time to get rid of 10 m. rule.

[Poul]

How about if both teams are forced back 10m at the play the ball, and if the dummy half is caught in possession ("sacked") before reaching the advantage line, then it is a changeover to the defending team?
I think this would see less dummy half runs, as a team would not want to risk losing possession if the dummy half was gang tackled back over the advantage line. Then both teams would be on an equal footing wrt distance from the play the ball.

 

[stuke]

the Wok was floating the idea of less players on the field today on the radio. only caught the end of it, but he had been talking about creating more space on the field in order to promote ball movement.

 

[jimmythehand]

the Wok was floating the idea of less players on the field today on the radio. only caught the end of it, but he had been talking about creating more space on the field in order to promote ball movement.

I guess it depends on how teams defend though. If you just space your players out more, then there's more room up the middle and even more incentive to run from dummy half.

 

[Poul]

the Wok was floating the idea of less players on the field today on the radio. only caught the end of it, but he had been talking about creating more space on the field in order to promote ball movement.

I find Warren Ryan's ideas usually very insightful, including this one. It is ironic though coming from the guy who helped develop the "smother" defence.

 

[Poul]

I guess it depends on how teams defend though. If you just space your players out more, then there's more room up the middle and even more incentive to run from dummy half.

Again, thinking outside the square, one way would be to ban the dummy half from running altogether, and forcing him to pass.

 

[dallymessenger]

the Wok was floating the idea of less players on the field today on the radio. only caught the end of it, but he had been talking about creating more space on the field in order to promote ball movement.

heard him talk about it last week.

i personally wouldnt like to see us go down to 11.

weve had 13 men for a long time as the team number and its now a distinctive part of the game, must like the PTB.

 

[Poul]

heard him talk about it last week.

i personally wouldnt like to see us go down to 11.

weve had 13 men for a long time as the team number and its now a distinctive part of the game, must like the PTB.

Just because we've had 13 a side for a long time, doesn't mean its the optimum number, nor that it is best suited for the modern day game.
I think that most Rugby League fans ( those who dare to watch :sarcasm would agree that there are too many players in a yawnion team, so if 2 less players is part of the reason that Rugby League is the superior game, then could reducing numbers by a further 2 make it even a better game?
My personal feeling is that 11 is currently the ideal number. 13 is too many, as defence stifles attack, and 9 is too few, as try scoring becomes rampant.
With any rule change, it has to be thought out, and definitely trialled ( Toyota Cup would be a good vehicle) to see what the ramifications of the rule change are for the game as a whole.

 

[dallymessenger]

Just because we've had 13 a side for a long time, doesn't mean its the optimum number, nor that it is best suited for the modern day game.
I think that most Rugby League fans ( those who dare to watch :sarcasm would agree that there are too many players in a yawnion team, so if 2 less players is part of the reason that Rugby League is the superior game, then could reducing numbers by a further 2 make it even a better game?
My personal feeling is that 11 is currently the ideal number. 13 is too many, as defence stifles attack, and 9 is too few, as try scoring becomes rampant.
With any rule change, it has to be thought out, and definitely trialled ( Toyota Cup would be a good vehicle) to see what the ramifications of the rule change are for the game as a whole.

the big reason why RL is a superior game to union is the PTB.

not the numbers of players.

 

[Poul]

the big reason why RL is a superior game to union is the PTB.

not the numbers of players.

Dally, I didn't say that the number of players(13) was the reason Rugby League was a far superior game to yawnion (15), but that in my opinion, that most knowledgeable Rugby League fans (and I include you in this) would agree that it is part of the reason. And yes, I do agree that the play the ball and its ramifications are probably the major reason.
I don't believe it is wrong to explore options which may improve the game, but only to implement them after they have been fully trialled. After all, I believe it is innovation which has made Rugby League what it is today, The Greatest Game of All.

 

[dallymessenger]

Dally, I didn't say that the number of players(13) was the reason Rugby League was a far superior game to yawnion (15), but that in my opinion, that most knowledgeable Rugby League fans (and I include you in this) would agree that it is part of the reason. And yes, I do agree that the play the ball and its ramifications are probably the major reason.
I don't believe it is wrong to explore options which may improve the game, but only to implement them after they have been fully trialled. After all, I believe it is innovation which has made Rugby League what it is today, The Greatest Game of All.

fair enough,

 

[Poul]

I think a reduction in the number of players may not have as much of an effect on the game as some other rules which have been introduced in the past. The change from unlimited tackles ( I've never seen a game in full under this rule, and even though I'm an old bastard, i'm not that old to have seen one live) to 4 then 6 tackle football, has probably had a far greater effect on the game than potentially the reduction in player numbers may.

 

[dallymessenger]

I think a reduction in the number of players may not have as much of an effect on the game as some other rules which have been introduced in the past. The change from unlimited tackles ( I've never seen a game in full under this rule, and even though I'm an old bastard, i'm not that old to have seen one live) to 4 then 6 tackle football, has probably had a far greater effect on the game than potentially the reduction in player numbers may.

yeah id agree with that

 

[RL1908]

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.

Yep - that was the rule - both sides had to be back the 5 yards. But over time referees gradually let the attacking team do as they pleased. The NSWRL & referees reasoned that if an attacking team was dumb enough to not stand deep, then they deserved to be closed down by the defence.

 

[Chook Norris]

How about if both teams are forced back 10m at the play the ball, and if the dummy half is caught in possession ("sacked") before reaching the advantage line, then it is a changeover to the defending team?

imo thats a pretty good idea, touch footy rules really

and what about using the 'dump' instead of a play the ball.. its not like most plaeyrs do it correctly anymroe anyway

 

[RL1908]

For those that haven't read it, there is a detailed look at the history of the play-the-ball (as well as the evolution of defensive distances & loss of space for attack):
http://www.RL1908.com/History/play-the-ball.htm

 

[magpie_man]

going to 11 per side could reduce gang-tackling too.

 

[steaming stormer]

Nah, just let the markers stand side by side. It'll get rid of the dummyhalf running

Half the time I think they've already changed that rule! :x
Having said that though, the concept is not necessarily a bad one. Would be interesting to see how it trialled

 

[Chapsta]

11-a-side is the answer to many of Leagues problems.

 

[perverse]

how about the 7.5m rule?

 

[Brookie]

if they make it 5m again, manly will never conceed another try again!