I’ve been upset the past few weeks. I really thought Dave Smith and the ARL Commission’s goal of 20,000 average attendance within five years was achievable.
That was at the start of the season. That was before I realised that fixed scheduling is a disaster.
We need the best games at the best venues at the best possible time. Whatever gets that done is the best possible answer to slumping crowds and ratings.
But that also means having the best possible entertainment on display. The best theatre.
One of the core elements to the theatre that is rugby league has been collisions.
In the early 90s, we began the process of trading in the violence of collisions for more attacking football.
That meant a 10-metre corridor, a crackdown on high tackles and the possibility of men under 25 with untouched faces and more skills coming into our game.
It was a blessing. Enter kids like Benji Marshall, Johnathan Thurston, Shaun Johnson, Billy Slater and Greg Inglis, doing unseen things at an earlier age than ever before.
But now we’ve reached a new phase.
Dave Smith and the Commission have continued to reduce on-field violence through the banning of the shoulder charge and a crackdown on late shots on kickers, not to mention further penalising of anything resembling a high shot.
But here’s where we have diminished returns, because we’ve lost sight of the fundamental exchange which must happen when we reduce collisions and violence in our sport: every moment of brutality and collision removed from rugby league must be compensated for with more brilliance and skill on display in attack.
Yet this year we’re seeing less freakish moments, less brilliance. The game is still entertaining and a good spectacle, but it has lost an edge.
Why? Because we haven’t dealt with the moment just before and right after ‘held’.
I watched a game from the 80s the other day and wondered what looked different. Then it hit me: as soon as a man was clearly tackled, defenders would simply get up and prepare for the next play.
We hadn’t invented the wrestle yet. As a result, there was more broken play.
Can you imagine us today, with the skills our players have, with just as much broken play as players used to get in the past?
Of course reducing interchange is vital in this but that won’t complete the job.
What Dave Smith must do is institute a compete wrestle-free strategy. It starts simply: blow the hell out of the whistle.
Why the hell do referees allow players to continue to press down on the player lying on the ground, way after held has been called?
Why do we allow the coaches and players to dictate the speed of the play-the-ball?
It’s very simple: if players do not let go and stand up or roll away the moment the ref calls held, it’s a penalty.
There is nothing attractive about a tackler lying on top of the ball carrier, like a police officer restraining an armed man on the ground. This didn’t happen 20 years ago.
If you don’t believe me, go to YouTube, enter ‘rugby league 1980s’ and watch the tape.
Very simple. Tackler initiates collision. Player’s momentum is stopped, either standing or through falling to the ground. Held. No immediate release: penalty.
Removing collisions without improving attack will make our game boring. We must decide what we want: wrestling on the ground or broken play.
You can’t have both.
Glenn Innis
Guest
I hate interchange, I can't believe we ever allowed this American nonsense in our game,coaches were the ones who pushed for it because it gives them a bigger influence over the match.
David Thorman
Roar Rookie
I agree with the article. We need more broken play to make the game more exciting. Defensive lines are too well organised, with the result that teams often play for field position, hoping to get close enough to their opponent's try line to either crash through the defence or put up a cross-field bomb. As the author says, the interchange rule makes it more difficult for a team to break the line of defence. The interchange rule works against smaller, fleet footed players, as the bigger blokes do not tire so quickly. It would improve the game immensely if there were more opportunities for nimble players around the 80kg mark. In that way you are opening the game up to a far wider range of body types, encouraging more skilful players to play the game.
Crusader
Guest
+10000 The charge down needs to be rewarded.
Jay C
Guest
Also set a maximum number of views. You need to decide in 3 views and you can only slow it down for into touch/grounding. some of the tries that were sent upstairs last night were clearly, clearly tries. It was farcical. Why not just play the whole game with video refs. the eye in the sky watching every little thing and reducing the game to a Grid Iron style stop start fiasco.
The Spectator
Roar Guru
whats to say it wasnt Bellamy's call at Brisbane? he was assistant coach and prob was in W Bennetts ear, lets practice wrestling, we can get a coach in!
Knight Vision
Guest
not to mention a Billy Slater elbow to the face or kick to the neck, a Cronk double chicken wing or a Smith crusher that earns the recipient 20 minutes of tingling down their arms....brilliant play indeed
Knight Vision
Guest
lol
Mushi
Guest
If you d
Glenn Innis
Guest
Yeh Johnno it's a tough one, on the one hand we want to get the calls correct, on the other hand the video not only slows the game so much but it also kills the theatre of it all - that spontaneous eruption from both players and crowd when a vital try is scored. I tend to agree with Phil Gould, for black and white calls ie is it grounded, did he put a foot on the touchline etc got to the video. but for subjetive stuff like sheperds leave it to the on field ref's.
