Phil Rothfield wrote an article in yesterday’s Daily Telegraph where he suggested some major rule changes might be in the works for coming seasons.
One of his biggest suggestions was that the game could be changed to run over two hours, with five-minute breaks at the end of the first and third quarters, with the existing 10-minute break at half time.
I would suggest this would destroy the games fabric even more than it has already! The impetus and build-up a team can achieve in a 40-minute half of football would be lost.
The number of advertisements will increase, one of the key benefits posited for the change, and viewing time will extend out to three hours for 100 minutes of football.
Once you start comparing the game to gridiron, you are probably moving closer to gridiron.
Another change mentioned in the article was the number of players in a playing squad. In my view, squads changing from 17 to 21 players increase costs for the clubs, adding further financial strain to those already struggling to make the salary cap.
Phil also says TV deals for the NRL could be increased to two billion dollars.
Excuse me if I’ve missed something, but which channel could afford this type of money? Nine, in my estimation, paid money they possibly could not afford and we got cuts in some of the broadcasting. For example, how many times did Nine travel to Townsville or New Zealand compared to other years?
Last season saw the same teams teams practically every week. It was Sydney and Broncos-centric.
More breaks in the play mean more ads for viewers to endure, and is it worth it for TV channels to demand more money from sponsors as those watching the game sit and squirm, waiting for the game to resume?
Another point brought up by Rothfield was the schedule. Next year’s NRL Draw hasn’t appeared yet, so what chance we get a shorter season to cater for a plethora of other competitions?
To me, our game has gone far enough with changes to the nature of the contest. Player positions are largely null and void, and how long has it been since a hooker hooked?
Our game used to be about personnel competitions all over the field, not two straight lines charging at each other ending with a kick.
This movement toward gridiron time frame is disrespectful to the great game, and I believe these changes would only take us further in that direction.
Russell Johnson
Guest
Ignoring the absence of 1895 and a few other things is there a point to this? As a list it covers change over a century or more in sporting terms this is archaeological time compared with other sports. We do seem to have a pathological obsession with change and an equally irrational fixation with conservatism. The above article is well argued but has that kind of "this will end the world as we know it " ring about it, and this is never a positive thing. I have seen the game played in 4 quarters over 80 minutes and it was great! It is something we should look into as a way of making our sport TV friendly which would be an excellent world wide forward move for those countries where RL is not so strong as in Oz which is every where! Plus if we all did it together we might even have the game played under the same rules the world over, now there's a silly suggestion! The point is to discuss it properly, consult the fans, try it and see if it works!
Bakkies
Guest
Super League, GAA and Rugby doesn't either. It's only Aussie fta do it because most of them are really skint paying over inflated prices so they use ads to bring in the money.
Squirrel
Guest
80 minute game for 13 players. Should be 100 min game as there are all the reserves no longer a 13 man game with so many fresh players on
slane
Guest
I agree wholeheartedly. It just seems like common sense so of course it won't happen though.
Jay C
Roar Guru
I agree. As soon as the referee blows his whistle for a scrum, stop the clock and put an ad or two on. I don't need to watch them set the scrum and the current scrambling to get there only to stand up again and have a rest is silly. Surely this would get you 5 or 6 minutes of ad times per game. Also, I think, and I'm not in advertising so could be wrong. But more ad breaks that only had 2, 20 second advertisements would be more appealing and also I would pay more attention to the ads as opposed to going to go outside to find the nearest cop car and drain the snake...
slane
Guest
League and Union both annoy the hell out of me by keeping the clock running during stoppages. Stop the clock any time the ball isn't being played and there would be no reason to lengthen the game. We'd be seeing 80 minutes of actual action instead of the 65 minutes of action and 15 minutes of blokes standing around that we currently enjoy.
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
PhillNZ its been done before, decades ago.The name rugby was removed from rugby league. Trouble was it was instigated by a less than savoury government ATT and assisted by less than savoury ru officials.The country was France, the year 1941 Dec to be precise. For nigh on 40 years the game had to called the French equivalent the game of X111. Of course there will be the usual deniers the event happened by that methodology ,,as is expected from some who follow the code involved.I trust Phill you are not one of them.
Boomshanka
Guest
Soccer around the world doesn't have to sell it's broadcast rights to only a handful of bidders. In fact soccer can actually obtain a fair market rate for its IP (and retain control) unlike popular Australian sports which remain locked to FTA.
Jay C
Roar Guru
I am disappointed we are talking about ways, not to improve Rugby League, but to generate more money. This is the real shame of it for me.
peeeko
Roar Guru
Phil Rothfield wrote it, its not worth commenting on
Brian M
Guest
":Not growing is shrinking – do nothing and the game will slowly die. " Just a soundbite slogan. Explain soccer. It keeps getting bigger and hardly changes at all.
Brian M
Guest
Yet, every small national soccer league throughout the world survives with ZERO ads during a half. How do they do it?
Brian M
Guest
How does soccer get away with no ad breaks everywhere in the world? There is NO debate in soccer about adding TV stoppages, and its the biggest global cash cow of all sports. Over half of an NFL broadcast is ads in a 3-hour window (about 1.5 hours of ads). Why would anyone want to go in that direction? That said, one brief quartertime break each half, with a handful of ads would not be too bad, and would extend the game length for fans, but you seem to be proposing far more than that, NFL style constant ad stoppages.
Brian M
Guest
"I think change is good and we should never stand still. Having said that, we shouldn’t make change for change sake. " Nothing like trying to have it both ways. Are you by chance a politician?
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
Until end 2017 that is,when F&L rights are no longer an issue AR. And any discussions about major rule changes or structures, would not come into existence during the current set up.In fact the next Tv negotiations may well be brought forward ,hence the current rumours. ch9 may then have to finally do a bit of bowing and scraping.
Jz
Guest
im loving it, about time we have some one in charge with vision,
ac
Guest
Great idea or keep in the same but stop the. Lop k when the ball goes out our scrums.
PhillNZ
Guest
Rugby League is a visionary sport How about getting rid of the name rugby calling it Australian Gladiator Football League (AGFL), decrease the tackles to 4 per 25 minutes and on the last you can either kick or throw the ball forward as long as you make a minimum of 20 metres per 4 tackles if not hand over. You can have special teams like in defence or attack where specific players come on. There could also be x amount of interchange per 25m quarters. Also drop the players down to 11 per team plus reserves.
Statler and Waldorf
Roar Guru
true, ignore my comment :)
Harry
Guest
The ad industry is crying out for 4 quarters and more ads but if it was like NFL ad breaks people would scream...