What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

40/30 - it should be time

POPEYE

Coach
Messages
11,397
The shift towards a defensive playing style has impacted upon audience interest in the game. No one can argue against that.

It really is holding back the game.



If rugby league had adopted that mantra then they'd still be playing rugby union...
Hey dopey, you can't grasp that 'keep the rules as they are' means as they are now, and you only half quote. Why don't we try to keep the rules we have and make them harder to accomplish, bring stamina back into the game . . . f**k softcock changes . . . let the Backs determine the outcome
 

T-Boon

Coach
Messages
12,832
Thinking of some of the other positives that would flow from 40/30 (or general 40) I think you would see less 50/50 penalties.
The reason I say this is that I think with the general lack of play making from inside own half (line breaks and such) in the game at the moment referees see themselves as quasi attacking opportunity makers through penalties. That flows through to the crowd as well so the home crowd starts booing to try to put pressure on to earn a penalty because they know that actual player made opportunities are unlikely.
40/30 (or general 40) gives more potential threats from within own territory so the ref is less likely to feel the need to make something happen and the crowd is more likely to focus on what the players should/could be doing to create opportunities.
When the penalty count is bigger than the play making count...thats when fans feel like the refs are cheating them.
 

ACTPanthers

Bench
Messages
3,990
If you honestly think changing the 40/20 rule is going to stop home crowds cheering for a penalty, then there really is no point in making any kind of argument with you.
 
Messages
2,399
If you honestly think changing the 40/20 rule is going to stop home crowds cheering for a penalty, then there really is no point in making any kind of argument with you.

It won't stop it, but it probably will lessen it. Fine, i'm for trying out 40/30, but with less numbers on the paddock, 12-a-side, and allow more markers, 3. Also want to stop players from being able to catch kicks on the full, ball has to be caught or to bounce before anyone from the kicking team can go for the ball. Reduce the in-goal area to 7m. Get rid of the video-referee, have in-goal judges instead. Stick with 2 refs on the pitch.
 
Messages
2,399
It would be cool if we had a semi pro league that trialled things like this. The Newcastle Rugby League comp (Real NRL). Or Jim Beam cup.

Um, we do have semi-pro leagues.

Well, all our leagues up here are semi-pro or amateur. You can't call "Super" League professional, flip, the boarding school I went to has a more professional rugby team than most SL clubs, and i'm not exaggerating.

In the, if you only train twice a week as a team then you're amateur IMO, that what RU clubs used to do pre-1995. IMO Wests Tigers aren't professional. Cronulla have built their own weights room now I believe, and have better facilities, makes them more professional, probably why they won the comp last yr.

I want RL players to be the best paid sportsmen on the planet, I want them to be in the ether, detached from us 2nd/3rd rate humans/losers/deadbeats/morons, lol.
 

docbrown

Coach
Messages
10,390
Hey dopey, you can't grasp that 'keep the rules as they are' means as they are now, and you only half quote. Why don't we try to keep the rules we have and make them harder to accomplish, bring stamina back into the game . . . f**k softcock changes . . . let the Backs determine the outcome

Over the past century there have been hundreds of changes which have evolved into the set of rules we have today. To not consider this reality and to think that the current rules are somehow sacrosanct and beyond alteration represents a total failure on your behalf to understand the fundamental nature of the game itself.
 

POPEYE

Coach
Messages
11,397
Over the past century there have been hundreds of changes which have evolved into the set of rules we have today. To not consider this reality and to think that the current rules are somehow sacrosanct and beyond alteration represents a total failure on your behalf to understand the fundamental nature of the game itself.
Maybe you're right, maybe I should watch The Block/MKR/Footy Show and the rest of that reality tv shit.

I've nothing against changing rules, I'd like some changed back to the way they were, like less interchange, a full 10 metres, proper play-the-ball. Turning RL into Union with childish 'forcings back' kicking, allowing fresh forwards to bash playmakers and any other rule that dimishes RL to the stamina of NFL is what I dislike
 

docbrown

Coach
Messages
10,390
I've nothing against changing rules, I'd like some changed back to the way they were, like less interchange, a full 10 metres, proper play-the-ball.

Most fans want to see proper 10 metres & play-the-balls. The issue isn't the rules - some games are fine, others are dodgy - so it's actually about the consistency of their enforcement.

There's 2 key problems with the way the game is played at the moment: attacking teams rely far too much on simple dummy half runs & defences rely on too much wrestling & gang tackles. Why? Because coaches know that the rules of the game disproportionately reward those tactics.

The NRL know this is a problem but their response has been to tweak around the edges - banning certain tackling styles or enforcing different rules more strongly. It hasn't worked because the advantage is still too great. Even if the NRL does what you want & enforces those rules, the reward for boring safe tactics is still too high.

The only valid response is to change the rules to favour creativity and variety in attack. A general 40 metre kick advantage is not solely about kicking. Because it creates defensive gaps, it encourages teams to pass the ball more. That means more side to side passing, more line breaks, more kick & recovers. If teams stick to simply dummy half runs only they will score less points than the teams that use a variety of options. If teams gang tackle, they risk allow their opposition to exploit the gaps. The game is faster without the need for any more interchanges. It brings the element of fatigue back into the game.

Let's be honest - unless there's a major rule change to address these problems, this boring play-it-safe style of rugby league will remain the status quo for sometime to come.
 

8Ball

First Grade
Messages
5,132
I don't think your suggestions go far enough. Maybe we can reduce the teams to 11, who battle 2 players at once. But those two players are fitted out in padding and they have thick pieces of pounded wood. And they're protecting three sticks behind them. And instead of kicking for a 40-30, they should throw with a straight arm a smaller ball and try to hit those sticks ... and we should play it in summer. Maybe under lights. And on an oval.

Fwiw, rugby league is great IMO because of the actual gameplay. Don't change rules. But looking at the Tonga v NZ atmosphere, there was something there that is very rarely replicated at a game. The question I feel is how to replicate that.

Rugby league brings the tribalism out of people more than any other sport due to its gladiatorial nature. The more it can leverage that the better. The best games spectator-wise seem have a combination of brutal hitting, offloads and quick shifts. I think things need to be tried to make sure the game keeps up with the changes in its athletes and professionalism.

The wrestling in particular needs to be sorted out asap.
 

POPEYE

Coach
Messages
11,397
Most fans want to see proper 10 metres & play-the-balls. The issue isn't the rules - some games are fine, others are dodgy - so it's actually about the consistency of their enforcement.

There's 2 key problems with the way the game is played at the moment: attacking teams rely far too much on simple dummy half runs & defences rely on too much wrestling & gang tackles. Why? Because coaches know that the rules of the game disproportionately reward those tactics.

The NRL know this is a problem but their response has been to tweak around the edges - banning certain tackling styles or enforcing different rules more strongly. It hasn't worked because the advantage is still too great. Even if the NRL does what you want & enforces those rules, the reward for boring safe tactics is still too high.

The only valid response is to change the rules to favour creativity and variety in attack. A general 40 metre kick advantage is not solely about kicking. Because it creates defensive gaps, it encourages teams to pass the ball more. That means more side to side passing, more line breaks, more kick & recovers. If teams stick to simply dummy half runs only they will score less points than the teams that use a variety of options. If teams gang tackle, they risk allow their opposition to exploit the gaps. The game is faster without the need for any more interchanges. It brings the element of fatigue back into the game.

Let's be honest - unless there's a major rule change to address these problems, this boring play-it-safe style of rugby league will remain the status quo for sometime to come.
Yeh . . . nah
 
Top