NRL plans to drop draws

[El Duque]

Willlow, I am of the opinion you don't even need to do this. People will have to go through the thread to get the gist of what opinions are. They can't simply be summarised and put into one post.

 

[CanadianSteve]

A football draw is not the equivalent of a cricket draw; it is the equivalent of a tie in cricket. Could someone explain this comment please? In NA we use tie and draw interchangeably, with tie being a bit more common. eg, teams played to a 10-10 tie.

In a game that already has evolved to artificial scrums and artificial play-the-balls, the plea (and on behalf of some others, I'd imagine) to the NRL is: think again. Is this a guy you want defending league's traditions? He sounds like a union supporter.

 

[Willow]

Fine El Duque, but you brought it up.

Despair is part of the game.
This was raised following several claims that draws are worthless or add to a fan's despair. You cant remove this with removing the other.

Not enough information yet.
This was raised by someone who thought the NRL was being unanamious without due consideration.

Broadcasters will not let extra time cut into programming / games will be edited / more games will be delayed.
El: Whilst I agree that is pure speculation at this stage and it should say may and not will. Quite correct, it should have said 'may'. Afterall, this is a hypothetical.

Another rule being made up by officials. El: Don't they make up all rules?
Yes, but in the context of the viewpoint, there was concern that the decision was being made without proper consultation. I concede that this viewpoint can be argued against but it was put there because of the affirmative viewpoint which said that the proposal the full support of the officials...which is equal and opposite in its conclusion.

Could lead to teams conceding.
El: Teams are going to start throwing a game?
I seem to recall that someone said that if a team was being beaten on the field but were only six points behind, they wouldnt lift their game in the hopeof a possible drawn result.
I thought that was very valid point.

May effect player payments /salary cap concerns
El: How on Earth will it do that?
Once again, it was a concern that one or two contributors had where the extra time may lead to players asking for more money.

No point in a lower table clash going overtime.
El: That's virtually saying there's no point in playing lower table games.
I agree. But it was just a point against extra time, not against watching a footy game.

The finals minutes are often the most exciting / having extra time may eliminate frenetic play. El: Huh? Why would that happen?
It was argued that when teams are close on the scoreboard, the pressure is on to win a game at all costs. If we had possible extra time, some teams may slow the game down. This was the opposing view to the notion that extra time would be an exciting affair.

 

[Cronulla_Mania]

Interesting, i think the points are in the eye of the beholder (or writer in this case), but Willow is only highlighting the points that were raised. We could nitpick all day, but it won't get anywhere. I think only the major concerns should be highlighted, not some of the trivial points

Cheers,
Moffo

 

[Willow]

Hmmm.. what I find interesting is thatsome of the affirmative action mob are still unwilling to acknowledge that most peopleare unsettled by the concept of extra time.
Look at some of the arguments and discard half of them.. then look at the other half and you'll still see that the nays are in the majority.

This is all part of the view that if weare to use this thread as a guideline, the concept of extra time is dead in the water. But we all know that the NRL won't give a rats arse about the majority view.

Remember, we can't give it a trial guys... its emerged that this is not possible. Once instigated and institutionalised, the extra time rule will be hard to shift.

 

[El Duque]

Why do you say that?

It wasn't hard to scrap the rule that if you had one foot in goal and one out and you toched the ball it was deemed to have gone dead or out.

If this rule looks shit I'm sure the people involved in implementing it (NRL, players and clubs) will soon want it gone.

 

[Cronulla_Mania]

"Remember, we can't give it a trial guys... its emerged that this is not possible. Once instigated and institutionalised, the extra time rule will be hard to shift."

Just thinking about it again, not a lot needs trialling. People know what extra-time is and what happens.

"affirmative action mob are still unwilling to acknowledge that most peopleare unsettled by the concept of extra time."

Being extremely generous, 10 people on this thread have come and mentioned that they don't like it. Millions watch rugby league. Tough comment to make. Need a broader cross-section of people. Id venture to say that the majority of young people will find OT exciting.

