Vegas baby!!

[casrhino]

16 hours ago, Whippet13 said:

Paid $78 including taxes for 2 middle tier tickets behind the sticks, so assume your lower tier and closer to the action. I've opted for section 226 which is in the Rabbitohs end.

Yep section 123 row 31 can't wait.I'll have my tartan Rob Burrow top on and my wife her England Rob Burrow top on .

[philipw]

We should arrange a TRL meet up over there 

[Whippet13]

4 hours ago, casrhino said:

Yep section 123 row 31 can't wait.I'll have my tartan Rob Burrow top on and my wife her England Rob Burrow top on .

Your pretty much bang in front of us then, we are 3rd row so be over your left shoulder, will see if we can spot you both. I may have a Rabbitohs T-shirt on, but more likely an England top, wife maybe in Roosters colours.

[Big Picture]

On 10/09/2023 at 03:12, Gomersall said:

On pitch numbers at every ten metres? Or just sideline indicators?

The PDF International rule books I've found online have the on field numbers.  The Aussies have had on field numbers for more than 30 years now, since the start of the 1993 season as you can see here:

https://youtu.be/D_m2lMF8Czk?si=JuxEAzLdWUoJb2uu

[Big Picture]

On 10/09/2023 at 06:47, Dave T said:

I'm not sure why you are going with the 'except in the UK' point seeing as this is the 2nd largest RL nation in the world and home of the biggest international tournaments. 

Quick search on YouTube shows loads of games with shortened pitches and no numbers. 

 

You're making the mistake of focusing on the Aussies, when in reality, RL is being played all over the world on all sorts of pitches. 

I'm not focusing on the Aussies, as you can see in the videos you posted, the fields in France and PNG are both full length fields, correctly marked except for missing the numbers.  The other countries aren't relevant, I was specifically talking about the established RL countries of Australia, New Zealand, France and PNG.

Those countries almost certainly don't have any protocol for short fields because they don't have any like that from what I've seen.

The protocol the NRL is apparently applying here is superior to the English protocol for the simple reason that it maintains standard, consistent field markings which is how a professional sporting organization does things.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Big Picture said:

I'm not focusing on the Aussies, as you can see in the videos you posted, the fields in France and PNG are both full length fields, correctly marked except for missing the numbers.  The other countries aren't relevant, I was specifically talking about the established RL countries of Australia, New Zealand, France and PNG.

Those countries almost certainly don't have any protocol for short fields because they don't have any like that from what I've seen.

The protocol the NRL is apparently applying here is superior to the English protocol for the simple reason that it maintains standard, consistent field markings which is how a professional sporting organization does things.

This protocol you think is great would be a bit weird having a 10m, 20m, 30m, 40m line marked with numbers that are not actually 10m, 20m, 30m, 40m. Your points make no sense. 

[Gomersall]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

This protocol you think is great would be a bit weird having a 10m, 20m, 30m, 40m line marked with numbers that are not actually 10m, 20m, 30m, 40m. Your points make no sense. 

Just playing devil’s advocate, the actual measurement isn’t indicated on the pitch. Just the numerals. So would it be so bad to divide a pitch up into ten and mark them accordingly? I hate seeing the 40m line about 5 metres from the 30m line at places like Cas. When a player kicks a 40/20 it looks ridiculous to me as it’s so obvious that the ball hasn’t been kicked the full distance whereas if the lines were equidistant at least it wouldn’t be so obvious.

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, Gomersall said:

Just playing devil’s advocate, the actual measurement isn’t indicated on the pitch. Just the numerals. So would it be so bad to divide a pitch up into ten and mark them accordingly? I hate seeing the 40m line about 5 metres from the 30m line at places like Cas. When a player kicks a 40/20 it looks ridiculous to me as it’s so obvious that the ball hasn’t been kicked the full distance whereas if the lines were equidistant at least it wouldn’t be so obvious.

There are clear reasons why the lines are marked as they are. From a kick off the ball must travel 10m, so that line can't be 8m.

Similarly, a 20m restart has to be 20m from the line, we don't do 17m restarts. 

There are clear reasons behind the protocol. If memory serves me right, the only space that isn't relevant is the 30 to 40m zone, hence that is the shortened area. 

We need 10m markers from the goal line (for drop outs), we need a 20m line for restarts, we need the line that is 10m from halfway (in effect 40m line even though not always 40m). 

This has been thought through. 

