The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

NRL's 100-minute revolution; Is it a good idea?

Dave Smith achieved a lot in a short time as NRL CEO, but is still lacking on player welfare. (Photo: AAP)
Roar Guru
8th December, 2014
69

Phil Rothfield wrote an article in yesterday’s Daily Telegraph where he suggested some major rule changes might be in the works for coming seasons.

One of his biggest suggestions was that the game could be changed to run over two hours, with five-minute breaks at the end of the first and third quarters, with the existing 10-minute break at half time.

I would suggest this would destroy the games fabric even more than it has already! The impetus and build-up a team can achieve in a 40-minute half of football would be lost.

The number of advertisements will increase, one of the key benefits posited for the change, and viewing time will extend out to three hours for 100 minutes of football.

Once you start comparing the game to gridiron, you are probably moving closer to gridiron.

Another change mentioned in the article was the number of players in a playing squad. In my view, squads changing from 17 to 21 players increase costs for the clubs, adding further financial strain to those already struggling to make the salary cap.

Phil also says TV deals for the NRL could be increased to two billion dollars.

Excuse me if I’ve missed something, but which channel could afford this type of money? Nine, in my estimation, paid money they possibly could not afford and we got cuts in some of the broadcasting. For example, how many times did Nine travel to Townsville or New Zealand compared to other years?

Advertisement

Last season saw the same teams teams practically every week. It was Sydney and Broncos-centric.

More breaks in the play mean more ads for viewers to endure, and is it worth it for TV channels to demand more money from sponsors as those watching the game sit and squirm, waiting for the game to resume?

Another point brought up by Rothfield was the schedule. Next year’s NRL Draw hasn’t appeared yet, so what chance we get a shorter season to cater for a plethora of other competitions?

To me, our game has gone far enough with changes to the nature of the contest. Player positions are largely null and void, and how long has it been since a hooker hooked?

Our game used to be about personnel competitions all over the field, not two straight lines charging at each other ending with a kick.

This movement toward gridiron time frame is disrespectful to the great game, and I believe these changes would only take us further in that direction.

close