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!

Bigger fields or less players?

adamkungl

Immortal
Messages
42,971
Very confusing post.
You acknowledge in paragraph one the game has CHANGED because of professionalism. You said in paragraph two we better not make big rule changes because the game will change.
Like you said, the game already changed...while we were procrastinating about rules and coaches were getting technical.
Its because of procrastination regarding rule changes that we are stuck with the products of professionalism - wrestling, boring conservative tactics and an apparent lack of space on the field.
Make 40/20 - 40/30. WTF is the big deal?

Because the likely outcome will probably be kicking duels moreso than a return to the supposed attacking glory days.
Because by placing such a high and easily reached reward on kicking the ball out, it would become an overused tactic at the expense other forms of tactical kicking or actually attacking.
Because it could make it very difficult to shift momentum from an attacking team on a roll resulting in frequent blowout scorelines.

Because it isn't a very well thought out idea, basically.

If you don't want to watch professional sport, there are countless options available for you at the local park every weekend.
 

T-Boon

Coach
Messages
15,878
Why do we need to make it easier for teams to get piggy backed down the field?

Because currently the biggest piggy back is referee decisions. Yep, thats right - refs have a bigger say in momentum swings than players. Thats why we get so frustrated with their decisions.
Also kicking a 30 metre touch finder will still be significantly more difficult (especially as the wingers would be back) than taking the easy route of straight up the guts for 8 metres x5.

The risk v reward of a 40/20 is perfect imo
What is the risk in a 40/20? There is zero risk - you usually attempt the kick in the normal course of a set of 6 - that is, on the last and you always just boot crap out of it going for max territory. A 40/30 has some risk in that you are kicking for precision and sacrificing a few metres of extra territory you would get with a maximum effort kick. They would also often be attempted from further back than the 40.
Also, what is the reward for attempting a 40/20? the success rate is about .01. There were less than thirty 40/20's kicked in over 200 games in 2016. The D simply does not need to account for it.

Less interchanges is the way to go if you want to open the field up
Agreed. This is part of the solution.
 
Last edited:

T-Boon

Coach
Messages
15,878
A 40/30 would be easy enough to defend with 3 back including 2 wingers on each 30 metre line. You would not have a high success rate in attempting, unless the Df elected not to have the wingers back.

I think in early sets the Df would have the wingers back in cover. This would leave space for the offence to throw the ball wide. If the offence does then throw it wide successfully it is likely that the Df would start to call the wingers up. Which would then leave the 30metre line open for kicks. Does the defence just send 2 wingers back and leave the middle open? Or defend with one marker?

Its freaking brilliant.
 
Last edited:

Canard

Immortal
Messages
35,614
Best part about these threads is you call spot all of GWs alts and add them to ignore.

Mister Taylor, West is Best etc.
 

AlwaysGreen

Post Whore
Messages
50,406
A 40/30 would be easy enough to defend with 3 back including 2 wingers on each 30 metre line. You would not have a high success rate in attempting, unless the Df elected not to have the wingers back.

I think in early sets the Df would have the wingers back in cover. This would leave space for the offence to throw the ball wide. If the offence does then throw it wide successfully it is likely that the Df would start to call the wingers up. Which would then leave the 30metre line open for kicks. Does the defence just send 2 wingers back and leave the middle open? Or defend with one marker?

Its freaking brilliant.
Its wonderful. Kickers aiming for 30 metre kicks to the sideline. What a spectacle.
 

T-Boon

Coach
Messages
15,878
Best part about these threads is you call spot all of GWs alts and add them to ignore.

Mister Taylor, West is Best etc.

Because it is unlikely that more than one fan is concerned about the game on field.

I guess I must already be on ignore.
 

AlwaysGreen

Post Whore
Messages
50,406
Yeah, I know.
Its so putrid how they are currently aiming for the 20 or just a heave-ho up the middle.
The thing about the 40/20 T spoon is that its a difficult skill and an unexpected one. If you make it easier you reduce the skill level and its impact.
 

T-Boon

Coach
Messages
15,878
The thing about the 40/20 T spoon is that its a difficult skill and an unexpected one. If you make it easier you reduce the skill level and its impact.

I know. You currently see one every 10 games. They are also sometimes exciting when they don't succeed because you force the fullback to make a save.
If you make it a 30 metre kick they will remain difficult to achieve because the wingers will actually be back covering for them. You will need to beat the winger. If you just aim for the 30 the winger is going to cover that 9 times out of 10 and then HIS team will have good field position.
Sure, you will see them succeed more regularly (maybe 4 or 5 a game) - so some of the thrill or surprise (actually remembering that rule exists) will be sacrificed. But it will still be a big play for your team, so the fan in the stands will still get excited about that and the coming attacking set as a reward.

Additionally, wingers will need to be fitter because they will need to cover more ground so you will probably not see so many forwards playing on the wing.
 

