Jump to content

Super League: what have you done to our game?


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Compare the number of offloads executed in opposition territory with those in a team`s own half.

All the inherent factors (rules, body positioning, etc) are the same anywhere on the field. So why are there so many more offloads in good field position?

The same question applies to the distinction between earlier or later in the tackle count.

The difference is in intent. The intent of the ball-carrier to look for an offload, and the intent of his team to run a play that facilitates an offload.

When a team play hot potato on last tackle, amazing how it suddenly becomes a lot more difficult for defenders to wrap the ball up.

I think there has been a shifting of the goalposts here.

I`m not interested in intent or non-intent to pass, I`m interested in the situation where teams have no intention on getting the tackled player to the ground, be it either where he is tackled or perhaps certainly roughly in the vicinity of the tackle, but rather deliberately holding him up off the ground and carrying him several metres backwards or over the sideline, that isn`t a tackle. And to expect some player who is being bun-rushed in a tangle of arms and legs to make an off-load to counter that isn`t realistic.

A tackle was meant to stop a player in his tracks, a great tackle perhaps force him to fall backwards, not to be lifted and carried/dragged several metres backwards. That`s not Rugby League that must be some other game.

For the great defensive teams in the past, like Ricky`s Roosters in the early 2000`s, line speed and/or gang-tackling was enough, if the Panthers want to gain an advantage with their defence let them do that and then we can get on with watching people play Rugby League how it was meant to be.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


5 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Apart from the NRL, I follow more amateur and junior RL than pro. Players frequently watch on helplessly as their ball-carrying teammate is driven backwards or over the touchline. Could just be poor reaction times, but it`s more likely they haven`t read or been taught the relevant part of the rulebook.

In general, on the evidence of interviews and retired-player punditry, I would not be "gobsmacked" if a majority of our pro players and coaches are not fully conversant with the rules of the game. Case in point - the difference between a penalty try and an 8-point try is often a mystery to many of them.

I think a lot of the time it's just slow reactions or fatigue to be honest. I expect if I asked the experienced amateur players I play with, most would know the rule about adding weight to the tackle. Obviously I only have my gut to support this though.

Agree on the penalty try vs 8-point try but that is something which doesn't come up too often and players can't really have a direct impact on in a way that helps their team. Adding weight to a tackle occurs regularly enough for that to not be true, and therefore coaches would make sure players knew it. 

3 hours ago, The Rocket said:

Are you serious ? Three huge blokes with muscles on their muscles and both their arms free shouldn`t be able to hold one bloke up if he positions himself correctly. Sometimes I think we can get a little carried away with this body positioning stuff, it`s just about brute strength.

There`s no point using elite players like Cam Murray to back arguments up either, it`s like saying why can`t every half have a kicking game like Ivan Cleary or do what Brian To`o does on the wing for the Panthers. Murray is elite, what he does probably can`t be coached for your average first grade player which is probably 90% of players, who just take a pass and charge it up.

 

Yes. If a player isolates one defend, changes shoulder, uses a hit and spin, offloads, passes before the line, has good forward lean or has good leg speed, he likely won't be held up and driven back. If he doesn't do any of those things well, he deserves to be punished. If you think it's about brute strength then you are wrong. If none of those skills can be coached, we may as well give up the game now. 

Besides, as I said, you're overstating the prevalence of attackers being pushed back. At Queensland Cup level PTB losses by the defence occur on 10-30% of tackles, and that's just tackles where the attacker has been put on his back and the line is set. These driving tackles you refer to are an absolute fraction of that. 

2 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Compare the number of offloads executed in opposition territory with those in a team`s own half.

All the inherent factors (rules, body positioning, etc) are the same anywhere on the field. So why are there so many more offloads in good field position?

The same question applies to the distinction between earlier or later in the tackle count.

The difference is in intent. The intent of the ball-carrier to look for an offload, and the intent of his team to run a play that facilitates an offload.

When a team play hot potato on last tackle, amazing how it suddenly becomes a lot more difficult for defenders to wrap the ball up.

I disagree with this. There's more ball-movement and energy around the ball in better field position. Defence is rationally more spread out as a result and therefore can't commit as many men to the tackle - they're also more likely to lose the ruck due to the aforementioned factors, which has a snowball effect. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

A tackle was meant to stop a player in his tracks, a great tackle perhaps force him to fall backwards, not to be lifted and carried/dragged several metres backwards. That`s not Rugby League that must be some other game.

I suspect there is less of a difference between your view and mine than you think.

I quoted, and support, the RFL guidelines about lending weight. If it helps clarify, here is another clause from the same section of the RFL rulebook, which I also think should be judiciously applied -

"A player is tackled - (Upright) when he is held by one or more opposing players in such a manner that he can make no further progress and cannot part with the ball".

I am just a bit wary of refs becoming trigger-happy with Held calls if they either have an inordinately purist idea of what constitutes a "proper" tackle, or think the game is better when played at breakneck speed.

I`ve seen too many occasions where the ball-carrier pops a good offload, the recipient is off running into space, excitement lifts, and then falls flat when we realise the ref had already called Held, and everyone has to come back to the mark for a routine PTB. - Dreadful.

When the above happens, it deters ball-carriers from even thinking of passing out of the tackle. - Again, dreadful for the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Saint 1 said:

I disagree with this. There's more ball-movement and energy around the ball in better field position. Defence is rationally more spread out as a result and therefore can't commit as many men to the tackle - they're also more likely to lose the ruck due to the aforementioned factors, which has a snowball effect. 

