Wait. Breathe. Count to three. Take a minute to cool down before you mash out a comment. Hey, feeling loose, maybe even read a few words?
Okay, so, what’s my problem?
Defence has become so organised, fit, structured, and disciplined that broken play is hard to find. And it’s unpredictability we crave – the seat-of-your-pants, off-the-cuff, ad-lib type of play. It fuels our hyphenated hyperbole.
I tune in on Sundays to see opposing regiments march in formation – first this way, then the next. It gets boring, banal, and predictable. The formula hardly waivers.
A few dummy-half runs, then one off the ruck, one to the edge, a thinly veiled sweep play, then it’s all kick-and-hope. They’re not the hyphens I’m looking for.
[latest_videos_strip category=”rugby-league” name=”League”]
By any metric you, the Bunnies are the best attacking team in the NRL, yet they only average around five line-breaks per game. Serve that with just four tries, many of which are from kicks, and you’ve got little more than two out-of-your-seat moments per half.
And herein lies my problem. I’m not sure how we manufacture more line breaks, but we need to honour these hard-earned plays with legitimate try-scoring opportunities.
That’s where we learn from union.
Like league, union players are coached to kill any break-out play. In either code, watch any clean break – tacklers are coached to hold down the ball carrier and slow the play.
In union, they’ll go off their feet and fall on the wrong side. In league, they’ll to work over the ball-carrier, then crowd in the paly-the-ball. Never back the ten? Never mind that.
But here’s the key difference. In union, the referee will continue the play under advantage. Hell, they’ll even compound them – giving the attacking team the opportunity to leverage their work. It’s a free crack with nothing to lose.
However, in league, the referee will blow the pea out of it – stopping the raid and rewarding the defence. And, until recently, this wasn’t even a card.
So why not play under advantage for the next tackle? Let’s see a quick shift against a retreating defence; a chip to the corner above a winger standing shallow; a face-ball past an edge defender who shoots up alone. Then infringe under advantage, and you’re hitting the pine!
These are the moments that get bums to stadiums, down onto seats, then up and out of them.
Perhaps we just have to face it: union got this one right.
mushi
Roar Guru
Every sport is faced with the same thing. To me it is obvious – the area of effect for a defensive player 30 years ago (let alone 100) was so much smaller. Fitness, speed, size and defensive systems mean the space on a field has become smaller. We can’t efficiently make fields bigger but why can’t we drop 2 players? Play 11 on 11. The only impediment is tradition which was forged when players were smaller and slower.
Worlds Biggest
Guest
There are a few other things League can adapt from Rugby and they are, 1 ) allow the referee to go to the Bunker if he is insure about awarding a try. The technology is there, if he isn’t 100% then don’t award it, get Bunker to confirm either way 2 ) Must be able to rule on forward passes when a try is involved, ridiculous this is not in rule book 3) The NRL should look at trialling the 4 try bonus point system, this will encourage more teams to work on attack and score tries. This could reak a bit of havoc with the ladder however the better attacking teams should be rewarded other than a good for & against 4) Mandatory 2-3 week stand down period for concussions, whilst the NRL are taking steps in this regard, there is too much grey area still Whilst the TMO in Rugby this year has been over played too much, they generally get it right when it comes to contentious calls / clamping down on foul play
Forty Twenty
Guest
I agree here Abhi, at the moment the ref halts the game just when the attacking team wants to play on and gives people a lecture which does nothing but destroy all the momentum. The other thing which needs to be addressed in both codes is the number of players on the field. people now are bigger and fitter yet the field is the same size. They're not going to alter the size of the field but one forward has to go.
At work
Roar Rookie
I would instead propose a 3 point try when it is a result of a bomb kick, as I they are mostly put up hoping for luck. Whereas a good grubbed seems more skilful to me.
Abhi Beckert
Guest
I think instead of blowing the whistle or playing advantage on a penalty, the ref should simply yell zero tackle and play on. If the defence doesn’t allow play on (eg continuing to hold the attacker on the ground) then they’re sin binned.
