Matty Johns Podcast - New Rules / Attacking RL

[ATLANTISMAN]

The NRL has been brilliant this season and with all due respect to some great SL matches we are nowhere near them.

WORLD CUP

Australia

Tonga

New Zealand

Samoa

England 

Fiji

 

Paul

[BrisbaneRhino]

I can't believe someone can seriously say the Storm didn't have a major negative impact on the way the game is played. They can play attractive attacking rugby, but their defence is designed to stop the opposition doing anything of the sort.  They made the game awful to watch at times, as their whole approach was based on initial tacklers holding up the attacking runner and a third man in to gain full control and finally wrestle them onto their back on the ground. Its desperately ugly stuff when both sides do it.  Other teams copied it but they invented and perfected it.

Watch Cameron Smith at the tackle - virtually every time he 'somehow' gets tangled up with the tackling player and takes an age to untangle himself.  Its incredibly skillful - great 'technique' if you want to call it that - but its a ploy designed to slow the game down without getting penalised.  If that's your idea of 'entertainment' sobeit but I don't like it.

I think the NRL has the balance about right at the moment, as the 6 again rule change enabled refs to ping lying on etc with less pressure. But coaches will work a way around (and already have to a degree), and the game of cat and mouse between coaches fighting rule changes to clean up the game and the NRL rule makers will begin again.  

I'm suggesting that rather than tinkering we need to fundamentally have a view of what we want the game to look like. Do we want it to be almost impossible to score from less than 10m out, and see very few long range tries (or even attempts at them)? Do we want to see more flowing games? If so, how might we get there, and what are the potential downsides (50-all draws are also dull in their own way).

There's too much tinkering and not enough long-term thinking.

[unapologetic pedant]

7 hours ago, BrisbaneRhino said:

 

Watch Cameron Smith at the tackle - virtually every time he 'somehow' gets tangled up with the tackling player and takes an age to untangle himself.  Its incredibly skillful - great 'technique' if you want to call it that - but its a ploy designed to slow the game down without getting penalised.  If that's your idea of 'entertainment' sobeit but I don't like it.

I'm suggesting that rather than tinkering we need to fundamentally have a view of what we want the game to look like. Do we want it to be almost impossible to score from less than 10m out, and see very few long range tries (or even attempts at them)? Do we want to see more flowing games? If so, how might we get there, and what are the potential downsides (50-all draws are also dull in their own way).

The extent to which defenders can legally slow the ruck is determined by the quality of the attacking play pre and post-contact. A pedestrian one-out hit-up, that allows defenders to win the contact, results in a slow PTB. A more intricate, slickly executed play that takes the ball-carrier between defenders, and landing on his front, results in a quick PTB.

If Cameron can legally "get tangled up" and slow the ruck, it`s a sign the Storm`s opponents are not playing good enough football, rather than a consequence of flaws in the rules.

If quick PTBs are an unearned right, if the tackle and ruck rules make no distinction between good and poor play, then we are on the road to the 50-50 draws you allude to. Chock-full of not just points but also dull, unimaginative play.

Ruck speed has to be contested for the game to be a game. Without that, it becomes not much more than a series of attack v defence training drills. I pay to watch a game. I wouldn`t pay to watch an opposed training session, however pretty the attacking moves looked.

[The Rocket]

7 hours ago, BrisbaneRhino said:

I can't believe someone can seriously say the Storm didn't have a major negative impact on the way the game is played. They can play attractive attacking rugby, but their defence is designed to stop the opposition doing anything of the sort.  They made the game awful to watch at times, as their whole approach was based on initial tacklers holding up the attacking runner and a third man in to gain full control and finally wrestle them onto their back on the ground. Its desperately ugly stuff when both sides do it.  Other teams copied it but they invented and perfected it.

Watch Cameron Smith at the tackle - virtually every time he 'somehow' gets tangled up with the tackling player and takes an age to untangle himself.  Its incredibly skillful - great 'technique' if you want to call it that - but its a ploy designed to slow the game down without getting penalised.  If that's your idea of 'entertainment' sobeit but I don't like it.

