RL : The Evolving Game

[RayCee]

France took to RL c 1934 and by the outbreak of WW II, they were a top international team. That couldn't happen today. Looking at some of the rules (many before my time) showed what a different game it was. I'm not a rules nerd but I try to keep up. So as I see it:

After the war the game had zero to five yard defensive lines, depending on rule changes over time. No replacements became two for injuries. There was no limit on tackles, you only lost possession for rule breaches. The game was slower, the impacts less intense. 

Over the years ten metre defensive lines, limited tackle, four rotating replacements, six again calls. The game is super fast, players need to be fit, muscled and think very quickly. It works in a pro comp but doesn't work when sides are mismatched as evidenced in WC internationals. Pitting full time athletes against part time and amateur players is producing one sided score lines and few if any upsets. 

The solution: In horse racing they have a handicap system but I can't see that being adopted in RL. So I'd propose two WC divisions, each of eight teams with promotion / relegation between them. Putting Jamaica up against NZ or Greece against Samoa isn't right.

Summary: RL rules have evolved over time to suit a pro comp. They are then used in internationals but they are not designed for such uneven playing rosters. Even a moderate difference in standard can quickly blow out a to huge, lopsided score line. The WC was once played by fewer sides with closer matches. The desire to bring more teams in like other codes is good, but it doesn't work in a game which rewards superiority to an extreme degree. 

Edited October 31, 2022 by RayCee

[SydneyRoosters]

58 minutes ago, RayCee said:

France took to RL c 1934 and by the outbreak of WW II, they were a top international team. That couldn't happen today. Looking at some of the rules (many before my time) showed what a different game it was. I'm not a rules nerd but I try to keep up. So as I see it:

After the war the game had zero to five yard defensive lines, depending on rule changes over time. No replacements became two for injuries. There was no limit on tackles, you only lost possession for rule breaches. The game was slower, the impacts less intense. 

Over the years ten metre defensive lines, limited tackle, four rotating replacements, six again calls. The game is super fast, players need to be fit, muscled and think very quickly. It works in a pro comp but doesn't work when sides are mismatched as evidenced in WC internationals. Pitting full time athletes against part time and amateur players is producing one sided score lines and few if any upsets. 

The solution: In horse racing they have a handicap system but I can't see that being adopted in RL. So I'd propose two WC divisions, each of eight teams with promotion / relegation between them. Putting Jamaica up against NZ or Greece against Samoa isn't right.

Summary: RL rules have evolved over time to suit a pro comp. They are then used in internationals but they are not designed for such uneven playing rosters. Even a moderate difference in standard can quickly blow out a to huge, lopsided score line. The WC was once played by fewer sides with closer matches. The desire to bring more teams in like other codes is good, but it doesn't work in a game which rewards superiority to an extreme degree. 

I think 6 again rule entirely, enhances the scorelines by a large large margin, it’s got to go from the international game if we don’t want these scorelines.

[Damien]

I've said pretty much the same, with regards the modern game, on various threads. It's a real issue when it comes to closing the gap and anyone else competing. The game at the elite level needs to grow beyond just SL and the NRL for other nations to become more competitive.

[The Rocket]

2 minutes ago, SydneyRoosters said:

I think 6 again rule entirely, enhances the scorelines by a large large margin, it’s got to go from the international game if we don’t want these scorelines.

I`m watching the Samoan/France game on replay as we speak and it`s 25 minutes in and 16 - 0 to Samoa. The only 6 - again so far has gone to France. I`d say there are a lot of other factors at play than just 6 - again that is determining this result. 

I think this maybe a case of where we should look at causation before we look at correlation.

n.b. 32 minutes in France just got another one, still 16 - 0.

[StandOffHalf]

Personally, I'd be in favour doing away with the 10-metre defensive retreat. I think the retreat allows aerobic monsters to bash and dominate. Having the defensive line up would allow speedsters to get on the outside and encourage more grubbers and chips in behind.

Obviously, the 6-again should be binned for internationals. It's way too murky and facilitates one-sided blow-outs.

While we're at it, I'd like to see kicking duels make a come-back, along with set moves and run-arounds.

I hate robot football and would love some of these modern ''improvements'' to be consigned to the dustbin of history. Faster and more frantic isn't always better.

