MICK O’HARE joins in the debate about how to cut down blowout scores in Rugby League.
IN this newspaper’s sister publication, Rugby League World, publisher Martyn Sadler bemoaned the fact that too often Rugby League games end up being one-sided, which happens far less frequently in other sports, most notably football.
Pretty much every season sees a lower league club pick up a big scalp in the FA Cup, especially as many football managers these days see the early rounds of the competition as an irritation and field weaker sides.
But it’s not just the FA Cup; on any given weekend there will be victory for a team in the bottom half of the Premiership over one of the big guns. Yet it’s a rarer occurrence in Rugby League.
Much of this is down to the rules of our sport which reward strength and power, along with the fact that only our top division, Super League, is fully professional. When Rugby League is played between teams of equal ability – at any level, but especially at the peak of the professional game – it is a thrilling spectacle. It’s why we call it ‘The Greatest Game’ because at its best it’s the most compelling team sport on the planet.
But all too often there are mismatches, a perennial problem of the Challenge Cup these days, but also within the various leagues. St Helens 82 Salford 0 is an obvious example this season. In that instance there were mitigating circumstances, but look how difficult it has been for teams like Huddersfield or Castleford to get anywhere near the likes of Wigan or Hull Kingston Rovers this year. Players lose confidence, supporters become apathetic and the credibility of Rugby League as a sporting contest suffers. Casual viewers especially want to see a close tussle with the outcome uncertain. And it’s those casual viewers we need to entice, not the diehards reading this publication.
So, what can we do to mitigate the most egregious of these imbalanced contests?
Richard de la Rivière, writing in this publication about a similar issue between top and bottom teams in the Women’s Super League, suggested we abolish points difference as a means of deciding league positions. This, he hoped, would mean it was unnecessary for teams to simply pile on the points when facing weaker opponents. They could risk fielding younger players, allowing them to gain experience, work on different plays and be ambitious with the ball rather than using strength and greater fitness to crash over the line in every set of six, safe in the knowledge they would almost certainly win the match anyway.
Richard suggested that should two teams be tied in the league table, the result of the match (or matches) between them should be the deciding factor, rather than points difference. It would mean that running up a big score was superfluous.
It’s certainly something worth looking at, although modern-day professional coaches focused solely on optimum performance may still choose to play the game for maximum points. A will-to-win attitude might always prevail.
But I’d go further still. I’d actually change the rules of the game, especially when teams from different divisions face each other in the Challenge Cup.
This is not to engineer the outcome of games – it is important to ensure that the better of the two teams has the greater chance of victory – but maybe we can level that proverbial playing field a little.
My initial suggestion is that in cup matches where a lower division team is drawn away, they should have the option to play the match at their own ground. This was partially implemented in the draw for the last 32 of this season’s Challenge Cup, but that draw was rigged to ensure Super League teams played away.
It turned out to be somewhat farcical because nearly every tie had a pre-determined outcome. However, a completely open draw, with lower-ranked teams being able to opt to play at home even if drawn away, would ensure fewer one-sided matches, especially because some Super League teams would be drawn against each other rather than being guaranteed a tie against an uncompetitive opponent, as happened frequently this season.
A second suggestion is to bolster defensive lines. One rule that ensures lower-ranked teams remain on the back foot is the 10-metre gap between the play-the-ball and the defence. This favours fitter, stronger professionals and is extremely tiring to defend against. When teams from different leagues meet, this gap should be reduced to 5 metres, meaning the full-time professionals have less space in which to work and gather momentum, reducing line breaks.
Currently, full-time professional teams with forwards weighing 17 stones (all of it muscle) just steamroller to victory, no skill required. It might also mean ability and guile, rather than brute force will become a determining factor as playmakers strive to unlock defences.
Possession is also a key factor. If you never have the ball, you’re never going to score. And a team on a roll, scoring try after try, knows that after each success, the ball is kicked straight back to them. The lower-ranked team should therefore have the option of taking a tap kick, thus retaining possession after conceding points, rather than having to kick the ball to the opposition.
I’d also introduce restrictions on substitutions, perhaps giving the lower-division team unlimited interchanges, with only substitutions for injury allowed for the higher-division team before half-time. And maybe Super League teams should field three players with, say, fewer than 15 appearances between them.
Of course, the higher-ranked team should usually be able to overcome these impediments. They are not intended to stifle skill and ability, only the aspects of a Rugby League match that are determined mainly by brute force. However, these suggestions might just introduce enough jeopardy to see the odd giant-killing act, even if only once a season.
But, of course, we are seeing blowout scores not just between teams from different divisions in the Challenge Cup, but within individual leagues too.
So how to reduce the prevalence there?
I’d be happy to see similar rules when a team in the top three of any of our professional divisions, but especially Super League, plays a team in the bottom three. However, that might be too divisive for some supporters and I’m pretty certain a majority of clubs would disagree.
Nonetheless, some of the above suggestions could apply within individual leagues, with the lower-ranked team having different options available to it, such as being able to opt to restart with a tap kick, or have unlimited substitutions. And it may be, with the current litigation surrounding collisions and brain damage, that the 10-metre rule comes under scrutiny anyway. Certainly, I don’t recall the game being less skilful (in fact, quite the opposite) or dourer when defences were only 5 metres apart.
Oh, and bring back draws. How often does the higher-ranked club win on golden point? If you’re 12th in Super League and get to the 80th minute level with the league leaders you deserve that point, rather than being subject to a lottery you’re likely to lose.
We’ll still see big scores in Rugby League, they have always happened. And despite what we might think, if every game finished 32-30 our nerves would be shredded. We might long for a scintillating 10-try victory for our team. But not every week. Perhaps some or all of the above would shift the dial back in favour of the underdog. Ever so slightly.
Golden point
Since we’ve mentioned golden point, I’m going labour it.
Frankly, I’d give it the boot. It’s not like we’ve even abolished draws, because if nobody scores in golden-point extra-time we still declare the match drawn, which surely is an indication of its absurdity.
If we suddenly decided that when matches are tied at 70 minutes the first team to pop over a drop-goal is the winner but if nobody does then it’s a draw, there’d be instant pushback. But essentially that’s what we have now, it just takes a little longer.
It’s unfair in so many ways, not least the fact that a team can lose without ever having held the ball in the golden-point period.
Even for cup matches I’d prefer standard extra time. But if we must have golden point in some form then we should take a decision to change the system. The winner should be the first team to score four points, meaning the essence of Rugby League would be retained as teams go for the try, rather than four drop-goals (and it means a stupid penalty for something like accidental offside can’t determine the game by itself either).
And one more stipulation. If a team scores a try on the first set of six, their opposition must have one set of six themselves to give them the opportunity to cancel out the unfair disadvantage of not having had possession.
And, most importantly, if it’s a league game, the losing team should still get a point for having tied at 80 minutes.
