Dave Smith is the greatest administrator in RL history.

[Teddyboy]

???

If a lot of people are walking away from the game it's a problem. If not then it is faux-outrage not unlike you would see on Twitter. I expect to see crowd numbers to be significantly different this weekend if it is an actual issue.

Right we speak next tuesday.

 

[Someone]

So, was slater charged with his elbow or not?

 

[Bengal]

I don't disagree there should be sin bins for fighting, if for no other reason than it brings a level of consistency that the game needs. I just think it's a folly that we're doing this to protect the games image and grow the game, or stop fights, or some other such bullshit, because I don't accept as valid the presupposition that the middle class and whoever else tend not to watch the game because of fighting, or because of shoulder charges. I don't believe it.

The game traded on an image of toughness which very much included a bit of biff. Toughness is League?s culture. But two points here, they just can?t eliminate one cultural element of the game that was decades in the making almost overnight. Can?t be done ? folly to try. Also, they need to put biffo in its proper context and that is that there?s very little biffo in any given match as it is. It seems to be flavour of the month but its occurrence and subsequent influence has been blown well out of proportion. Interestingly enough, no one seems to ever mention the post-game handshaking, happy, smiling faces and congratulatory behavior between team mates and sometimes opposing players to boot. These positive interactions (and potential like influences) are never given an airing. Reason suggests that if fighting holds undue negative influence then these post match interactions should do the same but in a positive sense.

???

If a lot of people are walking away from the game it's a problem. If not then it is faux-outrage not unlike you would see on Twitter. I expect to see crowd numbers to be significantly different this weekend if it is an actual issue.

People walking away from the game isn't the main problem (at the moment anyway). The real problem is attracting new fans to the sport, thus the changes the game has undergone of late will not filter through until a few years from now. The game that attracted my attention has diminished a great deal of late, a sentiment that I reckon a lot of fans can identify with. But at the same time, our competitors, certainly our closest competitor (in terms of game-play) Rugby Union has strengthened their game, it is far more attractive as a spectacle than it ever has been before. In short, they have added to their spectacle while we have diminished ours. This, primarily, is why we'll struggle to compete in the future.

 

[LeagueXIII]

Commentators say union today is like league inthe 80's

 

[Card Shark]

So, was slater charged with his elbow or not?

What do you think?? We are talking about Billy Slater here.

Sails close to the wind but never gets in strife.

 

[Griffoshark66]

He and his fellow protected species Smith are filthy players who continually break the rules.

 

[Teddyboy]

Walk up Australia as I would hate to see your country just being a AFL/Soccer and Cricket country.

 

[Perth Tiger]

I haven't read the last few pages but my 2 cents is Smith has been very good when he has focused on the business side of the game.

When he has stuck his nose into what actually happens on the field he has been bad

 

[Diesel]

Commentators say union today is like league inthe 80's

If your talking crowd numbers in the early 80's you're probably making union look better than it is, excluding international games.

 

[taxidriver]

What do you think?? We are talking about Billy Slater here.

Sails close to the wind but never gets in strife.

close to the wind? he busts through it and is well on the other side.

time and time again

 

[Phil McGrawhan]

Walk up Australia as I would hate to see your country just being a AFL/Soccer and Cricket country.

:lol::lol: have another drink ,its not like its gunna do any damage to any brain cells.

 

[Someone]

What do you think?? We are talking about Billy Slater here.

Sails close to the wind but never gets in strife.

then f**k dave smith. bans the biff but you can still elbow and choke people. :roll:

elbowing someone because you got tackled is just throwing a tantrum. Slater is a biggest grub in the game.

 

[Just This Bloke]

As a fan who has always loved the biff and the spectacular contact of the shoulder charge, I agree with the new rules and think it was bound to happen eventually anyway. Good forward thinking by Dave Smith.

Fighting in the NHL is on the way out. With all the concussion drama going on in the NFL and with the Derek Boosgard tragedy in the NHL, the majority of people want it gone. The league and players are the ones who want to keep it in, because it's such a huge tradition and part of the game's history and a legitmate and important strategical move in some instances. You cant compare fighting in the NHL to fighting in the NRL. They're two completely different entities.

I think we can all agree we need to be constantly building the game at the grass roots level. Parents are much more protective of their kids these days and they dont want them participating in sports where they're likely to be punched in the head by some thug or knocked unconscious by a dangerous tackle.
Players already get hit in the head way too much in our game. The NFL is currently being sued by just about every player to ever play the game for concussion-related issues. It's a massive drama, which could seriously damage the league. Rugby League players are hit in the head just as much as NFL players are and aren't wearing any head protection. Don't be surprised if former NRL players come out in the next few years talking about problems they're suffering from as a result of all the head knocks they took during their playing days.
If you need to be convinced of why fighting needs to go, I strongly suggest you all check out the New York Times' article on the death of Derek Boogard. It's a long, but truly fascinating and eye-opening story that more people need to see. I cant post the link, because i only have 11 posts.

