Geez whenever this topic is brought up the supporters of teams that win using boring football always bring out the "would you rather watch your team win or be entertaining" argument. Im sorry to say that this argument totally misses the point.
First of all, as already pointed out, the question of whether the game is boring is not a question about whether or not you enjoy watching your team win, it's whether or not you enjoy watching the sport in general. Personally, I now rarely watch a game that does not involve Parramatta in its entirety.
Second, and in my opinion more importantly, excitement and winning don't have to be mutually exclusive. The question of whether you want your team to win is not in doubt here. Of course you want your team to win, and of course professional sportsmen and the coaches coaching them want to win, and as we know they will do anything within the rules - and some things outside the rules - to achieve that goal. But why cant they win and play exciting football? This is not an issue of what a coach or team will do to win, its an issue of what they need to do to win. Can playing in an attacking, exciting manner lead to glory, or does the construct of the game and the rules themselves force people to play conservatively?
This argument comes up in all sports around the world. It's one that nearly every sport faces and it's not one that is new to Rugby League. The limited tackle rule, the change to a 10m rule, the eradication of goal-line drop-outs for balls caught on the full in the in-goal, the introduction of surrender tackles - these are just some examples of the many rule changes that Rugby League has put in place in order to achieve the right balance between attack and defence. Some of these rules encourage attacking play, while some the surrender tackle for example ensure that defence plays its rightful part in the game.
Sports all around the world have shown that professionalism brings with it higher levels of conservatism because those who have their livelihoods and millions of dollars - riding on the outcome are more afraid to risk losing in order to win. Therefore, it is more important than ever that the league ensures that it is providing the right level of reward for attacking play.
So the issue is not whether your team is boring, or whether another team is boring, or whether your team is winning or not, the issue is:
Do the rules - and how they are interpreted by referees - encourage the proper balance between attack and defence?
It is important to note that this does not mean that all rules need to be designed to encourage attack. Some of the best games in any sports are when great defensive teams come up against great attacking teams, and this particularly true of Rugby League where great scrambling defence can be the highlight of a game. It is important that in promoting entertainment the true essence of the sport itself is not lost, but it is vital that the rules in Rugby League allow great offences the opportunity to attack great defences and that we arent left with a sterile game of ruck it up and kick.
Parramatta, the Tigers and Warriors have shown that overtly attacking teams can be somewhat successful, but most coaches have chosen the higher percentage option of "grinding" football, so its difficult to ascertain how or even if rules should change to encourage a better balance. I personally believe that they need to be looked at. But to do that you need to look at all the rules at the same time and in conjunction with each other, as changing one may affect another or may force another necessary change. It is a big task and Australian sports in general, but rugby league in particular, have not been great at scientifically analysing themselves to predict how changes will impact the game. In America they are much better at it (though there is currently an argument in the NFL that attacking play is rewarded too much) as they disect everything down to the nth degree.
I would like to see the independent commission put in place a committee who are charged with analysing rules and interpretations and making recommendations for changes.
