The case for 12-a-side rugby league

I’m not sure where you’re going here? I get that.

Fatigue is brought about by the 6 agains. Allowing a break for full penalties & the kick down field , is giving the bigger players a rest.

As mentioned above; I would have taken this approach as opposed to the 6 again path and those recent changes that have been designed to speed the game up and infuse more fatigue into the contest. Space as opposed to fatigue- not both.

Surely changing from unlimited tackles per set to six tackles per set was a "fundamental" change?

They had more 6 agains the last few years. Which sped the game up. The NRL didn’t seem to like the teams who flourished using those rules. So they have slowed the game down somewhat now & have full penalties instead of 6 agains , for teams getting the penalty inside their own 40 metre area . They’ve also tended to slow down the ruck play this year. So can’t see those in charge wanting to now speed things up?

The Woodpecker has had an immediate effect at Manly. He's led the reserve grade to their 1st win of the season.

No, you’re more than welcome to disagree with me- hence the whole ‘exchange of ideas’ as opposed to a ‘battle’ thing. I’ve also responded to all of your other points above ad hoc. That particular point sailed over your head because what you drew and put forward from it suggests that… it sailed over your head.

So I disagree with you so therefore it's sailed over my head? Hint: next time you get more respect if you don't cite Gus Gould to advance your argument.

Get a grip- this isn’t a ‘battle’ (at least to me it’s not). It’s an exchange of ideas for making the game better. Of course it’s a stretch to think the NRL would ever go down a path like this. But given their history of innovation and their pursuit of open football (what’s at the root of numerous recent game changing rule amendments), it’s worth a discussion. The NRL also has a history of disregarding the world governing body and external stakeholders to run its own race. Whether it be limiting opportunities for international play or creating its own rules for the domestic competition (all that really matters locally which is where the games power base is entrenched), the NRL has consistently isolated itself from the IRLF- basically because what’s going on outside the NRL in rugby league is of little consequence to the game here. What’s flawed is making a comparison between the global dynamics at play between the A League and soccer vs Rugby League and the NRL. Chalk and cheese. While the power imbalance between the NRL and the rest of the world is akin to the NFL and the rest; take a look at the NBA and FIBA (a game with a far more significant global footprint) where game fundamentals such as court dimensions and game time differ as a result of the dominant league going out on its own. The 12 v 12 example has sailed totally over you head. I’ll park it there.

Ok, well the fact you are using that windbag as proof of concept means you've lost the battle. I don’t accept that just because other sports haven’t altered playing numbers that it should be off limits for Rugby League. The game in Australia has shown an almost unmatched appetite to evolve to improve its spectacle. Because the NRL is part of a global game with a global body that has - notionally - some protection over the basics. I really thought that would have been simple to appreciate. You wouldn't see the A-league say "hey, we're going to have 10 v 10 from now on" and expect Asian Football Federation or FIFA to continue to recognise the games. Nor would you see CA start saying "right, cricket in Australia is 13 v 13 now, and 2 players are allowed to be dismissed twice, and we expect the ICC and the MCC to recognise these as legitimate matches and all stats count to individual and team records". Now, evidently the RLIF is a weaker body to the NRL, but the basic principles of being a good partner would apply and the NRL wouldn't risk becoming such an arrogant pariah as to permanently isolate itself from any sense of global credibility. There is latitude for each league to experiment and make little tweaks, but to fundamentally change core principles, none. I think instead of asking why it's not impossible to change, perhaps ask why every other sport also accepts the playing numbers as settled, and thus why should rugby league depart from that rational position? Even your 12 v 12 examples are flawed. They were the result of rules being applied that forced players to leave the field. It's still 13 v 13.

Isn’t 12 aside what the Dragons played before they traded Woods?

Again, it’s a big change. That’s accepted. I don’t accept that just because other sports haven’t altered playing numbers that it should be off limits for Rugby League. The game in Australia has shown an almost unmatched appetite to evolve to improve its spectacle. If it’s decided that 12 on 12 achieves a better product, then why not go there. There’s been numerous times in the NRL recently where 12-a-side applied and the earth didn’t open up and swallow everyone on the field. I remember a game a few years where it played out and Gus made the comment that it provided an entertaining product.