I think the NRL has the balance about right at the moment, as the 6 again rule change enabled refs to ping lying on etc with less pressure. But coaches will work a way around (and already have to a degree), and the game of cat and mouse between coaches fighting rule changes to clean up the game and the NRL rule makers will begin again.  

I'm suggesting that rather than tinkering we need to fundamentally have a view of what we want the game to look like. Do we want it to be almost impossible to score from less than 10m out, and see very few long range tries (or even attempts at them)? Do we want to see more flowing games? If so, how might we get there, and what are the potential downsides (50-all draws are also dull in their own way).

There's too much tinkering and not enough long-term thinking.

Your description of the Storms tactics in defence sum it up to a tee. And Smith was the worst. It was horrible and the phrase I keep  on wanting to use is "against the spirit of the game." It was widely known at the time that it was almost impossible to score against them from anywhere in side the 10. No one denies they could play exemplary attacking League though.

It`s interesting to compare them to Ricky Stuart`s Roosters of the early 2000`s. I can`t remember anyone criticising  their rushing gang defense because I don`t remember that being anything but tough driving defense that was much admired at the time , not to mention being very hard to make ground against.

I think there are signs that the Panthers are adopting similar tactics to the Storms, with no intention of getting players to the ground but more interested in delaying the play the ball.

Another successful team that was renowned for their tough defence was Manly under Bob Fulton in the late 1980`s. I think they had the best defence, as in points conceded per game, until Ricky`s Roosters already mentioned. If I remember correctly I think I can recall Paul Vautin saying that Fulton made it a point of honour amongst his team that no opposing team would be allowed into Manly`s in-goal area.

 

 

 

 

 

[unapologetic pedant]

20 hours ago, The Rocket said:

 

Rugby League is in the entertainment game, your defending the Storms `intelligent` defence is no different to the knobs over at union telling us about the beauty and the technicalities of the scrum, meanwhile people are turning off the telly.

Is this the same Rocket who, according to a post in the cross-code section, had his telly switched on for All Blacks/Wallabies at the weekend?

Or the same Rocket who began a thread titled "Simple game", whose ostensible purpose was to show that RL was more technically complex than is generally assumed?

Your purple wrestling haze is colouring your judgement.

[unapologetic pedant]

2 hours ago, The Rocket said:

Your description of the Storms tactics in defence sum it up to a tee. And Smith was the worst. It was horrible and the phrase I keep  on wanting to use is "against the spirit of the game." It was widely known at the time that it was almost impossible to score against them from anywhere in side the 10. No one denies they could play exemplary attacking League though.

I think there are signs that the Panthers are adopting similar tactics to the Storms, with no intention of getting players to the ground but more interested in delaying the play the ball.

 

 

 

 

 

Are you suggesting that defences are under a moral obligation to facilitate a quick PTB? That making it harder is "against the spirit of the game". Ironic that you should earlier connect my view with RU, since that sentiment is archetypal 19th century RU code-of-honour perversity.

You said on a cross-code thread that you liked the Union option to pass off the ground. For me it makes as much technical sense as allowing the placing of the ball. There`s supposed to be a contest for possession at a Union ruck. That ought to require the instant release of the ball on the ground.

RL players however, are permitted to pass off the ground as long as they keep the ball-carrying arm above it. When I was perusing the RFL rulebook, "Tackle and Play the ball" section, I found the following under "Notes". Brace yourself. - 

[ A player in possession brought to his knees or brought to the ground on his back may still pass the ball - provided he has not made it evident that he has succumbed to the tackle. He should not be wrongly penalised otherwise all players will become reluctant to pass the ball as the tackle nears completion in case they too are penalised. The continuity of play would consequently be adversely and unnecessarily affected ]

Admittedly this may have been written before the advent of modern tackling styles, but in every game I see there are ample opportunities between initial contact and completion when the ball-carrier could pass if he were looking to do so. The hands are free but he holds on to the ball. That`s a choice, not a defect in the rules, and not a reason to censure defenders.

