Is RL about to blow its big chance?

[Odsal Outlaw]

As we start the new season I, like most, have been really impressed with the refreshing way the game has been presented. The impact of IMG seems clear. Good social media, good stories in the news, positive tv deals and a refreshing presentation of the game by Sky.

However the game itself feels less enjoyable. Clearly the amount of cards has a part in this, but these should reduce as players adapt to new rules over time you would think, but we are also slowly removing any aggressive play and this will only get worse from 2025.  The sport is clearly going through a noticeable change, and there is a constant reference to it being needed due to the risk the game faces from health related issues, especially around head injuries. 
 

Historically fans of TGG have always said that we have the greatest sport in the world, we just need to tell people about it.  Well we are finally starting to tell people about it … but what if we no longer have the greatest game?

I hope I’m wrong by the way.  But I think we need to find a balance in the sport that retains the aggression.

[Damien]

I've seen plenty of aggression in the two matches I have watched so far. When people moan about this they are usually actually bemoaning foul play being punished, and that is a different thing.

[Sports Prophet]

OP remarks on 2025, I haven’t yet considered what this means for England’s participation in international fixtures where the allowable tackle height is higher.

If the RFL have found that player safety is too high a risk to allow tackles above the armpit, would the RFL be deemed negligent to allow it’s contracted players to participate in a fixture or tournament where the allowable tackle height is higher?

As to the premise of the post, the aggression is still there and I’ve only seen one incident so far where I think the punishment didn’t fit the crime.

What I don’t think the game needs, are commentators on every occasion, almost apologising for a referee’s decision to dismiss or reprimand a player for his actions due to new policies on player safety, especially around the head.

[Odsal Outlaw]

4 minutes ago, Damien said:

I've seen plenty of aggression in the two matches I have watched so far. When people moan about this they are usually actually bemoaning foul play being punished, and that is a different thing.

Yes I take your point, I have no issue with foul play being punished.  But there is a difference between genuine ‘foul’ play like punching someone in the face and rightly being given marching orders vs. the Hull player who was sent off for the knee to the head when he had just been given a facial on the floor and is trying to get out the way.  
 

It feels like we are going so far to one extreme where any touch to the head however slight or accidental is resulting in people being removed from the game. And next year we reduce tackle heights as well. 
 

Now this is a choice for the sport. And the result could be more fans, greater interest and the sport sees positive results. The other choice could have been to say we will embrace the aggression, whilst punishing genuine foul play severely.

@Damien you say you have found the change positive, which is good. Hopefully this is the general consensus as I want the sport to succeed. My view is its negative (but also interested to fast forward two years and see what the game looks like!)

 

[The 4 of Us]

Purlease. From what understand the game was told “Sort it or else” on the eve of the season by insurers.  
 

It’s sorting it by making sure deliberate attacks to the head are appropriately dealt with.

It the sport didn’t, it wouldn’t be taking place this weekend.

The sport has always been 50% more aggressive that it ever needed to be, which is why social RL has never been a big thing until relatively recently.

The sport will be fine and better for it. Athletes knocking seven bells out of the opponents without the need to main each other. 

[Odsal Outlaw]

3 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

OP remarks on 2025, I haven’t yet considered what this means for England’s participation in international fixtures where the allowable tackle height is higher.

If the RFL have found that player safety is too high a risk to allow tackles above the armpit, would the RFL be deemed negligent to allow it’s contracted players to participate in a fixture or tournament where the allowable tackle height is higher?

As to the premise of the post, the aggression is still there and I’ve only seen one incident so far where I think the punishment didn’t fit the crime.

What I don’t think the game needs, are commentators on every occasion, almost apologising for a referee’s decision to dismiss or reprimand a player for his actions due to new policies on player safety, especially around the head.

Yes I’m also really interested in how the new tackle law will translate into internationals. I’d love this to be answered by the RFL - although likelihood is they won’t know yet!  To be honest I also wish all the rules were harmonised in both hemispheres, but clearly the tackle height is the really interesting one.

[Odsal Outlaw]

1 minute ago, The 4 of Us said:

Purlease. From what understand the game was told “Sort it or else” on the eve of the season by insurers.  
 

It’s sorting it by making sure deliberate attacks to the head are appropriately dealt with.

It the sport didn’t, it wouldn’t be taking place this weekend.

The sport has always been 50% more aggressive that it ever needed to be, which is why social RL has never been a big thing until relatively recently.

