As someone who once believed that the advent of Super League in the mid-90s would benefit the game in the long term, I remember the moment in 1997 when, on a dreary Monday night, I said to myself, “This experiment has gone too far.”
Canterbury were playing the newly-formed and ultimately short-lived Hunter Mariners at Belmore in front of an official crowd of 7,126 (if that was the real number I’ll put my vintage Tony Iro Mariners jersey up for sale on Ebay).
Although one of the tenets of the rebel competition was a emphasis on attack, it occurred to me during that evening’s opening exchanges that the play-the-balls seemed particularly fast, almost to the point of the game resembling a more physical version of touch.
Players would charge forward, dive at the ground and get up immediately as hurried defenders, having been penalised to within an inch of their lives through the first nine rounds of the season, rushed to get off the player, as if enthusiastic to help the attacking side reach their tryline as rapidly as possible. The pace was literally breathtaking.
It was not surprising, therefore, to witness a full-time score of 48-36, a pathetic spectacle. Rugby league’s evolution had spiraled out of control; the dam had burst, resulting in a game of dummy-half runs and tries being scored every time a team crossed the opposition’s 20.
Thankfully, since reformation, the powers that be have understood that the 10-metre space between attack and defence, introduced unofficially in the early 90s, only functions when combined with a controlled and technically precise play-the-ball.
The tacit understanding is that defenders need to be able to keep the tackled player down to a certain extent, allowing the defensive line to reform. This allows a tensional balance between attack and defence unique to our game, giving us more attacking results than football but less than the monotonous flood of points produced in basketball and AFL.
Although that balance has been retained judging by the first four rounds this year, I have still found myself dismayed by the sluggish pace of play-the-balls across the NRL. Unfortunately, the cure to this ill isn’t simply for referees to blow more penalties.
We are facing a new problem, a strategy employed by coaches that is almost impossible to police. As has been noted by many of the game’s commentators, defenders are now drilled to hold players up; at the very moment the referee calls ‘held’, they dump him on the ground.
Referees are left without a clear path on which to proceed, now having to bide their time helplessly as players take the inevitable time to roll off and away. This happens on almost every play, and it’s become apparent to this writer that a disease from the 80s thought to be eradicated has returned: that of the lumbering, slow play-the-ball.
Many have advocated for the outlawing of ‘wrestling’ in the game. How anyone could possibly judge what may be wrestling as opposed to simply a physical struggle is beyond me.
What can be addressed, however, is the root cause of a slow play-the-ball: the gang tackle.
In the past, the NRL introduced the words ‘dominant’ and ‘surrender’ to assist referees in rewarding quality defence and allowing defenders to linger on the tackled player a little longer.
Instead, we should be rewarding solitary tackles, thereby providing incentives for coaches to encourage one-on-one defence.
How could this be done? The answer integrates both of the primary elements of the defensive structure in rugby league: the play-the-ball and the 10-metre corridor.
It would be called the Solo tackle. If a player effects a tackle on the ball carrier without assistance from teammates, the referee would call ‘solo’. At that point, he would simultaneously walk the defensive line forward five metres (that distance would be approximate, no different to the 10) while allowing a slower play-the-ball.
This would achieve two ends: raising the value of a solo tackle while also re-introducing the reality of the ‘advantage line’. On plays following a Solo, the defensive team would have the chance to push the opposition backward, a spectacle with the potential to arouse the crowd and lift the defending team, not often seen in the modern game.
The inverse of this is that the attacking team could also benefit – as any League enthusiast knows, the advantage of the gang tackle is the enclosing of the ball, disallowing further attacking motion on that play. Solo tackles do give the carrier a chance to offload or beat his man one-on-one, thereby further expanding the game.
While this would in no way eliminate the gang tackle – it is far too valuable a defensive tool to ever be dispensed with – it would add an exciting element that is currently missing from our game and be a first step in reducing cumbersome piling on of bodies in the tackle.
