New rules nrl 2021

[BrisbaneRhino]

None of these rule changes will change the game in any fundamental way, and I think we need to look more fundamentally at ways to make the sport more entertaining. 

The main issues to me are rewarding conservatism over flair, lack of space due to fitter, faster players, and very few opportunities to contest possession. The first two could be addressed by cutting both the number of players and number of subs. Not sure about the last - bringing back letting defenders strike at the PTB and stripping in all tackles would probably only make a small difference. Maybe reducing tackles per set would be the only way to make losing possession less of an issue?  

In any event, rather than messing about with gimmicks we should have a root and branch review. Firstly decide what we want the game to look like, then take time to work out a set of changes. I'd say a year just to do that, then use full seasons in lower leagues (e.g. Queensland Cup) to test new rules. We need a full season so we can see how any changes that seem to work might get defused by smart coaches, who frankly have had far too much influence on the way the game has developed over the last 20 years. 

[The Rocket]

1 hour ago, redjonn said:

An interesting follow-up.

Must admit I hate those repetitive drives and then a high kick to the one or the other corner - always seems more about realising you are not able/good enough to create try scoring opportunities so as a last desperate throw of the dice just punt it into the air in hope.

Change the points maybe or alternative disallow any tries that result straight from a catch and try without being passed to another... chuckle

I guess the points seems that the administrators and many fans dislike the game enough to change the fundemental rules about what we thought we liked about the game.

One thing could be said by all this constant changing that's its not TGG... because we are constantly adapting to so call improve...

It almost has me thinking union has more unpredictable as the ball is being constantly recycled leading to more opportunity for error/knock-on's or the ref's inconsistent whistle for penalties... yep daft but that almost the way it looks to me with the rule changes.... we just think the game needs constantly improving or in other words we don't like the game...

Lets just start again with a blank piece of paper...

Agree with your second paragraph, hopefully the seven tackle 20 metre restart has swung the pendulum back to the defending team.

Ironically most of the changes these days come from our part of the world where the game is strongest, with over 110 million individual television views each year. I would put a lot of it down to the encroachment made by afl into League states and the fear, rightly or wrongly, if we don`t do something it may well start to take over.

Personally I still consider it the greatest game, especially when I look at the alternatives, but there are aspects of other sports and just other things I would like to see more of in League.

That element of the contest for the ball and the consequent rapid change in direction when the ball changes hands is one of the things about union that works to its advantage for me, and that we don`t have enough of, but they have other problems.

Ridiculously, if all the changes were made to League that we wanted, it is very likely that in a very short time we would tire of that as well, but that is human nature.

 

 

[The Rocket]

16 minutes ago, BrisbaneRhino said:

None of these rule changes will change the game in any fundamental way, and I think we need to look more fundamentally at ways to make the sport more entertaining. 

The main issues to me are rewarding conservatism over flair, lack of space due to fitter, faster players, and very few opportunities to contest possession.

I think we can put the `contested possession` into the too hard basket. I don`t think it is essential that League has a contest for the ball at most plays. The nature of our game should be that you get six tackles to manufacture something.

I agree that if we can encourage a modest, I don`t think it needs to be major increase, in flamboyant play in most games that this would suffice. 

I don`t think a root and branch review of the game is really necessary, by and large it is an excellent spectacle, made for television, however a little more of Ben Barber, Shaun Johnson type magic in the highlight reels in each game wouldn`t go astray. Too much may cheapen it and we end up with RL nines.

[Dunbar]

I do find these discussions very interesting.  One thing that many of us who watched League in the 80's and 90's tend to say is that there is a lack of creativity in the modern game and that the modern game is far too conservative.

I am a big defender of the NRL in general and I believe the skill and creativity on show is much higher than those who call it 'robotic' and 'conservative'.

On average 21 points were scored by each team in the NRL this year and back in 1984, the NSWRL season saw teams average 16 points a game.  So it isn't points that we are lacking.  Is it how those points are scored?

Well certainly the attacking lines of the 80's and 90's were deeper than they are today as modern Rugby League is played right at the defensive line even on shift plays.  But is it less entertaining?  I loved the 80's but I am wary that it may just be rose tinted glasses.... one thing is sure, what I saw of the Aussie game in 80's was highlights packages and so I only saw the 'exciting' stuff. 

There is no doubt that the depth of defensive line changes the game.  Teams can make 50, 60 or 70 metres in a set and it is more unusual for a team to finish a set inside their own 40 or 30 than it was when the 5m line was enforced.