T-Boon

Coach
Messages
15,878
Large men running into each other is basically a core part of any kind of rugby game, do you expect to not see this fairly often?

I just hope to see a bit less of it (especially out of own territory).
Like the thread is about, more space. More offloading and use of backline out of own half. A bit less predictability.
 

betcats

Referee
Messages
23,956
Because currently the biggest piggy back is referee decisions. Yep, thats right - refs have a bigger say in momentum swings than players. Thats why we get so frustrated with their decisions.
Also kicking a 30 metre touch finder will still be significantly more difficult (especially as the wingers would be back) than taking the easy route of straight up the guts for 8 metres x5.

What is the risk in a 40/20? There is zero risk - you usually attempt the kick in the normal course of a set of 6 - that is, on the last and you always just boot crap out of it going for max territory. A 40/30 has some risk in that you are kicking for precision and sacrificing a few metres of extra territory you would get with a maximum effort kick. They would also often be attempted from further back than the 40.
Also, what is the reward for attempting a 40/20? the success rate is about .01. There were less than thirty 40/20's kicked in over 200 games in 2016. The D simply does not need to account for it.

Agreed. This is part of the solution.

How often do you see a 40/20 on last tackle? Not that often from my memory, the wingers are already on their way back by then. Its usually an early kick that gets it. You are risking field all important field position by attempting it and usually on an earlier tackle.


I hadn't considered the wingers dropping back and defending 40/30s, you make a good point there it would open up a bit but I still think its becomes to easy. Imagine guys like Cam Smith, JT or even specialist kickers like Adam Reynolds licking their lips at the thought of 40/30s. It massively change the way teams play, and I am not sure we need that.

Its not field size or player professionalism and fitness that is the main reason we see so much boring footy, it is the coaches. Look at the panthers last season, Griffin gives them a bit of room to play what they see and throw the ball around and the results were quite stunning at times(I am a panthers fan ftr), same as the Raiders. We don't need to make drastic rule changes to open the game up, we just need more coaches to stop trying to be Wayne "Put me to sleep" Bennett.

Hasler tried
 

ACTPanthers

Bench
Messages
4,854
So basically, you're saying we need more kicking in our game? Should we play on an oval as well? Maybe change the definition of a try to you only have to kick it through some posts...?
 

AlwaysGreen

Post Whore
Messages
50,406
@ T spoon Your last post shows how little notice you have taken on the evolution of the game. Apart from hooker the wing position has developed the most over the last 10 years.

Defence positioning, strong first carries, ability to take all manner of kicks offensively and defensively as well as plant the ball over the tryline acrobatically has made the need for an effective, fit player essential. You're either living in the past, blind or both.
 

T-Boon

Coach
Messages
15,878
So basically, you're saying we need more kicking in our game? Should we play on an oval as well? Maybe change the definition of a try to you only have to kick it through some posts...?

You are being silly. I hate AFL. It makes me sick.
I don't want to see more kicking, though I agree we would probably see a bit more. I want to see more play making (such as a 40/30 or a "40/30 stop"). I also want to see more passing, more tactics and variety.
 
Last edited:

betcats

Referee
Messages
23,956
So basically, you're saying we need more kicking in our game? Should we play on an oval as well? Maybe change the definition of a try to you only have to kick it through some posts...?

He is right that a 40/30 rule would likely take an extra defender out of the line for a couple extra tackles for some sets, I think he is looking at it from that direction rather than encouraging teams to kick more. I dunno I just see it being to dramatic a change.
 

steven p white

Juniors
Messages
27
Spot on was spot on, Piss off the interchange, which was tailor made for lazy , dumb players & coaches, train the players for endurance, not create musclebound meatheads who are tearing everything due to carrying more muscle & weight than their bodies were meant to naturally handle.Get centres who are agile with a bit of skill,& not de facto second rowers, get rid of the flat standing negative attack using the sideways shuffle in order to break the line & replace it with standing deep, creating space & running onto the ball at pace instead of endless block plays. The interchange was the precursor to all that is crap about the game & was bought in under the guise of player welfare by the power brokers at the time whose club rosters stood to benefit by it. Coaches need to shoulder the blame as they devise tactics that may be a means to an end, they are against the spirit of the game (think wrestling, chicken wing,diving & taking out legs when player held stationary by other tacklers) and like sheep they all follow. It all came home to me staying at a hotel with the family last year, the kids had Foxtel on (which we don't get) & they were watching classic games from the 80s (think classic skills of Kenny, Ella, Mortimer, Lamb, Rogers, Sterling etc) & my youngest boy said " Dad, when did league become shit!. That came from an 11year old who had played footy since he was 7 & was already being coached to hold players down in tackles by a coach who was doing what all the other negative coaches were doing.
 

T-Boon

Coach
Messages
15,878
In any case, the poster by the name of Dr Brown has the best idea - which is the anywhere 40 (I think he calls it the "general 40"). Thats the one I'd really like to see introduced. Brilliant idea.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Top