One of rugby league’s strongest selling points is the overall speed of the game. Given that, should the code attempt to truly own its unique point of difference, and make the game even faster?
More specifically, should the NRL make the drastic decision to remove one player from the field, thereby speeding the game up even further?
Before I delve into this subject, I should confess that this idea is not my own. Nor am I even sure I support it.
The topic came about after a chat with a friend who is very well connected to an NRL club. Said individual believes removing a forward from the game would make it even faster and friendlier for the smaller, skilful players. The rationale is that the move would make the game quicker and more attractive – though that last opinion is obviously subjective.
My initial reaction was a mix of amusement and bemusement, while also believing that perhaps one too many beers had been consumed. I may have also had a smug smirk on my face.
Yet where this madcap conversation got interesting is when I was told the idea had been shared with the first grade coach and other influential individuals within the club, who all believed the idea is worth considering.
As such, it became something I needed to contemplate seriously.
Here’s how the idea works: one forward – most probably the lock forward – would be removed from the starting 13, creating more space on the park, along with ensuring that the 12 remaining players on the field would tire a lot quicker. The causal effect of both of these variables is that the game would be a lot quicker, more tries would probably be scored, and quick, skilful players would dominate the game.
Now it’s up to the individual fan to decide whether that type of rugby league would be more appealing or not, as the game would certainly start to resemble touch football a lot more, and that’s not everyone’s idea of enjoyable viewing. However it would change the game, and give it an even greater point of differentiation from, say, rugby union.
If rugby league believes the speed of the game is its greatest asset, perhaps it should seriously look at making the game even faster.
Personally, I think removing a player from the field may change the game a little too much, and is too extreme a decision.
However, what if the same desired results could be achieved without altering the fabric of the game? The game could be sped up, and players tired out more quickly, by simply removing one interchange player instead. This would result in players staying on the field who are clearly exhausted, and ripe for a speedy opponent to exploit their tiredness by running around them.
Ironically, I argued on Twitter on the weekend that with the new concussion laws, the interchange bench should be extended. However, if it’s decided that rugby league should be even faster, perhaps the opposite should be done, with the bench – or the number of interchanges – shortened.
There is no question it would speed up the game, with the importance and impact of smaller players increased greatly.
Is that a good thing, and should the NRL do it?
Robert Allen
Guest
Rugby - union or league is balancing on the edge. Both codes made a mess of the transition to full time professionalism. It's BBL & Mel all over again. Money right (pay TV) but administration sadly wrong. Tier two is missing - the level below pro union. The provinces where the pros horn their skills. College, National AIS, State, Armed services, PNG & SPI nations Twenty wasted years 1996 - 2016. Far too late to turn back now. Both codes need a minimum of of 2000 semi professional; trainee student or athletes.15 to 24 yrs.pm
James Preston
Roar Guru
Why not simply extend the width of the field a good 10m . That creates a lot more space for speedy and skilful players to exploit but the effect wouldn't be as drastic. Ultimately you wouldn't see a great difference till fatigue began to set in allowing more room on the edges.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
I don't disagree with anything you wrote there, Ben. (So I'm unsure what you disagree with me on?!)
Ben Lott
Roar Pro
Got to disagree with you Ryan, for once. I live in South Australia (am from Sydney originally) and can't get to a game. So I have to watch it on Foxtel or live on my NRL app on my teeny tiny phone screen, as it's not on Ch9, GEM or GO! here, except after 1am, by which stage my NRL app has me updated with the score. There are many reasons fans can't/don't/won't go to games, another is other fans, eg. Mum (a single, 68yr old lady) won't go to a Panthers v. Bulldogs/Parramatta/Souths game (at any Sydney stadium) because of how rowdy and violent the crowds get, and neither will her friends (the same age group). She doesn't feel safe at most stadiums anymore. That's something the NRL need to address with Clubs, Fans and the Police. I have to say, my last experience was the Panthers v. Bulldogs final at Sydney last year (was fortunately in town for family stuff and snuck away with some mates for the game), and the crowd behaviour on both sides was a bit below average, especially from the drunk morons in Doggies gear who started a game of push and shove with security staff after taking a dislike to some comments made about their well documented niggling tactics in previous games, and later regretted taking on a few of the big ground-staff blokes, particularly when the cops got involved outside the ground. This is my point... you won't get people attending games when the drunk numbnuts are still so highly visable.
Nicholas Hartman
Roar Guru
Well yeah, if you use selective evidence, you'll find the result you want to have, won't ya Kirk?