If referees were able to penalise slow play-the-balls in gang tackles with greater severity, while conversely giving solo tacklers more time to linger, we may be successful in drastically improving one of the few problem areas remaining in our game.
crip
Roar Pro
What is your deal MG Burbank? Too many persian rugs or mentally disturbed? In your blog you write things like "I often say that one of the elements we are gifted with as human beings upon entering the world is an acute sense of fairness" and "Rupert Murdoch and the rest of the Robber Barons – spend so much money buying politicians and creating fake “grassroots” movements like the Tea Party is because they understand perfectly the complaints and desires of the vast majority of the population in this country. They know all about the theft that’s taken place because they’re the ones who’ve benefited from it" But you support a News Ltd owned football team that cheats and produces no players of their own? And write without a doubt the worst article I've read on the Roar "Broncos deserve to be Friday night regulars" (Serioursly Roar, garbage like this damages your credibility). You don't make sense as a person.
gleeso
Guest
MG terrific idea. I am just generally tired of how decisive the ruck is to the outcome of games. Particularly as refereees have this mind set of the ruck fully belonging to the attacking team even though they are the ones who got tackled. My only issue with it is one on one tackles are more likely to be made out wide these days (centre on centre for instance). We would not want to detract from the incentive to spread it wide. Before they do this I would just be happy if they began to call dummy half forward passes. There are at least ten a game. They are pretty much deliberate (as part of the grab 10 metres touch football mind set) and they represent worse execution than say a knock on as it usually has involved two players stuffing it up (prop mistiming his run and hooker throwing to him anyway).
NF
Guest
MG you thought Super league was a good idea can you explain as to why it was a good idea considering it set the game back 20 years.
eagleJack
Guest
How does Oikee get published? Honestly mate do you even watch the games with both eyes open. Lyon (I assume this is who you are talking about when you say "Lyons") is no different to any other captain in the NRL. Of course it is a tactic. Gidley was accused by Reynolds in yesterday's Knight v Dogs game of slowing down the play when questioning the ref after a penalty. They ALL do it. Lewis would chat to the refs as soon as Parra looked like getting an ounce of momentum. Anasta as well. You are just embarrassing yourself by commenting that Manly are "whinging like little girls". Try to form an opinion without stooping to immature name calling. If I want to read tripe Ill turn to the Foxsports forums.
MG Burbank
Roar Guru
Oikee, this is one where we are in complete agreement. Jamie Lyons should be disciplined by the league- captains should not be allowed to question every single decision and this guy is a nightmare- constantly talking to the referee. I don't actually give him that much credit to say he's deliberately giving his side a breather; I think most of the time he's simply an A-Grade whiner who can't tolerate any decision going against him. They need to begin penalising him for the complaining under the "backchat" rule.
oikee
Guest
Yes, and if you make a break and get pulled down 10 metres out, that means the retreating defence only has to pull up just in front of you, if he penilises for being offside, the players will argue that they werwe within the rules, you will have Forun, Lyons and Manly whinging like little girls. Its bad enough now. Sorry MG, had to throw that one in, but mate, even the commentators are getting sick of Lyons always pulling up a quick penalty to slow the play down, i see you are trying to speed it up. Get rid of Manly, bring back the Bears, lets speed things up. ;)
King of the Gorgonites
Roar Guru
yea i totally agree. if it doesnt work the way it is hoped, then you can always change the rules back half way through the year. Its a signifcant yet simple tweak of the game. is definately worth exploring. Perhaps now with the IC, ideas like these will be easier to see the light of day. but to be fair, the NRL have already been the most innovative of the sporting codes in Australia, shown through the one on one rip, the 40/20 etc.