But does that ability to find field position lead to conservative attacking plays.  As seen already in thread 4 in 10 of all tries are scored start outside the 20 metres and 1 in 10 from outside the 40 metres so I would say that there is still plenty of ambition to shift the ball and attack.

What I would hate to see is a reduction in player numbers.  That may lead to more points but I would rather see a 10-6 scoreline with the points earned than a 30-28 every week because we have created more space.  We already score more points than in the 80's and complain so what use is artificially creating even more points.

[unapologetic pedant]

18 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

As far as commentators, their job is to look for controversy and is unlikely to change.

V`landy`s fixation with `unpredictability` in his statement suggests it is an issue but they are either hoping the coaches will fix it for them or they really don`t know what to do or aren`t yet bold enough to make radical change to address it.

The commentators` "little bobble" fetish and the post-match psychotic knock-on punditry must influence what the audience (including budding officials) regard as a knock-on. Why else has it been redefined in the past 20 to 30 years from "propelling the ball towards the opponents` goal-line", to "the ball going to ground in a not obviously backward direction"?

The refs are in perpetual fear of copping it from the media if they miss the tiniest knock-on. They`ve cost a team the game, ended a team`s season, they need to be held accountable, etc. Nowadays augmented with extensive, sometimes threatening, invective on social media.

On a sort of lighter note, I watched on NRL.com yesterday the Parra/ St.George 1977 GF replay. In an analogue echo of the above paragraph a Touch Judge was floored by a missile thrown from the crowd. 

The whole thing was a lost world. Harry Bath puffing away, the scrums even worse than I was expecting, no attempt to bind, careering all over the place. At one point no more than an excuse for six blokes to headbutt each other. (think it was your namesake and inspiration pummelling some defenceless, bloodied soul on the deck after one such horrible mess).

It said "full game" but there were only 47 minutes. Unless all the razzle-dazzle was left on whatever is the digital version of the cutting room floor, I`d rate it nostalgically interesting, but pertinent to this thread, I`d prefer any NRL game from this year.

[saddleworth]

You can have as many rules as you want but it still boils down to application

[Scotchy1]

45 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

The commentators` "little bobble" fetish and the post-match psychotic knock-on punditry must influence what the audience (including budding officials) regard as a knock-on. Why else has it been redefined in the past 20 to 30 years from "propelling the ball towards the opponents` goal-line", to "the ball going to ground in a not obviously backward direction"?

The refs are in perpetual fear of copping it from the media if they miss the tiniest knock-on. They`ve cost a team the game, ended a team`s season, they need to be held accountable, etc. Nowadays augmented with extensive, sometimes threatening, invective on social media.

That is something i agree with entirely. Knock-ons are ridiculously officiated. Balls which clearly go backwards never mind towards the opponents goal-line are given as knock-ons. At kicks we spend minutes looking at two players going for the ball and trying to guess what happened. 

[bobbruce]

1 hour ago, BrisbaneRhino said:

None of these rule changes will change the game in any fundamental way, and I think we need to look more fundamentally at ways to make the sport more entertaining. 

The main issues to me are rewarding conservatism over flair, lack of space due to fitter, faster players, and very few opportunities to contest possession. The first two could be addressed by cutting both the number of players and number of subs. Not sure about the last - bringing back letting defenders strike at the PTB and stripping in all tackles would probably only make a small difference. Maybe reducing tackles per set would be the only way to make losing possession less of an issue?  

In any event, rather than messing about with gimmicks we should have a root and branch review. Firstly decide what we want the game to look like, then take time to work out a set of changes. I'd say a year just to do that, then use full seasons in lower leagues (e.g. Queensland Cup) to test new rules. We need a full season so we can see how any changes that seem to work might get defused by smart coaches, who frankly have had far too much influence on the way the game has developed over the last 20 years. 

Wouldn’t like to see striking at the ptb return it was just a mess. In fact it ended up with hardly anyone trying to hook the ball back most of the time players just kicked the ball and the man hoping to force a knock on by the dummy half. 

[Rupert Prince]

1 hour ago, BrisbaneRhino said:

None of these rule changes will change the game in any fundamental way, and I think we need to look more fundamentally at ways to make the sport more entertaining. 

