The ten metre rule

[T-Boon]

Plenty of you know RL football as it is now better than I do. I can't work out why our defense sux for example, but anyway, I think the root of all evil in the game as far as "all the juice being squeezed out of it" is the 10m rule.
We should look at going back to 5m but it would be a massively radical move. I think we need an experimental league in the off season. 11 aside and 5 metres.

 

[Eelogical]

Plenty of you know RL football as it is now better than I do. I can't work out why our defense sux for example, but anyway, I think the root of all evil in the game as far as "all the juice being squeezed out of it" is the 10m rule.
We should look at going back to 5m but it would be a massively radical move. I think we need an experimental league in the off season. 11 aside and 5 metres.

As much as I love NRL there's got to be something wrong with a game that consistently needs to change and tweak the rules every year to satisfy a perceived audience. I keep hearing it's a simple game, but that's no longer the case.

 

[Twizzle]

We should meet them half way and make it 7.5 metre rule.

 

[Gary Gutful]

11 a side and 5 metres would result in our defence being even worse.

Never go full @T-Boon

 

[Gronk]

15 a side and a contest for the ball after each tackle. Has anyone tried that ?

 

[84 Baby]

11 a side and you can only use your feet

 

[hindy111]

I reckon you just make it first team to 20 points wins. No matter how long game goes.
Hit 20 and its over.

 

[Gronk]

You could give one side all the possession for 20 minutes, then the other team has to chase with all the possession with their 20 minutes.

They could call it Twenty20 match or T20 for short.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Let them pass the ball forward. Give them helmets and pads and forget about putting the ball down in the in goal area.

 

[hindy111]

Let them pass the ball forward. Give them helmets and pads and forget about putting the ball down in the in goal area.

Now you're being stupid

 

[T-Boon]

You fella’s using the reductio-ad-absurdon do realise the neutral zone was something other than 10m for about 100 years right.

 

[JohnStoppafarty]

You fella’s using the reductio-ad-absurdon do realise the neutral zone was something other than 10m for about 100 years right.

I can't speak for anyone else but this one does. You'd have to do a few trials to see how it plays out in the modern game. You surely wouldn't risk just changing it back before knowing how that would impact the game?
It's a bit like the White Australia policy. It worked well at the time and some of us wish we could go back but how would it play out now?

 

[T-Boon]

I can't speak for anyone else but this one does. You'd have to do a few trials to see how it plays out in the modern game. You surely wouldn't risk just changing it back before knowing how that would impact the game?
It's a bit like the White Australia policy. It worked well at the time and some of us wish we could go back but how would it play out now?

Yeah. They could just go from 10m to 5m in Jim Beam Cup (is that still a thing?). Trial it for a year - realise there isn’t enough space so instead of making an increase to the neutral zone go less men until it works well.

 

[Gary Gutful]

You fella’s using the reductio-ad-absurdon do realise the neutral zone was something other than 10m for about 100 years right.

Watched a shit load of Fox Classic games on Kayo over the weekend, including several from the 80s. Was interesting to revisit a number of games that I watched at the time but don't remember in detail.

A very different game nowadays - the skill level and defensive intensity is far greater.

I didn't watch this years GF and think there was a issue with defence.