Yes, but again, every rule change you have said is still governed by the fundamental principle that rugby league is 13 v 13. Like football is 11 v 11, and AFL is 18 v 18, ice hockey 6 v 6, basketball 5 v 5, cricket 11 v 11 (save for concussion subs). 15 v 15 for union. There are just some elements that are not touched. 13 people is one of them. As to the 6 again rule, it's still only incremental compared to the bigger change in the 60's that eliminated unlimited tackles - and that was still within the confines of 13 v 13.

I’d argue 6 again is one rule on its own that’s had a significant impact on how the game is played right down to how players are prepared for it. While I accept that changing the number of players on the field is a significant change, there are other ways rules can be manipulated that create monumental shifts to how the game is played. And Australian Rugby League as the modern day home of the game has been been at the forefront of these. The NSWRL pushed the 5m rule out to 10m in the 90’s. That’s a massive change to the fabric of the game and it was delivered mid season too.

"Remember the slashing backfield runs, the chip and chase, the heroic cover defense of the 80s?" Yes, I remember it - played with thirteen aside if I am not mistaken. Personally, I am not keen on your suggestion. Our game is pretty darned good as it is and whilst one less player may open games up a little, it would depress defensive efforts which to me are every bit a part of the game as trys. I know, why don't we have a nines comp then we could really open things up ? Seriously though, if we were going to change anything fundamental in our game then it should be to try to introduce more competition for the ball. Maybe some sort of contested scrum perhaps or some other mechanism to change the flow of play

You are listing incremental changes against one that absolutely would be a fundamental change to the playing of the game.

The NRL’s made multiple recent changes to the rules and how they’re interpreted and applied and the results have shifted how the game looks and is played. 40/20’s. While it’s been incremental, the bouncing around of the interchange rule over the last 2 decades has had a significant impact on how the games played- especially looking at where it’s been (no interchange restriction) to where it currently sits. 6 again delivered a huge change to how the game was played and it was basically done overnight- all thanks to the NRL. Looking at playing numbers; the shifting interpretation of the rules has seen us go from sin bins and send offs being a rarity across a season to being a regular interjection in the majority of matches played. It would be interesting to know the average number of minutes games are played with less than 26 people on the field. I’d imagine it would have gone from next to none to more than a few. The NRL’s even changed points scoring with the 2-point field goal. It has it’s positives and negatives but one thing the NRL is known for is it’s innovative approach to evolving the game and if it decided less people on the field was beneficial for the product (and I believe it’s a better approach than the one they’ve taken with their fiddling of the rules); then I don’t think there would be much to stop them.

I get that you are saying the number 13 is rather arbitrary, though it really isn't as it just dropped a way the breakaway players from Union, but you say a 12 man game would invite more smaller players? Would it? As you point out, a 12 man game might reduce the number of players in a tackle. To me, that invites more big, hard running players, if teams are going to try and tackle with only 2 players at a time. What happens to the sin bin? One player sin binned means 11 on the field. Now it is really stretching the defence across the width of a field and making sin bin decisions, which are often contentious, even more impactful. While i think what you are hypothesizing would be good in the sense that it allows the more talented players to stand out - given the lack of depth of playing talent, and no doubt if you went to 12 men we would be adding teams left and right, you'll end up with the have's crushing the have nots pretty consistently.

A couple of issues. The assumption of less players in tackles and less injuries isn't quite right. Yes certainly in Rugby 7s. Pretty well no tackles. However reducing RL to 12 would speed it up enough but not avert tackles enough - such that you get higher speed collisions. That equals more injuries. The best way to increase flow is to slacken on the 'knock on' interpretations. Allow for more 'contested' play and 'play on' calls rather than 'knock on' calls. THAT creates flow. Otherwise - - guess what? The game is a stop start 'turn based' game. We have our set, they have their set......repeat.

they've never made changes to the fabric of the game. The basic rules, playing conditions and amount of players have always remained the same. Removing a person fundamentally changes the sport.