Rugby League 11-a-side, Better game?

[Chapsta]

11 players per team would benefit the game in almost every aspect of play. e.g:
Ball movement would be spread wider, looking for gaps in defense. (11 players defending 68m, rather than 13 players defending 68m)

There would be more creative play from the halves, and many more benefits..


11-a-side would still be Rugby League, albeit a better game.

Rugby League defined itself form the "other" game (becoming 13-a-side), lets set ourselves up for another 100 years with an even better spectacle (11-a-side)!

 

[Mayor_Quimby]

do we eventually work our way down till it's 1 v 1?

 

[Johnny Bravo]

11 players per team would benefit the game in almost every aspect of play. e.g:
Ball movement would be spread wider, looking for gaps in defense. (11 players defending 68m, rather than 13 players defending 68m)

There would be more creative play from the halves, and many more benefits..


11-a-side would still be Rugby League, albeit a better game.

Rugby League defined itself form the "other" game (becoming 13-a-side), lets set ourselves up for another 100 years with an even better spectacle (11-a-side)!

Err 11 a side won't make halves be anymore creative. It'll make defensive lines easier to break not only on the fringes but in the middle.

More players you have on the field = more need for 2nd phase play and better halves to get the ball out wide quickly to capitalise on overlaps.

Less players on the field = More gaps everywhere across the field, so easier to break the line just with brute strength.

You want to get more passing and creativeness in the game? Shorten the 10 to 7 or 5m.

 

[jc155776]

Lets stop tackling and allow them to just touch a player to force a play the ball.

 

[Chapsta]

Err 11 a side won't make halves be anymore creative. It'll make defensive lines easier to break not only on the fringes but in the middle.

More players you have on the field = more need for 2nd phase play and better halves to get the ball out wide quickly to capitalise on overlaps.

Less players on the field = More gaps everywhere across the field, so easier to break the line just with brute strength.

You want to get more passing and creativeness in the game? Shorten the 10 to 7 or 5m.

There would be no reason to keep the 10m rule in an 11 a side game, thats one of the benefits.

 

[BeeeeeRad]

11 players per team would benefit the game in almost every aspect of play. e.g:
Ball movement would be spread wider, looking for gaps in defense. (11 players defending 68m, rather than 13 players defending 68m)

There would be more creative play from the halves, and many more benefits..


11-a-side would still be Rugby League, albeit a better game.

Rugby League defined itself form the "other" game (becoming 13-a-side), lets set ourselves up for another 100 years with an even better spectacle (11-a-side)!

You have named two points, which got shut down because they're incorrect anyway. At this time 13 vs 13 is a perfect balance for defence and play making, If it aint broke dont fix it.

 

[Mr Saab]

Are we going to call this new game soccer?
FFS....i am all for thinking outside the square, but please....this is just pathetic

 

[Johnny Bravo]

There would be no reason to keep the 10m rule in an 11 a side game, thats one of the benefits.

Did you not read the rest of my post?

11 man sides would de-skill the game even further. Think of it this way, if you're a playmaker, on a 50m wide football field. Would you think it's easier to beat 10 guys, or 15? To be the 10 a side, you only may need to look at the guy next to you to get through a gap. In 15 a side, you may have to get it over the other side of the field.

There are no benefits of making teams smaller, except for facilitating cricket scores and limiting the need for skilled halves.

 

[dannyboy]

11 players per team would benefit the game in almost every aspect of play.

We could call it Mod League.

What! You say it already exists?

 

[Eels Dude]

11 players per team would benefit the game in almost every aspect of play. e.g:
Ball movement would be spread wider, looking for gaps in defense. (11 players defending 68m, rather than 13 players defending 68m)

There would be more creative play from the halves, and many more benefits..


11-a-side would still be Rugby League, albeit a better game.

Rugby League defined itself form the "other" game (becoming 13-a-side), lets set ourselves up for another 100 years with an even better spectacle (11-a-side)!

More creative play? Halves wouldn't even need to kick. All you'd have to do was spread the ball from one side of the field to another and there'd be a try on every set. How does 13 become 11. Obviously you'd have to get rid of 2 forwards. Why not just play touch footy. Dumbest thread of the year.

