Peter V'landys - New NRL/ARLC Chairman

[TheRam]

Again, explain how this is politically correct? You are using it as a pseudonym for a decision you don't like. It has no relevance in this discussion.

The rule was never changed - punching has always been against the laws of the game. There was a mandate to increase the punishment. In addition to this, it makes sense for this for with concussion and head injuries are key concern for professional sports and its athletes.

The game isn't about hatred. The game is about competition, skill, speed, and physicality. If you need hatred to enjoy a sport - you need to seek some professional help.

It is politically correct because it is forcing players to curtail there natural impulse to strike out when someone does something either physically or verbally to them that is offensive or harmful because supposedly we the public can't handle seeing a punch thrown in anger. Nature is nature and to force someone to absorb whatever crap some players dish out knowing that there will not be any repercussions, especially if the refs miss it, then that is just plain wrong.

Again, I am not referring to the cheep shot punch that comes out of the blue, that deserves a send off. I am referring to two blokes sizing each other up and if a punch or two are thrown, big freakin deal.

Humans will always fight. The law is the law and rules are rules, but there will always be someone that will break them or use the rules to piss others off if he or she knows that they won't be dealt with physically by the victim. The occasional punch is warranted under that scenario.

Also if you don't think that sport, especially football(RL) hasn't been driven by a good portion of hatred over the years then you don't know what you are talking about. State against State comes to mind, but there are countless example of hate in sport. What the hell are you talking about. Sure competition, skill, speed, and physicality are necessary that is what the elite part of any sporting code automatically brings, but under all that, rivalries and hate fester between players and organisation depending on history and circumstance.

You have no idea mate. Most sports are combative by their very nature. Maybe you've been watch chequers played by librarians, while sipping your hot coco mate. Don't worry champ, mummy will be home soon to tuck you in.

 

[TheDalek079]

I think you've been punched a few too many times...

 

[madunit]

It is politically correct because it is forcing players to curtail there natural impulse to strike out when someone does something either physically or verbally to them that is offensive or harmful because supposedly we the public can't handle seeing a punch thrown in anger. Nature is nature and to force someone to absorb whatever crap some players dish out knowing that there will not be any repercussions, especially if the refs miss it, then that is just plain wrong.

Again, I am not referring to the cheep shot punch that comes out of the blue, that deserves a send off. I am referring to two blokes sizing each other up and if a punch or two are thrown, big freakin deal.

Humans will always fight. The law is the law and rules are rules, but there will always be someone that will break them or use the rules to piss others off if he or she knows that they won't be dealt with physically by the victim. The occasional punch is warranted under that scenario.

Also if you don't think that sport, especially football(RL) hasn't been driven by a good portion of hatred over the years then you don't know what you are talking about. State against State comes to mind, but there are countless example of hate in sport. What the hell are you talking about. Sure competition, skill, speed, and physicality are necessary that is what the elite part of any sporting code automatically brings, but under all that, rivalries and hate fester between players and organisation depending on history and circumstance.

You have no idea mate. Most sports are combative by their very nature. Maybe you've been watch chequers played by librarians, while sipping your hot coco mate. Don't worry champ, mummy will be home soon to tuck you in.

Mummy will tuck you in?

Grow up.

 

[Perth Red]

As much as I lament the way the game has gone I can fully understand why it has. It’s not the 70’s or 90’s anymore, physically assaulting each other is frowned on much more these days and for probably good reason. Anyway nothing to do with V’landys lol

 

[Legion]

The trick will be to unite the other NRL clubs..

If Perth is an expansion option..

To be succesfull it has to be a $10m a year grant bonus over the $13m normal grant for at least 15 years...

That's $150m that comes from the other nrl club coffers essentially...

Can vlandys get the other 16 to agree to that ?

Why anyone wants to expand the NRL is beyond my comprehension. [Sorry Perth Red]
We already have too many teams.
The fact that teams don't face each other twice in one season is a joke IMO [And don't get me started on teams playing each other twice within a month]

Another club would simply dilute the talent of existing teams.

 

[Frailty]

It is politically correct because it is forcing players to curtail there natural impulse to strike out when someone does something either physically or verbally to them that is offensive or harmful because supposedly we the public can't handle seeing a punch thrown in anger. Nature is nature and to force someone to absorb whatever crap some players dish out knowing that there will not be any repercussions, especially if the refs miss it, then that is just plain wrong.