[League of the South]

1 hour ago, RayCee said:

France took to RL c 1934 and by the outbreak of WW II, they were a top international team. That couldn't happen today. Looking at some of the rules (many before my time) showed what a different game it was. I'm not a rules nerd but I try to keep up. So as I see it:

After the war the game had zero to five yard defensive lines, depending on rule changes over time. No replacements became two for injuries. There was no limit on tackles, you only lost possession for rule breaches. The game was slower, the impacts less intense. 

Over the years ten metre defensive lines, limited tackle, four rotating replacements, six again calls. The game is super fast, players need to be fit, muscled and think very quickly. It works in a pro comp but doesn't work when sides are mismatched as evidenced in WC internationals. Pitting full time athletes against part time and amateur players is producing one sided score lines and few if any upsets. 

The solution: In horse racing they have a handicap system but I can't see that being adopted in RL. So I'd propose two WC divisions, each of eight teams with promotion / relegation between them. Putting Jamaica up against NZ or Greece against Samoa isn't right.

Summary: RL rules have evolved over time to suit a pro comp. They are then used in internationals but they are not designed for such uneven playing rosters. Even a moderate difference in standard can quickly blow out a to huge, lopsided score line. The WC was once played by fewer sides with closer matches. The desire to bring more teams in like other codes is good, but it doesn't work in a game which rewards superiority to an extreme degree. 

Agreed. The nature of the game is such that a big difference in fitness levels (full-time vs part-time players) leads to an enormous mismatch in the game itself. The problem is that in football, for example, the minnows (Andorra, Luxembourg, Gibraltar etc.) receive all their heavy defeats in the Euro qualifiers so the finals themselves are are a more level playing field. Our wonderful game of Rugby League doesn't have that luxury as there are so few nations that play the sport. That said, it's still the 'greatest game of all'..............

[Barley Mow]

4 hours ago, RayCee said:

France took to RL c 1934 and by the outbreak of WW II, they were a top international team. That couldn't happen today. Looking at some of the rules (many before my time) showed what a different game it was. I'm not a rules nerd but I try to keep up. So as I see it:

After the war the game had zero to five yard defensive lines, depending on rule changes over time. No replacements became two for injuries. There was no limit on tackles, you only lost possession for rule breaches. The game was slower, the impacts less intense. 

Over the years ten metre defensive lines, limited tackle, four rotating replacements, six again calls. The game is super fast, players need to be fit, muscled and think very quickly. It works in a pro comp but doesn't work when sides are mismatched as evidenced in WC internationals. Pitting full time athletes against part time and amateur players is producing one sided score lines and few if any upsets. 

The solution: In horse racing they have a handicap system but I can't see that being adopted in RL. So I'd propose two WC divisions, each of eight teams with promotion / relegation between them. Putting Jamaica up against NZ or Greece against Samoa isn't right.

Summary: RL rules have evolved over time to suit a pro comp. They are then used in internationals but they are not designed for such uneven playing rosters. Even a moderate difference in standard can quickly blow out a to huge, lopsided score line. The WC was once played by fewer sides with closer matches. The desire to bring more teams in like other codes is good, but it doesn't work in a game which rewards superiority to an extreme degree. 

I don't think the biggest issue here is rule changes (although they may well have contributed). The biggest thing is that since the 1990s we've had two fully professional leagues.

Professional leagues means that that the top nations have many full time players to select from, people who spend their days honing their fitness and skills. Semi-pro players simply can't keep up.

France of course have professional players in the British system, but approximately the number to fill the national squad and not many more, so guys who are Super League squad players will be in the France squad.

I think it is the professional nature of the top leagues rather than rule changes that have a bigger impact.

Of course, as the French have more and more full time players, they steadily improve.

Other countries with less easy routes into the professional game will struggle more (a lot more than France did in the 30s and 50s) - hence reliance on heritage players.

Edited October 31, 2022 by Barley Mow

[unapologetic pedant]

I`ve rewatched the early stages of Tonga v Cook Islands, and it`s confirmed my impression that the principal difference from Tonga v Wales was in how Tonga chose to play. Yet a lot of the comments on the match thread were about the supposedly disgraceful Kukis "not turning up".

When a stronger team plays complete-your-sets low-risk football against a narrow defence, the scores can remain closer. However, if they use width and stretch the defence out, space opens up in the middle, fewer defenders in each contact means less control of the tackle and more offloads. Of course, they have to execute sufficiently well, but when the intent to play expansively is there, no amount of effort from the weaker team will prevent the score blowing out.

