The Roar
The Roar

League
Advertisement

SMITHY: Looking for interchange reform? Don't ask the clubs
Brian Smith
Expert
14th April, 2015
9
Join the conversation
Advertisement
Write for The Roar

Anyone can contribute to The Roar and have their work featured alongside some of Australia’s most prominent sports journalists.

Jack Wighton was a key man for the Raiders in their NRL semi-final. (AAP Image/ Action Photographics, Jonathan Ng)
Brian Smith
Expert
14th April, 2015
9

Recently I read that the NRL’s Head of football, Todd Greenberg, has circulated all clubs asking them to pick their favourite interchange and replacements model from the menu of all possibilities.

The first thing that came to my mind was ‘what’s wrong with footy currently to make the game’s leadership consider changing things?’

What do you think is ‘wrong’ with the NRL? I’ll bet you and I don’t agree completely on that question.

Imagine if you were asking 16 different organisations with up to ten people at each required to participate. That’s potentially 160 differing views!

As we have seen and listened to so often, the commentary of Channel 9 thinks there are aspects of the game that need adjustment – but even they don’t agree.

Some club coaches and players have made suggestions too, but are they all trying to fix the same part of our game by the same method – interchange? Is it the panacea for all the differing things people within the game would like to see improved?

While understanding the concept the NRL are employing, namely that everyone should have a say in this to make it apparently fair, I would suggest that everyone being asked the question is unlikely to be trying to fix the same thing. So if there are a myriad of responses to the questionnaire, the vote counters might be overworked with variations.

What would that tell the NRL? If there are many different recommendations as I would expect from the 16 clubs, do they have a preferences model, or is it a first past the post ballot?

Advertisement

Or has the NRL already made up its mind as Roy Masters suggested in his article for the Sydney Morning Herald?

If you want to give the appearance that fairness is paramount in making significant change to a big organisation, you must give everyone a vote. Be sure to include as many voters as possible so that there is no chance of losers getting together to dispute the count. This method has little regard for anything other than avoiding accusations post the decision.

If, on the other hand, the leadership is looking for a good result, select a much smaller group with a representative or two from various corners of the organisation, preferably those with some profile of experience in such matters. In footy this generally leads to claims of advantage to some club or individual. In my view it’s still better than the all-in conglomeration.

If however the leaders are looking for the very best solution to something quite complex and with the potential to go belly up, they should opt for a simpler model. They should always, in these situations, engage three to five individuals with a deep and broad knowledge of the issue.

These people should be as independent as possible. One should lead the process, or the NRL could appoint one of its senior employees to coordinate and facilitate in a non-voting, non-participating capacity and only be required for things such as vital information or statistics or league regulations.

Then we might all get the best solution to an as yet unspecified problem with our sport.

I think I feel like Roy does. It’s all been sorted. Everyone will find out after the votes are counted, if they haven’t been already.

Advertisement
9
Join the conversation

Reckon you can pick the winning team?  Build your own dream team with Draftstars daily fantasy and compete on any match.  For great odds on the NRL head on over to PlayUp.  Imagine what you could be buying instead.  Set a deposit limit.

Related Posts

close