Discussion in 'NRL' started by T-Boon, Nov 8, 2017.
And turn the haka into a hungi.....
This is concrete evidence that LU should introduce a HATE button.
the arguments against 40/30:
1. it would be too easy;
2. change is scary;
Gotta love the backpedalling there Ba-Boon.
As a matter of principle I don't like seeing kicking the ball out of play rewarded.
I am just presenting the pros and cons. Nobody is back-pedalling. I firmly believe the game would be considerably better under 40/30.
that is an interesting principle and I'll need to have a think about how I feel about it.
Let me ask you this SWR: are you saying you do not like the 40/20 rule at all?
Many people, me included, consider it to be the best rule introduced in the last 15 years.
A 40-30 is probably too simple and would be overused.
However, I am in favour of a general 40 metre touchfinder kick advantage rule. Why? Because I've seen it trialed already in real life in an experimental match and it improved the game dramatically.
When teams were attacking from their own half two scenarios occurred -- the defence dropped back their wingers which encouraged the attack to throw the ball around in their own half to create overlaps. This generated more linebreak runs from their own half. I'd say this kind of play is lacking at NRL level. This rule discourages simplistic dummy half hit ups and invites more creativity in attack.
But -- when defences were trying to plug those overlaps by drawing their wingers in, precision touchfinders gave (not always) the attack repeat sets.
Overall the game became more about ball passing then about wrestling and gang tackling. In fact, the more players involved in a tackle, the attack would often exploit the extra tackler's inability to cover the defensive line.
What makes this better than a 40-30 is that is can be used by the attack anywhere in their own half (in this case the half line was the cut off). For 40-20s defences can prepare to cover a kick by knowing where the attack is on the field and drop back solely for that tackle. In a general 40 metre touchfinder there is no such predictability.
That said it is still a difficult task to do. If the NRL were to implement it I'd say we'd see around 3 to 4 times as many touchfinder attempts -- however not all of them will work as it's still a risk. But we'd also see more variety in attack, less wrestling and more tries overall due to the shift to a more attacking game.
This is exactly what we need to create. Sort of like two threats the offence can use from inside its own half that the defence needs to think about and make decisions about.
The only reasons I prefer 40/30 is I want to see considerably more successful attempts (a couple each game on average). Also I have doubt that women or kids can kick 40/20s at all...and more importantly to stop 40/30 I think the defence would need to have 3 back whilst with general 40 they could get away with 2 back since it is a much more difficult kick and the defender has more time to cover it.
Either way rugby league should be trialling one or the other of these.
When you've finished pondering keep it a secret
I predict 3 likes.
I've been waiting my whole life to witness a grubber kicking duel. This rule would make that a reality.
That sort of a duel would happen occasionally for a few attempts before they realise it isn't working.
If there is a player out there who can "grubber kick" 30 metres THROUGH the defensive line and beat a winger more than once or twice a game then he deserves to be the most valuable player in the game.
I'd suggest most kickers in the NRL can make a 40 metre touchfinder. If they can't, then they'll simply be replaced by those who can.
Under this rule the defence will vary its strategy throughout the course of the game. If teams are kicking for 40m then they'll drop back the wingers. If that creates gaps the middle for linebreaks or teams kick early then they'll drop back a 3rd player. If the attack gets tired, they might draw those players back into the line. The attack might then exploit the 40m touchfinder again.
The point is -- there is no predictability. Every strategy used by the attack & defence has a potential flaw which can be exploited to change the flow of the game. Coaches might go into a game with a plan to kick repeatedly or to exploit overlaps then change that up when the defence plugs the gaps. Or they might choose to dummy half runs to lull defences until they exploit the toucherfinder kick unexpectedly.
Maybe TB is right, RL should go the Rah Rah way and kick instead of run . . . maybe the game would be finally recognized as a sport
Wrong again ol' mate
This does not make any sense.
They already kick almost once every set of possession (a "down town" or a bomb).
There would only be an increase in the amount of kicking if they each kicked earlier in sets of possession. But they would only do that if they were having success with the tactic. If they were having success with the tactic that would mean there are more sets of possession starting inside the attacking 30 (and from play making as well not from penalties as per todays game). Those sets would see a lot of running, passing and general risk taking.
So what you would see is a lot more running, passing, line breaks from inside own half and risk taking and a bit more kicking. What you would see is less of the 5 hit up//bomb sets.
Wasn't against it, but as time goes on I dislike it more and more. So I would get rid of it. Maybe 12 a side would be sufficient, allow 3 markers, tap 25 out instead of 20 out. No 40m line, have a 35 one instead. Start and re-start matches with a ptb on 25m line.
Muslims, kill lots of monoglot white English people, and Labour voting people who live in Cymru.
We can both make no f**king sense together . . . AG would say we have a lot in common
Separate names with a comma.