The thicker end of the spectrum of NRL media and fans don`t appear to understand this when they cite blowouts as evidence of a need to cut clubs from the competition. But the team running 12th in a 12-team premiership would be no less likely to suffer heavy defeats than the team in 16th in a 16-team premiership. Misery guts pundits would still pillory losing teams and still talk the game down at every opportunity. The only changes would be 4 fewer clubs and 2 fewer games per week. 

The 3 Tonga WC group games taken together have displayed the variation in types of play and types of game that RL can offer. Why do some people want every game to be the same?

An ugly truth worth remembering about the RL of the past is that the favoured methods of weaker teams to keep the score down would often be niggle and thuggery. When the game had gone, both teams stopped playing. For the stronger team, finishing the 80 minutes with your head still attached to your neck was the priority, not scoring an extra 30-40 points. And possibly slipping in a retributive cheap shot of your own. 

[Welshleaguelover]

I think the 10m rule has made the games worse. It favours athletes rather than footballers.

Australian coaches have spoilt the game for the last 20 odd years.

Run straight, get to tackle 4, a double block play, then we'll kick from here.

[JDM]

When did we change the rule to where the 'conceding team kicks-off back to the scoring team'?

imo - this rule plays a part in shaping a lot of blowouts, although quality of defence is the main causation

[Big Picture]

2 hours ago, JDM said:

When did we change the rule to where the 'conceding team kicks-off back to the scoring team'?

imo - this rule plays a part in shaping a lot of blowouts, although quality of defence is the main causation

That was always the rule up until the SL breakaway in 1995.  SL switched to having the scoring team kick off while the ARL stuck the with non-scoring team kick off.  When the two came back together the scoring team kicks off rule was dumped.

The problem with having the scoring team kick off is that play is that in a match between teams of different levels play is pretty much always in the weaker team's half.  Team A scores and then kicks off, B gets possession deep in their own end, makes a bit of ground and has to punt, A gets the ball in good field position and scores again and then kicks off.  Repeat.....

Watch the RL match of the Wigan vs Bath cross-code series and that's exactly what you'll see.  The score would certainly have been closer if the non-scoring team had kicked off and at least some of the play would have been in Wigan's half instead of all of it being in Bath's half.

Edited October 31, 2022 by Big Picture

[Madrileño]

3 hours ago, Welshleaguelover said:

 

Australian coaches have spoilt the game for the last 20 odd years.

I completely disagree.

Australian coaches gave been in charge of the best teams in the world over the last "20 odd years". I think they have made the game far better, and have driven standards far higher.

[Welshleaguelover]

54 minutes ago, Madrileño said:

I completely disagree.

Australian coaches gave been in charge of the best teams in the world over the last "20 odd years". I think they have made the game far better, and have driven standards far higher.

I've no issue with you disagreeing.

Aussie coaches are obsessed with completing sets. Not bothered about playing any football.

I'm not saying British coaches are better. Most British coaches copy whatever is happening in Australia.

It's boring 

[RayCee]

The game has evolved to the point that Greece playing England and Samoa is nothing but a blood bath and I can't see how the players from Greece got any benefit. Surely, they would get something out of playing the likes of Wales, Jamaica and Scotland. 

[GUBRATS]

13 hours ago, RayCee said:

France took to RL c 1934 and by the outbreak of WW II, they were a top international team. That couldn't happen today. Looking at some of the rules (many before my time) showed what a different game it was. I'm not a rules nerd but I try to keep up. So as I see it:

After the war the game had zero to five yard defensive lines, depending on rule changes over time. No replacements became two for injuries. There was no limit on tackles, you only lost possession for rule breaches. The game was slower, the impacts less intense. 

Over the years ten metre defensive lines, limited tackle, four rotating replacements, six again calls. The game is super fast, players need to be fit, muscled and think very quickly. It works in a pro comp but doesn't work when sides are mismatched as evidenced in WC internationals. Pitting full time athletes against part time and amateur players is producing one sided score lines and few if any upsets. 

The solution: In horse racing they have a handicap system but I can't see that being adopted in RL. So I'd propose two WC divisions, each of eight teams with promotion / relegation between them. Putting Jamaica up against NZ or Greece against Samoa isn't right.

