Power Play for NRL

[Loudstrat]

I'm not arguing in support of this rule change or any rule change for that matter. Just that you're an irritating twat who gets his panties in a bunch every time he sees something he doesn't like, and those who disagree with him are objectively wrong.

So you like stupid rule changes because it gives you a chance to be a troll. :crazy:

Rugby League is a great game at the moment, it doesn't really need any change.

Here here!

But it's a foolhardy option to sit back & rest ion your laurels when you're successful. You always need to have eyes trained on the horizon and preparing for a shift in the wind.
Innovative ideas need to be coming forward all the time and this is just another chapter in paving a way for many roads in the future.
The game WILL progress and evolve, as it has in the past. The apparently contentious Power Play looks at giving the spectators something different & exciting to watch.
Some work & some don't.

All fine, except they have no intention of considering it. Therefore, what's the point?

It's the old adage 'don't knock it till you've tried it.'

I assume you didnt learn not to soak yourself in petrol and then light up a cigarette by trying it first and then deciding if it was a god idea or not....

Even if its a trial match, there's no need for the gimmick. It's the most geniused alteration they could have come up with.

As supported by the geniuss of the forum. There is no reason for it, it will prove nothing. The excuse "promote attacking play" is stupid, because a)RL's attacking plays have already made it the most watched sport in the country and b) in fact all it is doing is DEmoting defensive plays!

 

[dangerousdave]

Leave the game alone.

How can they talk up the emerging importance of this game if they are hell bent on making it a farce

 

[RHCP]

If they want to promote attacking play why not just drop 6 players off and play 7s with an Indigineous side involved?

 

[Loudstrat]

Good call! Sevens was great.

 

[Masoe_eats_babies]

I'm not 100% against a powerplay, but 5 minutes is too long.

A 2 minute power play sounds better.

 

[Ausguy]

Im not a fan of the all stars v indiginous game as it is... this just makes it worse.

 

[bobmar28]

How many tries are you going to score in 5 mins? It takes about 2 minutes for play to re-start after a try anyway. You might get 2 in tops.

Doesn't a try end the powerplay?

 

[Mr Saab]

"Please Mr Ref - can you send two players to the sin bin for 5 minutes to make it easier for us to score tries?" What other sport would be so f*cking stupid? It's like making Mark Webber race on square tyres for two laps, or making Michael Phelps swim in a dinner suit, or Usain Bolt sprint in clogs.

Way to make the game a f*cking joke. If Indigenous people really like this concept, why turn it into a game for clowns???????

It has lost it's lusture. It was meant to be more than the sevens, but now it is as trivial and carnival-ish without the benefit of including all the underdog sides from around the globe. I can see the day when the big names will withdraw. The risk of injury is already great - the best players in the comp playing this rubbish when everyone complaied about tests against emerging countries like the USA. The risk of injury is only greater now for the defenders.

Great concept ruined by idiots. The real season opener is the WCC, and at home it's the Charity Shield. Try and insert stupid "trial" rules into the Charity Shield and see the reaction!

My God, i feel very sick agreeing with MistyStrat

 

[Desert Qlder]

I'm against it because of the word 'powerplay' Anything so ludicrously named mustn't be terribly wise.

I'd like to see a trial of a twenty metre dropout (as per missed penalty goal kicks) for defenses who ground the ball in the in-goal.

This would be a subtle but effective contribution to reward good goal line defense I would contend.

 

[Broncomum]

In the regular season, teams & coaches work together all year round to hone their skills on the full game of Rugby League.
In a ONE-OFF exhibition match, the lead up is short; very short. The teams will NOT play together again, the coaches will not coach that group of players again, etc etc. So trying to refine the exhibition to be an A Grade match is pretty pointless and will never happen.
The Allstars game is a ONE-OFF game played by two teams of ONE-OFF combinations. It's more like 'instant League' rather than the traditional game. It is NOT a pure form of Rugby League so anyone defending it as such has little understanding really.
It's the perfect scenario to trial new ideas that have been bandied around between coaches for quite some time now.

League IS a spectator sport. EVERY spectator sport has to think ahead & way outside the box if they are going to grab & keep the paying public's interest. Yes, the diehard fans will always be interested but unless you are willing to pay more & more every year to be a fan of an 'unchanged/untouched' sport then innovative ideas need to be trialed.

Many of you wouldn't vividly remember the feelings of sports fans when One Day Cricket came along. I can & the reaction was a mixed bag, much as I've seen here so far. I'm not saying these changes will last as long as One Day Cricket, I'm just comparing the narrowmindedness I see.
I was involved in a national sport when some major changes came through, all for the spectators' advantage. I didn't like some but slowly came to realise everything NEEDS to change & games need to be open to change.

Again, don't knock it till you've tried it.

 

[Broncomum]

There is no reason for it, it will prove nothing. The excuse "promote attacking play" is stupid, because a)RL's attacking plays have already made it the most watched sport in the country and b) in fact all it is doing is DEmoting defensive plays!

Promoting attacking play is actually the crux of ANY sports development plan. And again ESPECIALLY when you 're considering a spectator sport. You HAVE to promote new ideas etc to create more exciting, watchable sport. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but spectator-wise, defence is a turn off. Games (of any sport) where basically 2 defences just try rolling over each other with little gain is a huge turn off to the paying public. They want flair, they want point scoring & they want 'razzle dazzle'.
So as much as the 'purist' enjoys a good defensive display; it doesn't bring in the crowds.

'Instant League' will have modified rules to suit the comp; it's just the way things are these days.