Fans have been quite receptive from what i have heard on the radio,

Things such as "15. Another rule being made up by officials." Are misleading, as the players and coaches wanted it en masse. Where has the big fan backlash been in the wider community?

Without being nitpicky some points also overlap. eg:

5. Draws are part of the game
16. Goes against the very fabric
/tradition/culture of the game. RL
is played for 80 minutes.

And as El mentioned, some of the points are ridiculous. But i know that you were merely highlighting the arguments raised, so i dont think those points need to be aruged over

Moffo

 

[Willow]

Moffo, I have already explained why some areas were overlapped and I have acknowledged that you can chop a few out if you like.
I gave the yay side some levers as well.. why hasnt anyone picked up the ridiculous notion that extra time will lead to Russell Fairfax shutting his gob... I mean that has the dumbest point of all.

The nays out-number the yays by roughly 2-1

 

[Cronulla_Mania]

"why hasnt anyone picked up the ridiculous notion that extra time will lead to Russell Fairfax shutting his gob"

Sounds pretty reasonable to me lol. Who said that BTW???

Moffo

 

[Willow]

Forummers, Legend andWillow are equally guilty... lol

 

[El Duque]

Willow, I'm sure if half a dozen people went through this thread they'd come up with different results than you did.

IMO, I really wouldn't worry about this 2:1 ratio in this thread that you came up with because as yet we haven't even given it a go. If at the end of the season after a few draws that ratio still exists then it might be a concern.

 

[Willow]

El.... I thought I was pretty impartial. I know it wasnt perfect but I did make an effort to remain unbiased. If you like, have a go yourself.

 

[El Duque]

Read post #139

I couldn't be bothered. I'd be here for a month and I'd probably end up coming in with 50 or more for each side based on the amount of posts.

 

[Willow]

Thats allright. I already figured as much.

 

[Willow]

Regarding the cricket example and Channel 9's perceived committments to RL, it should be noted that the WACA Tests match has gone into blackout mode again.

Kerry Packer has always argued that Ch 9 has to look after <u>all</u> viewers... by that he really means <u>all</u> advertisers. But it has been his argument that not everybody wants to watch cricket and you can be sure that he has a similar argument regarding League.

So fair enough?

Well not really... why isnt the Test match now on a Pay TV channel?
Quite simply, the Nine network wants its programming needs to be paramount and dont want to risk anyone switching over.

I only say this because of the incorrect perception that Nine placesany value on viewers opinion regarding high rating sporting events.

In the event of matches going into overtime,Ch 9 will either edit them if they are delayed telecasts or end them if they are live and cutting into the news.
Perhaps the solution is to get rid Ch 9's stranglehold on popular sport.

 

[El Duque]

You've lost me, Willow.

At the time you posted the message the cricket was on T.V.

"Well not really... why isnt the Test match now on a Pay TV channel?"

Easy answer for that question. It isn't on Pay TV because of the anti-siphoning law.

 

[Willow]

"At the time you posted the message the cricket was on T.V"

No it wasnt.... you are watching the the same as me I think.
Its on TV now as a delayed telecast...this to fit in with Ch 9 programming I see that Aust are 1/43 when in fact its 2/122.
The point is that ifCh 9 cant show it live then someone else should be allowed to show it live...

 

[El Duque]

That is only delayed because the people of Queensland voted against d/l saving. Blame them for the problem.

 

[El Duque]

"No it wasnt.... you are watching the the same as me I think"

I'm watching NBN Gold Coast and it was shown LIVE. 9 Gold Coast had it on delayed for some moronic reason.

 

[Willow]

lol... thats because there are stupid people in the world... so you got it live in Tweed?
Its stumps now but they're still trying to kid people that they are getting it live...not being sucked in are you?

It must have still gone off air for theHendo and Chuckles Munro.