Jump to content

Super League: what have you done to our game?


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, DC77 said:

A player held and prevented from making the next play quickly is dreadful for the game, so the ref must surely err on the side of making a quicker Held call. 

I agree. There is usually very little attractive to watch after the initial contact in the tackle is made and as Fighting Irish pointed out anything more than the tackle itself starts getting us into the same things we criticise the union ruck for.

Allowing the tackle to continue in the hope of a late off-load has to be weighed up against those 90+% of times the late off-load doesn`t occur. What Rugby League needs is more ball-in-hand play because that is the attractive part of our game.

Teams can achieve the same dominance in defence by the use of line speed without having to overly dominate the tackle as well.

If a team is failing to make yardage because of the oppositions use of line-speed then it will be forced to use other ball-in-hand tactics, i.e. play some football, to get down the other end. The advantage to the spectator is that we will see more of what Rugby League should be.

Now I admit this may not change the status quo much with some teams still dominating in defence, however what it would do is ensure that we see more ball-in-hand Rugby League and less time waiting for players to play-the -ball.

I also think this is what the next generation of viewers want, more movement and action, less grappling and wrestling, even at the risk of making the game more like nines, which might just be the price us older fans have to pay for the game to attract the next generation, bought up on a diet of the non-stop, instantly gratifying action of computer games.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply
4 hours ago, Cerulean said:

My opening post was to suggest that the attractiveness of the game on the field is at least as important as the structure. Is the game being seen as too brutal, too dangerous, lacking in visual impact, insufficiently accessible, too difficult to play, too homogeneous? Is it putting off existing fans in significant numbers, putting off potential new enthusiasts, possible new teams and areas?

I`ve watched games in the company of people who, despite attending every home game, don`t really understand RL in any great depth. Nor do they want to. The same is probably true for a substantial percentage of regular fans in every major spectator sport.

Off the field is where the bulk of remedial attention should be focussed. Administration is too often haphazard and incompetent. And it would be an uphill battle for any sport faced with the quantity and quality of media coverage we relentlessly endure in the UK.

On the field, I don`t think there`s a lot wrong with contemporary RL. There are some minor shortcomings which devotees will recognize and rightly want addressed, but the only substantive blemish on the game as a spectacle is the no-frills risk-averse way teams currently gain territory.

The casual fan or general observer will tend to notice a greater number of basic carries, even if in the past the time they take up would have been spent doing nothing. It can create a false impression that RL is dull and repetitive.

For me, the overall strategic battle is as fascinating as ever, and when teams are in good field position the attacking play is the best I`ve ever seen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

Allowing the tackle to continue in the hope of a late off-load has to be weighed up against those 90+% of times the late off-load doesn`t occur. 

If you don`t want the ref to differentiate between types of tackles, if time is the only factor, how long after initial contact would your standard measure be before the call of Held"? - one second, half a second? 

 

37 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

Now I admit this may not change the status quo much with some teams still dominating in defence, however what it would do is ensure that we see more ball-in-hand Rugby League and less time waiting for players to play-the -ball.

As far as I know, the statistics show there are currently more PTBs in a game of RL than ever before.

So, why is it a priority to speed them up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 04/09/2021 at 12:11, DC77 said:

A player held and prevented from making the next play quickly is dreadful for the game, so the ref must surely err on the side of making a quicker Held call. 

It seems that however exhaustively we go through this, there will always be some people who fail to understand that quick PTBs as standard act as a reward for dull play.

Having thus incentivized dull play, the same people will then be surprised when an increase in dull play ensues.

And they will continue to assume that a quicker game is a better game. So if there are too many basic carries, the solution must be quicker basic carries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Rocket said:

I agree. There is usually very little attractive to watch after the initial contact in the tackle is made and as Fighting Irish pointed out anything more than the tackle itself starts getting us into the same things we criticise the union ruck for.

Allowing the tackle to continue in the hope of a late off-load has to be weighed up against those 90+% of times the late off-load doesn`t occur. What Rugby League needs is more ball-in-hand play because that is the attractive part of our game.