Edited September 11, 2023 by Dave T

[Damien]

1 hour ago, Big Picture said:

I'm not focusing on the Aussies, as you can see in the videos you posted, the fields in France and PNG are both full length fields, correctly marked except for missing the numbers.  The other countries aren't relevant, I was specifically talking about the established RL countries of Australia, New Zealand, France and PNG.

Those countries almost certainly don't have any protocol for short fields because they don't have any like that from what I've seen.

The protocol the NRL is apparently applying here is superior to the English protocol for the simple reason that it maintains standard, consistent field markings which is how a professional sporting organization does things.

This is in France and an international against Australia. It is quite clear that despite the markings that this is not full length and that they've severely reduced the distance between the 30 and 40 metre lines:

 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

This is in France and an international against Australia. It is quite clear that despite the markings that this is not full length and that they've severely reduced the distance between the 30 and 40 metre lines:

 

Come on, surely you know that any small pitches just get excluded as not relevant!

[Gomersall]

31 minutes ago, Dave T said:

There are clear reasons why the lines are marked as they are. From a kick off the ball must travel 10m, so that line can't be 8m.

Similarly, a 20m restart has to be 20m from the line, we don't do 17m restarts. 

There are clear reasons behind the protocol. If memory serves me right, the only space that isn't relevant is the 30 to 40m zone, hence that is the shortened area. 

We need 10m markers from the goal line (for drop outs), we need a 20m line for restarts, we need the line that is 10m from halfway (in effect 40m line even though not always 40m). 

This has been thought through. 

So a 40m/20m kick that should travel 40m but only travels 35m is acceptable? I appreciate why it is the way it is but still looks silly to the uninitiated observer.

[Gomersall]

I don’t know if it’s an optical illusion or not but the try line to the 10m line at Cas looks smaller than the 40m to the halfway line to me.

 

[Dave T]

33 minutes ago, Gomersall said:

So a 40m/20m kick that should travel 40m but only travels 35m is acceptable? I appreciate why it is the way it is but still looks silly to the uninitiated observer.

The uninitiated observer won't think anythibg in the slightest of it

[Dave T]

30 minutes ago, Gomersall said:

I don’t know if it’s an optical illusion or not but the try line to the 10m line at Cas looks smaller than the 40m to the halfway line to me.

 

Yes, it's the angles that make it look so. 

[Dave T]

37 minutes ago, Gomersall said:

So a 40m/20m kick that should travel 40m but only travels 35m is acceptable? I appreciate why it is the way it is but still looks silly to the uninitiated observer.

A 40/20m kick doesn't have a set distance it must travel i.e a kick off or drop out must travel 10m.

But the current protocol would see this one rule affected, whereas a shortening of every 10m zone affects every kick off, drop out etc. 

[Pulga]

I've just seen on Facebook that the Broncos supporter bay is sold out (bar 4 seats). Pretty impressive.

[Big Picture]

On 11/09/2023 at 14:34, Dave T said:

This protocol you think is great would be a bit weird having a 10m, 20m, 30m, 40m line marked with numbers that are not actually 10m, 20m, 30m, 40m. Your points make no sense. 

Not if the minimum length of a field was something like 98 metres, then it would make hardly any difference at all.

In your description of why you think the English way of doing things overlooks the that (in a roundabout way) the rulebook indicates that the lines need to be sane distance apart as they are in the Plan which is clearly stated as Part of the Laws of the game.

On 11/09/2023 at 15:22, Gomersall said:

So a 40m/20m kick that should travel 40m but only travels 35m is acceptable? I appreciate why it is the way it is but still looks silly to the uninitiated observer.

More to the point, a team starting on their 20 should always have to go 8/10 of the field length to score, that should never vary.  Ditto a team starting on their 40 6/10, etc.

So in the handful of cases where the is slightly less than 100 metres long, the lines and the distance the D-line has to back from the line of scrimmage should all be adjusted to suit, as the NRL is apparently doing here.  That will only work for a field close to full length though.

Another advantage of this protocol is preserving the subliminal reinforcement of the similarity to gridiron which I know from personal experience is important for helping North Americans understand the game.

[Dave T]

20 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Not if the minimum length of a field was something like 98 metres, then it would make hardly any difference at all.

In your description of why you think the English way of doing things overlooks the that (in a roundabout way) the rulebook indicates that the lines need to be sane distance apart as they are in the Plan which is clearly stated as Part of the Laws of the game.

More to the point, a team starting on their 20 should always have to go 8/10 of the field length to score, that should never vary.  Ditto a team starting on their 40 6/10, etc.

