Jump to content

Super League: what have you done to our game?


Recommended Posts


3 hours ago, Cerulean said:

For Padge:

Oops! Can I apologise? The highlighting of the phrase was not meant to reflect back on you or your post, which was an important one, determinedly stated. It was that I felt that the phrase was unneccesarily harsh within the discussion: but that's my problem, not yours. Perhaps I'm not suited to internet forum discussion.

Again, apologies.

Your exactly what we need, someone thoughtful, genuine and polite...............   Post more..... 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nostalgia at best, players are bigger fitter and there is no skill in the game absolutely not true, in the last ten years we have seen all time greats with skill, pace, game awareness, non built like gym monkeys, Billy slater, j thurston, Cooper cronk, c smith. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BrisbaneRhino said:

On top of all that we need to enable more contests for possession. Why not let opposing players strike at the PTB? It was banned but nobody has ever said why. I don't remember it being widespread, there were a few who tried it often (Schoey was one) but most players never did.

Ultimately we might even need to consider more radical solutions like reducing teams to 12 a side or something.

Anyway, above all, involve only former players and coaches in developing rule changes, with the simple edict of entertainment. The absolute worst people to be involved are current coaches. they don't care about entertainment, they care about winning.

Love these suggestions.

I think making possession more contestable would end straight up hits (the ultra safe five hits and a kick) and would encourage more lateral play. When you are pretty much guaranteed to keep the ball there’s no risk of running straight into the opposition. Changing that would force more creative play.

Having lesser numbers on the field would definitely apply to RU. XV per side was fine when players were built like regular blokes, not gym monkeys. There is next to no space anymore, resulting in a bogged down, attritional, boring spectacle. Not sure if RL is anything like RU in terms of the enormous change in player physique, but one man less would free up more space.

Coaches who prioritise winning over style: Wayne Bennett. He made England more competitive, doing so by making it an arm wrestling contest. The English version is Shaun Wane. It’s hard to blame individuals though because the game rewards this style of play. In RU Clive Woodward made England RWC winners by playing “10 man rugby”...strangling the opposition into submission and having Jonny’s boot to keep the points ticking over. Both France and Wales (two countries once known for flair/attacking play) had to change to be competitive as the like of England were beating them to a pulp. Both now play turgid rugby like all the others, but they were almost forced to do so as they’d get mauled otherwise. There’s been a series of RWC’s since the Woodward era and not had one stand out player, reason being it’s impossible for an attacking player to really excel as they spend 95% of the game in an attritional battle, the 5% of scraps they can make a couple of runs (and maybe a close run in try). There’s no platform for stars to be created, hence there ain’t any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

Nostalgia at best, players are bigger fitter and there is no skill in the game absolutely not true, in the last ten years we have seen all time greats with skill, pace, game awareness, non built like gym monkeys, Billy slater, j thurston, Cooper cronk, c smith. 

That’s in Australia.

English RL is (was) known for its expansive play. That’s what elevated players here, and they became stars as a result. 

I mentioned RU being devoid of any stars (really since Lomu, unless you count Jonny becoming a star with a drop goal) as it’s extremely difficult for players to stand out anymore in such a physical, attritional, overly defensive game. I don’t know how far RL has gone down this same route, but there doesn’t seem to be the same onus on attacking play the English game once had. Aussie style wrestle, Shaun Wane types at the forefront of the game. The OP is hitting on something here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DC77 said:

That’s in Australia.

English RL is (was) known for its expansive play. That’s what elevated players here, and they became stars as a result.

And that was almost certainly due to English RL having a more conservative interpretation of players being "out of play if they fail to retire five metres or more behind their player taking part in the play-the-ball" as the rule was written after metric units came into the rule book than in Australian RL.

