The current world cup has for the most part been an entertaining competition. Yes, there have been some blowouts, but this can happen at most international team sporting events.
There has been some excellent quality on display. This footballing display makes me wonder, how we can tailor the rules of our game to make it the best sport it possibly can be.
To begin with, let’s look at the referee issue. Do we go with one or do we go with two? This world cup has demonstrated some quality rugby league. I am wondering if there has been this quality because of the one referee. Or has the one referee hindered the quality that could have been on display?
I think, for the most part, having one referee has improved the games that we have witnessed so far. With one referee, the players hear one voice. There is no confusion about who is in charge. This is important, especially for such a physical game.
The downside is that in some games there have been an enormous amount of penalties. So be it, especially if the penalties are deserved. Another counter-argument is that the game is too fast to have one referee. I get this point, yet there are breaks in the game for the referee to recover, and at NRL level we do have full-time referees, so fitness should not be a problem. In all honesty, I would be surprised if the referee wasn’t one of the fittest people on the field.
(AAP Image/Action Photographics, Robb Cox)
There are some other issues that I would like to see the NRL address. I feel that at NRL level and so far in the world cup referees have been too lenient on dangerous conduct and play. For the NRL, think back to the Sia Soliola late and high hit on Billy Slater. Now the two referees on the field got the decision wrong, but any discretion should be taken out of the referees hands.
I think to make the game safer and more attractive for a new generation we need to be stricter with the enforcement of some of the rules in our game. To do this, I feel the following should be an automatic send off.
For instance a late and high hit (intentional or not), especially concerning a player who is no longer possession of the ball. In Sia Soliola’s case, he received a five-match suspension. This suspension was not enough. Such a hit like this should result in a minimum of eight weeks. If this seems harsh, I don’t care.
We need to remove the threat of players targeting unprotected players. Just to point out, for neutrality purposes that I am not a Melbourne Storm fan or anti-Canberra Raiders. I firmly believe that player safety must be paramount.
In addition to a late and high hit, any shoulder charge that makes contact with the head – intentional or not – should be an automatic send off. This response is what they do in rugby union and while I am a league fan, I acknowledge union does this better than we do.
Furthermore, the science is proven; repeated hits to the head can damage the brain.
Once more, player welfare must take precedence. For those who like the shoulder charge and feel that it adds to the game, know this: the days of the shoulder charge are over. Accept it. Such a tackle should also receive a minimum six-week suspension.
Now for both these acts of foul play, the referee on the field could check the footage with the video referee to confirm the right call has been made. It is essential though, that if the evidence suggests that an illegal act has taken place, then the referee loses discretionary powers and the player is removed from the field.
There have been some other things that I have seen throughout the season that I find concerning. One such thing which I consider to be a low act is tripping. I just wonder when this stopped being an automatic send off.
I’m not that old, and tripping was always considered a ‘dog’ act when I grew up playing the game. When did this thinking stop? Even if the trip is a reactionary response or intentional a sin-bin should be the minimum punishment. It is an easy way to break a leg.
Moreover, a shoulder charge that does not make contact with the head should also be a sin-bin. Yes, just as they do in union. I remain convinced league will go this way soon. For both the trip and the shoulder charge the decision for what the penalty should be must be removed from the referee. This way everyone knows what the result will be if the player commits the foul.
One more thing that has crept into the world cup from the NRL is the defence lying around the ruck in the attacking zone. This slow down should be considered a professional foul. This act is a blight on the game.
It is so frustrating to see teams give away consecutive penalties within the 20-metre zone to slow down the play the ball.
(Photo by Michael Steele/Getty Images)
I don’t know why teams don’t take the two points on offer considering they happen so often now. Also, I don’t understand why the referees don’t send a player to the bin more regularly. A second straight penalty should result in a warning with the third leading to a player finding himself in the sin-bin. Ultimately, this reoccurring act kills the energetic vibe of the game.