What`s the difference between your "ball-movement and energy around the ball" and my "intent"?

Teams can choose to use "ball-movement and energy around the ball" in most parts of the field if they have the intent. The successful teams are sufficiently confident to play more in their own half, albeit mostly later in the tackle count.

Defence isn`t always more spread out against a team in good field position. Goal-line defence especially. Depends on the attacking threat.

I watch a lot of women`s RL. A superior team will often deploy a very narrow defence deep in their own half. Essentially they`re challenging the opposition to try and go round them, and trusting that their passing game won`t be strong enough. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, unapologetic pedant said:

What`s the difference between your "ball-movement and energy around the ball" and my "intent"?

Teams can choose to use "ball-movement and energy around the ball" in most parts of the field if they have the intent. The successful teams are sufficiently confident to play more in their own half, albeit mostly later in the tackle count.

Defence isn`t always more spread out against a team in good field position. Goal-line defence especially. Depends on the attacking threat.

I watch a lot of women`s RL. A superior team will often deploy a very narrow defence deep in their own half. Essentially they`re challenging the opposition to try and go round them, and trusting that their passing game won`t be strong enough. 

Honestly, I took your 'intent' as 'intent to offload once into the tackle', whereas I see it more in terms of the pre-contact factors which create opportunity to offload. It's also a matter of energy conservation - even if extremely confident, you're still gonna have a reasonable amount of carries without much support or ball movement.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Are you any less bored by a set consisting of 5 dummy-half runs, 5 quick calls of Held, and 5 quick PTBs?

It isn’t a universal perception, but there’s a general unease that the game is losing out in the battle for the attention and interest of sports enthusiasts, and in the search for a decent share  of leisure spending. There’s enormous structure debate about correcting this by adjusting which teams should play the game, which teams should be predominately visible in the game, and how the top division and its season should be constructed.

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?

The issues are the same as the structure debates: if it’s fine, leave it as it is, if there are problems, examine possible fixes.

And there’s some impressive depth of thought and analysis which has been displayed on the  forum. I just hope that whoever eventually takes charge of the sport puts in the same amount of determined consideration.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any re-interpretation of the rules will have a cascade of consequences, difficult to fully predict, and there will always be attempts to gain advantage at whatever the cost to the spectacle. A mechanism to react to how the coaches react would be essential. And personally, I’d be happy to see new initiatives trialled in the lower divisions, which is where I watch most of my rugby.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the subject of pushing a tackled player back or into touch, easily stopped. Re-instate the lending weight law which immediately ends the tackle.  

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

17 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

I suspect there is less of a difference between your view and mine than you think.

I quoted, and support, the RFL guidelines about lending weight. If it helps clarify, here is another clause from the same section of the RFL rulebook, which I also think should be judiciously applied -

"A player is tackled - (Upright) when he is held by one or more opposing players in such a manner that he can make no further progress and cannot part with the ball".

I am just a bit wary of refs becoming trigger-happy with Held calls if they either have an inordinately purist idea of what constitutes a "proper" tackle, or think the game is better when played at breakneck speed.

I`ve seen too many occasions where the ball-carrier pops a good offload, the recipient is off running into space, excitement lifts, and then falls flat when we realise the ref had already called Held, and everyone has to come back to the mark for a routine PTB. - Dreadful.

When the above happens, it deters ball-carriers from even thinking of passing out of the tackle. - Again, dreadful for the game.

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. 

A big galoot lying on top of (or holding) another player is frustrating to watch. You can almost hear the frustration of the player too..“Get of me, get off me”. That frustration trumps any loss of a quick pass out of a tackle.

The PTB tackle is always going to be contentious in RL, because the instinct of the player not in possession is to stop the opponent from progressing play (hence holding to them for dear life). 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.

When a ball goes out of play in football, and it’s near the opposition bench (rolls next to manager or players), they are often reluctant to give the ball quickly to the player to make a quick throw in as they would be aiding the attack. Well this only happens maybe once in an entire game (usually not at all). But in RL, this happens at every tackle. It’s a constant battle to stop the opposition from progressing quickly, which often results in spoiling tactics. 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Saint 1 said:

Honestly, I took your 'intent' as 'intent to offload once into the tackle', whereas I see it more in terms of the pre-contact factors which create opportunity to offload. It's also a matter of energy conservation - even if extremely confident, you're still gonna have a reasonable amount of carries without much support or ball movement.

A problem across the RL world is that we don`t have comprehensive standard terminology. So at times, participants in debates can`t be sure if they are referring to the same thing.

In lieu of any better word I could think of, I used "intent" to mean when a team intends to score rather than merely gain territory. Obviously it can be both simultaneously, but broadly there is a tangible distinction and, unless the memory is playing tricks, it`s sharper than when I started following RL.

It`s encapsulated in the phrase "you don`t have to try and score on every set", trotted out by pundits to rebuke what they see as undue risk-taking.

If there are more plays and sets today whose sole purpose is to gain metres, the 10m offside line is a contributing factor. Greater media pressure on coaches and players is another, certainly in the NRL. 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.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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. 

  • Thanks 1
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?

  • Like 1
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.

Edited by unapologetic pedant
spelling
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
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.

  • Thanks 1
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.

  • Like 1
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

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...