Horatio
Guest
Warriors always go well in SOO time hell they played the Broncos twice in those 2 months when the broncs were shorthanded or backing up.. How about a fair dinkum draw...
Horatio
Guest
A gound divided into 8m gridirons??
Johnno
Guest
I have thought a bit about that. And captain's challenge. Ref's call, and 2 challanges per game. But after the debacle of the cricket with DRS and all the challanges now im not so sure, officiating should ever be in the hands of the players. For ages I have wanted that in rugby league, captains challange but after this ASHES debacle I am not so sure. It would speed the game up though. Captain's challenge has been trialled in the under-20's this year. Im not sure yet about the results.
Glenn Innis
Guest
One thing that does really slow the modern game is the video ref, it seems every second try has to be forensically examined from about seven different angles before it is awarded, and even then we still end up with our share of questionable decisions.
Jay C
Guest
The statistics don't tell the story. Back in the 80's they didn't just short pass to a frontrower 4 times then put a kick in. The ball travelled the width of the field, and the game was much more exciting. We are scoring points off kicks. People want to see big hits and broken play. that is what makes Rugby League great.
Johnno
Guest
Agree Glenn Innis. The last thing we want is cricket and touch footy score lines. I like 8 metres it is right balance. Problem is confusion on the pitch. Marking 10 metre zones, is far easier to comprehend in heat of battle, and organising the sideline. 8 metres becomes confusing for players and refs. 5 would probably be to girnding now, unless you cut the interchange down to say 4 per game. But if unofficially, the refs could play to 8 metres now that would be good. It's a game of physics, 10 metres allows teams to set there defence to much, and also if quick play the balls, touch footy style games. Super League 1997, was the worst example of hydro-pace 10 metre rule. It was so overzealous, refs were often running back 12 metres, and the play balls were super quick, so many touch footy games eventuated, and that was even with unlimited interchange. The big boppers eg brad thorn types, or a wendell sailor type became to dominant. 5 minutes on , then 5 minutes off, it was like basketball.
Horatio
Guest
Bill used to blow penalties if it got one-sided....
Matt
Guest
It's a conspiracy I tell you. Prince was awesome, then decided to flunk. Wallace used to play for NSW! What now, he's bench warming the reserve grades. The ironic part is, not anymore. Inglis didn't come to Broncos because of Henjak apparently. And likely because Lockyer was retiring with no-one good coming through to replace. If Broncos can get a marquee player, they might manage to draw a few. Sharks have hired pretty well, no results yet, but having a few decent guys sign seemed to draw a bunch out of the woodwork thinking they could be part of something great.
Glenn Innis
Guest
There are always unintended consequences, if you speed the play the ball up too much you up with surrender tackles, loads of dummy half running and very little lateral ball movement.Ten metre football and super fast play the balls will give us lots 40 - 30 type scorelines with most of the tries simply a result of an exhausted defensive line rather than skillful football. Backin the mid eighties under the old 5 metre rule the game became too grinding, so in the late eighties they started telling the refs to keep a big five - the game essentially moved to a defacto 7-8 metre rule, and I think that was about right,Ten metres is to much - the temptation to simply use dummy half running and one out charges to make easy yards upfield and only start thinking about playing some football once you cross into your opponents twenty is so strong, why take risks if you don't have to.
The Greatest Game Of All
Guest
5 meter rule, 4 interchanges, 2 replacements. This or allow clearance of the ruck? I'd like to see the 40 meter kick rule (40/20, 30/30, 20/40, 10/50, 50/10) brought in, will give another option to team with the ball to get rid of it or counter attack at any time, defenses will be forced to keep the back 3 deep at all times which would spread the defense and encourage more running of the ball.
Mick the Clown
Guest
I do not blame 1 team, but i do blame the NRL. - For the NRL to change the rules to encourage wrestling and invent the wrestling calls (dominant, surrender etc) i s a disgrace. This was done to try to promote the game in Melbourne (who are wrestle specialists, but it has simply damaged the product of Rugby League and hence detracted from the promotion of the game in melbourne. If someone wanted to defend the Storm, then they are welcome to, but everyone knows they get favourable treatment by the NRL. - (no storm player ever sanctioned for signming 2 contracts in order to cheat)