I forget which International I was watching not long ago, but one of the (Aussie) commentators remarked about the ref (who was English) having a "skinny" five metres in comparison to they were used to seeing in Australian domestic matches.  The defensive lines being less far back in the English game would have forced teams to be more creative and expansive on offense in order to advance the ball when in possession, especially if some stadiums (e.g. Odsal which unless I'm mistaken was shared with Speedway back then) had narrower fields of play than the full width common in Australia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, DC77 said:

Wouldn’t apply to football. The best player on the planet for the last decade is 5’7”. Last week Harvey Elliot, a wirey, 5’7” 18 year old ran the game for Liverpool. The game is quicker as players are faster due to advances in training/diet, but ultimately it’s a skill based sport where ability/technique is king. Ade Akinbiyi (former Leicester striker) was built like a brick sh+house, big, strong, powerful, quick as lightning, but couldn’t trap a bag of cement. Being bulkier is a hindrance as seen by Lukaku having to drag that big muscular frame around the field which left him sweating bucketloads, and unable to keep up with play. His time in Italy (with dieticians) helped him to alleviate some of these issues.

Brian O’Driscoll. A player I loved watching (especially in his early days when he was wirey and elusive). RU did him a disservice as his immense talent was only seen in fits and starts as he spent the vast majority of games bogged down by the attritional nature of the sport. 18 stone meatheads with nowhere near his ability could largely shut him down. An equivalent limited type in football (not that any could exist at the top level) would get roasted by a skilful player. 

 

Fascinating reading the OP’s points as it’s a perception I have of RL, albeit I’m far less informed. It just looked like a more open game previously, with more space to roam (this certainly was the case with RU before it got bogged down by gym monkeys). I don’t see the eye catching plays that players could make in the past. The wrestle, the holding on to players who are desperate to get up, the general spoiling/stifling of play. It’s very hard for individuals to really stand out, and in turn become stars. 

This is like saying that Lewis Dodd and Jack Welsby ran the game for Saints last night with an average age of 19.5 and an average weight of 86kg, and therefore RL is a game where size/strength don't matter. Arguably the best RL players in the last 10 years have been Jonathan Thurston who was small and skinny, and Cameron Smith, a bloke so unathletic that his nickname was "The Accountant". 

Besides, if you actually look at the data for football, players have still got both bigger and heavier over time, and this is a sport which is often particularly poor in terms of its relationship with strength and conditioning:

https://www.theversed.com/86312/are-you-tall-enough-to-be-a-premier-league-player-firmino/#.mL7qyaJio9

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19253079/

RL looked like a far more open game previously because the defence was comparatively awful. 

12 hours ago, Cerulean said:

Your complete post is an excellent advancement of my opening post, seriously enriching the debate.

And yes, you are right. My perception of the game is personal. The game has moved on and I have no right to expect it to revert to what I want. The issue is not me, but the general view: is the game that has evolved attractive to new markets, can it develop a new demographic, will it retain enough of the existing fans to be a base for development and expansion? Is it fine as it is, or do some changes need to be made?

First of all thanks for your kind words, and now I've told everyone else they're wrong I'll share a couple of my own thoughts in a second. With regards to the general view, I think if you look up to 2019 in terms of spectators and TV audiences, I would expect you would see some deterioration from maybe 2013? But still vastly up on the often-cited glory days of the 80s/90s. I don't think that can be the only metric to assess the attractiveness of a sport, but it does give some counter to this concept that the game has become awfully boring and is turning people away in droves. If anything, my view is that fiddling around with the rules (and structure) is often viewed as a cheap fix to compensate for a lack of effort or competency in terms of governance, advertising, marketing, sponsorship and so on which are the core issues faced by RL. 

With that said, I do have some thoughts on how to how to improve the game. The concern with any change is that:

1) the game is a complex system, and often changing one thing will impact on lots of other things - e.g. six-again rule creates more one-out carries and has a disproportionately negative impact on weaker teams. This means that minor tweaks often trump big changes in my eyes

2) coaches are smart and paid to win, so if rules can be beaten or 'gamed' they will be - e.g. six-again rule

In terms of the changes I would make:

1 - Get rid of the gamesmanship with laying down for injuries, moving off the mark, negatively impacting the markers, not by penalising it but by making it disadvantageous and letting coaches/players rationally change their actions, as discussed here - 

 

 

2 - get rid of the six-again set restart. Disproportionately punishes the worst teams and disproportionately rewards the best teams which has resulted in wider margins, is too easy to game (virtually impossible to get a quick PTB on tackle 1/2 now), sees more one-out carries, fewer offloads and so on. 