Teams can achieve the same dominance in defence by the use of line speed without having to overly dominate the tackle as well.

If a team is failing to make yardage because of the oppositions use of line-speed then it will be forced to use other ball-in-hand tactics, i.e. play some football, to get down the other end. The advantage to the spectator is that we will see more of what Rugby League should be.

Now I admit this may not change the status quo much with some teams still dominating in defence, however what it would do is ensure that we see more ball-in-hand Rugby League and less time waiting for players to play-the -ball.

I also think this is what the next generation of viewers want, more movement and action, less grappling and wrestling, even at the risk of making the game more like nines, which might just be the price us older fans have to pay for the game to attract the next generation, bought up on a diet of the non-stop, instantly gratifying action of computer games.

 

 

Concur with your 90% point. I find nothing worse than seeing a player have to wriggle constantly for the big hallion to get off him. This is flat out spoiling, and an awful spectacle. 

I could be wrong here, but I don’t see the same holding on to players in Aus that occurs in England. In Aus it just looks much a faster, slicker game. How much this is down to greater playing talent (with better passing/running sequences) I don’t know. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Cerulean said:

My opening post was to suggest that the attractiveness of the game on the field is at least as important as the structure. Is the game being seen as too brutal, too dangerous, lacking in visual impact, insufficiently accessible, too difficult to play, too homogeneous? Is it putting off existing fans in significant numbers, putting off potential new enthusiasts, possible new teams and areas?

Of course it is. Ultimately what occurs on the field is what draws viewers, and makes kids want to emulate what they see. 

I don’t think RL is aesthetically pleasing enough, the way it is played today, to see much expansion. The big hits are an acquired taste. It’s the open, expansive running/passing sequences (aided by dummies) that are the most eye catching, but those aspects have become less and less with physicality and better defences taking over. RU I’d put that even further down the road as it’s unrecognisable from the much more flowing game I grew up with. 

1 hour ago, unapologetic pedant said:

I`ve watched games in the company of people who, despite attending every home game, don`t really understand RL in any great depth. Nor do they want to. The same is probably true for a substantial percentage of regular fans in every major spectator sport.

Off the field is where the bulk of remedial attention should be focussed. Administration is too often haphazard and incompetent. And it would be an uphill battle for any sport faced with the quantity and quality of media coverage we relentlessly endure in the UK.

On the field, I don`t think there`s a lot wrong with contemporary RL. There are some minor shortcomings which devotees will recognize and rightly want addressed, but the only substantive blemish on the game as a spectacle is the no-frills risk-averse way teams currently gain territory.

The casual fan or general observer will tend to notice a greater number of basic carries, even if in the past the time they take up would have been spent doing nothing. It can create a false impression that RL is dull and repetitive.

For me, the overall strategic battle is as fascinating as ever, and when teams are in good field position the attacking play is the best I`ve ever seen. 

I find it very hard to imagine that any regular RL viewer would not cotton on to the basic rules. This lack of knowledge (you suggest) certainly wouldn’t apply to football or basketball, the two biggest team sports on the planet, as any viewer of either would grasp the basics very quickly. RU on the otherhand not even the most devoted of followers understands the rules, with refs blowing up to the bewilderment of the masses.

The rules dictate the spectacle, so although it might not be that important for viewers to know the rules (although I doubt that) they play a major role in making the on-field product appealing to watch. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, unapologetic pedant said:

It seems that however exhaustively we go through this, there will always be some people who fail to understand that quick PTBs as standard act as a reward for dull play.

Having thus incentivized dull pay, the same people will then be surprised when an increase in dull play ensues.

And they will continue to assume that a quicker game is a better game. So if there are too many basic carries, the solution must be quicker basic carries.

Completely take your point (tbh I had thought of that). The problem is the quick PTB rewards the attacking team (while incentivising dull/straight up hits as you say), but slow PTB rewards the defending team and incentivises spoiling. Either way it’s applied it banjaxes the game.