 

[Chapsta]

Did you not read the rest of my post?

11 man sides would de-skill the game even further. Think of it this way, if you're a playmaker, on a 50m wide football field. Would you think it's easier to beat 10 guys, or 15? To be the 10 a side, you only may need to look at the guy next to you to get through a gap. In 15 a side, you may have to get it over the other side of the field.

There are no benefits of making teams smaller, except for facilitating cricket scores and limiting the need for skilled halves.

15 a side is Union. Are you saying League should add 2 more players?

 

[Johnny Bravo]

15 a side is Union. Are you saying League should add 2 more players?

No I'm saying the NRL should stay as it is.
It has a perfect balance of defense and attack at the moment. You change it to 15 and teams won't score.

Change it to 11 and teams will score too easily.
That is unless you enjoy seeing teams getting beaten 70-40.

Are you incapable of reading posts as a whole? I used it as an example. Clearly that was a wrong move.

 

[Chapsta]

More creative play? Halves wouldn't even need to kick. All you'd have to do was spread the ball from one side of the field to another and there'd be a try on every set. How does 13 become 11. Obviously you'd have to get rid of 2 forwards. Why not just play touch footy. Dumbest thread of the year.

I do play touch footy, sometimes it's more interesting than watching a game of todays Rugby League.

Have you seen a game of 11-a-side Rugby League? I'm not the only one who thinks it's a good idea.

 

[Perth Red]

We would end up with 11 Israel Folaus in the side and 64-62 score lines! Personally if I wanted to watch that I'd be basketball fan. Having said that Fiji would be faves for the RLWC!

 

[Eels Dude]

I do play touch footy, sometimes it's more interesting than watching a game of todays Rugby League.

Have you seen a game of 11-a-side Rugby League? I'm not the only one who thinks it's a good idea.

If you think touch footy is more interesting than league then why don't you try and organise a national professional touch footy competition?? I think you'd struggle.

I haven't. I've seen the League World 7's though. It's fun for a day out but I wouldnt watch it every week. That's what your idea would be closer to.

You're not the only eh? Funny so you say that cause I can't see anyone else agreeing with you.

 

[RL1908]

If you look at the evolution of the play-the-ball, there is an argument to support cutting the numbers down from 13-aside.

From 1906 when the play-the-ball was introduced to c.1950, the play-the-ball was truly a contest (even more than the ruck in modern RU today). As a result it kept all 12 forwards within very close proximity to the ruck/play-the-ball. The space available to the backs at EVERY play-the-ball was roughly akin to what we see today at a scrum.

From 1950 onwards, players were increasingly getting away with cheating at the play-the-ball to keep possession - while there occasional instances of the ball being raked back by the marker (even into the early 1990s), for the most part the team in possession kept the ball. Proof of this was the bash-and-barge era of the early 1960s - which could only have existed if the play-the-ball was hardly a contest.

The point I'm getting to is...when the play-the-ball was a real contest, attracting all 12 forwards, there was space everywhere for the attacking team.

During the 1950s and early 1960s, with teams knowing that they were less likely to win the play-the-ball, only 2 forwards were committed to the ruck area (marker and 2nd marker), with the other 4 forwards then taking up places AND SPACE in the defence line.

This led to the need to set a minimum distance for the defence to stand back, and has now evolved to 10m.

If you watch RU today, you can see the same trend developing - the ruck is for the most part not really a contest (despite what many RU people say), and defensive forwards are not all getting involved at each "break-down", but opting to stand in the defence line. For RU, having 8 forwards instead of RL's 6, means that attacking rugby is even less likely - hence they have been forced to look at their rules (the ELVs).

If RL teams were dropped to 11-aside, then the 10m would definitely have to be cut down to 5m.

American football came from rugby (mid-1870s), and almost from the outset made the scrimmage irrelevant as a contest for the ball (as we have now done with the scrum and play-the-ball), and changed from 15 aside to 11.

The risk in cutting down RL teams to 11, is that very soon after RU would drop to 13 - they don't do it now as RL and 13 aside are synonymous with each other.