3 - remove the 7-tackle set for kicks inside the 20. Currently defending teams are more happy to risk grubbers, meaning the fullback defends in the line and winger stays in the line more. If the 7-tackle set goes inside the 20, grubbers become less risky, defending teams have to worry about them more and there's more opportunity for tries through handling as a result. 

4 - re-introduce scrums, and implement the NRL rule of letting teams pick how far across the field to have them (without having the rule about kicking the ball out being a PTB restart instead). This saw tries from scrums double in 2020 in the NRL. Remove the differential penalty for breaking early from a scrum, meaning teams are forced to stay in - currently teams are happy to give away a penalty as long as they don't concede a try, and rationally break early as a result. Conceding two points changes the risk reward here. The NRL rule of having the option of re-packing the scrum is also a good one. 

5 - I would keep the ball steal rule (i.e. allowing it when defenders drop off a tackle). There aren't many ways to take possession once the opposition have the ball, so this introduces a bit of variety and another avenue for a game-changing play

6 - I also like the captain's challenge in the NRL. This felt a bit gimmicky when introduced but has actually seemed to work well in terms of reducing the number of bad refereeing decisions. Same with the bunker being able to overturn tries on replay (after them being awarded)

One final idea, and I think this would need testing in a lower league first, is a slight change to the rules on PTB speed. If you wanted to incentivise ball movement, I'd be curious to see the impact of 1) quicker rucks than current for a 1 v 1 tackle 2) slower rucks than current for a dominant tackle. This may shift the needle towards encouraging ball movement, especially in yardage, because teams would see a greater reward (and a greater punishment in the form of slow PTBs for one-out carries). Not a big change, but that might mean it actually works vs some more drastic modifications. 

9 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

I do think we have some brain dead tactics at times.

Of particular angst for me is the insistence of every team to use outside backs in the first 3 tackles of a set. Last week that saw Ash Handley get injured because funnily enough a winger running into 3 massive forwards 20m out from his own line isn't a battle he is ever going to win. Players like Harry Newman should be getting the ball with the ability to play or run at space, not charge down a nothing alley to be instantly tackled by 3 forwards because some coach 10 years ago thought "percentages"!

 

Teams have to use outside backs in their early yardage carries because if they don't, their middles will be exhausted and will get torn apart in defence. Outside backs will also get the ball in space if they carry in yardage. Paradoxically, if they don't carry in yardage, they likely won't get the ball in space either because they'll lose the game through the middle. If your outside backs make 40 fewer carries a game, that's 40 more someone else has to make. Unfortunately, you can't shift the defensive responsibilities to your outside backs to balance that out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Cerulean said:

For Padge:

Oops! Can I apologise? The highlighting of the phrase was not meant to reflect back on you or your post, which was an important one, determinedly stated. It was that I felt that the phrase was unneccesarily harsh within the discussion: but that's my problem, not yours. Perhaps I'm not suited to internet forum discussion.

Again, apologies.

Accepted, thank you.

T'internet can be a buggre.

Edited by Padge

Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com

Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007

Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Saint 1 said:

This is like saying that Lewis Dodd and Jack Welsby ran the game for Saints last night with an average age of 19.5 and an average weight of 86kg, and therefore RL is a game where size/strength don't matter. Arguably the best RL players in the last 10 years have been Jonathan Thurston who was small and skinny, and Cameron Smith, a bloke so unathletic that his nickname was "The Accountant". 

Besides, if you actually look at the data for football, players have still got both bigger and heavier over time, and this is a sport which is often particularly poor in terms of its relationship with strength and conditioning:

https://www.theversed.com/86312/are-you-tall-enough-to-be-a-premier-league-player-firmino/#.mL7qyaJio9

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19253079/

RL looked like a far more open game previously because the defence was comparatively awful. 

The first link backs up what I’m saying. The two best teams in the league (#1 and #2 during that time) were the smallest (Man City) and 4th smallest (Liverpool). The teams with the least ”size and power”, were the best. The yard dogs that are Burnley would probably win the “bigger and heavier” contest, but thankfully as a skill based sport football largely comes down to talent.

Arguably the best team in history (Barcelona of Xavi, Iniesta, Messi) were a team of midgets. Xavi was 5’7”, wasn’t quick either, but possessed a skillset that saw him outclass opponents week in week out. 