The main issues to me are rewarding conservatism over flair, lack of space due to fitter, faster players, and very few opportunities to contest possession. The first two could be addressed by cutting both the number of players and number of subs. Not sure about the last - bringing back letting defenders strike at the PTB and stripping in all tackles would probably only make a small difference. Maybe reducing tackles per set would be the only way to make losing possession less of an issue?  

In any event, rather than messing about with gimmicks we should have a root and branch review. Firstly decide what we want the game to look like, then take time to work out a set of changes. I'd say a year just to do that, then use full seasons in lower leagues (e.g. Queensland Cup) to test new rules. We need a full season so we can see how any changes that seem to work might get defused by smart coaches, who frankly have had far too much influence on the way the game has developed over the last 20 years. 

?

It's Rugby League, it has been for over 100 years.

What sport do you want to change it into?

[Rupert Prince]

On 12/12/2020 at 14:45, Dunbar said:

Isn't an incorrect play the ball a penalty here and now a hand over in the NRL?

Only as we speak.  The NRL will change it again whilst you are having your dinner.  The lunatics are in charge of the asylum down under.

[redjonn]

Before tinkering with playing rules and points awarded or deducing number of players on the field how about...

Having players in the bench as "substitutes" and once a player is substituted he can't go on again... allow more to sit on the bench but only can use a minimum number and once on they stay on... not off, then on, then off again.... etc... excepting for injury of course when they can of course come off again...

one thing about union whilst they may have too many substitutions allowed once taken off yer don't go back on... which seems a lot better.

 

[The Rocket]

7 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

The commentators` "little bobble" fetish and the post-match psychotic knock-on punditry must influence what the audience (including budding officials) regard as a knock-on. Why else has it been redefined in the past 20 to 30 years from "propelling the ball towards the opponents` goal-line", to "the ball going to ground in a not obviously backward direction"?

The refs are in perpetual fear of copping it from the media if they miss the tiniest knock-on. They`ve cost a team the game, ended a team`s season, they need to be held accountable, etc. Nowadays augmented with extensive, sometimes threatening, invective on social media.

On a sort of lighter note, I watched on NRL.com yesterday the Parra/ St.George 1977 GF replay. In an analogue echo of the above paragraph a Touch Judge was floored by a missile thrown from the crowd. 

The whole thing was a lost world. Harry Bath puffing away, the scrums even worse than I was expecting, no attempt to bind, careering all over the place. At one point no more than an excuse for six blokes to headbutt each other. (think it was your namesake and inspiration pummelling some defenceless, bloodied soul on the deck after one such horrible mess).

It said "full game" but there were only 47 minutes. Unless all the razzle-dazzle was left on whatever is the digital version of the cutting room floor, I`d rate it nostalgically interesting, but pertinent to this thread, I`d prefer any NRL game from this year.

The game as a boy that cemented my adoration of `The Rocket`. After Ray Price kneed diminutive St. George half back Mark Shulman in the back in the Grand Final days before forcing him from the field and ultimately into premature retirement, he never played again, the St. George club was furious, a good friend of mine at University was the grandson of legendary St. George Club secretary Frank Facer, whom the grandstand is named after at Kogarah, he tells me that his Grandfather told him that permission came down from Phillip Street, NSWRL Headquarters, that Bath could "let Reddy off the chain" for the GF replay. In the replay on the tuesday Reddy famously elbowed, kneed, gouged, pulled hair and of coursed punched, with seeming impunity, any Parramatta player he could get his hands on, with particular attention to Ray Price, whom he left a bloodied mess, St. George of course won the game 22-0 nil.

A friend of mine who I consider to be a very astute judge of the game said a while back, "have you watched any of those old games..what a dirge". He was in particular referring to the 5 metre rule. It is very easy to look back and remember Steve Mortimers `chip and chases` and Phil Blakes similar magic and think that the whole game was like that. I always remember when I was much younger getting to see the occasional English Club RL game, maybe a CC final would be televised over here, and being amazed how much more open your game was compared to ours, and the chip kick wasn`t something that just happened occasionally, you blokes seem to do it all the time, even in Test matches !! Suicide. Australia went on to perfect the maintaining of possession, grubbers into the in-goal ec.etc. The old line you can`t win the game without the ball, became an obsession or a mantra, as you would say, rather than an observation.

As I keep coming back to, I don`t think as a game we are far off the mark, we don`t need more points as mentioned above, roughly 4 tries per team is ample entertainment and doesn`t cheapen them, perhaps if we could somehow reward the smaller elusive player a little more would be interesting.

