Instead, the NRL can solve the problem and at the same time make the game simpler, more entertaining and more popular – all it has to do is change the shape of the field.
This is not my idea.
It was first suggested to me by Warren Ryan, one of the great lateral thinkers of the game.
I was covering the Knights on a daily basis when he was coach, and every so often, when the mood would take him, he would plop down next to me and blurt his latest philosophy on the game.
One day, he said simply; “Imagine what it would do to the game if they fattened the sidelines in the middle.”
I have, and I’m convinced it is a single, elegant solution to a multitude of evils that are plaguing rugby league.
Why are gang tackles a growing problem?
They involve multiple big men hitting a single ball carrier.
Done right, it is the biggest blokes applying full force to the littlest guy on the other side.
Gang tackle break people. They snap tendons. They bend knees in the wrong direction. They shorten careers. They rob the game of its stars.
That’s why orthopaedic surgeon Merv Cross told News Limited this week that gang tackles and shoulder charges must be stopped. He is confronted with the physical damage every day.
But so are you. Because, according to Dean Ritchie’s numbers, 17 players worth $4 million were lost in the opening round alone.
That’s a lot of talent you aren’t seeing, and while I don’t have data to back this up, I’d suggest smaller, more lithe (read: quicker and more exciting) players are more likely to be hurt for longer.
Stars on sidelines are an expensive waste of time and talent.
But I know what you are thinking: “I’d rather see my 20 favourite players on the sideline than seeing 20 more penalties a game as the two referees blow the pea out of it for every gang tackle.”
Cue the tiresome controversy. Was he a passive participant? Did he drop off? Was there a fifth hand on and no penalty was forthcoming?
No. Not an option. We cannot bear one more tackle law. But we cannot allow legalised thuggery to cripple our best and brightest.
So let’s move the goalposts. Well, the sideline actually.
Imagine for a moment you are looking down on a football field from above. There is current a straight line from the try line to the halfway line.
Now imagine the halfway line extended two metres at either edge and the try line shortened by a metre at either end.
A winger on his goal line would now see a field that widens in front of him until he gets to halfway then narrows as he approaches the opposition goal line.
What does all this have to do with gang tackling?
Gang tackling has become a problem because bigger, fitter, faster athletes are able to get to a tackle in greater numbers than their forebears of 25 years ago.
More muscle, more mobile equals more mutilation. And the centre of the park is their territory. One out running, easy pickings.
But what if the 12 men in the defensive frontline found that out near halfway they had more territory to defend?
Commit too many in that tackle and you are exposed on the edges. Gather together a gang in the middle and invite the little and the quick to go around you.
The gang tackle would not need to be outlawed. It would become an unfeasible, outmoded tactic – much like tackling around the bootlaces is today.
It would simply disappear.
This new playing field produces a series of other, less obvious benefits too.
It will largely eliminate the mid-field slog – the least interesting part of the game where forwards belt it up for four tackles, make eight metres apiece, hoping to get halfway to give the halfback a shot at a 40/20 or an attacking kick.
No, now the incentive is to use the room, to get creative. It will not blow-out scorelines.
Sure, a roomy middle means less time defending near halfway and more try line defence, but the try line would be more defendable than it is now. And wingers would be more likely to get around a defence, but less able to run away from cover.
It funnels the game into the more exciting places.
This simple change even benefits junior development, where administrators are battling the problems of little guys being bashed out of the game by early-developing behemoths.
No worries, little guy, we’ve given you a little more space to move in so you can use your guile, your step, your speed to escape the big boppers. Ten years from now, those skills will be bringing fans through the turnstiles.
But perhaps the greatest advantage of this simple change: it solves the gang tackle problem without the involvement of the referee.
It doesn’t create more laws that slow the game, confuse it and more often, than not, create controversy.
Could it happen?
There are a few minor logistical issues such as the configuration of grounds but most NRL stadiums are designed to accommodate playing surfaces of various widths.