[The Rocket]

1 hour ago, unapologetic pedant said:

When I was perusing the RFL rulebook,

U.P. my children are home for the weekend and I am sitting in the lounge room listening to the happy sound of a house full of kids again as I was this time last night when you were alternately trying either bait or embarrass me and now once again you want me trawl through one of your extended posts looking for some sort of response so that the cycle can be repeated. All the while your two mates snigger at everything you post. Rhino expressed an opinion as have I, that you don`t seem able to concede may have some credence in any way shape or form, that`s your prerogative. I suggest that you go back and read the thread carefully from beginning to end. I`ve had enough with this thread now and won`t be reading anymore posts on it as it seems to have degenerated into a very petty us versus them scenario. Goodnight.

[Rupert Prince]

On 21/10/2020 at 11:30, EastLondonMike said:

Listening to a recent episode of the Matty Johns podcast with Blocker and Paul Kent, and they discuss the rule changes from this years NRL and the positive impact on attacking play, and subsequent impact the rules have had on structured attacking plays and the wrestle around the ruck.

With the standards in the NRL seemingly progressing once again, partly off the back of how teams and players have adapted to the new rule changes and how the rule changes favour the skills and abilities of attacking players, and the standards in SL (IMO) further stagnating, i wonder if we are heading towards another 1982 / 1997 moment where the next time we play Australia or NZ we will once again be exposed for being further behind the Southern hemisphere teams. And the process will once again begin on ow are are going to "match the Aussies".

I know plenty of people have enjoyed SL this year, and i know plenty also don't look too favourably on the NRL, but i just wondered what peoples thoughts are. 

I look at the quality of player in both comps and i worry for England at next years World Cup.

The link to the podcast in question can be found here, if you wanted a listen. https://open.spotify.com/episode/01VUruNh4jgYB6XKiaQIe0?si=C9zQZXmoRVi-OTbvo-Uppw

I do nut see any real difference.  No doubt if I had a podcast to sell i might stir up some controversy.  The rules around the ruck are the same, only the penalty has changed and that is a moot point as to whether its changed for the better. 

[Rupert Prince]

On 21/10/2020 at 13:57, EastLondonMike said:

I think smart coaches and players will always find a way of bending the rules or incorporating new techniques to get an edge. I also think next season the defence's in the NRL will adapt as the attack has, and we wont see so many of those big score lines, but without impacting on the style of attack we have seen.

I think theres a balance to be had with structured play and the 'play what you see' style. 

The quality on display in this seasons NRL has been awesome.

"Attacking play" consists of one player running 10yards with 3 defenders hanging on because they too scared to tackle him round the knees.

Real attacking play has been with us since the year dot.  You don't need clever Australian coaches to tell us.  Only last night Tom Johnson scored a try thanks to a neat runaround.  Thats been around for years and if you do it properly you get results. The better the players the quicker they can complete their play.

[BrisbaneRhino]

Too scared to tackle around the knees? They're not scared, they're just coached not to. Most of the time the three man tackle works exactly as intended, but every game you get one or two where they just don't get control of the runner and because all the tacklers are high they end up being dragged forward a fair way.  You won't see a return to low tackling as a common technique unless there's a reward for it, but to suggest players are scared is daft.

[Tex Evans Thigh]

They have adapted better because they have better coaches and better players. I don't disagree that we're heading for a 2000 WC semi moment but the rule changes are only an accelerator to this. The game in the UK is underfunded, has little exposure and a very poor pathway for young players. Add into that our best players going to the NRL and the standard coming the other way dropping and we're at one of those points again. 

From a national team perspective, the thing in our favour is that we have a few players playing over there at the elite level and competing against the best. I worry that SL isnt a high enough standard to prepare players for international success. This is why people are touting Herbie Farnworth and Ryan Sutton for nailed on England places and I dont entirely disagree even though one is a first year player who's done ok in the worst team in the league and the other is a fringe first teamer.