 

[The Rocket]

7 hours ago, bobbruce said:

Wouldn’t like to see striking at the ptb return it was just a mess. In fact it ended up with hardly anyone trying to hook the ball back most of the time players just kicked the ball and the man hoping to force a knock on by the dummy half. 

It`s a shame isn`t it, because like the contest at the scrum it made the game more unpredictable, with the play going one way then in a flash going the other. As I said above, I think that we have to accept now that the game is a 6 tackle set and teams have to manufacture something within that. It is now up to the rule makers to frame the game around that 6 tackle set in a way that allows and rewards for all types of play within it.

[The Rocket]

14 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

The refs are in perpetual fear of copping it from the media if they miss the tiniest knock-on. They`ve cost a team the game, ended a team`s season, they need to be held accountable, etc. Nowadays augmented with extensive, sometimes threatening, invective on social media.

On a sort of lighter note, I watched on NRL.com yesterday the Parra/ St.George 1977 GF replay. In an analogue echo of the above paragraph a Touch Judge was floored by a missile thrown from the crowd. 

Priceless, to use an unfortunate pun, did it get him in the back of the head ! I recall once at the Coogee Bay Hotel, the home of many an unsavoury RL incident, seeing the drummer from the Cramps avoid a similar missile hurled from the crowd when he didn`t even appear to be looking, a little bit like George W. style.

I myself sconned the Parramatta mascot in the back of the head a couple of years ago to the delight of the family, I`m making us sound like the `Munsters`, and I don`t mean Cameron, anyway no harm done, the plastic bottle was only half full.

[unapologetic pedant]

On 13/12/2020 at 14:53, Scotchy1 said:

That is something i agree with entirely. Knock-ons are ridiculously officiated. Balls which clearly go backwards never mind towards the opponents goal-line are given as knock-ons. At kicks we spend minutes looking at two players going for the ball and trying to guess what happened. 

Historically the knock-on rule originates from the same basis as the laws on passing. Namely, to prevent the promotion of the ball by hand towards the opponents` goal-line. Though it may be more aesthetically pleasing in the case of passing, the ball does not have to travel backwards. In all cases sideways/level/flat is legal.

It`s probable that moral judgements contribute to the currently pathological application of the knock-on rule. If a player loses control of the ball he is deemed guilty of error and undeserving of latitude. The trouble with this, apart from unnecessary stoppages, is that the ref`s whistle is repeatedly extinguishing opportunities for the sort of reactive, unstructured play that arise from a loose ball.

It`s suppressing the very "unpredictability" Peter V`landys claims to want more of, yet neither this area of the game nor the charge down rule appear to have received any consideration from the ARLC committee. There are too many ex-players and ex-players who are coaches deciding the rules of the game. What they regard as "quality", and what fans want to see, can be two very different things.

[unapologetic pedant]

18 hours ago, The Rocket said:

Priceless, to use an unfortunate pun, did it get him in the back of the head ! I recall once at the Coogee Bay Hotel, the home of many an unsavoury RL incident, seeing the drummer from the Cramps avoid a similar missile hurled from the crowd when he didn`t even appear to be looking, a little bit like George W. style.

I myself sconned the Parramatta mascot in the back of the head a couple of years ago to the delight of the family, I`m making us sound like the `Munsters`, and I don`t mean Cameron, anyway no harm done, the plastic bottle was only half full.

Disclaimer - I strongly deprecate the hurling of all missiles in all circumstances.

Sir Johnny Rotten was the target of a similar outrageous incident. At a gig on the Sex Pistols U.S. tour, one ill-mannered patron launched a whole cheeseburger, which collided with the bullseye, causing all the Goo Goo Muck (Cramps reference) to slowly dribble down his elegantly expensive Vivienne Westwood-designed outfit.

In relation to your second paragraph. During the GF replay episode Rex Mossop said " If I could apprehend the person who did that sort of thing at a football game, they would go inside and not come out for a long while. It`s a sad, sad commentary on the mentality of some of the idiots that follow Australian sport". No comment.

On a point of fact, you said "Tuesday" for the replay. I had been expecting a midweek game but it was played in daylight. Apparently it was the following Saturday.

[The Rocket]

14 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Disclaimer - I strongly deprecate the hurling of all missiles in all circumstances

Go on, I had you down as a `missile chucker` from way back,.

Rex was union through and through, and was probably a good thing we wasn`t calling SOO not long after, he would have been apoplectic.

