Bigger fields or less players?

[mxlegend99]

If we want to encourage attacking football. Why not reward it? If you start a set off inside you 20 and manage to make it to the oppositions 20 within that set the tackle count restarts.

Just have the rule voided if a team kicks on the last to do so (any other tackle and the kicks fine) Encourage them to take risks through the set.

You might start to see attacking kicks earlier in sets to get extra metres. Teams might get the ball on the last 40m from the opposition line and decide to back themselves to get 20 metres rather than kick. Players would be more likely to offload and i feel it would keep the tempo pf the game a bit higher if teams were to back themselves to do it.

Im not a huge fan of rule changes. But I would love to see a team rewarded for a great set of 6. Its better than punishing attacking teams for a mistake over the try line or a missed field goal.

 

[Different kind of Rabbit]

I say we should reduce the team size down to just one player. One on one rugby league. Then it all comes down to whether you should have a forward or a back as that one player and which one would be more effective. If your one player gets injured then you forfeit.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Lol. There were some absolute bludgers of games every round in the 80s. People rightly remember the eels and their attack but most games in a round were mistake ridden defensive plods of games.

 

[adamkungl]

Lol. There were some absolute bludgers of games every round in the 80s. People rightly remember the eels and their attack but most games in a round were mistake ridden defensive plods of games.

Nothing more sad that people rambling about the good old days

 

[betcats]

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.

Most of what you are saying is already happening. 5 years ago everyone played like Melbourne with lo risk footy and block plays. But it is changing and teams are starting to throw the ball around again and we are seeing less block plays. The thing is if you try and force it overnight with rule changes it will likely create a different problem in the game. We are getting there tho. I think this upcoming season will see a lot more footy being played.

 

[Caped Crusader]

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.

The one thing you are not factoring in here mate is that the vast majority of 40/20 kicks take place before the 5th tackle, most often on the 4th and in turn the wingers of the defending side are up in the line. Its a big reason successful 40/20s occur. Tough to imagine a 40/30 would change this fact

 

[DiegoNT]

The problem with making rules to make the game more like the old days is that people don't factor in how much has been learned and how much the game has evolved naturally. For the rules to work people would have to literally un-learn years of wisdom.

Think of it like an f1 car. An f1 car looks completely different today the 65 years ago. But all those changes didn't come overnight. First they learned putting an engine in the back improves it, then the monocoque chassis, suspension, fatter tires, aerodynamics, turbos, improved gearboxes etc etc. These things were usually introduced slowly and refined over time. Some discoveries effected other discoveries. Now if you sent a group of modern engineers back in time to yhe 50s to build a f1 car, even with the resources and technology of the time, it would look nothing like the car in the black and white pic.
Similarly if we brought back rules from the 80s, it would look nothing like the football from the 80s. Players are fitter and stronger, skills are way better, defensive systems are dramatically better. Heck even the balls we use are way better.it's very likely there won't be any improvement on what we have now.

 

[adamkungl]

The idea that we're gonna get back to midget skinny blokes carving up professional footy is a particularly bad one. No amount of rule changes can change the fact that superfit 100kg blokes are better at contact sports.

 

[T-Boon]

The one thing you are not factoring in here mate is that the vast majority of 40/20 kicks take place before the 5th tackle, most often on the 4th and in turn the wingers of the defending side are up in the line. Its a big reason successful 40/20s occur. Tough to imagine a 40/30 would change this fact

OK, I accept more 40/20s are kicked on the 4th than the 5th. I stand corrected. But point here is you hardly ever see them succeed anyway. On average once every 10 games. You are more likely to see a sin binning.
Otherwise, I agree.
I don't think we will see a much higher success rates under 40/30 for that reason. I think you will see a slightly higher success rate (maybe 1 or 2 a game though it could be much higher than this). But you will also see wingers having to develop skills in stoping the 40/30 such as more desperate diving save etc. You will also see more space and therefore more incentive to throw passes to the wingers early in the set.