Don't fret, it will be over soon enough & then you can enjoy the regular season as it plods along.
;-)

 

[Loudstrat]

My God, i feel very sick agreeing with MistyStrat

Coming of drug addiction into a world of reality has its moments of nausea. Its called withdrawal, but once fully into reality, you'll feel better than ever!

In the regular season, teams & coaches work together all year round to hone their skills on the full game of Rugby League.
In a ONE-OFF exhibition match, the lead up is short; very short. The teams will NOT play together again, the coaches will not coach that group of players again, etc etc. So trying to refine the exhibition to be an A Grade match is pretty pointless and will never happen.

Well, soccer manage pretty well with the world cup final..........:?

The Allstars game is a ONE-OFF game played by two teams of ONE-OFF combinations. It's more like 'instant League' rather than the traditional game. It is NOT a pure form of Rugby League so anyone defending it as such has little understanding really.

So two teams that play each other once per year can never be playing pure Rugby League? What f*cking drugs are you on? What you are saying is that any two sides that meet only once in an NRL season are not playing the traditional game?

It's the perfect scenario to trial new ideas that have been bandied around between coaches for quite some time now.

Coaches? It was thought up by a media boy you dumb seatwetter! Come on, name the coaches who came up with that idea.

the coaches that have bandied around the power play. :crazy:

League IS a spectator sport. EVERY spectator sport has to think ahead & way outside the box if they are going to grab & keep the paying public's interest. Yes, the diehard fans will always be interested but unless you are willing to pay more & more every year to be a fan of an 'unchanged/untouched' sport then innovative ideas need to be trialed.

Again, for the braindead - this rule change HAS NO CHANCE OF EVER BEING USED IN AN NRL MATCH!!!!!!!!! And to think that fans will walk away from the game if the rules dont change means, well, dont think. It clearly doesnt work for you.

Many of you wouldn't vividly remember the feelings of sports fans when One Day Cricket came along. I can & the reaction was a mixed bag, much as I've seen here so far. I'm not saying these changes will last as long as One Day Cricket, I'm just comparing the narrowmindedness I see.
I was involved in a national sport when some major changes came through, all for the spectators' advantage. I didn't like some but slowly came to realise everything NEEDS to change & games need to be open to change.

Gee, I didnt realise that one day cricket meant one side lost players.

Again, don't knock it till you've tried it.

Do you know that rubbing a hot soldering iron on your breasts increases the inensity of orgasms? Dont knock it untill you've tried it............

Promoting attacking play is actually the crux of ANY sports development plan. And again ESPECIALLY when you 're considering a spectator sport. You HAVE to promote new ideas etc to create more exciting, watchable sport.

Rubbish. You have to have the best sport (we do), and not f*ck it up. It's not about rule changes, otherwise Union would have died a century ago

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but spectator-wise, defence is a turn off. Games (of any sport) where basically 2 defences just try rolling over each other with little gain is a huge turn off to the paying public.

Can you name me one sport - just one - where two opponents defend at the same time? I agree, seeing two teams tackling each other would be difficult to watch. Who plays the ball if there are two teams defending? Can you be offside? What happens at the end of a set of 6?

They want flair, they want point scoring & they want 'razzle dazzle'.
So as much as the 'purist' enjoys a good defensive display; it doesn't bring in the crowds.

Thatis crap. The best games are the close gripping ones. No one wants to see a 54-50 win. The best game of all time was 16-16 until the 79th minute and 54 seconds. The best finals of recent years have all been close, low scoring games.

I really doubt your mental age matches your physical one. I still remember your "everyone in NSW will go for Manly" thread, where we learned that Gold Coast was not in Queensland :lol: You disappeared very quickly once logic came in.

 

[krudmonk]

Doesn't a try end the powerplay?

If the rule is closely emulating hockey, then yes.

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the power play in Ice Hockey come about because of foul play where one side loses a player for a set amount of time?

Sound familiar?

Thanks to our useless referring bosses, we now have a situation where the refs are far more comfortable putting players on report than in the bin. Fix that and there's no need for stupidity of this type.

 

[Walt Flanigan]

Doesn't a try end the powerplay?

Apparently yes. Which makes the comment I quoted even more irrelevant.

 

[RL1908]

What RL lacks is variety. Game needs more "in game" strategy choices. Ones where the fans would debate, "Was that the right choice?".

For example, introduce an option on how the game is re-started after the post try conversion attempt.

If the conversion misses, the opponents get option of the usual kick-off at half-way OR they can take tap on own 30m line and re-start in possession.

It breaks momentum in games, adds strategy, puts more pressure on goal kickers, and adds interest to every conversion attempt.

(I wouldn't have the tap at the 20m line as some teams might see that was worth deliberately missing the conversion!).

The idea is actually a variant of rugby when only goals counting in scoring, before the codes split - the ball was "live" if the goal attempt missed (similar to penalty goal attempts today).

 

[Loudstrat]

Injecting an element of stupidity does not necessarily solve the problem of variety.

 

[Masoe_eats_babies]

Lol. Loudstrat in the day would have hated the break away of League. You can tell he just hates change for the sake of hating change. Everything should stay as it was back in his day, and get off his lawn *shakes fist*

 

[Loudstrat]

This is my day dickhead! You want to f*ck it by turning the greatest game of all into the greatest c*ckup of all.

 

[RL1908]

This is my day dickhead! You want to f*ck it by turning the greatest game of all into the greatest c*ckup of all.

I do believe that when "the greatest game of all" was first coined, they weren't using the playing laws of NRL 2011.