Joe
Guest
Like it mate! Sad day hearing 20 minute forwards complaining about hurting the little 80 min playmaker guys. Lost a bit with me that did! Love my league..but?! That's not Aussie? League has a social responsibility and sadly that sends a bad message! It's ok for fresh giants to smash little guys??? With UFC so popular! Non sugar coated reality...when will league step up?
Aljay
Guest
As a massive union fan I've being saying this for years. Would love to see the game speeded up plus more 1-1 tackling required. Expose the half backs to 120kg monsters in the first half, only to see them run around them in the second.
Aljay
Guest
Agree with this, would love to do away with interchange
zim
Guest
One rule I'd love to see added is no restart of the tackle count for a charge down. You do the hard yards and get to the kicker, you stop his kick and then they get rewarded with another 7 tackles. They did everything wrong yet get the reward.
Parra
Guest
No, wait for the introduction of the shot clock, reduction of the interchange and bunker that will come into affect next year. Combined these changes should right the game even though the footy this year have overall been good.
Bill Larkin
Guest
I think this is an idea worth exploring, maybe in exhibition games. Rugby League developed with a field of a set size with players of all shapes snd sizes, Including my uncle who played for Australia at 5ft2ins and 10 stone (apologies for non-metrics) and a great uncle, another Kangaroo who made the 20th century's top 100 players as a very slight winger. There is no place for players like this anymore, and there hasn't been for many years. The game is dominated by space-filling 100+kg wingers and centres, and monstrous forwards. It has outgrown the size of the ground. The logical solution is to reduce the number of players, or increase the size of the ground.
Kirk
Guest
Lets face it, whatever flexible mind blowing tactics you use in union it will be the same result, scrum - penalty- scrum - penalty - scrum - penalty - scrum - penalty and so forth
GWSingapore
Guest
I would suggest going further. Reduce to 11 per side and allow the first pass from the play-the-ball to be passed forward up the field with the backs running through. This would apply to the first pass only, not any subsequent passes before the next play-the-ball. That would open the game up and immediately remove the boring one up running off the dummy half.
Wayne Lovell
Roar Guru
Hi ROC, Well there's the shoulder charge and one punch rule, I agree with the one punch- it actually brings it in line with ice hockey (which I am a massive fan of), but the shoulder charge rule change I thought was a little harsh. Didn't the obstruction rule get tinkered with a little a few years back too, or was that just an interpretation change? Does an interpretation change count as tinkering? There's the seven tackle rule and the 40/20, now there's all this talk about amending the interchange. The point I am making is that it gets to a point where too many rule changes, even if they seem for the better, are still bad for the game. You and I and most of the people here who live and breathe this game will follow them like a G.O.T episode and understand them but to everyone else, too many rule changes just means something is wrong with our game.
Targa
Guest
Getting rid of forwards - not a bad idea now that the best forwards in the NRL are NZers and Poms. It would give Australia more chance of beating the Kiwis. Too many tries actually gets boring - like the Hurricanes-Highlanders game the other night.
turbodewd
Guest
What is the problem that 12 men solves? The speed of the game isnt what is stopping fans from attending games - its a matter of quantity being served up when the facts actually want quality. The first thing league needs to do is drop the scrum. Replace it with another formation that gives the backs a free play. My solution - require the 12 fowards to place a foot on the sideline while a tap occurs 20m in field.
Mike
Guest
people on this site must read this http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/131a2702-0ba8-11e5-8937-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3cTcrfMUP
Boz
Guest
Hi Alvin. I do remember an NYC match played with 11 a side, and I remember what Warren Ryan on the ABC radio said about it. He said that It would only make a difference, if they also reduced the 10 metres back to 5 metres. That way, the attack is encouraged to throw the ball around more, rather than just take the easy metres straight ahead. Often in our game, changing one thing in isolation, can make several other things worse.
Birdy
Guest
I agree with the 5 m rule spruce. Have you seen junior football in the last few years. You see a monster PI kid winde up for 10 m gets swamped by 10 defenders , the ball boy , all the parents at the match, the medic , a passing motorist and the flying nun. Then they swing it out and score in the corner.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Noel, with respect, did you even read the article? This is not my idea. I'm not dictating how league should be played. And as stated, I'm not sure I support it. A friend who is connected to an NRL club has mentioned it to important people within the club, who think the idea has merit. That ensures it's a topic worthy of discussion, hence the piece, hence the discussion today.