NRL to trial 11-a-side rugby league

[Calixte]

To mess with the number of players, the first time since 1906, would be a disaster.

Anything else is better.

 

[dallymessenger]

if they reduce the interchanges quite a bit, forward will be too tired to wrestle the whole game and as they tire it will open up a lot.

 

[RL1908]

Do numbers define the code?

Arguably, RL teams are 17 now, not 13.

Maybe 11-a-side with 2 fresh inter-change reserves is still truly a 13-a-side game?

The idea of allowing any replacements at all beyond the starting 13 didn't become the norm until the 1970s.

Interestingly, in 1903/04 the NU were playing 12-a-side for the County Championships and most junior and business competitions. The first international match was also 12-a-side:
http://www.RL1908.com/articles/1904.htm

Let's not also forget the reasons teams went from 15 to 13 (and before that 12):

1. To provide a better spectacle than RU, and to compete with soccer for spectators and players.

2. It was cheaper for clubs to operate, and easier for lower clubs and juniors to form teams.

RL doesn't live in isolation like AFL or American football - money and the context within which RL competes (against other codes) means we have to look at all options.

I agree, after 102 years going away from 13 would have to be a vary carefully considered step, but I wouldn't rule it out.

And it's not just because players today are bigger/faster that there is a case to reduce numbers - the play-the-ball "pocket" prior to WW2 attracted EVERY forward at EVERY play-the-ball - they weren't bound as tightly as in a scrum, but when the play-the-ball became less of a contest (from 1950 onwards), forwards began spreading out across the field, taking up space that backs once had to themselves.

I'll be reserving judgement after the trials (though if they keep a 10m rule I doubt its success).

More comments here:
http://www.RL1908.com/blog/11-aside-rugby.htm

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Souths have already started the trial today.

Their wingers took the field, but took no part in defence.

So did the Warriors, except we left out our playmakers.

 

[brendothejet]

this is the dumbest idea in history.

not for the fact that it is trying to devlop the game, but because it is being trialled on a competition match between two teams whose set plays and manouvers are all setup for 13 people.

Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb

 

[Bluebags1908]

I'm dead against teh idea of changing from 13-a-side. To me, it would no longer be Rugby League as it would fundanemtally change the fabric of the game.

But I've got an idea about reducing tries from kicks.


A team can have 6 tackles as per usual, but to reduce the predictability of a kick on the last, and also to reduce tries from kicks, how about the idea that on the 6th tackle a team has the choice of kicking it as per usual or running it and If they run it on the 6th tackle they get an extra 2 tackles (8 tackles). But if they decide to run it on the 6th then they can't kick it on the 7th and 8th tackles - they must run it.



What do u reckon? This rule would apply on any part of the field whether a team is stuck in their own half of the field or 10 meters out going for a try.



I'm not one for tinkering with the rules and hate dramatic changes, but this might be worth an idea. Don't forget from 1895-1966 Rugby League was unlimited tackles so it's almost creeping towards unlimited tackles how it used to be.



On the 6th tackle, the opposition defence and the fans won't have any idea if a team will kick it or run it. It can add to the tactics of the coaches where a team might take up positions as if they are going to fake to kick but they will run it. If a team wants to kick it earlier in the tackle count it would be the same as it is at present - and if they regain the ball they just play until the 6th tackle.

There's talk in today's papers that any kick that is defused in the in-goal should be a 20 metre tape. This would be any kick - not just ones on the full, and even grubbers.

I don't like this idea because it means you are eliminating goal-line drop-outs and also having a player desprately get out of his in-goal with several defenders chasing down on him is an exciitng part of the game that should be kept

Bluebags1908.

 

[sting]

i think its a terrible idea. everyone wants league to be strong internationally so what happens if Aus likes 11 men but noone else does? we become like afl and may have a gay hybrid game against great britian every now n then.

ffs i dont see why we have to change anything. i mean i don't see how watching the team you love can be boring? i think every minute of watching my team is exciting.

 

[NK Arsenal]

hmm..

i think dogs balls would benefit

 

[PARRA_FAN]

Why reduce the number of players to make the game more exciting?

I mean I can remember years ago when we had scorelines of 42-26, 54-32, 70-32, and we said how ridiculous that was cause the defence was so pathetic.

Now teams have brought in defence coaches, and at times teams are finding hard to score tries.

You can still make a low scoring game an exciting game.

We're period in a period of defence, much like the 80s (although the 80s was probably better), then it turned into better attack once they increased the defensive metres.

One period would have so many high scoring games, then we'd have so many low scoring games.

So its always gonna change if we keep the 13 man a side game. Its been a long traditional for 100 years, and now we're thinking about reducing the amount of players? What positions would we drop? What will they think of next?

