10m rule

[jack coburn]

it's only my opinion but i think the 10m in the game on saturday seemed a bit short,don't get me wrong i'm not complaining.i think the 10m is to long and when side's are going backward's it get's like a game of touch.the shorter 10 make's for a better game,tighter defence and more skill to get around it.sat's game was pretty brutal in the first half and i'd prefer to see 17-16 than 38-37.i'd like to see it stay about 7-8m to seperate the real footballers from the athelete's.

 

[Raider_69]

it's only my opinion but i think the 10m in the game on saturday seemed a bit short,don't get me wrong i'm not complaining.i think the 10m is to long and when side's are going backward's it get's like a game of touch.the shorter 10 make's for a better game,tighter defence and more skill to get around it.sat's game was pretty brutal in the first half and i'd prefer to see 17-16 than 38-37.i'd like to see it stay about 7-8m to seperate the real footballers from the athelete's.

to an extent i agree
if we can get more games liek saturdays one the game will benifit greatly..... but im not sure thats the way to go about it

 

[salivor]

I agree that Manders 10 metres was terrible but I disagree that its how it should be. I tell ya right now the only team that is going to get any advantage from that is the Roosters. They're already pushing it when they get forced back the full 10m.

The Warriors could barely get out of their own half for that first 20 minutes because the Raiders were able to take more advantage out of Manders 7 metres which suited their no frills type of game. It could've been a totally different game if both teams had been given another 3 metres or so and it probably would've allowed the Warriors more space to move and go further ahead on the scoreboard.

 

[Raider_69]

I agree that Manders 10 metres was terrible but I disagree that its how it should be. I tell ya right now the only team that is going to get any advantage from that is the Roosters. They're already pushing it when they get forced back the full 10m.

The Warriors could barely get out of their own half for that first 20 minutes because the Raiders were able to take more advantage out of Manders 7 metres which suited their no frills type of game. It could've been a totally different game if both teams had been given another 3 metres or so and it probably would've allowed the Warriors more space to move and go further ahead on the scoreboard.

i disagree, more metres would have allowed canbera to jump to a bigger lead early on....

 

[GITTA]

well this is my opinion i like both team's but if they were playing 10m rule's the raiders would'nt of got any point's cause when i watch the game i think mander was pinging the warrior's for being in the 10m


IT'S just my opinion

 

[salivor]

Why do you think Canberra were all over the Warriors in the first 20 minutes? They were being allowed to get right up in the Warriors faces and keep them pinned down in their own 30 metres. I don't think Mander gave either side special treatment and I'm not a Warriors fan but having a smaller 10 metres suited the game the Raiders were trying to play and helped them get that great start.

That game would've been totally different right from the outset had say Bill Harrigan been refereeing and keeping both sides back the full 10 metres. A more open style probably would've suited the Warriors.