The sport will be fine and better for it. Athletes knocking seven bells out of the opponents without the need to main each other. 

I don’t know that I fully get this argument that the sport had to change as much as it is doing. How do UFC, Boxing, NFL manage to retain the aggression? Surely it’s about ensuring people know what they sign up to.
 

Fair enough if there needs to be a sanitisation at younger age groups. But I think the RFL are being very risk averse.

However, I guess my main point in OP really was whether the game is now more or less attractive. At this moment to me it is a less attractive product. 

[Odsal Outlaw]

5 minutes ago, The 4 of Us said:

Purlease. From what understand the game was told “Sort it or else” on the eve of the season by insurers.  
 

It’s sorting it by making sure deliberate attacks to the head are appropriately dealt with.

It the sport didn’t, it wouldn’t be taking place this weekend.

The sport has always been 50% more aggressive that it ever needed to be, which is why social RL has never been a big thing until relatively recently.

The sport will be fine and better for it. Athletes knocking seven bells out of the opponents without the need to main each other. 

Also it isn’t just penalising deliberate attacks to the head. It’s penalising any and every contact that touches the head with yellow and red cards.

[The 4 of Us]

3 minutes ago, Odsal Outlaw said:

Also it isn’t just penalising deliberate attacks to the head. It’s penalising any and every contact that touches the head with yellow and red cards.

Thereby distinguishing between non-deliberate and deliberate. Players will learn the consequences of both. 

[Sports Prophet]

8 minutes ago, The 4 of Us said:

Purlease. From what understand the game was told “Sort it or else” on the eve of the season by insurers.  

Have you just made this up? There are other sports which have far more head contact than RL and in those sports the head contact is deliberate and acceptable. I find it difficult to believe the RFL was suddenly being held to ransom by insurers.

[The 4 of Us]

16 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

Have you just made this up? There are other sports which have far more head contact than RL and in those sports the head contact is deliberate and acceptable. I find it difficult to believe the RFL was suddenly being held to ransom by insurers.

No I didn’t

https://www.totalrl.com/rugby-league-touch-judge-reveals-the-sport-was-10-days-away-from-not-being-in-existence-due-to-insurance/

 

https://www.totalrl.com/i-dont-think-fans-understand-the-seriousness-in-terms-of-having-a-sport-that-can-be-insured-professor-responds-to-criticism-of-rugby-leagues-new-tackle-height-trial/

Edited February 17 by The 4 of Us

[Padge]

37 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

What I don’t think the game needs, are commentators on every occasion, almost apologising for a referee’s decision to dismiss or reprimand a player for his actions due to new policies on player safety, especially around the head.

That is bang on.

[Odsal Outlaw]

4 minutes ago, Padge said:

That is bang on.

I don’t think referees are doing anything wrong, they are doing as directed and they shouldn’t be criticised. However I think it’s fine for commentators to critique the situation, they are just voicing what many fans feel. 

[ATLANTISMAN]

1 hour ago, Odsal Outlaw said:

As we start the new season I, like most, have been really impressed with the refreshing way the game has been presented. The impact of IMG seems clear. Good social media, good stories in the news, positive tv deals and a refreshing presentation of the game by Sky.

However the game itself feels less enjoyable. Clearly the amount of cards has a part in this, but these should reduce as players adapt to new rules over time you would think, but we are also slowly removing any aggressive play and this will only get worse from 2025.  The sport is clearly going through a noticeable change, and there is a constant reference to it being needed due to the risk the game faces from health related issues, especially around head injuries. 
 

Historically fans of TGG have always said that we have the greatest sport in the world, we just need to tell people about it.  Well we are finally starting to tell people about it … but what if we no longer have the greatest game?

I hope I’m wrong by the way.  But I think we need to find a balance in the sport that retains the aggression.

Totally agree 

[Sports Prophet]

2 hours ago, The 4 of Us said:

No I didn’t

https://www.totalrl.com/rugby-league-touch-judge-reveals-the-sport-was-10-days-away-from-not-being-in-existence-due-to-insurance/

 

https://www.totalrl.com/i-dont-think-fans-understand-the-seriousness-in-terms-of-having-a-sport-that-can-be-insured-professor-responds-to-criticism-of-rugby-leagues-new-tackle-height-trial/

Good references. I’m not sure that Warren Turley is necessarily involved in the RFL’s insurance negotiations, so I will take that comment with a pinch of salt.

In any case, these articles really are with immediate reference to the grass roots game, rather than the senior pro game which is what we are discussing in this thread.