If anything coaches should come up with better game plans to score tries. I mean for example the Roosters kept using tries of bombs, now in the last 2 weeks they cant score a point, so Im glad the Sharks and Storm tested them, they need to come up with a different attacking plan. Like a lot of other teams.

Theyre trailing it in the Toyota Cup which I cant understand. I mean the Toyota Cup this year has seen some high scoring games. Could you imagine what a scoreline would be like with 11 players?

It will never work.

 

[ride the tiger]

Firstly good on them for trialling something, certainly can't hurt. Though as mentioned the 20's can't tackle as it is, so the ten needs to be shortened.

Secondly it seems i have a different view to most on whats makes a good game. To me it has very little to do with how many tries are scored or how they are scored, to me it's all about line breaks.

id much rather watch a low scoring game with a heap of line breaks followed by great cover / scrambling defence, then a try-a-thon from bombs because no one can break the line.

and this line of thought (11 a side, though i would have started with 12) seems to lean to my preference. ie line breaks.

 

[RL1908]

Secondly it seems i have a different view to most on whats makes a good game. To me it has very little to do with how many tries are scored or how they are scored, to me it's all about line breaks.

id much rather watch a low scoring game with a heap of line breaks followed by great cover / scrambling defence, then a try-a-thon from bombs because no one can break the line.

and this line of thought (11 a side, though i would have started with 12) seems to lean to my preference. ie line breaks.

I agree - the amount points being scored in a sport isn't an indicator of entertainment value. Aust rules (plenty of goals) & soccer (few goals) provide ample evidence of that.

The critical issue for me is how teams move the ball up and down the field.

Those bleating about last tackle kicks to the in-goal probably wouldn't be calling for a rule change if tackles 1 to 5 had have provided more variety than dummy-half scoots and hit-ups.

Have a look at the stats in any RL game - you'll see that the penalty counts invariably exceeed the line breaks tally (except for Souths v Canberra last week).

I'm not convinced that 11-a-side is the answer unless the 10m rule is reduced.

If team's aren't forced (by say a 5m rule) to pass the ball and make line breaks to move the ball upfield, then having 13 or 11 players won't make any difference at all.

 

[gaterooze]

4 tackle sets

 

[RL1908]

4 tackle sets

I used to think that was a good idea, but it will lead to more kicking (i.e. there will be more sets, so as a consequence, there will be more last tackle kicks).

I think you could have a four tackle rule, but only alongside some sort of way to give teams a repeat 4 tackle set if they reach a certain distance or point on the field.

For example, an attacking team be given another set of 4 tackles once they cross 10m inside their opponent's half.

 

[T to the T]

11 players on the pitch? 4 tackles?

Just give the boys some pads and we'll have a gridiron league in Oz:roll:



At the moment we have the perfect balance between fluid gameplay of union (however messy you deem it to be) and the structure of gridiron (without all the stoppages). Only rule that should change is for the 10 metres to be reduced to 5 metres, meaning the ball has to be flicked around alot more and the onus is not just on 'bulldozers'.


It's nice to have people thinking up these ideas of 3 x 30 minutes, and it shows how forward thinking our game is but with this freedom of ideas some follies crop up and this is 1 of them IMO

 

[rupertpupkin]

The game's become a wussathon. Scratch the interchange altogether. 4 reserves. You come off, you stay off. The game will WILL "open up" again.

 

[saint-colesy]

i play 11aside every week in club footy and we lose the lock and one winger

 

[PARRA_FAN]

I used to play that too in mod rules, and the field was smaller and tries were scored before the goal posts.

We have a decent enough size field for 13 players, its gonna make it a lot harder for wingers to spread out wide to defend tries. The attacking winger out wide is just gonna stand closest to the sideline and wait for a kick to him and score a try. Thats how they'll use tactics in the 11 man game.

So if we're gonna have 11 players on the field, we might as well reduce the width of the field.

I mean its simple if we use great attacking movements we wouldnt have a problem scoring tries, unless the coaches want to change the rules like they did with the obstruction rule. :x

 

[Razor]

Horrible idea.

 

[watatank]

I used to play that too in mod rules, and the field was smaller and tries were scored before the goal posts.

We have a decent enough size field for 13 players, its gonna make it a lot harder for wingers to spread out wide to defend tries. The attacking winger out wide is just gonna stand closest to the sideline and wait for a kick to him and score a try. Thats how they'll use tactics in the 11 man game.

So if we're gonna have 11 players on the field, we might as well reduce the width of the field.

I mean its simple if we use great attacking movements we wouldnt have a problem scoring tries, unless the coaches want to change the rules like they did with the obstruction rule. :x

What's the point of having 11 players if you're going to reduce the width? The whole point is to open the field up, that's not going to happen with a reduction of the field too.