Ideas to make the game better to watch

[Harry Stottle]

On 28/08/2021 at 11:33, dkw said:

Stop focusing on penalising tiny errors, let some stuff go rather than stopping the game all the time. Play the balls are a mess so some leeway from a ref would have a huge impact on the flow of a game.

Totally agree, but the big microscope that is TV and the mundane commentary would be highlighting every conceivable tiny error, and also I don't think our present day refs are consistent enough to let some things go and penalise others.

[Harry Stottle]

On 28/08/2021 at 15:20, DavidM said:

 

Sorry I don’t mean to be obtuse but I still don’t understand what you’re wanting to penalise . You seem to want to eradicate any forceful tackle with any momentum from a defender in case it has a detrimental effect . Maybe I’m wrong but that’s changing the whole nature of the game … and if the thread is ideas to make the game better to watch then that’s totally counterproductive . That’s what people want to watch - and I include coaches and fellow players . It’s strong defence . Any illegal contact is penalised … you can’t penalise forceful contact or if you do you can keep it 

If you watch the NRL, which I think that you do from previous comments you have made what do you think of the head contact that some player's are getting sited for, binned for 10 mins, and in quite a few cases subsequently recieving match bans? 

There are quite a few incidents whereby the attacker slips but the defender is doing everything correct in aiming his tackle at a very legal part of the body only for the attacker to put his head in the collision area with an arm that is already in motion to make the tackle which the defender can not possibly avoid.

If has suggested that we are to change the rules somewhat to avoid completely any neck/head contact, is there going to be an acceptable allowance for 'accidents' of this nature that happen, if not then I would suggest all players stick an handkerchief peeping out of the back of their shorts and a tackle is effected by a defender removing it.

[Harry Stottle]

22 hours ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

Finally I would have 4 substitutions per game. Once a player is subbed then that’s it.  The only exception is that a player can return for a blood bin or HIA replacements. This will bring in a fatigue element to open up the game for the backs.

Totally agree AT, it would also in most probability change the shape of the player's from the 10 minute behomoths to more lean player's who can do more minutes out on the park.

But if I may, I consider that the HIA replacements would be used as a way to tactically rest some player's by bringing on a player for the 10 minute assesment time a player is off the field.

By the way can any one answer this, who is responsible for doing the HIA is it an independent medic, or a medic from the opposition's team, or a medic from the player's own team, it can make a huge difference.

[Dunbar]

17 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

By the way can any one answer this, who is responsible for doing the HIA is it an independent medic, or a medic from the opposition's team, or a medic from the player's own team, it can make a huge difference.

No, it would result in exactly the same outcomes.

[DavidM]

36 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

If you watch the NRL, which I think that you do from previous comments you have made what do you think of the head contact that some player's are getting sited for, binned for 10 mins, and in quite a few cases subsequently recieving match bans? 

There are quite a few incidents whereby the attacker slips but the defender is doing everything correct in aiming his tackle at a very legal part of the body only for the attacker to put his head in the collision area with an arm that is already in motion to make the tackle which the defender can not possibly avoid.

If has suggested that we are to change the rules somewhat to avoid completely any neck/head contact, is there going to be an acceptable allowance for 'accidents' of this nature that happen, if not then I would suggest all players stick an handkerchief peeping out of the back of their shorts and a tackle is effected by a defender removing it.

What do I think ? Not much tbh . I find it irritating and not conducive to my enjoyment of the spectacle . Who can argue with the player welfare argument , but it’s become so all encompassing it’s now totally ridiculous and without all empathy and reality in relation to the game we’re playing . Smash a bloke recklessly in the mush and yes face the consequences , but I just can’t comprehend the sight of every tackle being micro analysed from on high . We get guys put on report a minute later for something noones seen , we get restarts halted so the VR can analyse every penalty in case there’s further action needed . And the worst , players staying down so the VR can work back to find a reason he’s on the ground … and boy can they find something . A brush , a graze , a slap . It just makes me shake my head . Said player is up and running away laughing by now . To me it’s just not rugby league , it’s a fast moving contact sport … players are colliding at high speed , changing body angles , 3 or 4 guys can be in a tackle . It’s split second , it’s counter intuitive to look at everything frame by frame . But it’s what we’re doing . That way you can find anything you want , even in a single frame . And these are things no official has seen … because often there’s nothing there to be seen . Micro analysis has reduced the threshold of foul play to laughable levels . That’s not rugby league … it shouldn’t be , and you know what to pick up your last point . Eradicating head / neck contact is a literal impossibility by the sheer nature of the sport . It’s as stupid as zero COVID , and the sooner they get that and rebalance things again from the rabbit hole the authorities have  gone done the better 

[Harry Stottle]

14 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

No, it would result in exactly the same outcomes.

That hasn't answered the question Dunbar of who carries out the assesment? 

[Harry Stottle]

5 minutes ago, DavidM said:

What do I think ? Not much tbh . I find it irritating and not conducive to my enjoyment of the spectacle . Who can argue with the player welfare argument , but it’s become so all encompassing it’s now totally ridiculous and without all empathy and reality in relation to the game we’re playing . Smash a bloke recklessly in the mush and yes face the consequences , but I just can’t comprehend the sight of every tackle being micro analysed from on high . We get guys put on report a minute later for something noones seen , we get restarts halted so the VR can analyse every penalty in case there’s further action needed . And the worst , players staying down so the VR can work back to find a reason he’s on the ground … and boy can they find something . A brush , a graze , a slap . It just makes me shake my head . Said player is up and running away laughing by now . To me it’s just not rugby league , it’s a fast moving contact sport … players are colliding at high speed , changing body angles , 3 or 4 guys can be in a tackle . It’s split second , it’s counter intuitive to look at everything frame by frame . But it’s what we’re doing . That way you can find anything you want , even in a single frame . And these are things no official has seen … because often there’s nothing there to be seen . Micro analysis has reduced the threshold of foul play to laughable levels . That’s not rugby league … it shouldn’t be , and you know what to pick up your last point . Eradicating head / neck contact is a literal impossibility by the sheer nature of the sport . It’s as stupid as zero COVID , and the sooner they get that and rebalance things again from the rabbit hole the authorities have  gone done the better 

I think the precedent is set, we better get used to the game in the near future becoming totally unrecognisable from not that many years ago, this litigation thing is going to envelop not just RL but many other sports, the ambulance chasing lawyers will be all over it like a rash.

[redjonn]

8 hours ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

In the sentence that you highlighted I did state that it benefits supporters at the game by giving them a break to discuss what has happened. Also if someone has taken a newbie to a game it also gives an opportunity to explain to the newbie what has occurred. And if you are at a televised game you will have the opportunity to view an incident during a natural break instead of having to glimpse up at the screen to see a brief reply whilst the game continues.

I acknowledge that those attending games are the lifeblood of the game but just as important is the need to attract the floating TV viewer and encourage them to keep watching.  Therefore part of that TV experience is to offer an insight into an exciting play, awarding of a penalty or a controversial incident and explain clearly what has occurred. On many occasions at the moment we have a summariser trying to chip in with a quick comment which sometimes the commentator talks over because the game is continuing or the comment is incorrect because they have only seen the incident from one angle.

All I am saying is that IMHO the game does not need to reach warp speed to be more attractive.

agree to some extent. Particular the warp speed, I personally don't like the need to be trying to speed the game up. On TV we do have the half time and end time summary, although on sky the adverts do prevent time spent on this.  I see the idea of helping the TV audience but just think have to be careful not to impact the stadium audience.

In addition I think the BBC get it right with regard to summarising incidents and what's happening type of education for floating viewers.  Just that Sky are very poor in comparison.