Should the NRL have smaller in goal areas?

[BunniesMan]

Watching the World Cup Final everyone and their dog mentioned the tiny in goals. Of course everyone saw them as a problem. But what if they are a solution?

In the NRL with the way it has become overly defensive and predictable and too kick based, perhaps the answer is to reduce the in goal areas? This would make an effective kicking game that much harder to pull of. With successful kicking becoming harder, chancing your arm and more attack through the hands because a more appealing option.

If we reduce the in goals areas would we see less boring and repetitive bombs and grubbers and more exciting and attacking passing/running footy?

I say reduce the in goal area to the size they were at Old Trafford. Or at least test it out in trial games. Your thoughts?

 

[shaggs]

No.

Rugby league rules allow for an in goal if 6-11 metres. If 6 is the biggest that will fit, then so be it. If a ground like cronulla can have 10, then that's what it will be.

Why would you want every ground to be identical. Isn't that the advantage of the home ground??
If you train on the same grass every day then you will know the field better than the visiting side.

That's hard for you to fathom, training at redfern and playing across the road at homebush.

Besides , all good kickers aim for the try line, so I goal depth doesn't matter.

 

[BunniesMan]

No.

Rugby league rules allow for an in goal if 6-11 metres. If 6 is the biggest that will fit, then so be it. If a ground like cronulla can have 10, then that's what it will be.

Why would you want every ground to be identical. Isn't that the advantage of the home ground??
If you train on the same grass every day then you will know the field better than the visiting side.

That's hard for you to fathom, training at redfern and playing across the road at homebush.

Besides , all good kickers aim for the try line, so I goal depth doesn't matter.

Old Trafford was 4.1. If that was good enough to host a World Cup Final it can be good enough for NRL games.

 

[shaggs]

Who says it was good enough??

The players who slid through it into the signage or the blazer wearing brigade who needed 75000 people at a game without paying wembley rental costs??

 

[BunniesMan]

The signage should be padded. If we let players run around 4 massive poles in the middle of the playing area we can do something about padded advertising.

 

[themacemaceman]

No.

Rugby league rules allow for an in goal if 6-11 metres. If 6 is the biggest that will fit, then so be it. If a ground like cronulla can have 10, then that's what it will be.

Why would you want every ground to be identical. Isn't that the advantage of the home ground??
If you train on the same grass every day then you will know the field better than the visiting side.

That's hard for you to fathom, training at redfern and playing across the road at homebush.

Besides , all good kickers aim for the try line, so I goal depth doesn't matter.

I'm not sure that many teams would actually train on their home ground anyway. The generally try to preserve the playing surface these days.

 

[shaggs]

I'm not sure that many teams would actually train on their home ground anyway. The generally try to preserve the playing surface these days.

I think you will find that they don't do the running 400's, sprints, skills etc on it, but the ball work sessions are definitely done on the ground.
The kickers will also spend time on the ground during the week either goal kicking or practicing other kicks.

 

[eozsmiles]

Who says it was good enough??

The players who slid through it into the signage or the blazer wearing brigade who needed 75000 people at a game without paying wembley rental costs??

Grounds in Aust are already configured for footy. If they reduce the in goal area it will leave a bigger gap between the dead ball line and the fence and reduce the risk of injury.

 

[TooheysNew]

I think you will find that they don't do the running 400's, sprints, skills etc on it, but the ball work sessions are definitely done on the ground.
The kickers will also spend time on the ground during the week either goal kicking or practicing other kicks.

Maybe for some teams. Theyre definitely the exception though.

 

[Bulldog Force]

Smaller than the 10 we use now, definitely NOT. However, I don't like that 6-10/11 m rule - I believe, for safety reasons among others, that every ground should have 10 metres, and if they cannot fit these dimensions inside their stadiums, then move else to a stadium that will be NRL ground worthy.

 

[mxlegend99]

Why would the NRL want to make our grounds worse. Every game is played out of a superior and safer ground. If we had grounds like this our players would be discouraged from putting in everything to score that unlikely try.

 

[BunniesMan]

How would it be less safe? The overall size of the grounds would still be as much as they are now. The in goals will just be a couple metres shorter.

And even if the advertising came closer, we allow our players to run at full speed around 4 large poles that are actually IN the field of play. If we can make that safe we can pad advertising.

 

[Western_Eel]

It wont make them run the ball more, It didnt in the world cup, they will just make it pull up shorter.
We have seen some very entertaining tries on the dead ball line from kicks i wouldnt touch it

 

[gUt]

I voted yes and no.

 

[BunniesMan]

I like you gUt

 

[southwalesrabbitoh]

They're 8m in the NRL, not 10m.

As kickers get better, reducing the in-goal area makes sense, certainly should come down to a maximum of 7m IMO. Though I would make them 6.5m.

 

[hardbaby]

They're 8m in the NRL, not 10m.

As kickers get better, reducing the in-goal area makes sense, certainly should come down to a maximum of 7m IMO. Though I would make them 6.5m.

Agreed. I'd like to reduce the target area for kickers. Not as low as 4 metres but smaller than it is now.

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

Reduce the in goals and Adam Reynolds would never play NRL again

 

[Tone83]

I guess I don't care so much if the in goal is smaller, but I do fear it would have robbed us of a lot of the most spectacular tries.

However, what I know for sure and certain is there was not enough space behind the in goals last night. That truly does inhibit the game for sure, players can't throw caution into the wind and do incredible stuff if they're worried about running into a fence.

Maybe the in goal can be smaller, but the more space behind the in goal before you hit fence, the better. The strength of the NRL is it's high-flying acrobatics and athleticism, it's magic miraculous plays that defy what a human should be able to do. A good portion of said plays relied on having a lot of space behind the in goals, and to a degree many relied on bigger in goals as well. Take those things away and we reduce the product back closer to ESL.

 

[bottle]

Bad idea.
Imagine how many tries $BW would blow trying to showcase.