The number one physical quality needed in football is endurance, hence carrying extra bulk/muscle is a hindrance. 

The problem with the Rugby codes is the onus on bulk. On spending time in the gym, downing protein shakes, as opposed to developing skills and having fun with the ball (which football training largely consists of). Such an onus on bulk is a turn off for most, especially young teens (a crucial age group that are the next generation of players). According to Sport England, 44k people regularly play RL in England, over 2 million regularly play football. To play RL you have to carry extra bulk otherwise you will get snapped in two. Training including military style assault courses in the freezing cold of winter. In a way It’s admirable they put their bodies through hell. RU meanwhile has really gone to extremes in regard to player size. The hits are now mini car crashes. Concussions galore.  

The first link also mentions Firmino (at 5’9”). His game is all about creativity, touch and technique, and illustrates the onus on skill in football which is appealing to both watch and emulate for most. Here he features in the first assist, a video with 52 million views.

The rugby codes need more onus on skill, and far less on the gym, to garner more interest. 

And on the RL defences previously being worse (turnstile defences). Good. If it allows for the type of eye catching play that made stars of Offiah and Hanley that will only benefit the sport. The greatest RU try of all time (by all accounts) was Gareth Edwards. With such watertight defences he would never score that try today, and we’d have never heard of him.

Edited by DC77
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, DC77 said:

The first link backs up what I’m saying. The two best teams in the league (#1 and #2 during that time) were the smallest (Man City) and 4th smallest (Liverpool). The teams with the least ”size and power”, were the best. The yard dogs that are Burnley would probably win the “bigger and heavier” contest, but thankfully as a skill based sport football largely comes down to talent.

Arguably the best team in history (Barcelona of Xavi, Iniesta, Messi) were a team of midgets. Xavi was 5’7”, wasn’t quick either, but possessed a skillset that saw him outclass opponents week in week out. 

The number one physical quality needed in football is endurance, hence carrying extra bulk/muscle is a hindrance. 

The problem with the Rugby codes is the onus on bulk. On spending time in the gym, downing protein shakes, as opposed to developing skills and having fun with the ball (which football training largely consists of). Such an onus on bulk is a turn off for most, especially young teens (a crucial age group that are the next generation of players). According to Sport England, 44k people regularly play RL in England, over 2 million regularly play football. To play RL you have to carry extra bulk otherwise you will get snapped in two. Training including military style assault courses in the freezing cold of winter. In a way It’s admirable they put their bodies through hell. RU meanwhile has really gone to extremes in regard to player size. The hits are now mini car crashes. Concussions galore.  

The first link also mentions Firmino (at 5’9”). His game is all about creativity, touch and technique, and illustrates the onus on skill in football which is appealing to both watch and emulate for most. Here he features in the first assist, a video with 52 million views.

The rugby codes need more onus on skill, and far less on the gym, to garner more interest. 

And on the RL defences previously being worse (turnstile defences). Good. If it allows for the type of eye catching play that made stars of Offiah and Hanley that will only benefit the sport. The greatest RU try of all time (by all accounts) was Gareth Edwards. With such watertight defences he would never score that try today, and we’d have never heard of him.

Most of this just comes across as the fact you like football to be honest. What the links actually show is that just like RL, football players have got taller and heavier over time. 

Do you think the likes of Jonathan Thurston and Cameron Smith look like they've spent too much time 'in the gym and downing protein shakes' at the expense of developing their skills? Jayden Campbell is currently running round the NRL at 78kg. Ryan Papenhuyzen is 5'11 and 81kg and won the NRL GF Man of the Match in 2020. Rob Burrow ran around at 5'5 and 65kg and was extremely successful. You can't just ignore these blokes and pretend that every RL player is a 6'6, 120kg muscle-bound freak, nor can you just make up the idea that RL concentrates too much on the gym when you could find equivalent athletes to Super League level several grades down. Skill level is the difference. Furthermore, the number one priority of any professional S&C programme is injury reduction, of which strength training is the number one mechanism to do so. 

If you want to take numbers out of context to suggest football is more popular than RL because professional RL players lift weights, then I could equally point to the 10 million gym members in the UK - maybe RL should further emphasise muscle to appeal to these people? 