Ultimately you want players to avoid the constant PTB, with more lateral play, more risk taking. So how do you make players become less risk averse? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, DC77 said:

I could be wrong here, but I don’t see the same holding on to players in Aus that occurs in England. In Aus it just looks much a faster, slicker game. How much this is down to greater playing talent (with better passing/running sequences) I don’t know. 

It`s all relative isn`t it.

 

17 minutes ago, DC77 said:

I don’t think RL is aesthetically pleasing enough, the way it is played today, to see much expansion. The big hits are an acquired taste. It’s the open, expansive running/passing sequences (aided by dummies) that are the most eye catching, but those aspects have become less and less with physicality and better defences taking over. RU I’d put that even further down the road as it’s unrecognisable from the much more flowing game I grew up with

Maybe it`s the end of a trying season, but I watch the League and I pretty well see the same thing over and over, all the things that used to make the game more unpredictable, striking at the PTB, chip and chases, wins against the feed are all gone and so many tries are just scored by the creation of an overlap. If the game can`t have more contest for the ball we have to have more unpredictability. You can`t have neither.

What ever it takes we have to get more smaller more evasive blokes into the game and remove the emphasis from dominance in defence so there is a place for these blokes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, DC77 said:

The RL tackle rule prevents the player from contesting possession (unique for RL in all of sport?) which is unnatural as any player “wants the ball”. They can see the ball, but can’t touch it, so they have to adopt a very unnatural, disciplined approach of just tackling the player and letting him get up, which he often struggles with as he holds on longer.

Really the ref cannot win, as if he shouts held quickly he’s aiding a quicker tackle, but preventing a quick off load. It’s an impossible situation due to a rule that invokes an unnatural player response.

The objective for rule-makers in every sport is to strike the right balance.

If a defence want to contest possession, they can put one player in the tackle. If they put more than one player in the tackle, they are choosing to forego the chance to contest possession.

Against one defender, the ball-carrier is more able to break the tackle. His option to pass is influenced by the defender`s option to play at the ball.

Against more than one defender, the ball-carrier is less able to break the tackle. His option to pass is influenced by the defenders having no option to play at the ball. More defenders in the tackle means fewer defenders elsewhere.

The RL ball-stealing rule strikes exactly the right balance. 

19 hours ago, DC77 said:

Completely take your point (tbh I had thought of that). The problem is the quick PTB rewards the attacking team (while incentivising dull/straight up hits as you say), but slow PTB rewards the defending team and incentivises spoiling. Either way it’s applied it banjaxes the game.

A quick PTB should reward good attacking play and commensurately punish poor defence.

A slow PTB should reward good defence and commensurately punish poor attacking play.

I think you are primarily a Soccer fan. You will have a solid grasp of what constitutes good play in Soccer. I would respectfully suggest it might help if you developed your understanding of what constitutes good play in RL to the same level.

Good defence which legally delays the PTB is not "spoiling", it does not "banjax" RL. Good goalkeeping makes it harder to score goals, but you wouldn`t deem it "spoiling" or think it "banjaxes" Soccer.

Wanting quick PTBs as standard, irrespective of the quality of attacking play, is like wanting the goal widened in Soccer on the grounds that people want to see more goals scored. So that players who currently miss the target would have the same reward as those who currently hit the target.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 04/09/2021 at 23:49, unapologetic pedant said:

 

As far as I know, the statistics show there are currently more PTBs in a game of RL than ever before.

 

On 31/08/2021 at 23:59, Wakefield Ram said:

If you watch some of the Retro games on Sky from 90s and 00s, the ptbs are a lot quicker.

 

On 01/09/2021 at 01:38, Cerulean said:

This is correct, and easily seen: but often denied.

25/30 years ago, generally the aim of the tackler was to put the man on the ground as quickly and efficiently as possible. 

There are more PTB`s in modern League because the ball is in play a lot more: less scrums, scrum clocks, various shot and kick clocks. Not because the actual play the ball is faster and hence we are having more.

 

On 04/09/2021 at 22:32, unapologetic pedant said:

But you`ve identified probably the most influential - "energy conservation".