Again, I am not referring to the cheep shot punch that comes out of the blue, that deserves a send off. I am referring to two blokes sizing each other up and if a punch or two are thrown, big freakin deal.

Humans will always fight. The law is the law and rules are rules, but there will always be someone that will break them or use the rules to piss others off if he or she knows that they won't be dealt with physically by the victim. The occasional punch is warranted under that scenario.

Also if you don't think that sport, especially football(RL) hasn't been driven by a good portion of hatred over the years then you don't know what you are talking about. State against State comes to mind, but there are countless example of hate in sport. What the hell are you talking about. Sure competition, skill, speed, and physicality are necessary that is what the elite part of any sporting code automatically brings, but under all that, rivalries and hate fester between players and organisation depending on history and circumstance.

You have no idea mate. Most sports are combative by their very nature. Maybe you've been watch chequers played by librarians, while sipping your hot coco mate. Don't worry champ, mummy will be home soon to tuck you in.

Keep going with the insults. I don't mind, because it shows how fragile your argument is.

Political correctness is actually a term used to describe language, or measure that is intend to avoid offence to a particular group in society - and only used when it's seen as unwarranted.

The crackdown on fighting is not because of any offence to viewers, because as you say - there are plenty that love it. Rather it was due to the game needing to ensure the safety of the players. It is the same reason that shoulder charges were outlawed. If the game continued to turn a blind eye to players fighting, and essentially condoning it, the game would have been opening itself up to potential litigation moving forward.

Instead the game wanted to focus on what is great about Rugby League. It's why every sport in the world (outside of literal fighting sports) is looking to reduce and eradicate fighting. Even a sport like ice hockey, where fighting was seen as a significant part of the game, has seen a sharp drop off in the number of fights. Because that's not what the heart of the game is about.

People love competition. Rugby League offers a fantastic product of that. It is still an extremely physical sport. The more physical the sport, yes the more combative it is, but not most sports.

The fact is the game has been professionalised, and moved beyond archaic crap that provides nothing to the result of the game.

 

[Perth Red]

Why anyone wants to expand the NRL is beyond my comprehension. [Sorry Perth Red]
We already have too many teams.
The fact that teams don't face each other twice in one season is a joke IMO [And don't get me started on teams playing each other twice within a month]

Another club would simply dilute the talent of existing teams.

because if you're not growing you're dying.

 

[Legion]

because if you're not growing you're dying.

Diluting the talent in each team is "growing"? Huh.
Losing the system that we had with reserve grade & the under 21's was a huge step backwards IMO.
All thanks to that greedy old a-hole Murdoch.

Growth for growths sake is not the answer.
Strengthening existing clubs & focusing more resources towards grassroots is the way to go forward.

 

[Frailty]

Diluting the talent in each team is "growing"? Huh.
Losing the system that we had with reserve grade & the under 21's was a huge step backwards IMO.
All thanks to that greedy old a-hole Murdoch.

Growth for growths sake is not the answer.
Strengthening existing clubs & focusing more resources towards grassroots is the way to go forward.

Have to disagree completely. We are never concerned when players leave for ESL or to rugby because the players are there. Consolidating in existing markets where there is very minimal opportunity for growth is a ridiculous decision. What would you actually change in resources towards grassroots? NSWRL has continued to expand resources available to junior leagues and has had monumental strides in the Women's game. Saying 'focus more resources towards grassroots' is a simplistic statement that offers very little. What can the NRL do better on that front?

Expanding to new markets means new supporters, new junior development, new investment in the game. Without that mindset, the game would have stayed in Rugby Union's shadow in Australia at the turn of the century.

 

[Legion]

Of all the things he did for the game, much of which was great and long overdue, you're judging him on one rule about punching? Seriously? That redefines moronic.

The punching ban has helped to make the game more appealing to all audiences and only annoyed the dopey old merkins who were always going to bitch and moan about petty horseshit, because they're dopey mindless sheep who just accept whatever opinion Buzz and co tell them to.

Generally speaking I agree ... but, who didn't enjoy watching the Chief take care of that thug Bella in State of Origin? lol

Would have loved to see Gallen get into it with that grub Nate Myles, who was deliberately twisting NSW players legs to cause injury. Myles deserved more than a punch in the face; what a grub.
Players like him take advantage of the fact that they're protected from someone sorting them out. Bet he would not have been deliberately trying to cause injury in 'the good ol' days'.