There has been plenty of great tries in RL even under current defences. If you aren't familiar with them then I suggest you have a look on YouTube. If the solution is to make defences worse, how specifically are you going to do that? Are you going to ban modern coaching? Stop teams training defence? 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The great thing about the scrums of the past was the sheer number of attempts to get it right.

Scrum down, collapse, do it again. Scrum down, put ball in wrongly, do it again. Scrum down, arm out, penalty. ad nauseum. 

No thanks.

  • Like 4

People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.

Isaac Asimov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, The Frying Scotsman said:

"Eeey Oop.... Bring back real scrooms. Like we 'ad in t' 1970s. That way we can cling to t'past even more than we do now."

What a nonsensical suggestion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(And I like a scrum in RL more than most on here... But 'scrummaging' FFS... Give us a break.)

Erm hold on a sec, the discusion was to how to stop the wrestle.

One suggestion is the scrum and have forwards again instead of generic middles.

RL is now becoming a game for a one size player and we will loose a lot of good players to union.

Our forwards are better than what Aus system produce but it wont be much longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's also important to remember that one person's idea of what is good or attractive in a sport, isn't necessarily shared by others. 

For example, I remember Paul Deacon being injured in a GB game at Huddersfield and the injury was likened to being in a car crash. To me that was like 'wow, how tough are these guys?' but I distinctly remember other people I knew being horrified about it. 

So maybe what *we* think makes for an attractive and exciting game.... isn't shared by the majority? 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

It's also important to remember that one person's idea of what is good or attractive in a sport, isn't necessarily shared by others. 

For example, I remember Paul Deacon being injured in a GB game at Huddersfield and the injury was likened to being in a car crash. To me that was like 'wow, how tough are these guys?' but I distinctly remember other people I knew being horrified about it. 

So maybe what *we* think makes for an attractive and exciting game.... isn't shared by the majority? 

I was there, didn't see anything in the tackle so I'm calling him soft when he stayed down. Eventually he gets onto all fours and what looked like a pint of blood fell out of his head. I shut up. A fractured palate I heard later. Still feel queasy about it.

  • Like 1

TESTICULI AD  BREXITAM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, corvusxiii said:

I was there, didn't see anything in the tackle so I'm calling him soft when he stayed down. Eventually he gets onto all fours and what looked like a pint of blood fell out of his head. I shut up. A fractured palate I heard later. Still feel queasy about it.

Yes I was there too, I'm talking about a day or two after the game. But my point is that while we might enjoy the physical side of it and call someone out  as a big Jessy etc many, if not most people, would not share that approach.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27/08/2021 at 19:16, Saint 1 said:

2 - get rid of the six-again set restart. Disproportionately punishes the worst teams and disproportionately rewards the best teams which has resulted in wider margins, is too easy to game (virtually impossible to get a quick PTB on tackle 1/2 now), sees more one-out carries, fewer offloads and so on. 

The cynicism is at its most palpable on a zero tackle. Last Friday it couldn`t have been more obvious that Souths were holding down for however long it took the ref to call 6-again. Completely extinguished any opportunity for the Roosters to play against a team in rushed transition following an error.

Having said that, refs nowadays are so alarmed by the sight of the ball on the ground and "little bobbles" that zero tackle advantage is seldom used anyway. It was a conspicuous feature of the two UK livestreamed women`s games on Sunday. Most of the times a player lost the ball and an opponent regathered, the ref would blow the whistle and trot off to the middle to arrange a slow-motion handover. - knock-on, double knock-on, triple knock-on, these bobbles have ceased to have any connection with a rule designed to prevent players propelling the ball in a forward direction.

On 27/08/2021 at 19:16, Saint 1 said:

3 - remove the 7-tackle set for kicks inside the 20. Currently defending teams are more happy to risk grubbers, meaning the fullback defends in the line and winger stays in the line more. If the 7-tackle set goes inside the 20, grubbers become less risky, defending teams have to worry about them more and there's more opportunity for tries through handling as a result. 

Don`t agree with this one. Never liked short-range grubbers. Nudging the ball a couple of yards forward into the in-goal is hardly the most skilful spectacle to behold. We`ve had periods in RL when far too many tries were scored from insipid grubber kicks.