I always remember when his Local Council gave permission for a ` naturalist ` beach near his harbour side mansion, Rex, ever the prig, know the type, led the charge, literally, thrashing around the undergrowth and the dunes flushing out, real and imagined, improprieties. Think he may have said something about "locking them all up" if he had his way.

[unapologetic pedant]

6 hours ago, The Rocket said:

I always remember when his Local Council gave permission for a ` naturalist ` beach near his harbour side mansion, Rex, ever the prig, know the type, led the charge, literally, thrashing around the undergrowth and the dunes flushing out, real and imagined, improprieties. 

Australians pioneered streaking in Earl`s Court in the 1970s. For anyone minded to call the emergency services, the Fire Brigade are the best option.

[BrisbaneRhino]

Rocket - I'm not saying I personally want everything I've suggested, but I think you underestimate what the game needs to do to stay ahead over the next twenty years. In the end it doesn't matter what you or I think but what the next generation of fans want to see.  Personally I've almost stopped watching the Sunday afternoon NRL games because they're generally dull games between dull teams.   

I don't have rose-tinted specs either. watched RL from the early 80s, and frankly most of it is embarrassingly bad compared to today.  However, for me there is far too much wrestling going on now, which combined with conservatism across the board has changed the game in a bad way as a spectacle. 

I'm not sure reducing the number of players in RL from 13 to 12 would turn the game into glorified 9s or 7s. I think it would widen up the defence a little, enable teams to try to move big forwards around more than they currently can and potentially open up more gaps for longer range tries. The downside risks are obvious though - more dummy half scoots and  probably tries being 'cheapened'. 

I'm not suggesting everything is wrong with RL, but I certainly don't think its consistently as good a sport to watch as it could be either, and tinkering with rules won't change it in a meaningful way. If everyone else believes tinkering is all that's needed then I'll go with that though.

[The Rocket]

2 hours ago, BrisbaneRhino said:

Rocket - I'm not saying I personally want everything I've suggested, but I think you underestimate what the game needs to do to stay ahead over the next twenty years. In the end it doesn't matter what you or I think but what the next generation of fans want to see.  Personally I've almost stopped watching the Sunday afternoon NRL games because they're generally dull games between dull teams. 

I understand that you don`t want everything you`ve suggested, we`re all just throwing ideas around on here.

I too stopped watching some games in recent years, because of the wrestle, but I thought that had largely been dealt with this year. The fact that Melbourne could transform themselves into such an exciting attacking outfit, I gave them no chance this year without the wrestle, does show the power of a rule change and what coaches are capable of when made to.

I try to put myself into the eyes of a 10 year old and imagine what they will want from sport as entertainment or participation. And I keep coming back to the comparisons with what they are doing with their free time now. And that is fast paced frenetic video games, and I think that Sport is going to have to mimic that as much as reasonable, League will still have the advantage of the excitement of the physical contact, can`t get that on video games, and that may offset the fact that we can`t offer everything that a video game offers either. This is maybe where League has start to work towards, this balance between the fast paced, random, full of surprises action their getting on their monitors and the physicality that League offers that video can`t.

Soon as you start talking `frenetic` our generation, like the people on here, I don`t mean that derogatively, start saying ` it won`t be Rugby League `, but it`s not about us, as you say it`s about the kids and what they will want.

Anyway, just thinking.

 

[unapologetic pedant]

On 13/12/2020 at 13:43, The Rocket said:

I think we can put the `contested possession` into the too hard basket. I don`t think it is essential that League has a contest for the ball at most plays. The nature of our game should be that you get six tackles to manufacture something.

In AFL a player has the ball, is tackled, drops it, another player picks it up, is tackled, drops it. This continues for a time, interspersed with bits of fumbling, air-swings, more bodies converge, more drops, more fumbles. Eventually an official decides this is going nowhere, takes the ball himself and flings it as high as he can.

Such is the AFL contest for possession. The RU contest for possession is only marginally less ludicrous, whatever its gilded advocates might claim. In the RL of the past, allowing the marker to strike at the PTB lead to nothing but mess and delay, allowing both hookers to strike in the scrum lead to nothing but mess and delay.

The obvious conclusion is that contests for possession in handling codes don`t make sense. RL and Gridiron have the right fundamentals. What we arrange on top of those is the debate.

2 hours ago, BrisbaneRhino said:

.  However, for me there is far too much wrestling going on now, which combined with conservatism across the board has changed the game in a bad way as a spectacle. 

