Look, there’s not a new idea in the world and there’s even fewer in rugby union. Don’t just take my word for it: to paraphrase one of the leading historians of both codes, Dr Tony Collins, rugby union couldn’t think up a new on-field rule if it tried, because league has had a century more of trying to do the same thing.
The cascade of law changes since 1995 have largely been one way, which is neither criticism of union nor is it an assertion of the superiority of league.
It’s just an acceptance that one game is rooted, at its heart, in conservatism and the other has, from day dot, had a profit motive and, for want of a better phrase, a bit of the PT Barnum about it. We love a sideshow.
It’s not surprising that the NRL have decided to jazz up the pre-season trials with a few experimental rules, because they’ve done that before, but it is unusual to see those rules come in on the format side.
Changing the points awarded for on-field performance is very on-brand for professionalism era rugby union, but is rarely seen in league at any level. They’ll change basically every aspect of on-field play, but deciding who wins a tournament has largely been verboten.
Let’s recap the format changes: it’s 12 for a win and 6 for a draw, rather than the regular two and one respectively, but with a bonus point available for five tries or more, five line breaks or more or ten offloads or more. They cap it at 15 points for a win, nine for a draw and three for a loss.
It’s meant to make pre-season more fun, with a handy hundred grand in the bank for the winners too.
It’s a strange list of stats to reward. Just for funsies, I ran an analysis of which stats, of all those available on NRL data providers, correlate most highly with winning.
Line breaks make sense, given that the point of attacking is to break the line, but they’re just one way of scoring. Lots of tries are also line breaks in the stats – do you get double points for a try that is also a line break? – but lots of perfectly good tries aren’t.
If you’re really good at scoring tries from kicks, for example, you’d lose out, and some of the best tries you’ll ever see are off kicks. Line breaks correlate highly with winning (quelle surprise) but so do kick return metres and having a lot of play the balls. Should we reward them too?
(Photo by Matt King/Getty Images)
Offloads, too, are not necessarily a positive thing in a game. They’re mildly correlated with winning, but only slightly more than taking lots of chip and chases, and if you ask me which I’d prefer to see more of in a pre-season trial game, then stick me in the time machine back to 1985 and let’s get kicking.
Not to labour the point too much, too, but making a lot of bombs to corners is far more related to winning than having a good second phase is, as is (because correlation does not equal causation, stats fans) having an above average amount of foul play penalties.
Maybe the NRL should devise rules based around chip and chase plays and egregious foul play. Stick it alongside the three-grades-in-one-day nostalgia bomb and it’s a footy boomer’s wet dream.
Beyond the stats, the purpose of format rule changes is to reward a particular style of footy. Rugby union began integrating bonus points because it was deathly dull to watch and had on-field rules that incentivised negative play and, particularly, kicking penalty goals.
I don’t watch much rugby union – see above, deathly dull –but the fact that they’ve stuck with it for years would suggest that it has worked.
It wasn’t popular when Japan missed out on the World Cup knockout phase in 2015 despite winning three of four games and playing the sort of rugby that the bonus points system is meant to reward, or when England won a Six Nations via lucky loser points ahead of a French side that scored more tries.
But, after having been first used in the World Cup two decades ago, it’s still there. Tries went up, which was the point, too.
Super Rugby Pacific outscores the NRL by 7.4 tries per game to 7.1 (hat tip to my colleague Nick Bishop for RU stats), and given that most of a game of rugby union is spent doing nothing – ball in play time is 34 minutes, or 42.5% of the game, compared to 54 minutes (67.5%) in the NRL – then you could certainly argue that on a per-play basis, union now has more tries. It’s just all the other stuff you have to sit through to see one.
Tom Hooper of the Brumbies is tackled during the Super Rugby Pacific Semi Final match between the Blues and the Brumbies at Eden Park on June 11, 2022 in Auckland, New Zealand. (Photo by Hannah Peters/Getty Images)
The NRL has continually created fixes to problems that never really existed in recent years. There wasn’t a lack of tries, but it brought in the six again rule to increase scoring.
There’s not a lack of line breaks or offloads either, but we’ll now get to look at whether that might be incentivised further too. Given that every team is attempting to break the line as much as possible anyway, I can’t see it working.
I ran an analysis that applied the Pre-season Challenge format to the 2022 NRL Ladder to see what would happen…and nothing did. Literally nothing.
The Raiders would have won last year, with two trial victories and three bonus points’ worth of line breaks, tries and offloads ahead of the Cowboys, the only other side to win twice.
But spare a thought for the unlucky Warriors: they managed 12 points’ worth of win and two more points’ worth of bonuses in their victory over the Storm at Casey Fields – but were cruelled out of the only silverware in their history as their second pre-season game against the Titans was washed out.
