State of the Game survey

[LineBall]

There's a bunch of people who think rugby league is just the NRL and the point of the NRL is to increase TV ratings. Some of the questions about proposed rule changes would be a nightmare to implement across all rugby league, unless you made NRL a completely different sport from the rest of us.

And this is where you need to be careful. Take the 10 metre rule for example. Great for NRL, full time professionals. Blokes playing C grade in the local comp are exhausted after 10 minutes. 5 metre rule would be much kinder to them.

 

[Lambretta]

Thankfully there was a free text field where you could add 'f**k the Broncos'.

If I thought it would help me get laid, I would have said "f**k the Roosters"

But I have seen who goes to games and I don't like my odds.......

 

[no name]

There's a bunch of people who think rugby league is just the NRL and the point of the NRL is to increase TV ratings. Some of the questions about proposed rule changes would be a nightmare to implement across all rugby league, unless you made NRL a completely different sport from the rest of us.

The NRL is a completely different sport to rugby league.
As if the bozos running the NRL think about rugby league in general when contemplating changes.

 

[Springs09]

And this is where you need to be careful. Take the 10 metre rule for example. Great for NRL, full time professionals. Blokes playing C grade in the local comp are exhausted after 10 minutes. 5 metre rule would be much kinder to them.

Nah 5 metre rule sucks. 7-8 isn't bad. I play in one comp under the 5 metre rule and one under the 10 metre rule. In the 5m comp we tell the refs to try and make it 8 or so because with 5m you go nowhere.

In most comps below 1st grade is unlimited interchange and 6 on the bench. The ruck is also a lot slower. Some rule changes they talk about in the survey though, like getting rid of scrums, will exhaust players in local footy. And some that keep getting brought up, like stopping the clock whenever the ball isn't in play, are unfeasible for NRL let alone local footy.

 

[LineBall]

Nah 5 metre rule sucks. 7-8 isn't bad. I play in one comp under the 5 metre rule and one under the 10 metre rule. In the 5m comp we tell the refs to try and make it 8 or so because with 5m you go nowhere.

In most comps below 1st grade is unlimited interchange and 6 on the bench. The ruck is also a lot slower. Some rule changes they talk about in the survey though, like getting rid of scrums, will exhaust players in local footy. And some that keep getting brought up, like stopping the clock whenever the ball isn't in play, are unfeasible for NRL let alone local footy.

It would be interesting to see how those lower grade comps would go under the 5 metre rule if they got rid of the unlimited interchange.

 

[TheFrog]

My fav was something along the lines of 'should we have less scrums'. How about f**k off with further turning the game into touch footy and reintroduce some skill back into the game, ala CONTESTED scrums, with your ACTUAL forward pack contesting them...

John Farragher says hi.

 

[Wily Ole Dog]

John Farragher says hi.

In that case should we ban the game all together ?

 

[thorson1987]

John Farragher says hi.

Well maybe the NRL should change the rule to absolutely no pushing in the scrums, because at the moment there is no such rule.

 

[madunit]

This survey was a joke. It was basically Graham Annesley scoping out ways to get himself more involved in the game, when the game actually needs less of Annesley.

 

[madunit]

John Farragher says hi.

Farragher isn't the reason why scrums aren't contested anymore.

He got injured in 1978. We still had contested scrums in the early to mid 90's.

 

[adamkungl]

Contested scrums are mostly shithouse and have nothing to add to modern rugby league.
Just watch 6 minutes of badly formed scrums ending in a penalty in the Union WC if you need convincing

Scrums are fine how they are.
They absolutely should not be abandoned.
They serve a valuable purpose of providing a set play scenario with a lesser defensive line.
Just because teams don't use it every play, or even most of the time, doesn't mean it should be removed. That's how you end up with a stale game of 5 dummy half runs and a kick.

The sport needs more scenarios with tactical variation to keep play evolving and attack and defences thinking, not less. Finding ones that suit the game and don't completely tip the balance, such as the 40-40, is the challenge.

 

[franklin2323]

Contested scrums are mostly shithouse and have nothing to add to modern rugby league.
Just watch 6 minutes of badly formed scrums ending in a penalty in the Union WC if you need convincing

Scrums are fine how they are.
They absolutely should not be abandoned.
They serve a valuable purpose of providing a set play scenario with a lesser defensive line.
Just because teams don't use it every play, or even most of the time, doesn't mean it should be removed. That's how you end up with a stale game of 5 dummy half runs and a kick.

