time to get rid of 10 m. rule.

[JB]

Relax the policing of the markers and problem is solved. quote]

The problem is solved how?

I'm not saying it couldn't by your method, but man there's a lot of sweeping statements going on without any sort of backup.

 

[Man_of_Steel_1982]

i'm totally in favour of reverting to a 5 metre rule.

under the ten metre rule (which is more like a 15 metre rule), teams are artificially gifted territory without needing much more than dummmy half running.

either that or penalise the attacking team if the dummy-half is tackled with the ball.

Exactly.

Just before 1993, the "5m rule" was very close to 10 anyway. It was extended to about 7-8m, which was a good balance. For a while the 10m rule was good as the game was played in the same fashion, until the creative style eventually died out as dummy half and one up running became the norm.

A few refs today hold the players back at least 12m. We don't need a huge rule change, just relax the interpretation of 10m - 10m back from the dummy half. Then teams will start using more inventive ways to gain territory.

 

[Man_of_Steel_1982]

Exactly.

Just before 1993, the "5m rule" was very close to 10 anyway. It was extended to about 7-8m, which was a good balance. For a while the 10m rule was good as the game was played in the same fashion, until the creative style eventually died out as dummy half and one up running became the norm.

A few refs today hold the players back at least 12m. We don't need a huge rule change, just relax the interpretation of 10m - 10m back from the dummy half. Then teams will start using more inventive ways to gain territory.

And to add to this, less interchange would help too.

 

[ScubaSharks]

I think the 5m rule would make it worse too. I think that giving a penalty if a dummy half runner is tackled is too extreme, because there is still place for a dummy half run in the game. They could make it that if he is tackled the defense can hold him down longer (like a dominant tackle) so the teams would be disadvantaged, but not lose possession.

 

[j0nesy]

In my opinion we need to incorporate the following:

1. Play strictly a 10 metre rule only, and not a 12-15 m rule.
2. When a player runs from dummy half the opposition cannot be ruled offside and cannot be penalised for the markers being square.
3. When tackled the referee gives tackling players 3-5 seconds (not sure the ideal ammount of time) to get off the tackled player.
4. Penalise the attacking player if they take more than 1 step off the mark when playing the ball.

 

[butchmcdick]

Come on mate, your original post stating that rugby league was terrible before the 10m rule does a great injustice to everyone who watched and played RL before 1993.

If RL was terrible before the 10m rule, why would anyone have watched or played it?

By all means argue that RL after the start of the 10m rule is better, but suggesting RL before it was terrible is way over the top.

(And nowhere did I suggest reverting to the 5m rule, or unlimited tackles).

Ok i take your point. It is my opinion that league is far better now than it was under the 5m rule.

As for the unlimited tackle I was attempting to point out that the game is capable of evolving.

 

[*Paul*]

I can recall reading an article in an old RLW (or BL), where someone was complaining that the 5 yard rule had buggered the game, and it should go back to the 3 yard rule

Personally, I think the "force them to be creative" idea, which sounds good in theory, would turn out to be somewhat less workable in practice.

 

[j0nesy]

Is it any more interesting to see more points scored if they are largely scored off kicks or on the back of dummy half runs? My feeling is that there are lot more tries scored off kicks and on the back of dummy half runs than there were in past, but I'm not sure that this can be attributed to the 10m rule. I'd love to see some stats on it if anyone has some.

 

[Poul]

Frank Hyde suggested that we can keep the 10m space, but make sure the attack and defence are both back 5m from the ruck. If we go to 2 referees, this could actually work quite well as both referees would enforce the 5m distances, and still be close enough to see what is going on at the ruck.

When I played at school, admittedly back in the dark ages, i was always under the impression that both the defense and the attack, apart from the two markers in defense, and the tackled player playing the ball and the dummy half in attack, that ALL other players had to be back an equal distance ( I think 5 yards at the time) from the play the ball. If the attacking players entered within this distance at the play the ball then they would be penalised for being "offside". I know that this would be difficult to police, but it would mean that the attacking team don't get the big adavantage that they do now at the play the ball.

 

[magpie_man]

I'd rather see contested play-the-balls back tbh.
imo if you wanted to revert back to the 5m rule, you'd probably have to decrease the numbers of players on each team to 11. I think some people are forgetting that the attacking team can stand as deep as they like too.

 

[Poul]

I'd rather see contested play-the-balls back tbh.
imo if you wanted to revert back to the 5m rule, you'd probably have to decrease the numbers of players on each team to 11. I think some people are forgetting that the attacking team can stand as deep as they like too.

Apart from the "contested" play the balls, I think the rest of these ideas are pretty good.

 

[dallymessenger]

I'd rather see contested play-the-balls back tbh.
imo if you wanted to revert back to the 5m rule, you'd probably have to decrease the numbers of players on each team to 11. I think some people are forgetting that the attacking team can stand as deep as they like too.

contested PTB.

nope.

 

[Chook Norris]

i've seen a few games played under the 5m rule and well.. i saw a lot more ball movement.. much more appealing to the eye

imo if a couple of other things were also changed to suit it, it would be very successful

but then, as somene suggested earlier, the SL isn't boring and certain NRL games lack good attacking quality...so i'm not too sure

however, i like the 5m rule

 

[jimmythehand]

letting the markers stand adjacent to the play ball could prevent a lot of dummy half running. However, it introduces another problem. Players can easily strike out at the dummy halfs arms, or the ball, and make him knock it on. How do you police that? It could probably be disguised as a tackle and then we've got another problem.

 

[dallymessenger]

i've seen a few games played under the 5m rule and well.. i saw a lot more ball movement.. much more appealing to the eye

imo if a couple of other things were also changed to suit it, it would be very successful

thats what i was thinking, it was better quality attacking footy.

look at many of the grand finals from the 80s and early 90s and they were super.

 

[Engine]

Like it or not, the 10m rule is here to stay.

 

[Pete Cash]

Wouldn't the increased fitness and speed of modern day rugby league players make a 5m rule a little difficult to get any kind of movement. Sometimes the defence can rush up and shut down plays with the 10m rule, never mind the 5.

 

[Engine]

Good point Pete Cash....the fitness of the players have improved so much that there is no turning back now. Basically no pionts would be scored of tries. Would look like a union game.

 

[Poul]

I was watching NRL on Fox during the week, and I think it was Steve Mascord who said that one way to make Rugby League players less attractive to the Vichy collaborationists of yawnion, would be to make Rugby League LESS LIKE yawnion, so there would be less interchangeability, which I believe there currently is , at least for Rugby League backs defecting to yawnion.
So, having LESS contest for the ball. u.t. NO stripping , and reducing the player numbers to 11 , may go some way to achieving this. Rugby League is already a pretty "aerobic" game, and would become more so if it were 11 a side, with more open space for players to work in. Then perhaps the reintroduction of a 5 metre rule for BOTH teams could be made.
I think the yawnionists are trying to make their game more like ours, so I believe we should be getting further away from theirs.

 

[dragonfire]

The games pre ten metre rule were as boring as batsh*t. Defence dominated attack. It was terrible.

and you look at the speed of densive lines now, with 5m your not going to go anywhere