Shoulder charges and fights are a great spectacle and I love them as much as the next bloke, but nobody can deny they're dangerous and not at all in the interest of player safety. The game is still spectacular without them and the tackles are just as hard-hitting. And the players will still fight. Just not as often.

Dave Smith has made a great decision for the future of our beloved game. A lot of people are being very short-sighted.

The Origin sin-binnings of Tate and Bird were a disgrace though. Had only the two players who threw punches been sin-binned, I'd have had no problem with that. If Bird and Tate weren't binned, there'd have been no outrage. Poor application of a rule by officials shouldn't result in the condemnation of the rule itself.

 

[Knownothing]

As a fan who has always loved the biff and the spectacular contact of the shoulder charge, I agree with the new rules and think it was bound to happen eventually anyway. Good forward thinking by Dave Smith.


Dave Smith has made a great decision for the future of our beloved game.

Smith would never have done this on his own, he would have had to have total support from the Commission. In fact, I would doubt that it was actually his idea. He has only been in the game for five minutes, if he is smart enough to be CEO he is also smart enough to know that he is not there to change the game, he is there to maximise the corporate position of the NRL.


Gallop is unfairly maligned, the biggest problems he had were that he did not have a unified board structure to work with.


Whether or not Smith is a great administrator is a moot point. The fact that there is now a unified Commission overseeing the whole game in Australia is far more important.

 

[magpie4ever]

Here is some bloody analogies for everyone.

Cadbury decide to change the formula of their classic milk chocolate, a while back - the taste changed, sales slumped and they quickly reverted back to the old formula.

Coke in the USA, if I remember rightly, changed the formula of coke (and came out with a product called Coke Clear); sales nosedived and guess what, they quickly reverted to the proven product.

Why are these analogies pertinent to rugby league - well. the product is or was what it was; tested for over 100 years - it is a contact sport that attracts those who play or played the game and love it and those that just never played but love it due to its intensity and wish they could be like their heros.

The ugly side of the game was basically cleaned up in the 70s and 80s; the game is as clean as any contact sport can be from the direct violence. What has come into the game in recent years is the cheap shots - shoulder charges (only really came into the game with the advent of the 10m offside rule and the need to control the ruck so defensive patterns could get set) and the wrestling and specialised tackles to damage the ball runner (ckicken wing, crusher and leg twist etc).

The "powers that be" take one of the cheap shots out - the shoulder charge - fair enough, I have no issue; but continue to ignore the rest, outside of penalising when picked up.

So, now they decide to attempt to take the occasional flare up (and this is now very occasional) out of the game to pacify the media and the fringe once, twice, thrice times a year supporters. Guess what - they have dramatically altered the formula of the game (product), just like cadbury and coke did.

The game is a contact sport, the ugly direct voilence disappeared from the game decades ago but to attempt to take out the occasional flare up from a contact sport is altering the fabric of the game (and probably increase the cheap shots) and will do more to turn their local supporter base away from the game more then attract new supporters to the game.

They should be more interested in taking the other cheap shots out of the game then worrying about the very occasional flare (punch up) between players. That happens in a contact sport, at least for the last 100 plus years.

That is my view and I'm sticking to it.

 

[Stagger Lee]

They should be more interested in taking the other cheap shots out of the game then worrying about the very occasional flare (punch up) between players. That happens in a contact sport, at least for the last 100 plus years.

That is my view and I'm sticking to it.

Could not agree more, getting the cheap shots out of the game is a must not the odd fisticuffs

(thx to dragon01 for the above)

 

[Teddyboy]

If your talking crowd numbers in the early 80's you're probably making union look better than it is, excluding international games.

Didn't Union get good crowds for internationals in the early 80's.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

I glad none of you are in charge.

 

[magpie4ever]

I glad none of you are in charge.

Mate, I would rather have (or I should say, had) a bloke in an opposing jersey throwing punches with me returning the same, then that bloke bending my neck into my chest hoping to slow down the play the ball (and being unable to defend myself) but possibly putting me in a wheelchair for the rest of my life.

Remember, 90% of punches on a football field don't connect.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Mate, I would rather have (or I should say, had) a bloke in an opposing jersey throwing punches with me returning the same, then that bloke bending my neck into my chest hoping to slow down the play the ball (and being unable to defend myself) but possibly putting me in a wheelchair for the rest of my life.

Remember, 90% of punches on a football field don't connect.

So allowing them to throw punches is the solution to these problems?