It would also take some technical and tactical adjustment. That’s the point.
But it is no more revolutionary than the ten metre rule, limited tackles or interchange. They were introduced to solve problems and they produced the game we love today.
And it’s more welcome than some other recent innovations such as the extra referee.
It’s better for players, it’s better for clubs and it’s better for fans and it’s an investment in the future.
I dare the NRL to try it next pre-season.
Brett McKay
Guest
right then, so which one of you guys is Des Hasler?? (from the SMH today) Des 'Pythagoras' Hasler has answer: widen fields Greg Prichard March 30, 2011 Manly coach Des Hasler could never be accused of not being prepared to think outside the square - or the rectangle, in this case. Asked yesterday about the high rate of injuries being experienced by NRL players in the early rounds, and whether a 25-man squad was enough for clubs these days, Hasler said one way of reducing the impact of collisions could be to increase the width of the field. That way, players would have more ground to cover and would be less likely to get hammered. ''Don't extend the squad, extend the size of the field,'' Hasler said. ''If you've got a bigger field they've got to do more chasing, so there's more running. It's about putting things [suggestions] out there. I have heard of worse ones than that. There is more space to run into, so the hits are less. It's one to think about.'' Most grounds are a squeeze as it is, with not a lot of room between the sideline and the fence, but why should that be Dessie's problem? The logistics are for NRL's management to worry about.
Bam Bam
Roar Guru
I like the idea of widening the field, but the whole field so our wingers and centres can find the gaps a lot easier and make it more exciting. The gang tackles need to be monitored, I think wrestling a player to the ground is ok to slow down play, but wrestling on the ground should be penalised. Also, common sense needs to be applied, if the third person is coming in to stop the momentum or put the ball carrier on the ground, ok, but if he is coming in to break a rib or tear a medial ligament then penalise him and they will start to pick up that hurting a player isn't point of a tackle, stopping the ball is. Another thing I think needs to be looked at is the tackling scenario on the ground. Whether it's a dominant tackle or not a tackler should only be allowed on the ball carrier for a maximum of 3 seconds, and the ref should be counting aloud to let the tackler know this - this will stop the gang tackles as it will make them realise that getting 3-5 players off a ball carrier will take to long and create to many penalties. Also, it will speed up the game and make it more exciting.
LT80
Roar Pro
OK that is fair enough, he does have a football background. But he's giving his opinion on the issue on the basis of his medical credentials. My point is that being a doctor is of really no consequence in this debate.
Andrew
Guest
Merv Cross actually played Rugby League and was on the NRL board for a period. So he does know a bit about the game. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merv_Cross
LT80
Roar Pro
Why is an orthopaedic surgeon somehow qualified to judge what should and should not be allowed in a game of football? Merv Cross' opinion on the topic is of no more value than anyone else's. As a doctor he might be an expert in fixing the sort of injuries caused by gang tackles, but this does not make him an expert in preventing them on the field, nor in weighing up all the various drawbacks and benefits (including non-medical ones) that would be associated with banning certain tacking styles. You do not need to an orthopaedic surgeon to be able to grasp that players are sometimes injured in tackles. Being a doctor does not make you any more expert on the question, in fact it may make you less qualified to comment because it may be very difficult to be objective about the issue when you are dealing with the negative consequences of it on a daily basis. So whether on not gang tackles and shoulder charges should be banned is a question worth asking, but the debate can live without the opinion of this bloke.
Minkus
Guest
Brave article/suggestion. Great example of thinking out the square (or rectangle) in order to improve the spectacle. Warren Ryan has suggested dropping the number of players in a team down as well. Ever seen a game where there are two players in the bin? game opens up nicely. Of course there are plenty of valid arguments against it. Will be very interesting to see how the game evolves over the next 20 years.