 

[T-Boon]

Lol. There were some absolute bludgers of games every round in the 80s. People rightly remember the eels and their attack but most games in a round were mistake ridden defensive plods of games.

I think the game was at its best in the early 90s, just after the "radical" 10metre rule change. When coaches learnt quickly how to take advantage of the 10 on the attacking side but had not yet worked out how to take advantage of the 10 on the defensive side (i.e. wrestle mania).

 

[T-Boon]

Think of it like an f1 car. An f1 car looks completely different today the 65 years ago. But all those changes didn't come overnight. First they learned putting an engine in the back improves it, then the monocoque chassis, suspension, fatter tires, aerodynamics, turbos, improved gearboxes etc etc. These things were usually introduced slowly and refined over time. Some discoveries effected other discoveries. Now if you sent a group of modern engineers back in time to yhe 50s to build a f1 car, even with the resources and technology of the time, it would look nothing like the car in the black and white pic.

Thats a very good parallel because most F1 fans think the racing sucks now in comparison to back then and that it has gotten gradually worse. Fans are crying to go back to loud engines, less obsession with safety and better racing. Professionalism hasn't really improved the racing at all.

The big difference is, with a few rule changes you can turn things back with Rugby league. Good point though. It is unlikely to go back to what it was.

 

[POPEYE]

How about the same size field with the same number of players but observers must pass an IQ test before they're allowed to comment on the game

 

[steven p white]

T Boon is on the money, I don't want all the rules changed back to the 80s versions, just the interchange. How would your 100kg plus "athletes" compete for 80 mins without having a rest every 10 or so ? They would either have to pace themselves or get a lot fitter or smarter. It would create a more level playing field as I don't see backs getting a rest when they're buggered so why should the blokes who are targeting them have that advantage. If you want to watch brainless giant morons collide then have a few minutes break for commercials watch the NFL or maybe the NRL in a few years time if we keep frigging around with it, it was always a game of attrition, skill & heart not stop start rubbish.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

There's 8 interchanges, very few players play 10 minute stints.

You could argue that 17 years ago but not now.

 

[DiegoNT]

Pretty much every back can play 80 minutes. Almost every 2nd rower to. Every hooker can play 80 as well. Half the locks can do 80 minutes.
Basically the only positions that actually need interchanges is the front row. But most quality front rowers can go 60-70 minutes. It wouldn't take much for players to adapt to a no interchanges. Most props would have to push from the 30 minute mark (when most come off nowdays) to half time then do about 20-25 in the second half before coming off for a reserve. This will see a rise of specialist 15-20 minute props who only come on for the final stages of matches.

 

[legs 11]

The idea that we're gonna get back to midget skinny blokes carving up professional footy is a particularly bad one. No amount of rule changes can change the fact that superfit 100kg blokes are better at contact sports.

Yep thats the problem with all pro tv sports...we don't want to see people that arent ripped up and massive.....and juiced to the max......who wants to see an average looking joe.....everyone is still on an even playing field today.....roided up...everyone

 

[Ray McKigney]

You can make it 100m by 100m and reduce teams to only one defender, the Dragons would still struggle to score tries.

 

[Canard]

You can make it 100m by 100m and reduce teams to only one defender, the Dragons would still struggle to score tries.

Joined today? What a coincidence.

/ignore

 

[T-Boon]

The idea that we're gonna get back to midget skinny blokes carving up professional footy is a particularly bad one. No amount of rule changes can change the fact that superfit 100kg blokes are better at contact sports.

If a skinny "midget" kid has sick skills (think Alfie Langer) there should be a place in the game for him. The closest we have had lately is probably Chris Sandow who in the 80s and 90s would have been an immortal. But now he just gets bashed out of the game.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

If a skinny "midget" kid has sick skills (think Alfie Langer) there should be a place in the game for him. The closest we have had lately is probably Chris Sandow who in the 80s and 90s would have been an immortal. .

Lol.