Still, that sort of grubbiness from Myles is in the minority [one would hope] and the game is for the better since they banned punching.
Players get enough serious knocks to the head as it is.
Long term brain injury from repeated concussions during a players career is a serious issue for sure. No ifs no buts.

 

[Legion]

Have to disagree completely. We are never concerned when players leave for ESL or to rugby because the players are there. Consolidating in existing markets where there is very minimal opportunity for growth is a ridiculous decision. What would you actually change in resources towards grassroots? NSWRL has continued to expand resources available to junior leagues and has had monumental strides in the Women's game. Saying 'focus more resources towards grassroots' is a simplistic statement that offers very little. What can the NRL do better on that front?

Expanding to new markets means new supporters, new junior development, new investment in the game. Without that mindset, the game would have stayed in Rugby Union's shadow in Australia at the turn of the century.

New Zealand Rugby Union is an excellent example of the benefits from ensuring support at the grassroots level. Kiwi rugby players understand the game as well, if not better, than most.
It's why they're so successful.

Watching the Aussie boys in the World Cup shows that we could take a leaf from their book.
Their overall basic skill level, in a World Cup no less, left a lot to be desired.

Without players learning the fundamental skills from a young age, we'll just keep filling the void with even more players from Polynesia.

You do understand that we support an Aussie competition, right?
Regardless, any sport that does not support the code at the grass roots level & who spends most of the resources at the elite level, will not flourish.

As others have noted, Rugby League could learn a lot from the Aussie Rules crowd.
Their code IS flourishing thanks to the resources directed towards school kids & rural areas in particular.
Where on Earth do you think tomorrows players will emerge from? ....... Oh that's right, from Polynesia.

 

[bad boy bubby]

because if you're not growing you're dying.

I disagree.
With every beer I have my gut grows a little bigger, and with every passing second I get closer to the term of my natural life.

 

[Frailty]

New Zealand Rugby Union is an excellent example of the benefits from ensuring support at the grassroots level. Kiwi rugby players understand the game as well, if not better, than most.
It's why they're so successful.

Watching the Aussie boys in the World Cup shows that we could take a leaf from their book.
Their overall basic skill level, in a World Cup no less, left a lot to be desired.

Without players learning the fundamental skills from a young age, we'll just keep filling the void with even more players from Polynesia.

You do understand that we support an Aussie competition, right?
Regardless, any sport that does not support the code at the grass roots level & who spends most of the resources at the elite level, will not flourish.

As others have noted, Rugby League could learn a lot from the Aussie Rules crowd.
Their code IS flourishing thanks to the resources directed towards school kids & rural areas in particular.
Where on Earth do you think tomorrows players will emerge from? ....... Oh that's right, from Polynesia.

So using your example - NZ Rugby - you do realise that 'game development' accounted for 16% of their expenditure? This compared to 30% for their national teams, and 46% for their NZ Rugby competitions. Not to mention, to compare the Australian Rugby is just absurd. Australian Rugby is a financial basket case and are not looking at expanding.

As for the 'Aussie Rules' flourishing - their crowds dropped in 2019 (including a 20% drop in the finals). Their average crowd is comparable to their crowds in 2009. Their TV ratings have remained stable. They are not flourishing.

Again, please identify what resources league needs at the 'grassroots level'. It's all well and good saying more needs to go there, but in what form? What is actually going to be effective?

Meanwhile, developing a new junior league in an area of a new expansion franchise has really benefits of growing the game.

 

[Perth Red]

Diluting the talent in each team is "growing"? Huh.
Losing the system that we had with reserve grade & the under 21's was a huge step backwards IMO.
All thanks to that greedy old a-hole Murdoch.