[AB90]

3 hours ago, Odsal Outlaw said:

Yes I’m also really interested in how the new tackle law will translate into internationals. I’d love this to be answered by the RFL - although likelihood is they won’t know yet!  To be honest I also wish all the rules were harmonised in both hemispheres, but clearly the tackle height is the really interesting one.

The internationals will be interesting because there doesn’t seem to be any indication (or any push) from OZ that they will follow the RFL’s interpretation. It’s almost a bit of a non issue at the moment in OZ.

In 2023, there were 4 red cards in the NRL all year including play offs. 1 game into the Super League season and we are already half that which demonstrates just how different the attitudes are between the hemispheres.

[JohnM]

It matters not one jot what other sports do, in my view. What matters is what  our sport does, and I believe it is doing the right thing.  The points for me is that our sport is about skill, speed, strength, stamina, competitiveness, discipline, respect and controlled aggression. Maybe it's because of the end of the off- season drought, but I have thoroughly enjoyed the round one games so far. I just wish the commentators would spend less time "critiquing the situation" ( i.e. looking for referring errors and missed transgressions)

[gingerjon]

2 hours ago, JohnM said:

It matters not one jot what other sports do, in my view.

And, to a massive extent, it doesn't matter what other leagues do.

[Gomersall]

7 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

And, to a massive extent, it doesn't matter what other leagues do.

Until those league’s’ representative teams meet on the pitch.

[gingerjon]

10 minutes ago, Gomersall said:

Until those league’s’ representative teams meet on the pitch.

Does the NRL still have two point drop goals?

[Gomersall]

9 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Does the NRL still have two point drop goals?

You know they do Jon but that’s an apples and oranges comparison. We’re talking a big difference in what will be allowed in SL and the NRL in tackling laws. And as we know the NRL usually ignore international laws (another one to throw into the mix) when they host matches.

[gingerjon]

Just now, Gomersall said:

You know they do Jon but that’s an apples and oranges comparison. We’re talking a big difference in what will be allowed in SL and the NRL in tackling laws. And as we know the NRL usually ignore international laws (another one to throw into the mix) when they host matches.

Indeed. But changing our rules and interpretations - or, rather, not changing them - based on a literal handful of games is not particularly smart either.

Either way, the OP is wrong. Game's fine. The season start has been enjoyable.

[Odsal Outlaw]

28 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Indeed. But changing our rules and interpretations - or, rather, not changing them - based on a literal handful of games is not particularly smart either.

Either way, the OP is wrong. Game's fine. The season start has been enjoyable.

I wouldn’t say my OP is wrong. It’s my opinion and was genuinely looking to see if others also felt the same or like yourself actually see it more positively.

However your point on 2pt DG’s feels a poor comparison. There have been different rules in the hemispheres for years, I hate that to be honest, but they have been on a different level to having different tackle height laws. This would put us at a huge disadvantage in the World Cup where other nations would be much more dominant under the international interpretation - unless we have all our best players in the NRL by then! In fact maybe that’s the answer, we have to pick only NRL based players for internationals but equally the WCC could be finished.

Edited February 17 by Odsal Outlaw

[The 4 of Us]

5 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

Good references. I’m not sure that Warren Turley is necessarily involved in the RFL’s insurance negotiations, so I will take that comment with a pinch of salt.

In any case, these articles really are with immediate reference to the grass roots game, rather than the senior pro game which is what we are discussing in this thread.

The RFL sort out insurance for the whole game. They are being sued by former professionals which has caused the whole issue in the first place. Being pro/amateur won’t make any difference to the risk of head injury and consequences of that. If anything, the risk in pro game is substatially greater due to the all sorts of issues which increase the strength of collisions etc. 

The RFL are most definitely under insurer pressure to do what they have. And other sports with similar challenges will be in the same position.

It’s been suggested that UFC and the like are more violent. 

Yes they are but less so than just 10 years ago, with more frequent referee interventions, but the fights, which aren’t 80 mins long, are  also much less often, and they are not doing it 40 times a season for 15 years.

RL is doing what is neccessary to ensure it has a healthier future. Pun intended. 

Edited February 17 by The 4 of Us

[Gomersall]

I can’t understand why we in the U.K. just play to international laws as defined by the IRL and insist that all international matches England are involved in are played to those laws. By saying that I also realise that international laws as they currently stand will be at odds with our own laws as highlighted previously in this thread.