Summary: RL rules have evolved over time to suit a pro comp. They are then used in internationals but they are not designed for such uneven playing rosters. Even a moderate difference in standard can quickly blow out a to huge, lopsided score line. The WC was once played by fewer sides with closer matches. The desire to bring more teams in like other codes is good, but it doesn't work in a game which rewards superiority to an extreme degree. 

RL was born a pro sport 

[hw88]

23 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

RL was born a pro sport 

Was it?

I thought it was semi-pro until the Super League era. When I was at school at least 3 of my teachers played top level rugby as well. It would be interesting to know which earned them the most money, teaching or rugby.

[hw88]

On 31/10/2022 at 19:17, RayCee said:

The game has evolved to the point that Greece playing England and Samoa is nothing but a blood bath and I can't see how the players from Greece got any benefit. Surely, they would get something out of playing the likes of Wales, Jamaica and Scotland. 

This.

Plus how will in encourage youngsters from the likes of Jamaica and Greece to take up the sport if they see their team being anihilated?

[hw88]

Get rid of the interchanges. 13 players plus 2 subs to be used tactically or in the case of injury is all that is needed. Interchanges just encourages the players to grow bigger and stronger at the expense of craft and guile. They know they don't have to last the whole 80 minutes so they don't need to pace themselves or conserve energy.

[arcticchris]

Most of the minnows did well through the competition and only did significantly worse in the 3rd round of matches with lack of depth and cumulative fatigue and injuries a big factor.

You won’t see the ‘run around’ very often at all nowadays as the defensive line is far too athletic not to shut it down before anything can develop.

[N2022]

37 minutes ago, hw88 said:

Get rid of the interchanges. 13 players plus 2 subs to be used tactically or in the case of injury is all that is needed. Interchanges just encourages the players to grow bigger and stronger at the expense of craft and guile. They know they don't have to last the whole 80 minutes so they don't need to pace themselves or conserve energy.

A very good point. And the difference between mismatched sides usually becomes greater with more replacements allowed, because the strength of the better side is deep into the dug-out. For evidence of this (borrowed from another sport) see how Liverpool and Man City have been the most vocal clubs in pushing for more matchday subs in the Premier League - similar principles would apply in RL.

[gnidir]

Some really divided opinions in here.

For my ten pence worth:

Our game in physicality is closer to boxing or the UFC than most other sports. The big difference is that we dont have knock outs. There is not stoppage for the contested team. Thus, the results can blow out.

I do think there is HUGE value to the developing nations in having the opportunity to compete against full time athletes. This is how they benchmark themselves for development. Big fish in a small pond just creates a bigger long term gap between the current top teams the the next generation.

I agree that the presence of full time, or part time environments for players is the big differentiator.

That said, I know in Jamaica for example, there are plans to move this way and create semi pro environments for players. But this is only possible when you show an athlete that there IS a pathway to the top.

Money is the difference here, not the quality of athlete originating from a country, I think its important to note that. If we spent proportionate money in India, or China for example, then within a generation, Oz, NZ and England would be tested.

The reality is game profile dopant exist outside of Oz, PNG, Part of NZ and a small part of England.

Taking the prejudices held against our sport away in countries that dont have them creates a new player pool, and potential for growth. 

Add to that, in places like Chile, Brazil, Jamaica, part of Africa; the GDP and so the average full time salary is far lower than in most of Europe and North America, and way less than NZ and Oz. 

This creates potential to create full time environments in these places, provide that you can attract attention from athletes, and following that, supportive governments.

In my opinion, the Africa / Americas are well placed for development and have the potential to be significant players in our sport. 

Taking away the opportunity to test themselves against the top tier nations, and therefore the pathway for an athlete curbs this. It takes away the fairytale story that makes our sport interesting to non rugby league fanatics.

I think we are reading too much into scorelines and not enough into the opportunity the World Cup provides.

[Padge]

On 31/10/2022 at 20:19, GUBRATS said:

RL was born a pro sport 

No it wasn't, we had stricter anti-professional laws than t'other lot. We were very anti-professionalism.

Broken time payments were not about paying players but covering lost wages. All other payments, jobs, backhanders were seriously frowned upon.

[RayCee]

On 01/11/2022 at 09:19, GUBRATS said:

RL was born a pro sport 

But not in quality. RL started being a pro sport (in Australia) from the mid 1970's. England joined some time later.