.....Would the biggest rule change you would have witnessed been the change from umlimited tackles to limited tackles? How different would that have been to see. I just can't imagine watching an unlimited tackles game, it would get pretty predictable? Would Saints have been so dominant if they had the limited tackle rule? Did they only change it because they were so good?
I can't believe that had a transfer system and got rid of it. That is ridiculous.
.
It was a very different game back then Slippery. There was only one referee, the touch judges had seeing eye dogs, no intense tv scrutiny, and the Radio commentators on the whole, acknowledged our divine right to win. Plus it was pretty vicious on the field, but we had players that were absolute masters at inflicting pain on their opponents, the softening up period as it was called. But unlike today what happened on the field stayed on the field. Visiting teams would always come down to the club for a few beers post game.
The unlimited tackle game allowed far more time to set up attacking raids. But in those days you did actually have to hang onto the ball. Early in games we actually used to give the ball to our opponents for the sole purpose of working their forwards over. Once completed (20 minutes or so), the game would then open up for our backs to run riot. As Reg Gasnier used to say, "it was taken for granted that we were 10 points ahead even before we left the sheds". I can only recall our club being humbled once during that period and that was against the touring GB side. In those days the poms had a great footy side.
Now regarding the transfer fee system, well it did serve to put some money in the coffers of clubs that produced the players, mostly country clubs. Now I cannot recall the reason for it's demise, but I think it has something to do with a players restraint of trade.
It just came back to me, the demise of the player transfer system came about as a result of a court case brought on by Dennis Tutty, a Balmain player.
