time to get rid of 10 m. rule.

[dallymessenger]

id like to see it trialled.

ive watched past grand finals and they were fine.

games were a lot closer.

the one good thing about todays games is you have to watch a game for 80 mins as even a 20 point lead can be overcome.

in the old days a 12 point lead was game over, not today.

i just think too many teams play boring football and maybe the 5 m. rule can solve it.

 

[roughyedspud]

having seen 5 m. football for a long time i think its better.

10 m. rule encourages too much boring play.

too much running from dummy half then a kick.

with a 5 m. rule teams have to be more creative in breaking the defence.

games which have 10 - 6 scorelines are much better than games where total points scored exceed 40.

and stripping in tackles should be allowed, irrespective of the number of tackles. you lose the ball in a tackle, bad luck, the onus should be on the ball carrier.

it's not the 10m rule that encourages boring play...it's the way the players play and the coaches coach...

afterall ESL has the 10m rule and our league is'nt boring

 

[JB]

I've heard many supporters say revert back to a 5m rule. As i see it, at the moment one major problem with attack is the rushing defence teams are faced with. There's not enough time or space to create as the ist or 2nd receiver barely get the ball before they are set upon by 2 or 3 defenders. Now correct me if i'm wrong, but wouldn't shortning the distance between teams make it easier for defences to smother any ball movement? Would the ball get any further than 2 or 3 out? I'm not against a proposed 5m defensive line if it'll improve things, just would like someone to explain the dynamics of exactly how it would acheive that.

 

[butchmcdick]

because saints would go back to winning every year.

that rule was only brought in to stop saints dominance.

And why was the ten metre rule brought in again ? Was it because defence was dominating attack or was it because arko and qualye ( who can do no wrong in your estimation dally) woke up one day and thought shiiiit, lets bring in a new rule for the sake of it ?

 

[dallymessenger]

And why was the ten metre rule brought in again ? Was it because defence was dominating attack or was it because arko and qualye ( who can do no wrong in your estimation dally) woke up one day and thought shiiiit, lets bring in a new rule for the sake of it ?

it was to promote attack.

maybe attack has gone to far?

id love to see a trial game of it with current players and see how it goes.

we had unlimited interchanges and then 12 interchanges and i thought they were wrong too.

now that its been reduced i think the game is better, and id like to see us go back to 4 - 6.

 

[dallymessenger]

it's not the 10m rule that encourages boring play...it's the way the players play and the coaches coach...

afterall ESL has the 10m rule and our league is'nt boring

fair enough comment.

so you prefer 10 having seen both i guess?

 

[Eels Dude]

Reintroducing the 5 metre rule which just be the 1st step in turning the game back into rugby. It wouldn't allow the attack much room to move and the entire play would be down one side of the field for large amounts of time. I wouldn't want to go to as many games if that were the case. I don't see how a 5 metre rule is going to result in more interesting play.

 

[dallymessenger]

Reintroducing the 5 metre rule which just be the 1st step in turning the game back into rugby. It wouldn't allow the attack much room to move and the entire play would be down one side of the field for large amounts of time. I wouldn't want to go to as many games if that were the case. I don't see how a 5 metre rule is going to result in more interesting play.

have you seen much RL under the 5 m. rule?

and please it wont bring the game close to union, nothing like it.

 

[butchmcdick]

it was to promote attack.

maybe attack has gone to far?

id love to see a trial game of it with current players and see how it goes.

we had unlimited interchanges and then 12 interchanges and i thought they were wrong too.

now that its been reduced i think the game is better, and id like to see us go back to 4 - 6.

Yeah the attack, it really sucks. People hate seeing points scored. The fans love a good defensive contest. Set after set of tackles with no line breaks, Wow dally, thats an awesome vision.

 

[dallymessenger]

Yeah the attack, it really sucks. People hate seeing points scored. The fans love a good defensive contest. Set after set of tackles with no line breaks, Wow dally, thats an awesome vision.

you enjoy seeing teams making 50 m. from dummy half runs or one pass from the ruck, then a kick on last.

its boring and predictable.

thats not really attacking play

 

[Eels Dude]

have you seen much RL under the 5 m. rule?

and please it wont bring the game close to union, nothing like it.

The game has changed so much in general since the 5 metre rule was last used. Please explain to me how bringing in a 5 metre rule is going to increase attacking football and see more creative play.

 

[dallymessenger]

The game has changed so much in general since the 5 metre rule was last used. Please explain to me how bringing in a 5 metre rule is going to increase attacking football and see more creative play.

it will encourages less dummy half running and boring football.

it will force teams to try and play proper attacking football.

we currently reward boring footy, so thats why we get it.

 

[dallymessenger]

watching an NRL game today :

tackles 1 - 4 its bascially 1 out stuff for the attacking team to get to the halfway off the kick return.

they might trying something fancy on 4th tackle, then last its a kick.

no creativity at all, unless a team needs a try to win with 5 minutes to go then they try things.

its getting very predictable. RL being played by robots.