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
KOG I have no problemo with an additonal one.Except I feel an additional two ,would provide the time and opportunity, to set up more creative attacking moves. And boy after seeing the Roosters v Canberra game,they sure as hell could have used some moves to bring some life into a boring spectacle. Look the game at times can be a marvellous spectacle(one of the best games on the planet) ,but I feel on the odd occasion it gets bogged down with kick mania on the 6th. I don't believe my suggestion is too radical,or take away from the bascs of the game.The game needs to grow both the player and supporter base.Making it more entertaining than it currently is, can only help. All sports should be looking at areas to improve on the pitch.
B.A Sports
Agree For an idea this "radical" it would need to make significant fundamental changes to the game. This would affect one or two tackles in the game.
King of the Gorgonites
Roar Guru
i see the logic. one of the things that does annoy me is that to many tries come from kicks in RL. your idea would mean teams keep wht ball in hand a bit more when attacking an oppisition line. is 2 bonus tackles to much though? maybe just the one?
King of the Gorgonites
Roar Guru
i like how it say "rugby fans". ha. they really needed to add the league after it to help clarify it. People from Melbourne, and even alleged sports commentators also do the same thing.
Behold
Roar Rookie
The problem I see with the "Solo" rewards to the defensive team is that it make line breaks easier to defend. If the fullback comes up and makes the tackle one on one the defensive team is madly trying to get back onside has to travel less distance. Pretty much eliminating the chance of getting an offside penalty because you created a hole in the defence and had to be covered by the fullback.
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
How can it be too complicated.2 additional tackles.The referee provided he can count to ten,signals the 6th tackle,it is up to the attacker to decide what to do whether to kick it,ir run the defence around with the addtional running moves : ie the 6th ,7th and 8th tackle. Too often we see the 6th tackle signal go up,and the player then really has no option unless he is Usain Bolt but to kick it.And I suggest many of these tries have been scored off bombs,sometimes a lottery of ground fumbling. Give me the visual appeal of a handling running try,such as that consistently dished up by the Storm ,to the bomb the b.....s mentality. It smacks of panic at times,rather than a constructed effort or even hot potato football.. I offered this suggestion once a couple of years back on ABC grandstand by talkback ,and even Warren Ryan thought it had some merit.
MG Burbank
Roar Guru
Too complicated. There is already plenty of attack and tries scored with the current 6 tackle rule.
MG Burbank
Roar Guru
As I said, I never intended to remove wrestling- it's impossible to define where wrestling starts and physical struggle begins- as I said in the article if you'd read it closely. I'm confident that there'd be more than 3 solos in a game- watch an average game and jot down every time someone is tackled by one defender. Quite often and more if there was a reward.
MG Burbank
Roar Guru
Please tell me where I said that players were not ALLOWED to make gang tackles. Of COURSE they can when they need to. This would add an element in certain situations. Gang tackles are not a problem when players are defending their line. No, this isn't about "mateship". It's about doing your job at a high level. If it were about "mateship", then no players would ever change teams or play against each other in rep games. Yes, mateship is part of working together but I'm talking about the GAME and improving it. Leave god and "mateship" out of it. MG Burbank - Suggest you play the ball, not the man. Your responses are over the top - let's tackle the issues, not each other. Thanks, Roar Mods.
code 13
Guest
Exactly. I think they should trial it at the All Stars game next year and if successful bring it in for 2013.
Ticker
Guest
I've seen this idea promoted before and it's a great one IMO. Would love to see a team back themselves with a BRO four points behind, in the last minute, pressing the opposition line!
Rellum
Roar Guru
Well for a start it will make it easier for good offloaders to off load the ball more often as they will have less people hanging off their arms, and it will not prevent gaps appearing else where as players will still be drawn into the tackle area to cover players they think will drop off the tackle. It will also speed up the play the ball as there is at least one less player we have to wait to get off the tackled player. Your idea will not remove wrestling from the game, it would add 2 or three occasions in the game where the "Solo tackle" might happen.
Rellum
Roar Guru
40 metre rule is a must imo. (That is a touch finder from a one 10 metre zone to any other 10 metre zone 40 metres or further down the field). That means teams might have to drop at least one more player back during the whole set.