The sport needs more scenarios with tactical variation to keep play evolving and attack and defences thinking, not less. Finding ones that suit the game and don't completely tip the balance, such as the 40-40, is the challenge.

Scrums only purpose is to give teams a breather

 

[T-Boon]

Nah 5 metre rule sucks. 7-8 isn't bad. I play in one comp under the 5 metre rule and one under the 10 metre rule. In the 5m comp we tell the refs to try and make it 8 or so because with 5m you go nowhere.

In most comps below 1st grade is unlimited interchange and 6 on the bench. The ruck is also a lot slower. Some rule changes they talk about in the survey though, like getting rid of scrums, will exhaust players in local footy. And some that keep getting brought up, like stopping the clock whenever the ball isn't in play, are unfeasible for NRL let alone local footy.

In a lot of instances the rules for NRL should be different to the rules for none NRL rugby league.

 

[T-Boon]

Scrums are fine how they are.

They are embarrassing. Every one of them is a reminder that we don't know what to do about it.

 

[adamkungl]

They are embarrassing. Every one of them is a reminder that we don't know what to do about it.

Embarrassing to who? Why?
Old merkins who think Union-style scrums would improve the game are delusional

 

[T-Boon]

Embarrassing to who? Why?
Old merkins who think Union-style scrums would improve the game are delusional

Anybody trying to sell the sport to a friend.
Because they look like sports equivalent of tonsils. Like whatever animal we evolved from needed them and our evolution has not yet got rid of them because we are too dumb to properly evolve.

 

[TheFrog]

Farragher isn't the reason why scrums aren't contested anymore.

He got injured in 1978. We still had contested scrums in the early to mid 90's.

Goes to show how quick on the uptake they are.

Actually I'd have pegged it at late 80's but unable to nominate an exact year.

It may not have been why they made the change, but it is why they can't go back.

Back in the late '70s the Farragher injury would have been just regarded as an unfortunate accident that was unavoidable, given the nature of the sport. Many would still see it that way. But the introduction of workplace safety laws from 1983 (and refined since) puts onus on employers which would include sporting bodies, to make the risk of injury as low as is reasonably practicable. It comes down to whether competitive scrums are an absolutely essential element of Rugby League. As someone pointed out, teams can still push, and very occasionally do but both teams pushing at the same time? If there were a spate of it the sport might be forced to think again.

 

[madunit]

Goes to show how quick on the uptake they are.

Actually I'd have pegged it at late 80's but unable to nominate an exact year.

It may not have been why they made the change, but it is why they can't go back.

Back in the late '70s the Farragher injury would have been just regarded as an unfortunate accident that was unavoidable, given the nature of the sport. Many would still see it that way. But the introduction of workplace safety laws from 1983 (and refined since) puts onus on employers which would include sporting bodies, to make the risk of injury as low as is reasonably practicable. It comes down to whether competitive scrums are an absolutely essential element of Rugby League. As someone pointed out, teams can still push, and very occasionally do but both teams pushing at the same time? If there were a spate of it the sport might be forced to think again.

Its not the reason why they can't go back to competitive scrums.

All that happened was the scrums purpose changed. Instead of being a Rugby Union type opportunity to battle for possession, League opted to use it as an opportunity to rest forwards. The introduction of the 10m rule probably had a bigger impact on scrums than John Farragher's injury.

 

[T-Boon]

Nah 5 metre rule sucks. 7-8 isn't bad. I play in one comp under the 5 metre rule and one under the 10 metre rule. In the 5m comp we tell the refs to try and make it 8 or so because with 5m you go nowhere.

The problem with 5 metres is as you say it is hard to get any space and make any ground.
The problem with 10 is it makes the play the ball and hit ups the key.

The solution is make it a two tier D. Allow 3 or 4 forward defenders anywhere on the advantage line and have everyone else back 10 or 15 metres. That would be a great game.

 

[gerg]

Anybody trying to sell the sport to a friend.
Because they look like sports equivalent of tonsils. Like whatever animal we evolved from needed them and our evolution has not yet got rid of them because we are too dumb to properly evolve.

Scrums evolved into not really being contested anyway. Halfbacks feeding directly to the second rowers feet and referees randomly penalising one side for doing it when it was happening every single scrum. I remember it well and it was a cluster **** I don't want to go back to.