 

[Eels Dude]

it will encourages less dummy half running and boring football.

it will force teams to try and play proper attacking football.

we currently reward boring footy, so thats why we get it.

I won't disagree with you there but changing it back to a 5 metre rule is not the answer. The problem is that the game puts too much emphasis on winning the wrestle and the ruck. The way teams defend is a lot different these days. With the defending side being able to slow the play the ball down and then rush up in defence, the attacking side is not going to have time or room to do anything with the football. They'll be succumbing in tackles very easily and attacking oppurtunities on the goal line will be few and far between. It will become a game of territory and field position like rugby rather than skill.

 

[Eels Dude]

I can't remember which year it was, but the first origin game about 4 to 5 years ago when the ref kept the players back only 7 to 8 metres or something and only 1 try was scored. The game was the most boring origin game ever because it was just one out hitups and the attack didn't have enough time or space to be able to pull out anything creative.

 

[salivor]

Against it personally. I think we'd just put ourselves back on level pegging with Union and we've seen how well closing the game between attack and defence promotes attacking creative play in their game.

Players are too fit and fast these days to go back to 5m. The attack would have to stand a good extra 10 metres back and with the speed of modern day defensive lines and the ability of teams to be able to cut off outside men even under the 10 metre rule it'd be a battle just to get over the advantage line let alone make decent metres.

I think the game would become even more boring with such a struggle to make metres the game would become even more about territory. Teams would be focussed on possession and therefore cutting out risk free football as mistakes could very easily see the opposition camped down in your end.

In regards to the stripping rule, I don't understand how people can moan about the predictable safety first play we see and at the same time want to scrap the stripping rule that'll further promote safety first risk free football. IMO if you made it a free for all the SBW's and Mateo's of this world would be coached to improve their carry of the football and prioritise possession.

 

[RL1908]

I can't remember which year it was, but the first origin game about 4 to 5 years ago when the ref kept the players back only 7 to 8 metres or something and only 1 try was scored. The game was the most boring origin game ever because it was just one out hitups and the attack didn't have enough time or space to be able to pull out anything creative.

That could equally be explained by the players suddenly being faced with a situation where they had to actually be creative to get up field (instead of being given 10m and momentum) and having no answers.

The modern wrestling/mauling in the tackle in RL today is more like RU than anything that we saw under the 5m rule.

The reason the mauling/wrestling exists is because 10m is physically too much for RL to be officiated with a fast "held" rule and play-the-ball. This is all compounded by the obvious bias that is given in favour of attackers over defenders at the ruck.

Frank Hyde suggested that we can keep the 10m space, but make sure the attack and defence are both back 5m from the ruck. If we go to 2 referees, this could actually work quite well as both referees would enforce the 5m distances, and still be close enough to see what is going on at the ruck.

In my view we should keep 10m rule, but be calling "held" far quicker - But that can only happen if some off-sets are given to the defence - otherwise referees will just keep penalising defenders for not releasing, not marking, and/or not getting back 10m.

I would keep the 10m rule, but relieve the pressure on the defence. If teams want a lightening fast play-the-ball, let them have it - but stop rewarding the attack if they choose to run at defenders who haven't had a reasonable time to get square at marker, or get back to 10m.

If the attack wants square markers and the full 10m then they can have it...by waiting just a few seconds longer. BUT if the attackers choose to go early, then stop rewarding them for trying to get cheap penalties from retreating defenders instead of playing football. All of that would force attack to spread the ball a little wider, just to clear the ruck.

The 10m rule worked really well in 1994-1996 - until everyone worked out that there was cheap 10m on offer if you just ploughed ahead from dummy-half or a hit-up.

 

[dallymessenger]

I won't disagree with you there but changing it back to a 5 metre rule is not the answer. The problem is that the game puts too much emphasis on winning the wrestle and the ruck. The way teams defend is a lot different these days. With the defending side being able to slow the play the ball down and then rush up in defence, the attacking side is not going to have time or room to do anything with the football. They'll be succumbing in tackles very easily and attacking oppurtunities on the goal line will be few and far between. It will become a game of territory and field position like rugby rather than skill.

at least we agree on the problem.

 

[RL1908]

Well sh*t buddy, why not go back to unlimited tackles while we are at it ? It is truely remarkable league survived with out limited tackles. Why didn't they think of it sooner ? One wonders how league survived.

Come on mate, your original post stating that rugby league was terrible before the 10m rule does a great injustice to everyone who watched and played RL before 1993.

If RL was terrible before the 10m rule, why would anyone have watched or played it?

By all means argue that RL after the start of the 10m rule is better, but suggesting RL before it was terrible is way over the top.

(And nowhere did I suggest reverting to the 5m rule, or unlimited tackles).

 

[Whos Ya Daddy]

Relax the policing of the markers and problem is solved. I would like to see the officials police players walking off the mark a lot tougher as well.