So in the handful of cases where the is slightly less than 100 metres long, the lines and the distance the D-line has to back from the line of scrimmage should all be adjusted to suit, as the NRL is apparently doing here.  That will only work for a field close to full length though.

Another advantage of this protocol is preserving the subliminal reinforcement of the similarity to gridiron which I know from personal experience is important for helping North Americans understand the game.

The rulebook also acknowledges that games will be played on smaller pitches. The rulebook is far more flexible than you are.

Edited September 13, 2023 by Dave T

[Click]

44 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Not if the minimum length of a field was something like 98 metres, then it would make hardly any difference at all.

In your description of why you think the English way of doing things overlooks the that (in a roundabout way) the rulebook indicates that the lines need to be sane distance apart as they are in the Plan which is clearly stated as Part of the Laws of the game.

More to the point, a team starting on their 20 should always have to go 8/10 of the field length to score, that should never vary.  Ditto a team starting on their 40 6/10, etc.

So in the handful of cases where the is slightly less than 100 metres long, the lines and the distance the D-line has to back from the line of scrimmage should all be adjusted to suit, as the NRL is apparently doing here.  That will only work for a field close to full length though.

Another advantage of this protocol is preserving the subliminal reinforcement of the similarity to gridiron which I know from personal experience is important for helping North Americans understand the game.

Hang on, I think I have finally understood your points now,

Aussie way = Right Way.

British way = Wrong way.

 

[fighting irish]

If you don't mind me saying so, I think you fella's  are making a mountain out of a molehill.

How the field is marked (BP's way or DT's way) isn't that important an issue in my opinion.

My own personal preference however, is for evenly spaced line markers 1/10th of the length of the field apart. I just think it looks better aesthetically.

The players will adjust to the difference instantaneously and I don't believe the closer lines will make any appreciable (negative) difference to the way the game is played, refereed or enjoyed by the spectators.

My gut feeling tells me that the uninitiated (yanks) would think it odd, if the spacing between 30 and 40 m lines was halved (significantly reduced) due to a shorter than standard pitch.

Please, bring on the next argument, I'm tired of this one. 

[Dave T]

3 hours ago, Big Picture said:

 

More to the point, a team starting on their 20 should always have to go 8/10 of the field length to score, that should never vary.  Ditto a team starting on their 40 6/10, etc.

If you think that is a fundamental part of the design of the game, then I can't help you tbh. This just isn't an issue in the slightest. 

RL will be played on different sized pitches, and it's acknowledged in the lawbook.

[Spidey]

Lines help referees mark 10m between the teams, I’m not sure having different lengths between lines from game to game would help them very much - and would probably generate more abuse at them 

[Dave T]

14 hours ago, Spidey said:

Lines help referees mark 10m between the teams, I’m not sure having different lengths between lines from game to game would help them very much - and would probably generate more abuse at them 

I mean as a principal the proposal is weird. For somebody who is so hung up on really minor points on this, to champion every line being wrong instead of just 2 on the whole pitch just because it's a chance to moan about UK RL is bizarre. 

[Dave T]

Interestingly (or not), the way I describe the pitch markings is exactly how RU does theirs, and they directly acknowledge shorter pitches. Their pitch is simpler because they don't have a 30m line so that reduced space just isn't visible. 

While looking at that, I stumbled across an RU discussion that highlighted how many UK Premiership clubs don't reach the minimum pitch size. 

But, surprise surprise, they just crack on. 

[Sports Prophet]

On 10/09/2023 at 17:49, Dave T said:

20k as a crowd number was very good, and maybe shows the potential that even though the event was sabotaged and ultimately was run by a cowboy it could still attract a crowd that would be respectable in Oz, NZ or GB. 

I actually feel for Jason Moore. He had brilliant intentions and had delivered an astonishingly successful back to back MLB matches at he SCG between Arizona and LA in 2014 or ‘15. Both were sell outs if I recall, or very close to. I remember he was talking about RL in the USA even then.

His biggest mistake was to proceed without the backing of the NRL, thinking an England v NZ fixture (and the RLIF’s Test Match availability rules) would by-pass the NRL and its member clubs right concerns for how their flagship competition could be compromised if star players were injured.

I don’t think the football bodies were ever paid, but them’s the breaks sometimes when you try something new.

I would equally point at the lack of due diligence from the RFL and an NRL financially dependent NZRL being an equally large oversight. All three parties were in this as stakeholders and all three were as responsible as each other for the failure of the 3yr Denver plan.

Edited September 14, 2023 by Sports Prophet