To add quickly, I like the free play rule in the English Super League. I think it adds excitement. I’d like to see the substitutions reduced to six instead of the NRL eight or international ten. I would also like to see scrum infringements enforced, but doubt that will ever happen.
So, if you had the power, which rules would you like to see introduced or enforced in our game? What rules do you think would make our game more exciting?
Mushi
Guest
The player safety discussion only becomes a paradox if you assume an incredulous straw man (hence your ridiculous last line). For that you have to be assuming it has to be a binary outcome of guaranteed safety or do nothing. It's a thin end of the wedge argument that doesn't make sense because rules around player safety already exist so you must be arguing that no form of organised rugby league has ever been acceptable. There is room for balancing safety and entertainment outcomes and it isn't as if modern day rugby league has no physical risk unless we think all current players are liars when they say they're injured. You acknowledge that the zeitgeist is completely against you but then ask for decision makers to listen to the people. So when you say "people" you mean people like you. So similar to your assessment of the original article I find your comment well written, but poorly constructed from a rationale standpoint and a good example of how rugby league may struggle as it clings to an ever increasingly irrelevant outdated segment of society.
tf
Guest
well said
Nat
Roar Guru
That's an interesting read from you both. I agree with Mark that Dog acts should be punished more harshly. Late, high or from behind are garbage acts, especially on the ball players. I also agree that we do over sensitize some of the natural elements that attract the crowd. A shoulder charge or even a driving tackle where, with perfect execution, a bloke lands on his back with force. However, perfectly executed, the legs are lifted beyond the horizontal so an automatic penalty ensues. We whinge about the grapple tackle, yet we are left with few other choices to legally dominate the tackle. Lastly punching should taken on it's merits. Some players would act the way the do if there was a fear factor. That said, I show off Rugby League to a few of my international friends and they cannot believe what they are watching. Broken bones, concussion and medicabs are pretty standard and one German bloke once described State of Origin as MMA on a field. So I guess it is what you are used to seeing that dictates what is acceptable or not.
Womblat
Guest
This is well written but indicative of the very thinking that is killing the sport. Just ask yourself: What has made this World Cup so exciting? It's different. The passion, the quality, the fire and the competition. It's hard, fearsome, relentless, primal Rugby League. And it's not the same to what we are used to. The NRL is going the other way, making the game like an dentist theatre, antiseptic clean, predictable, risk free and technical as a BMW manual. That's not what people want. The all-encompassing statement made by you that "player safety must be paramount" is the biggest problem. That's flawed at it's very core. It's a paradox. If player safety is paramount then we need to remove all players and replace them with robots immediately. This is a contact sport. It hurts and sometimes, worse. It attracts people because it's passionate, and dangerous, and thrilling. Any contact sport carries danger and even though it can be addressed it can't be eliminated. Player risk is inherent. Don't want to take risk, then play something else. Trying to bleach the game into some safe, clinical, robotic, risk free bore-fest is EXACTLY what is killing the sport. But it's almost un-PC to even say it. Safety at the expense of entertainment? Heresy! The refereeing in the World Cup has allowed for more flair, more emotion, and more "outside the lines" League than the NRL and look at the result. Ratings are up and everyone is buzzing over what many thought would fail. But bet your bottom dollar when Australia win the final 30-0 with a typically cyborg, unemotional, error-free display, it'll go straight back to mundane faster than Tommy Turbo back to Manly Beach. Wowsers with a risk averse nature are killing this sport, eerily familiar to what they are doing to society in general. Unfortunately, our world is all about risk prevention, so it's needs and League's nature are exactly opposite. And League will lose. The NRL is on life support now. If I had the ear of the wanna be decision makers of this sport, many of whom would never have pulled on a jersey or made a tackle, I would say: Abandon "player safety first" mentality and replace it with "player safety important, but remember what makes money here". Accept risk. Stop watering down the sport so arrogantly before you drown it. Find out why people love it, and why people are leaving it. Instead of trying to change League into chess, go play chess!