be missing is that modern coaching and nutrition and conditioning allows players to be bigger, faster and play at a high intensity for longer.

Reduce the number of subs to 3 and you swap players chosen for their ball handling and impact for tacke machines. 

You couldnt hide a Rob Burrow in your defensive line when your forwards cant interchange. You cant play a ball handling loose forward, who cares if he can throw a cut out pass he needs to defend like a prop, who cares about your hookers distribution he needs to make 60 tackles every game not just because he has to play 80mins but because so does his pack.

You throw the ball around against fresh players with your lighter, weaker ball players. On going to send 17st tackle machines running at you for 80mins wait for them and the forwards who are having to make up the difference  to inevitably fatigue and walk through the gaps in your defensive line.

Garbage Scotchy, sorry but you have grown up with a game so defensively orientated you cannot see any other form.

[Harry Stottle]

12 hours ago, Dunbar said:

 

I suspect the real answer (as always) is somewhere between these two extremes.

If we were to significantly reduce the interchanges allowed are revert back to a 3 or 4 substitution system, where a player is subbed and not to return, then the game would change.

Lot's of middle forwards would have to play the full 80 minutes.  Many current players would adapt as they are quality athletes - but their body shapes would change as the balance between power and endurance would change as they move from 30 minutes a game to 80 minutes.  Some wouldn't adapt but most would.  Of course the big,, mobile middles who can do 80 minutes now with power (think Jason Taumalolo) would be even more valuable.

I don't think a change like this would speed the game up as fatigue would be a bigger factor.  But this is no bad thing as fatigue allows for more breaks later in the game.  I like the idea of forwards winning the battle in the middle and actually being rewarded for it more than they are today.

The overall size of the team would reduce and I hope it would allow more variable sized players but I suspect the forwards and outside backs would just default to a 6' 2" 16st conformity and so even less variation than today.

Yes agree, and it would also bring in those all to common place 'wide running forwards' who spend their time out in the centre position as would then will be required in midfield, that would result in centre v centre and wing v wing, a reduction in interchanges would not have the halves/play makers targeted throughout the game with fresh forwards as you say as the game wears on and fatigue takes it's toll more space will be created.

I can't agree with you though when you say it wouldn't speed the game up, I think the game would be so much faster, we would have some more fatigued and tired player's especially the forwards but that would create opportunities for those who can cover the ground quite quickly.

 

[Harry Stottle]

2 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Again, thats just nonsense Harry,

Leeds won 5 out of 6 grand finals between 2007 and 2012 playing with a ball playing pivot at fullback in Brent Webb, Rob Burrow and Danny McGuire who couldnt tackle for toffee, and a ball playing pivot at Loose in Kevin Sinfield. Those teams also contained offloading/handling forwards like Ablett, Luaitiiti, Eastwood and Peacock. 

And..........

[Harry Stottle]

1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

except it doesnt. Ive watched plenty of old games and the intensity and defensive quality is at times very low. 

The games were also much much slower than they are now. 

 

But, in your words "modern coaching and nutrition and conditioning" which would no doubt vastly improove that aspect present day moreso than the player's from an era you state is so much slower, that I will agree with you.

I would love to see the modern day player's released from the shackles of 'completion rates' and more empasis on offence than on defence, the coaches have all gone the defensive route, as I said in another thread It used to wonderful to watch the Brisbane Bronco's team from the late 80's and 90's playing expansive football they were a complete joy to watch, but observe today teams under the guidance of the very same coach one Mr Wayne Bennett the brand of football is absolutely boring, his teams are frightened to make mistakes with his methods which are no different from any other coaches be that here or the NRL and considering he has more player's at his disposal than he had during game time from that Bronco's team coupled with today's players being far fitter athlete's who have the benefit of modern nutrition and conditioning the game has taken on board that defence is the primary concern, it does not make for a better spectacle, in fact a lot of games are boring to watch, they are a battle of attrition a strategy and game plan of belligerent attempts to win the game by wearing down the opposition.

[Harry Stottle]

36 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

They can't cover the ground quickly. They are fatigued. 

See how fast your speedster is when i send Ryan Hall running at him 20 times a game. 

That is just such a soft childish response.

I will stand your Ryan Hall in front of Eric Grothe, Ian Schubert, or a Manu Vatavia in his pomp or another 10 examples I could pick and throw at you, but what is the point.

[Harry Stottle]

1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

The simple fact is. If you have fewer subs, players will be more prized on their stamina

Yes of course, but you seem to be missing the point there will be two teams competing, if every team could summon up 17 - 17 stone player's with an aerobic capacity to perform for 80 mins I would be very surprised, most of the big lads are in the anaerobic capacity they play very short stints then out of breadth.

[Harry Stottle]

7 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

There is no point. Hall would be fine. He is used to making the tackles and taking the hit ups. It's why he was selected.

Oh my!

[Harry Stottle]

2 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

The recruitment and retention and development and conditioning would all adapt and change to the new requirements

 

I can see you are struggling now,  no point in carrying this on any further .......... bye.

[Man of Kent]

Done deal 

https://www.torontowolfpack.com/kallum-watkins-joins-the-pack/