They’d have only needed to win and pick up another point to have claimed the title.
criag
Roar Rookie
Like I said....every game is different.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
I see why you like six again, but what about when your team is one point behind and a penalty would put you in front? With penalties you can kick for goal or take a tap. Endurance is important for all teams but it can't make up for skill. Artie Beetson didn't have much endurance but he was a ball playing wizard who could put support players through gaps. Those useless buggers in the ARL, Arthurson and Quayle, were the ones who gave us the four point try because the fans wanted to see tries, the more the better. I dislike the bombs but good accurate kicking, like long passing, is important in Rugby Leage.
fiwiboy7042
Roar Rookie
You simply can’t say a team that scores a try or two more in one game deserves more points than a team in another. unless that other team learns to score tries for the win and not kick penalties.
andyfnq
Roar Rookie
6 again is awesome! Stopping for penalties is a break in play, the less of that the better. I also like the fact that it rewards teams with good endurance - you can't take advantage of 6 again if you are gassed. Easily the best thing to happen to League in a long time - maybe even since Super League squashed those useless buggers in the ARL. Penalties give everyone a chance to stop and get a breath, and the less of that the better. A fast (and preferably high scoring) game is a good game.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
You like the six again rule. Holding down should be penalised because it allows good defensive teams to continually reoffend. The attacking team don't kick for goal because the try was increased in value, so the converted bomb was three times the value of a penalty goal. The excessive bombing lowers the entertainment aspect of the game. Bombs come with an increase in obstructions that are not penalised. Rugby League copied American Football's limited tackles but we left out the last tackle options and went with more scrums and scrum penalties.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
The devaluation of penalties encouraged good defensive teams to give away penalties for various offences, including holding down, knowing the attackers would follow the more tries mantra and go for the try. This is still a problem, and it's the reason for the six tackle restart rule. The 2 point field goal is a terrible idea. Do you know why the NRL did that? The ARL increased the value of tries because of falling crowds. They didn't want to see offenders penalised because they saw the game as entertainment rather than a contest. I would prefer a team to kick a penalty goal rather than play on and take the tap and go for the easier bomb with all it's obstructions. The game was better before 1982 because there were less bombs and offenders were penalised whereas now they take the tap and bomb because it pays better. The NFL has intricate set plays in scoring a touchdown and they never put up a bomb. We copied their game in 1967 but we rewarded failure by allowing bombs.
Thanks again
Guest
Ben was obviously drawn in by all the nasty references to rugby union. Poor Ben. :laughing:
elvis
Roar Rookie
Well in Union they'll take more in the same situation as the reward is higher. I quite like a field goal too, it's skillful.
Pete
Guest
For a leaguie who doesn't follow or watch rugby you sure seem to know the 6 nations stats and rugby world cup Japan stat's...strange statements indeed.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
So, the higher probability of points makes the field goal a good option but a team in desperate need of points can go for a touchdown. The Rugby League field goal at one or two points is still a good option and if it is successful there is a good chance they get the ball back from the kick off. If a team is well behind and try is needed, they will go for the bomb because the bomb is an easier way to score a try but it includes players blocking others as long as they keep their eyes on the ball and not the opposition players. I dislike bombs but many seem to dislike field goals.
elvis
Roar Rookie
Ah no, they take the field goal because of the higher probability of points, but there is nothing stopping a team going for a touchdown on the 4th down.
criag
Roar Rookie
Bonus points are the biggest load of bollocks ever in football. Every game is different. Every game is against opposition of greater strength or weakness that can depend on a variety of situations like injuries, players sin-binned or sent off, or just playing badly that week. Then there are the conditions. Some games are played in driving wind and rain or slippery surfaces in rain or even just because it's in the evening. Others are played on a fast track in sunshine. Some teams win by brave defence. You simply can't say a team that scores a try or two more in one game deserves more points than a team in another. It's just UNAustralian!
andyfnq
Roar Rookie
Bad idea. You will increase tha value of penalties and feild goals - particularly the 2 point ones. 4 Point trys are fine, no-one wants league looking like it did pre 1982
Tom G
Roar Rookie
Except nothing could tether NRL Marketing to the word reality
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
Some of the best tries you’ll ever see are off kicks. Yes but not from bombs. Obstructions are ignored when bombing. The defender should be allowed to touch the bombed ball to make it dead. Kicks away from defenders will be rewarded. The limited tackle rule was taken from American football, but they changed a very important part of this rule. In AF they have three downs of creative attacking moves in order to score a seven point touchdown. If they don’t score but get close to the goal line, they are rewarded with a three point field goal. In RL we bash and barge to get into a good position to put up a bomb with all its obstructions. The game would be better to copy USF and only allow a field goal on the last tackle.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
In 1982 the ARL increased the value of a try by a point because crowd numbers were falling, and they thought scoring more tries would bring them back. They figured that a four point try would stop teams kicking for goal when a team defending their line is penalised. This caused teams defending their line to lay on the tackled player knowing the penalty had been devalued. A good defensive team could give away penalties knowing they wouldn't be penalised on the scoreboard. Tries should be changed back to three points.
3 R M
Roar Rookie
As the NRL are trying to put substance into televising preseason trials for content I think the RLPA should hit them for more money. The NRL have been riding roughshod over rugby-league for 2 years and need to pull their heads in. 2 point field goals, bonus points, any thing that moves Rugby-league back towards Rugby is poison, next we will have 3 scrum resets followed by 3 minutes of an imaginary knee injury then another reset, a penalty, then a kick for goal. Heaven forbid. Only 54 minutes of ball in play surprised me though, they should really work on reducing the time for stoppages, too many replays over a simple knock on, the fakey crusher or try call is ridiculous most just need 1 or 2 views and the technology is there to speed up anything involving the ball. It would easily put 3-5 minutes on the the ball in play figures in some games.
Tom G
Roar Rookie
Jokes aside, it would at least allow us to see fringe players in action.
jimmmy
Roar Rookie
You think bonus points are a good idea ??? Wow that amazes me.
Passit2me
Roar Rookie
“Why union-style bonus points for Pre-Season Challenge might be NRL’s smartest idea yet.” There you are, fixed it for you. It’s about time you guys did something to improve your game. Good work :thumbup: