One of the things that makes rugby league different from other mainstream sports is the willingness on the part of its administrators to adjust the rules to make the game a better spectacle.
In 1986, the league moved swiftly to counter Canterbury coach Warren Ryan’s (more on him shortly) strategy of gaining endless line dropouts by dumping bombs repeatedly into the in-goal.
It was an anti-pass tactic that was countered with the 20-metre tap.
Then, the shift from the five-metre defensive corridor to ten gave the skilled players more room to work. The 40/20 has been a fantastic innovation. Debate continues over the seven-tackle set following the ball kicked dead in-goal, but no one can claim the NRL wasn’t trying to solve what they considered to be a problem by implementing the rule.
Warren Ryan was the coach of the Canterbury 84-86 grand final teams. Scores for those GFs: 6-4 (versus Eels), 7-6 (versus Dragons), 2-4 (versus Eels).
I also think that the best games in today’s NRL are better than the best in any other era. Our players are more creative, athletic and skillful than they’ve ever been.
That said, one could say any sport is good to watch at the highest level. In our game, it’s the matches under that top tier of exhibition that lack the requisite creativity and spontaneity to make them consistently worth watching at the ground or on television.
Steve Mascord wrote an article recently addressing the stark fact that coaches, in the absence of Origin players (and often when those same players are on the field), have prioritised ‘structure’ and defence to a point where improvisational attacking football is being left behind.
In 1906, following a long period of experimentation, the National Football League in the US decided to ratify the forward pass. The game had become stultified; administrators could feel the evolutionary impulse, pushing them to change in a way that would release more creativity and adventure on the field.
Before you stop reading, I am not calling for the forward pass in rugby league – although I won’t deny I have toyed with the idea in moments of boredom.
However, the time has come for our own administrators to get just as creative. Legislating the speed of play-the-balls through the referees, as critical as that is, isn’t enough. Stand-alone Origins, ensuring the availability of rep players for all NRL games, is a must.
Reducing the interchange would be a positive move, but that may not be enough.
As Mascord so rightly said, sport is entertainment. Nothing should be sacrosanct when it comes to making the game better – except keeping the magnificent contest for possession that is our scrums.
Getting creative means giving coaches incentive to attack, in addition to legislating against negative tactics. And the first place we should start is in the ‘get-out’ part of the field: when teams are digging their way off their own line. It’s this half of the field that presents the biggest problem for our game; more and more teams are doing absolutely nothing until they pass halfway.
Let’s give coaches an alternative to the negative, one-out forward runs employed to gain territory. The NRL should trial a ‘get-out restart’. Any team that reaches halfway before the third tackle has been completed, having received the ball inside its own 20, gets a restart in the tackle count.
This might cause two things to happen. The team in possession might use more offloads and passing in an attempt to get the restart, and the defending team might be forced to rush up and defend with even more intensity to prevent it.
The key word here is ‘might’; we can’t know how coaches and players will react. But we should be experimenting.
The other change that could occur is a tad more controversial. It was recommended by Warren Ryan in the mid to late 80s in response to dull, defensive football that was being played – a trend initiated partly by Ryan himself. The administration’s response to the boring play on the field was to separate the teams by an additional five metres and that decision paid off handsomely.
Well, almost thirty years later, here we are again: Defence and one-out football are once again a problem, so it’s time to revisit Warren Ryan’s almost-universally ignored idea.
12 men per side.
I love a tight, intense, low-scoring game of football. But I also like ball movement. Nines football is clearly too open, having none of the tension and suspense of the 13-man game. As a spectator, I like waiting for the opening to happen, even if takes 30 minutes.
But why can’t we experiment with widening the corridor between the winger and the sideline? Might it not give coaches the incentive to gain territory through passing to their speed-men?
There might be a surprising supplementary advantage to this change: lowering the number of players in the competition. As bad as that would be for the men who would miss the cut, it could raise the overall standard of player in the NRL and make it easier to add more teams in the future.
Maybe. We don’t know what would happen. But the people controlling the game can’t fall into the trap of being as inflexible and structured as many of our teams seem to be on the field.
MG Burbank
Roar Guru
Johnno, you're romanticizing the past. Look at average crowd numbers: they were almost the same as they are now, if a little smaller. So more people did not want to be there. But I do agree; the size of the players is a problem, as is the controlled football. I still think the best games today are better than in years past due to the enhanced skill this generation of players has. One of the problems is we have too many rounds and too many teams making the playoffs, which means games don't have the stakes they had up until 1994 when it was a Top 5 system. It's amazing to think that between 1988 and 1994, only FIVE out of 16 teams made the finals, and there were only 22 rounds. We need to get back to fewer rounds, especially if we're going to have a top 8.
MG Burbank
Roar Guru
What I stated was that teams receiving the ball inside their own 20 could get a restart, so that would solve the problem of continual restarts. Also, if a team has to get creative because they're being buried in their own half, that's a GOOD thing. Why should they be able to rely on forward runs to halfway to have success?
MG Burbank
Roar Guru
Jay, how many teams reach halfway before third tackle has been made? I'm sure the stats back me up; not very many at all, because teams are grinding to the halfway to get a kick in. How else do you propose to incentivize playing attacking football in your own half? This would promote ball movement in the defensive part of the field. I'm open to a better idea if you have one.
Jake
Guest
Have you watched a game of footy before? The FB is back anyway. How can you possibly reward a team with a dropout for kicking it dead in play? It would be exploited by big kickers and wouldn't be very enjoyable to watch.
Johnno
Guest
Jake it forces the fullback to drop back, and be a sweeper and not fall asleep, and be alert for any possible big kick.
Aaron Killian
Guest
The RLIF is drawing up a universal rule book to justify rugby league's willingness to entertain. Rugby league is rugby league and the other way around, stop changing the rules and turning rugby league into some hybrid game.
Wascally Wabbit
Guest
Certainly cheaper than the Hot Chips from the food outlet.
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
Mate I understand where you are coming from,but I believe coaches or those who coach the backs,would have more opportunity to come up with attacking moves,which ATM seem to be few and far between. Again I repeat the extra running option would not be used all the time,only when considered time is ripe,with a tiring defence perhaps.Of course if it was used all the time,yes it would be stone cold predictable.It may in fact tnot be used in game,if it ends up al la Raiders v Dogs When the 5th tackle signal is currently given,the wingers and backs are in place to receive usually a ball on the full,and runs it back.Rabs calls it just about before it happens.Where is the indecision then ?It is a predictable as night follows day. I have watched unlimited ,4tackle and of course 6 tackle .All improvements IMO.But I want to see more innovative attacking play more often,and ATM I rarely see it. Even (6 tackle rule)when the winger or fullback in defence upon receipt of a high kick is caught by a fleetfooted player.,he generally goes to the ground and slows the PTB ,waiting for his receiver.How many apart from the Haynes,Inglises,Slaters,Johnsons can make ground? I would not have a problem keeping the current rules in place with more running on the 6th,more chip kicks early on.We have too many talented backs that appear to be restricted in what they are able to do.There seems to be a reluctance to attack either structurally at times or ad lib.Mat Elliot made a similar point. If rules are tweaked to give more attacking opportunities rather than the weighting toward the defence< I would have no problem.Alternativley reduce the number of players to 12 ,flicking the lock,and keep the current rules,that'll tire the forwards and provide more open space.
Jake
Guest
"Locks these days break as quick as the half....." When was the last time you saw a lock "locking" the scrum?
Jake
Guest
Johnno Point 1 is possibly the worst suggestion I've heard you make! Do you know why they introduced the 7 tackle rule?? To combat the attacking team from kicking the ball dead to nullify the fullbacks kick returns. Teams would just line up from halfway and a 60metre kick on the bounce is relatively easy for most good kickers.
Jay C
Roar Guru
Do you go to the footy to watch Hot Potato?
Jay C
Roar Guru
It just won't work mate. I love that you are coming up with ideas. But more tackles in a set is just going to mean more argey bargey up the middle. Once the last two tackles roll around the defence knows what is coming. You move the fullback up into the line and you play up and in defence strangling the play. A HUGE percentage of tries through the hands come off Wingers and centres being in two minds about whether the half will kick or pass. Without that indecision there will be no gaps. No winger will ever stay back. There are basically two reasons a try will come off for a winger. The defence stays back anticipating a kick, meaning the winger has some speed behind him and the defender is flat footed on the tryline trying to stop it. Or the winger comes in to help out the centre, which also won't happen because without the need for a fullback you are defending 13 on 13. It just won't work.
Wascally Wabbit
Guest
JayC, the 8th tackle /no kick option might make it more predictable for the defence. On the other hand, the attacking team might play " hot potato" with nothing to lose.
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
Jay C.You would not have to use it 7th /8th ad infinitum.It would be there when the attack considered the time ripe.It could well be used only a couple of times in a match or more if the backline was fast and clever. If the attack has 8 tackles close to the opposition's try line,having 8 shots is a lot harder than 6 attempts at getting over the stripe.Too easy for the defence? If you are capable of running angles,flick passing,2nd man play.,the defence struggles at times.Even hot potato football can be exciting near the death of a game.There would IMO be less chance of stifling gang tackles and more offloads as a result. Seeing tries continually scored from bombs in goal,is not my idea of a running game with ball in hand. Yes i love seeing wingers catch a bomb and score with great athleticism,but the bomb under my idea,does not remove the bomb only lessen the frequency of it. I'm more than happy in place of my suggestion ,for tweaking the current rules.eg two only in a tackle,and giving a team bonus points should they score x number of tries. Players these days rarely chance their arm ,to run the pill on the 6th. I suppose what I am saying is do you prefer kicks to a running chain passing backline.
Laimo
Guest
Should get rid of golden point in extra time and aim for golden tries. The result should reward the deserving team(s). If not make it 5 points for tries under the goal, or penalty goals to have 1 point and or conversion to have 3 points. Golden point ends the game in anti-climax and gives unfair advantage to the receiving team. Shouldn't let bookies determine how the game ends.
Jay C
Roar Guru
It would be five-eigth wouldn't it? That might not be the number you take off the field but that's the one that would go. I would keep a lock for defense in that middle 1/3. Get a Glenn Stewart style second rower who can ball play, he can link with the full back and you don't really need a 6. I think that's what would happen anyway. Like you said, if they get rid of lock the halves just get bigger, so you are basically changing them to a ball playing second rower a la Lewis/Fitler anyway
Jay C
Roar Guru
I actually don't like this at all. It would be way too easy for the defence to cover if you took kicks away as an option. Way too easy. No one would ever take this option, or at least no one would score off it. I think you're going the wrong way. Reducing the number of tackles would force players to become more creative in their attempts to get the footy up field.
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
turbs ole mate.I never suggested it is not an attractive sport.I gave an example when it played at its best ,IMO the ultimate.I watched the Raiders/Dogs match and agree it was a great advertisement for the game. I also watched the tigers v Cows game,and to me ity needed something:Variety in attack. I just at times get frustrated with the continual numbing bomb on the 6th ,inside the oppositions qtr. OK tweak the current rules,but ensure backs get more opportunities to attack,and reduce the 5 hit ups and kick at times.
Subversion13
Guest
I'm a follower of league, but a bit of a former devotee having turned my attentions to football (soccer) when disillusioned during the Super League war, it's been my first choice ever since. I agree with the poster who said the game was more entertaining in the 90s and even in the late 80s when the Canberra Raiders were emerging. I think the key word defining rugby league these days is structure. The forwards are so athletic now that it's not a huge effort for them to make a good 10+ metres on any hit up, so it's fairly easy to get into an attacking position. While to some this might be good, to me, it does take some of the creativity away because it means the first four tackles in any set is very predictable, you can almost predict the player who will take the next hit up before the play the ball. Then, you get one of my bugbears, the cross-field bomb, which is a great attacking play, but a fairly obvious one. In soccer, I equate it to delivering a cross somewhere into the penalty area waiting for a tall striker to get his head on it. Are there dynamic, creative players now? Of course, but how many match winners are there out there. The Cliff Lyons-style player has gone for my money and that's a shame. The emphasis on structure is an obsession with control and minimising random acts on the field.
Epiquin
Roar Guru
While we're at it, how about drop-off to replace golden point in deciding draws. I don't mind seeing a good old fashioned draw for regular season games, but for finals, instead of playing golden point, each team has to send a player off every 2 minutes until a try is scored, similar to what they do in Touch footy.