Please don`t say wrestling. The tackle and ruck is a contest. Not for possession, but for the quality of possession. We must learn to appreciate it. Maybe not as much as passing, running, etc, but it`s part of the mix. If your mind switches off at the point of contact, and switches back on after the ball is played, you might as well be watching Touch Football.

[unapologetic pedant]

7 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

 The fact that Melbourne could transform themselves into such an exciting attacking outfit, I gave them no chance this year without the wrestle, does show the power of a rule change and what coaches are capable of when made to.

I think it shows nothing of the sort, but the last time I put this to you it sent you into high dudgeon, so we`ll have to respectfully agree to differ. Suffice it to say, in my view, the Storm were "an exciting attacking outfit" last year, and the year before that...

I keep harping on about phantom knock-ons, but it`s the one problem that impinges on the way teams use the ball that could be easily fixed. 

I see the following frustrating pattern regularly in Aus and NZ RL. - Team runs from dummy-half on several consecutive tackles. On the next they attempt an offload. It doesn`t go perfectly to hand. Maybe it goes to ground, comes loose in contact, but the team retain possession. There`s no clear evidence anyone has propelled the ball in a forward direction, it should be play on. But then there`s a whistle and the ref making the signal for knock-on or double knock-on.

The lesson players and coaches take from this is - "stick to dummy-half runs, don`t even think about trying anything different, creativity will be punished".

If the members of the ARLC committee watch games they must see this happening. Why do they think that making it happen faster will improve the game?

[MattSantos]

It's entertaining enough. It's brilliant!

People don't flock to RU Internationals because of the on-field entertainment; If i take the Singapore 7s as an example, people go because it's an event and a chance for companies to network etc. 

Spend the time and energy expanding in to new cities and markets and building a proper international calendar.

[BrisbaneRhino]

International RU is also watched by millions because it is highly competitive because of the way the sport is played. If RU went too far to make the game more expansive (i.e. make it much more about quality backs), we'd see the sort of gulfs we currently see in RL between the top and mid-tier teams, and probably southern hemisphere vs northern.

pedant - re Melbourne, I think you're missing the point about how entertaining they can be with the ball. Its more what they do to the opposition that is/was the problem.  And I will say wrestling because that's what it is. For me the game has/had a real problem once teams brought in wrestling coaches specifically to 'control the ruck' - what that really means is slow it down by letting the attacking player appear to be still fighting for yardage when in fact its all about not completing the tackle until the defence is set. Add to that Cameron Smith miraculously getting tangled up with the attacking player every time he tackles and you have a dire spectacle IMO. 

Each to their own though. If you enjoy that side of the game then fine. I find it boring.

[The Rocket]

1 hour ago, unapologetic pedant said:

I think it shows nothing of the sort, but the last time I put this to you it sent you into high dudgeon, so we`ll have to respectfully agree to differ. Suffice it to say, in my view, the Storm were "an exciting attacking outfit" last year, and the year before that...

I will say it one more time then I will never say it again, O.k the Storm may well have been good with the ball but they were a blight on the game when they didn`t have it. It was nothing about contesting the ball and all about delaying the play the ball so they were ready to charge forward as soon as the tackled player placed the ball on the ground. You can talk all you like about the player with the ball getting themselves into the correct `body position` or whatever but the reality was they would deliberately get themselves tangled up , peel of with micro second precision, make players face the wrong way or put them on their back. etc.etc.

The fact that channel 9 threatened to walk away from the game unless it was made more attractive and the first thing they changed was to punish the wrestle or time delaying tactics at the ruck, should tell you enough. Please I implore you to explain that. While you`re at it explain how in the end of the year player survey 70% of players said the game was better to watch and participate in now. It certainly wasn`t just me.

You are seriously starting to sound like the rugby union purist who sees the beauty in the ruck and scrum and insists that everybody else has it wrong. As the union purist would say, theoretically in there there is some beautiful contest for the ball going on, or in League`s case, a contest over superior body position, one player trying to manoeuvre himself into a position to slip an offload the other trying to prevent this and slow the play the ball down and win the ruck. 99.9% of the time it is just a bloke who wanted to get to his feet and play the ball in a reasonably short time. You of all people who heaps scorn on the reality versus the theory of this in union, yet in League you seem to be insisting something similar. Its all just in theory. Leave the theory for the union, League greatest strength is that it is based in good old fashioned, clear eyed, working class reality.