Nat
Roar Guru
You're right but I do only agree 50%. My personal POV, I like a strong defensive effort. If you cannot applaud what NSW done last week you do not fully appreciate the game. To use another analogy, I like 20/20 cricket but love test matches. These days defensive lines are so well drilled that it takes a very special effort to be able to bust them. Further in attack, they are trained to build pressure, not score from every set. Which means complete the set, kick to the corner and use your defence to keep them there and/or force the mistake. That said, re penalties, I like the ESL option were the refs roll the arm for an advantage signal. That options stops the opposing captain arguing for the purpose of a break and the play rolls on. In turn, this brings in fatigue, therefore, allowing more open play later in the game. So, like a said, I understand what your saying but I like both aspects.
Adam
Roar Guru
The reason advantage can work in union is because there are no defined tackle sets. The advantage rule is about territory. So once a team moves a distance the referee believes is of an advantage then advantage is over.
Paul
Roar Guru
ditto.
Evanfinity
Roar Pro
Thanks for the input. I'd say a one tackle optional advantage (union deliberately knock on or kick it away), and if the defending side cynically infringes - they lose one to the bin and the mark is advanced. I just get frustrated seeing a break out play that gets nullified by a cynical infringement.
Don
Roar Rookie
Last year I remember a Storm game against Brisbane early in the season that was 14 / 12 score but a cracking end to end attacking game. Aside from some ref howlers and my ongoing frustration that a ball passed forward to an offside player should still be a penalty not a scrum, I don’t think we need to do much else other than the expected further reduction in the interchange. Any advantage has to stop with the play the ball. I think we are actually seeing a bit more advantage played by refs this year anyway.
Paul
Roar Guru
I remember going to see a Souths/Balmain game years ago when Benni Elias was playing. Two bottom sides, with not much to play for, but it was one of the games of the year, because of the line breaks being made, try saving tackles, etc. From memory, the final scoreline was 5 tries to 4 but each side must have broken the line at least a dozen times. If this sort of suggestion leads to that sort of action, I'm all for it. Didn't hear too many people complaining with the footy played in the Storm/Dragons game - except the sobs from us rusted-on Dragon supporters!!
Paul
Roar Guru
Union actually does this all wrong, I believe. I've seen advantages last as long as two minutes, which in NRL, is the equivalent of 2 sets of 6. I know you're suggesting something slightly different, but this can only work with a lot of factors in play. If you allow only a one tackle advantage, you need to allow attacking sides to play on quickly (which rarely happens these days) and the refs need to be strict on stopping the defending sides from committing another foul, like being inside the 10. After all, they'd be crazy not to try and shut down the play, given they've already conceded a penalty. This will also create a raft of "bush lawyer" captains, trying to slow down the game Cam Smith style, by asking for an explanation of the decision. One final point, does the side who has the advantage have to use it? If I'm in front with a minute to go, I'd want to choice of NOT taking it, given the ball might be stripped, etc. Can I simply decline the offer and pretend to go for goal, so time can be wound down? The idea has merit but also needs some refining. The rule change I'd like to make is to have only forwards pack into scrums, leaving the backs to do their thing. I've seen a couple of tries this year where sides have done that and it is one thing I'd go back to from the not so "good ol' days"
peeeko
Roar Guru
Serve that with just four tries - thats not a problem for many people. how many you want? 10?
Evanfinity
Roar Pro
Cheers. Two point tries is an interesting thought. I remember in junior league a dummy half try was worth less. Similar situation I guess - trying to encourage more thoughtful play. I like that they're dropping the interchanges in a couple of years too.
Evanfinity
Roar Pro
By any metric you *care to define*...
Milan
Guest
Evanfinity, 100% spot on. It’s appalling that the attacking team are penalised (when the defending team infringe) by the refs whistle 1. Stopping their momentum and 2. Allowing the defending team to regroup. It just takes the drama out of the situation. In Union an advantage can be 2 minutes sometimes and whilst I’m not advocating that I think one tackle is a great shout. Other things we could bring in for me are 1. Encouraging teams to go for a short kick off (yes union style again) and encourage possession to be contested by giving a scrum where the ball lands (rather than a penalty) if it does not go the ten yards 2. I would like to see 2 points for a try off a kick. Controversial but I am sick to the back teeth of hopeful up and unders or cross kicks on the 6th tackle . Let’s encourage some more ball handling like it used to be . P.s all you half backs it’s not compulsory to kick the ball on the 6th tackle . You can run and pass you know. Anyway I have other thoughts but won’t bore you any further. Just the ramblings of a league fan of 30 years who feel the game has lost its way (but it’s nothing that cant be got back)