- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
One of rugby league’s strongest selling points is the overall speed of the game. Given that, should the code attempt to truly own its unique point of difference, and make the game even faster?
More specifically, should the NRL make the drastic decision to remove one player from the field, thereby speeding the game up even further?
Before I delve into this subject, I should confess that this idea is not my own. Nor am I even sure I support it.
The topic came about after a chat with a friend who is very well connected to an NRL club. Said individual believes removing a forward from the game would make it even faster and friendlier for the smaller, skilful players. The rationale is that the move would make the game quicker and more attractive – though that last opinion is obviously subjective.
My initial reaction was a mix of amusement and bemusement, while also believing that perhaps one too many beers had been consumed. I may have also had a smug smirk on my face.
Yet where this madcap conversation got interesting is when I was told the idea had been shared with the first grade coach and other influential individuals within the club, who all believed the idea is worth considering.
As such, it became something I needed to contemplate seriously.
Here’s how the idea works: one forward – most probably the lock forward – would be removed from the starting 13, creating more space on the park, along with ensuring that the 12 remaining players on the field would tire a lot quicker. The causal effect of both of these variables is that the game would be a lot quicker, more tries would probably be scored, and quick, skilful players would dominate the game.
Now it’s up to the individual fan to decide whether that type of rugby league would be more appealing or not, as the game would certainly start to resemble touch football a lot more, and that’s not everyone’s idea of enjoyable viewing. However it would change the game, and give it an even greater point of differentiation from, say, rugby union.
If rugby league believes the speed of the game is its greatest asset, perhaps it should seriously look at making the game even faster.
Personally, I think removing a player from the field may change the game a little too much, and is too extreme a decision.
However, what if the same desired results could be achieved without altering the fabric of the game? The game could be sped up, and players tired out more quickly, by simply removing one interchange player instead. This would result in players staying on the field who are clearly exhausted, and ripe for a speedy opponent to exploit their tiredness by running around them.
Ironically, I argued on Twitter on the weekend that with the new concussion laws, the interchange bench should be extended. However, if it’s decided that rugby league should be even faster, perhaps the opposite should be done, with the bench – or the number of interchanges – shortened.
There is no question it would speed up the game, with the importance and impact of smaller players increased greatly.
Is that a good thing, and should the NRL do it?