Boz
Guest
Agree Oikee, I see that Harrigan has today said that the refs won't baby the players anymore and keep reminding them of how to bind correctly. And neither should they. If they don't do it, just penalise them. They will learn soon enough. I agree with the article that trying to minimise injuries to players is important in the game. The referees need to be more proactive in calling held when a player is obviously not going to offload and has had their momentum stopped. The other point I would make is that the collision aspect of Rugby League, should be looked at. As others have mentioned, reducing interchanges would definitely make a player more selective about how he throws himself around during a game. Perhaps the current 10 metre rule needs tinkering with - and making both sides retire 5 metres from the play the ball, thus reducing dummy half running, and making players be more creative with the ball to be able get over the advantage line.
oikee
Guest
How ordinary was Robert Finch, a guy who the game could not sack (he ended up sacking himself) , he made a complete mess of the video ref, made the scrums look like a dogs breakfast. Brought the whole game to its knee's almost. And the simple solution was inforce the rules. The 3rd man in is called a prowler tackle, surely Harrigon can inforce this rule. Another thing, if i hear a penalty this week-end from a scrum, sack the damm coach. If the coach can not show his players how to pack a scrum, what hope has he got coaching the team. I bet the Storm dont give away scrum penalties. The point Gus Gould makes about penalties, would you award let's say a scrum penalty to win a grand final, if it's a rule enforced all year , then yes, why not, bad coaching should never be rewarded. Let's sink the boot into bad coaching. :) Like Micheal Jennings last week-end, i never seen him in front of the kicker, or anybody else, good coaching, do it again no pizza.
mushi
Roar Guru
Yep I think there has been some extrapolation here
mushi
Roar Guru
But also slows the game down theoretically making it less attractive for the marignal fan
bigbaz
Guest
cut the interchange ,put the ball back in the contest and enforce the rules the game currently has.Nothing surer when league has a problem rather than work their current laws they will dream up a whole new set
MyLeftFoot
Roar Guru
That's a silly comment. The modern forms of professional football codes involve greater intensity than at any other time in their histories - that's part of the problem.
Chris
Guest
I agree with this 100%. Unless there is an actual injury there should be no support staff allowed on the field at all. It would force the players to actually think for themselves too.
MyLeftFoot
Roar Guru
Agree. No need for a third man, and more often than not, there ain't any room left for him except at either extremity of the body (which is the issue). Also, if there is one rule that should be as clear as day as to whether there is an infringement, it is watching out for a 3rd tackler. One ambiguity might be where the second tackler slips off, and a third one gets in almost immediately - but still clear enough.
Brendan
Roar Rookie
Heres a suggestion: Harden up!
itsuckstobeyou
Roar Pro
By making the centre of the field wider and the ends narrower, aren't you just moving the injuries from the centre to the ends of the field? I can see how your idea could open up the game, but I'm not convinced it would prevent injuries in it's current form.
The Answer
Guest
Quick question. How many of those 17 players were actually injured from gang tackles?
DumpStar
Roar Rookie
As soon as the attackers feet are off the ground in a tackle, it is considered that the tackle has been effected already. The going backwards one is a funny one, while the attacker is still struggling how can you say the tackle has been effected? Obviously it's a balance between allowing a team to use all there attacking options (ie being able to offload in the tackle, even while going backwards), and the safety of players.
lopati
Guest
The shoulder charges need to go too. If little blokes can shoulder charge a bigger guy and send him flying think of the force involved - concentrated in a very small spot - that can never be good for anybody. It's like the basis of martial arts punching - concentrating your entire body force & weight into a single smaller point. It's the best way to get through a door short of using external weight (as effective but easier to control than a flying kick). Shoulder charging is a fight move, pure and simple - get it out of the game now.
DumpStar
Roar Rookie
Yep. Drop it to 11 players a side on the field, and the game changes a lot. Gang tackles would be much more infrequent as any offload would lead to much more expansive play to take advantage of the numbers the defense committed to the tackle. I am suprised that Warren Ryan did not bring this up, as he was the one who suggested this change to the game about 15years ago.