- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Opinions are like navels – everyone has one. But paid ‘experts’ should have informed and consistent ones (opinions that is, not navels).
Rugby league has a handful of perennial posers which we all like to weigh in on. Here are my opinions on them.
Round 13 rule
A player agents get a shiny new deal wrapped up for their client, then spends all the time they have left until Round 13 trying to get him a better deal!
The rule was a reverse reaction attempt in the first place. By allowing players to change their minds it was hoped that clubs would stop signing players so very early, because if the NRL did not recognise the contract prior to Round 13, it was effectively worthless.
Read more from Brian Smith at SmithySpeaks
What’s the solution?
Let’s try a different date: no contract is binding until one week after grand final day. It won’t stop conjecture but it will stop the embarrassing state our professional game is in at present.
If the players agree to that, perhaps the clubs might agree to $100,000 fines for any club found negotiating prior to that one week post-grand final.
While we are at it, perhaps a new rule for player agents too? Maybe a three-year suspension for participating in any negotiations before the trading date deadline.
Should send-offs return?
The temperature of many rose remarkably when Dragons forward Tyson Frizell was not dismissed for contact with an opponent’s head. If a hit of that nature didn’t get Frizzell an early shower, what exactly does it take to get sent off?
Because it’s been so long since anyone was sent off it has become rare in the extreme for that course of action to be taken by a referee, perhaps everyone whose temperature rose also had memory failure. The referees who did send players off in the past ‘ruined the game’.
The reluctance to send players off has come about for a reason. Let the off-field process be the judge, except in the most absolute of circumstances.
Obstruction rule revisited
If I hear another commentator or upset fan rant “those refs and video refs are hopeless” or “no wonder we are turned off watching footy”, I will… Well, I was about to rant too.
History shows some teams started pushing the boundaries of the shepherd rule while others turned it into a science, until it became an exercise in how many obstruction plays could be manufactured in a game.
Small steps by refs and rule makers generated no deterrent. At the same time, coaches and players were developing more sophisticated ploys, stopping the defensive line in attack or deliberately crashing into the block runner in defence.
Former refs boss Daniel Anderson had a strong interpretation: any player in front of the ball causing a distraction or block on a defender would be penalised.
Some of those who screech and threaten now were also the loudest to complain when this definitive action was introduced, claiming the attack was being penalised for quality play. A watered-down change came in pretty quickly.
They now continue to cite that the defender was not close enough to have prevented the break or try. But was an inside defender illegally disrupted slightly enough for the next defender to be hesitant in releasing quickly enough to get to the eventual threat on the outside? That’s the cornerstone of modern defence: release or commit. They are fraction-of-second decisions which win and lose games.
We even had commentators going off the deep end last Sunday when Robbie Farah ran behind a lead runner to create space for a try-scoring opportunity. When the officials said “no” it was rant time again.
Now they are saying the officials are confused and need to be more consistent. Who caused that?
For many reasons a strong stance needs to be taken on lead runners, but a stronger stance needs to be taken against the whiners.
Reckon you can pick the winning team? Build your own dream team with Draftstars daily fantasy and compete on any match. For great odds on the NRL head on over to PlayUp. Imagine what you could be buying instead. Set a deposit limit.