Growth for growths sake is not the answer.
Strengthening existing clubs & focusing more resources towards grassroots is the way to go forward.

neither of which brings in more fans, more tv viewers and therefore more Money. Anyway there are numerous expansion threads in the other forum discussing the merits of expansion lol

 

[siv]

neither of which brings in more fans, more tv viewers and therefore more Money. Anyway there are numerous expansion threads in the other forum discussing the merits of expansion lol

Money v Player Development

RG professional layer in NSW has improved player development as the gap between NSW Cup and NRL reduced

A return of a U23/22/21 professional layer will improve this once again

But like you say there is a market for Tier 2 clubs but the reality it's the same 500-1000 people who like a cheap local footy day out. And most of these people who aren't NRL club fans would turn up and watch whoever was on the field for their #1 team

It needs a dual answer RG and NSW / Qld Cup

Money for RG is already within the NRL grants and the Top 30+6 setups not to mention all ground rentals cover a period of 2 or 3 games. Even if only based in NSW with 12 teams

While a revamped NSW Cup which includes better RMC clubs / NSW Country championship ala QLD Cup would bring new markets to Tier 2 TV viewing

 

[Mr Spock!]

Hopefully this bloke doesn't use the same program for retired footballers than they have for race horses.

 

[GAZF]

Hopefully this bloke doesn't use the same program for retired footballers than they have for race horses.

Clubs wouldn't cop players being listed as still active (and therefore part of the cap).

 

[Legion]

So using your example - NZ Rugby - you do realise that 'game development' accounted for 16% of their expenditure? This compared to 30% for their national teams, and 46% for their NZ Rugby competitions. Not to mention, to compare the Australian Rugby is just absurd. Australian Rugby is a financial basket case and are not looking at expanding.

As for the 'Aussie Rules' flourishing - their crowds dropped in 2019 (including a 20% drop in the finals). Their average crowd is comparable to their crowds in 2009. Their TV ratings have remained stable. They are not flourishing.

Again, please identify what resources league needs at the 'grassroots level'. It's all well and good saying more needs to go there, but in what form? What is actually going to be effective?

Meanwhile, developing a new junior league in an area of a new expansion franchise has really benefits of growing the game.

It's not all about the money. Resources include time spent on juniors.
NZ has such a small population yet has consistently had strong representative rugby teams.
This is because of the high participation rate at the grass root level.

The AFL has growth at the grass root level thanks to the Auskick programme.
More & more NSW kids are participating.

Can't find the 2019 figures but the Swans drew an average crowd of 34,342 in 2018.
GWS attracted 23,040 in the same year. Not too bad for a new club.
Even the Gold Coast Suns managed to draw more people, 18,670, than the NRL average crowd of 16,620.

Sure, the AFL has done well, expanding their game into non-traditional areas such as NSW & Qld, but I'd suggest that they can afford to since they have high participation at the grass root level in traditional Aussie Rules areas.

One needs to shore up what one already has before venturing into new areas, not at the expense of traditional ones.

 

[Frailty]

It's not all about the money. Resources include time spent on juniors.
NZ has such a small population yet has consistently had strong representative rugby teams.
This is because of the high participation rate at the grass root level.

The AFL has growth at the grass root level thanks to the Auskick programme.
More & more NSW kids are participating.

Can't find the 2019 figures but the Swans drew an average crowd of 34,342 in 2018.
GWS attracted 23,040 in the same year. Not too bad for a new club.
Even the Gold Coast Suns managed to draw more people, 18,670, than the NRL average crowd of 16,620.

Sure, the AFL has done well, expanding their game into non-traditional areas such as NSW & Qld, but I'd suggest that they can afford to since they have high participation at the grass root level in traditional Aussie Rules areas.

One needs to shore up what one already has before venturing into new areas, not at the expense of traditional ones.

Rugby League has experienced an increase of participation in the Junior Leagues by 3.5%. They have added 680,000 Touch Football that could be added to this group since it falls under the NRL. In addition, the NRL recently launched League Stars which is an introductory program that has been running in the last 6 weeks. 81% of participants are new to the game.

Rugby League has a high level of participation in it's 'heartland' areas. Real growth, like you even pointed out with the AFL, is in expansion areas.

And whilst, we are at figures - NZ Rugby reported in 2018 that male teenage participation in Rugby had fallen 4.8% with overall male participation falling at 1.8%.

 

[GAZF]

Can't find the 2019 figures but the Swans drew an average crowd of 34,342 in 2018.
GWS attracted 23,040 in the same year. Not too bad for a new club.
Even the Gold Coast Suns managed to draw more people, 18,670, than the NRL average crowd of 16,620.

If those GWS and GC crowds are averages, I would doubt their authenticity. If they're one-off crowds, its a bit dishonest to compare them to the NRL crowd average.