There are many more occasions in modern RL where enervated retreating players don`t want their ball-carriers attempting offloads or any width put in the plays. They just want settlers, whilst they re-organize their shape and get some air back in the lungs.

If the game hadn`t become so skewed in favour of large players and where smaller players can only afford to make up a small proportion of any team in limited positions the need for the big players to practice " energy conservation" would not be such an issue.

A larger player natural requires longer periods through their natural physiology to get their blood oxygen levels back up before they can exert themselves again. Smaller players of course don`t have the same body mass and therefore the process is much quicker.

But as I said smaller players are largely drummed out of the game because they are too easily dominated in defence by being allowed to be picked up and dragged around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, The Rocket said:

There are more PTB`s in modern League because the ball is in play a lot more: less scrums, scrum clocks, various shot and kick clocks. Not because the actual play the ball is faster and hence we are having more.

Indeed so. But in the context of desiring more open play, the question was why would you want to invariably speed up the tackle, thereby further increasing the number of PTBs in a game? With the strong probability that extra PTBs would simply add to the tally of basic carries.

I haven`t seen the whole of Cowboys/Sea-Eagles from Saturday. If it were a typical NRL game, I imagine it featured throughout some tackles you abhor, some you abhor less, and some you approve of. - i.e. there was a variety of types of tackle and ruck-speed.

And judging from the highlights, there was also a cornucopia of fabulous attacking play.

Across 80 minutes, there is ample time for all elements of the game. Each must be seen as part of the whole. A cake wouldn`t be a cake if it were all icing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if it was on this thread or another but its worth repeating - treat charge-downs as though the defending team never touched the ball (copyright Rocket I think). That way if the kicking team gets it back, its likely the last tackle, not a restart. Using scrums not to contest possession but keep forwards out of the play is a must for me as well.

I've been thinking about the wrestling and part of the problem is that most rule changes will require refs to make judgement calls. How about limiting to 2 tacklers except within 10m of your own line?  The wrestle/holding players up would still be possible but harder (also agree with someone who said that we should bring back the 'held' once a fellow attacking player joins the ruck).

Whatever rule changes are looked at, we need to ignore the whinging and whining of current coaches. When the NRL had the big crackdown on high tackles they quickly folded under pressure, leading to a swing back the other way - to the point that an outrageous tackle like Mitchell on Manu only ended in a sin binning.  

If we go down the route of trying to make the game more enjoyable as a spectacle, we need to accept that some people won't like it, and understand that from day 1 coaches will do everything they can to subvert the changes.

A good example is some suggestions that speeding up the PTB will lead to endless scoots from acting half. Personally I prefer that to the current unedifying sight of a forward being slowly dragged to the ground as its hard for a ref to determine if he's held or not, followed by players lying on and getting 'tangled up' causing more delays. If scooting really is a problem then lets have a think about changes to help. 

As an aside, please don't hark back too far when talking about 'skills'.  I've been watching RL for 40 years, and I'll happily admit that basic skills such as passing are far superior to anything historically, when defences were generally terrible, and players are bigger and stronger than ever before. I'm not arguing the game wasn't more entertaining in the past, but the Panthers or Storm of today would paste pretty any team you could put out from more than 10 years ago. They'd physically smash them in attack and more importantly their defence would smother them completely.  Lets not mistake entertainment for quality - while linked they are not the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BrisbaneRhino said:

A good example is some suggestions that speeding up the PTB will lead to endless scoots from acting half. Personally I prefer that to the current unedifying sight of a forward being slowly dragged to the ground as its hard for a ref to determine if he's held or not, followed by players lying on and getting 'tangled up' causing more delays. If scooting really is a problem then lets have a think about changes to help. 

Clearly there is a subjective aspect to all this. Personally, I have no objection to good tackle technique slowing down the ruck. I regard "endless scoots" as the really "unedifying sight". 

How many times does it have to be pointed out on this thread that "a forward being slowly dragged to the ground" is the result of poor attacking play?

The best "changes to help" are more intricate play around the ruck, slicker ball movement away from the ruck, and more ambition to pass out of the tackle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.