And I don`t think teams would defend any differently. My impression is that they don`t regard giving away a scrappy try off a grubber as the same blot on their defensive honour as conceding a handling try. Hence, fullback and wingers defend up in the line more, and they take their chances with kicks.

My only quarrel with the "7-tackle set" is the name. Should be called Zero tackle.

On 27/08/2021 at 19:16, Saint 1 said:

One final idea, and I think this would need testing in a lower league first, is a slight change to the rules on PTB speed. If you wanted to incentivise ball movement, I'd be curious to see the impact of 1) quicker rucks than current for a 1 v 1 tackle 2) slower rucks than current for a dominant tackle. This may shift the needle towards encouraging ball movement, especially in yardage, because teams would see a greater reward (and a greater punishment in the form of slow PTBs for one-out carries). Not a big change, but that might mean it actually works vs some more drastic modifications. 

Refs already demand release when the ball-carrier quickly finds his front in a one-on-one tackle, and they allow delay after calling a dominant tackle. So, I assume you just want them to go further.

The "RL is a simple game" doctrine and the consequent habit of judging each element in isolation, inhibits much understanding of the purpose of thus distinguishing between tackles.

RL media and crowds are apt to view a one-defender legs tackle favourably. Whereas the multi-defender dominant tackles are the ones that prompt all the tosh about "wrestling".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

6 again should not apply on 0 or 1st tackles, its pointless there. Should be a penalty.

Don't disagree that teams deliberately try to slow down play 1, but the offence being a penalty if it is on tackle 1 or 2 just adds further complexity to the game for casual fans. I'd remove the 6 again rule altogether, if an offence has been committed it should be a penalty.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Alffi 7 said:

Don't disagree that teams deliberately try to slow down play 1, but the offence being a penalty if it is on tackle 1 or 2 just adds further complexity to the game for casual fans. I'd remove the 6 again rule altogether, if an offence has been committed it should be a penalty.

Yeah I was concerned with that, but I think its a bit of a niche concern as in reality it would just be seen as a penalty for holding on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So here's a thing, we generally agree that RL is the greatest game yet constantly comment on how short it falls of its potential. 

For me the ugly wrestle, repetitive one out plays, random officiating kills the spectacle. 

Away atm and didn't see last nights game but how can we 'encourage' a great spectacle? 

Ok I'm on dodgy ground here but is it worth asking the question, Why was 60 mins of Warrington v Saints Fab and how do we make that 80 mins?

Or should we?

  • Like 1

TESTICULI AD  BREXITAM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 26/08/2021 at 18:06, Big Picture said:

I'm sure that 7 metres would improve things, I'd go further and allow tacklers more time to release the tackled player as used to be the case.

I suggest that the main reason why the game is so one-dimensional now is that the combination of the 10 metre rule and the weird obsession with super fast play-the-balls has made getting back onside before the next play extremely difficult for defenders.  The result is that it's too easy for teams to advance the ball up and down the field when they have possession (even with a conservative style of play) so they can afford to play it safe nowadays.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wakefield Ram said:

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

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. The evolution to vertical tackling and wrestling is to delay the end of the tackle: doing so brings lage advantages to the defenders, and begins an arms race of searching for an advantage, with the ball carrier also involved, looking for opportunities to dominate the wrestle, or gain a penalty.

This is a thrilling and enthalling aspect for many fans: a frustration for other, perhaps older, fans. Unintentionally, I can see the beginning of the end for upright tackling, as the worry of brain damage caused by high velocity impact and severe deceleration of the head becomes more evident.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 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. The evolution to vertical tackling and wrestling is to delay the end of the tackle: doing so brings lage advantages to the defenders, and begins an arms race of searching for an advantage, with the ball carrier also involved, looking for opportunities to dominate the wrestle, or gain a penalty.

This is a thrilling and enthalling aspect for many fans: a frustration for other, perhaps older, fans. Unintentionally, I can see the beginning of the end for upright tackling, as the worry of brain damage caused by high velocity impact and severe deceleration of the head becomes more evident.

I'd agree with all of the post but do many  supporters see "the wrestle" as an exciting part of the game? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...