[unapologetic pedant]

17 hours ago, The Rocket said:

U.P. my children are home for the weekend and I am sitting in the lounge room listening to the happy sound of a house full of kids again as I was this time last night when you were alternately trying either bait or embarrass me and now once again you want me trawl through one of your extended posts looking for some sort of response so that the cycle can be repeated. All the while your two mates snigger at everything you post. Rhino expressed an opinion as have I, that you don`t seem able to concede may have some credence in any way shape or form, that`s your prerogative. I suggest that you go back and read the thread carefully from beginning to end. I`ve had enough with this thread now and won`t be reading anymore posts on it as it seems to have degenerated into a very petty us versus them scenario. Goodnight.

I thought I was carefully reading your content, then responding with my own contrary view. Isn`t that what a forum like this is for? Under your prompting, I`ve re-read the thread and I still think that`s what I`ve been doing.

We clearly disagree on some aspects of the game. There`s no objective right or wrong. You think you`re right, I think I`m right. Genuinely no attempt to "bait" or "embarrass". Just robustly advocating my side of the argument.

[Tex Evans Thigh]

4 hours ago, Saint 1 said:

Is this true though? If you look at the likes of Whitehead, Bateman and Williams, they went to the NRL and instantly looked like good players over there. Hodgson is the exception but I think it's hard to make the argument that Williams/Bateman/Whitehead have drastically improved since leaving Super League. I concede that they have improved a bit, and are having to do it with more regularity, but they were good players in Super League and they are still good players in the NRL. 

People touting Sutton for an England place is laughable. Farnworth's discussion is more a reflection of our dearth of centres than anything else. 

They're in a better environment and playing at a more intense level each week. There are clearly good players in SL, thats not what I'm saying, it's more that the general standard isn't great. There are a lot who could go over and adapt and do well, if we want international success in the short term that's probably our best bet.

[Davo5]

16 hours ago, Tex Evans Thigh said:

They have adapted better because they have better coaches and better players. I don't disagree that we're heading for a 2000 WC semi moment but the rule changes are only an accelerator to this. The game in the UK is underfunded, has little exposure and a very poor pathway for young players. Add into that our best players going to the NRL and the standard coming the other way dropping and we're at one of those points again. 

From a national team perspective, the thing in our favour is that we have a few players playing over there at the elite level and competing against the best. I worry that SL isnt a high enough standard to prepare players for international success. This is why people are touting Herbie Farnworth and Ryan Sutton for nailed on England places and I dont entirely disagree even though one is a first year player who's done ok in the worst team in the league and the other is a fringe first teamer.

Ryan Sutton a fringe first teamer ?????

[Tex Evans Thigh]

On 24/10/2020 at 13:49, Davo5 said:

Ryan Sutton a fringe first teamer ?????

Pretty much. At full strength he struggles to make the bench.

[BrisbaneRhino]

He was in and out of the side until part way through this year.  To be fair he was looking very good when he got injured.

Farnsworth is interesting. If he fills out he could be a very good centre.  He just looks a bit skinny to me. 

[Davo5]

11 hours ago, Tex Evans Thigh said:

Pretty much. At full strength he struggles to make the bench.

Took out the coaches award this season after an outstanding season that was cut short by a MCL injury and even then Ricky Stuart gave him every chance of making an unlikely comeback by naming him in the squad for Melbourne game.
36 appearances in 2 seasons suggests that when fit he doesn’t struggle to make the bench.

[Tex Evans Thigh]

On 26/10/2020 at 05:23, Davo5 said:

Took out the coaches award this season after an outstanding season that was cut short by a MCL injury and even then Ricky Stuart gave him every chance of making an unlikely comeback by naming him in the squad for Melbourne game.
36 appearances in 2 seasons suggests that when fit he doesn’t struggle to make the bench.

Last season if everyone is fit starting middles - Papalii, Lui/Horsburgh, Tapine. When they are fit Sutton would be nowhere near a starting middle spot, so he's competing for a bench spot with Soliola, Harawera-Naera, Young and Guler, plus whichever of Horsburgh and Lui didnt start. Canberra have had a lot of injuries to forwards so he's played a lot of games, however if everyone was fit last year I think he struggles to crack the 17, which he didn't early in the season.

He does ok when he plays and will go up the pecking order now Bateman and Soliola have gone. Hopefully for him he gets a regular bench spot.