The advantage of RL teams dropping to 11 (with a 5m rule) is that expansive ball-passing play is more likely. Additionally, as there was in 1906 when RL dropped from 15 to 13, there is an enormous economical benefit to clubs - it is cheaper to field teams with 2 less players. It would also be easier for RL at the semi-pro and social level to play, and to fill teams.

I don't think dropping to 11 is a ridiculous idea, but it would be a seismic-shift in the code's history, and a step not be taken without a lot of trials and consideration. The influence of the $ should never be ruled out in a pro sport.

12-aside RL was played in NU competitions in the 1903/04 season:
http://www.RL1908.com/articles/1904.htm

 

[yobbo84]

If you look at the evolution of the play-the-ball, there is an argument to support cutting the numbers down from 13-aside.

From 1906 when the play-the-ball was introduced to c.1950, the play-the-ball was truly a contest (even more than the ruck in modern RU today). As a result it kept all 12 forwards within very close proximity to the ruck/play-the-ball. The space available to the backs at EVERY play-the-ball was roughly akin to what we see today at a scrum.

From 1950 onwards, players were increasingly getting away with cheating at the play-the-ball to keep possession - while there occasional instances of the ball being raked back by the marker (even into the early 1990s), for the most part the team in possession kept the ball. Proof of this was the bash-and-barge era of the early 1960s - which could only have existed if the play-the-ball was hardly a contest.

The point I'm getting to is...when the play-the-ball was a real contest, attracting all 12 forwards, there was space everywhere for the attacking team.

During the 1950s and early 1960s, with teams knowing that they were less likely to win the play-the-ball, only 2 forwards were committed to the ruck area (marker and 2nd marker), with the other 4 forwards then taking up places AND SPACE in the defence line.

This led to the need to set a minimum distance for the defence to stand back, and has now evolved to 10m.

If you watch RU today, you can see the same trend developing - the ruck is for the most part not really a contest (despite what many RU people say), and defensive forwards are not all getting involved at each "break-down", but opting to stand in the defence line. For RU, having 8 forwards instead of RL's 6, means that attacking rugby is even less likely - hence they have been forced to look at their rules (the ELVs).

If RL teams were dropped to 11-aside, then the 10m would definitely have to be cut down to 5m.

American football came from rugby (mid-1870s), and almost from the outset made the scrimmage irrelevant as a contest for the ball (as we have now done with the scrum and play-the-ball), and changed from 15 aside to 11.

The risk in cutting down RL teams to 11, is that very soon after RU would drop to 13 - they don't do it now as RL and 13 aside are synonymous with each other.

The advantage of RL teams dropping to 11 (with a 5m rule) is that expansive ball-passing play is more likely. Additionally, as there was in 1906 when RL dropped from 15 to 13, there is an enormous economical benefit to clubs - it is cheaper to field teams with 2 less players. It would also be easier for RL at the semi-pro and social level to play, and to fill teams.

I don't think dropping to 11 is a ridiculous idea, but it would be a seismic-shift in the code's history, and a step not be taken without a lot of trials and consideration. The influence of the $ should never be ruled out in a pro sport.

Great post. Personally I don't think there's anything wrong with Rugby League today. The problem lies with the NRL and their application of "interpretations" on these rules. Watching the ESL, it's a far better spectacle as they're not being bogged down by play-the-ball interpretations. They're certainly not complaining anywhere near as much as us.

 

[RL1908]

Warren Ryan's comments on 11-aside:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/league/before-rugby-league-gets-fixed-lets-make-sure-its-broken/2006/11/17/1163266779468.html

 

[Chapsta]

Salaries would go up, ever so slightly (not taking into account the extra income the game may generate from increased interest). There would be less collision related injuries, as ball movement would be further spread, making the game more attractive for players.

 

[Eels Dude]

Salaries would go up, ever so slightly (not taking into account the extra income the game may generate from increased interest). There would be less collision related injuries, as ball movement would be further spread, making the game more attractive for players.

Yeah. So why are salaries going to go up?? Please explain in detail. Just because you think it's a good idea doesn't mean it's going to create extra interest. Why do you think the majority of the population are going to be taking more interest in the game?? Meaning that I mean everyone not just you. Convince us that 11 players would better than 13. Come on.