You know, sometimes I wonder whether you guys would prefer a game in which
NOTHING worth talking about happens at all.
A few players turn on the customary amateur dramatics in a hamfisted attempt to run down the clock and suddenly we need to eradicate such entirely from the game.
This might come as a shock to many of you but ... controversy is the life-blood of the game. Anyone who believes otherwise should instantly be re-directed to the infamous
"Joynt Fell Over" thread which (along with the equally infamous
"explaining the finer points of the momentum rule to John Senior" epic) needed a re-write of the PHPBB software to cope with its colossal size and duration.
Why in GOD'S NAME would we want to eradicate villainous cheatery from the game when it clearly gives everyone something to bellyache/chortle over on a Monday morning?
Half of you love to moan like old women. And you know it.
On the other hand I do think there are aspects of the game which really do need addressing. Personally I'm sick to the back teeth of half-backs putting snow on the ball on fifth tackle, hoisting it high to the flanks or chipping it into the in-goal looking for a lucky re-bound or a repeat set. I think it's a thoroughly negative style of play which is primarily aimed at forcing (expensive) mistakes. Back in the 80s we used to take the mickey out of the Rugger Buggers because they were always kicking. Our mantra was
"Rugby League players run and pass with the ball". Nowadays we're as bad as they are - in not
WORSE.There's something very wrong with the game when a beautiful piece of skill gets you no more points than a scrambled finger-tip touched ball which has ricocheted off the post, bounced up off the full-back's face and then deflected off someone's ankle.
We're now at the point where some teams are more dangerous kicking the ball than running it. They certainly seem to put more effort into kicking patterns than actual handling skill.
And before anyone pitches in with the usual
"Kicking is a skill, too!" - I'll point you to Wayne Bennett who for years and years didn't consider tries scored from kicks as worthy of recognition. And he wasn't alone. Chris Anderson took a similarly dim view of kicks. I remember interviewing him when he was Australia coach over here and his face contorted in his customary "bulldog chewing a wasp" way when I mentioned a try that GB had scored.
"That's not Rugby League" was his curt response.
Even kicking for an extra set gets on my nerves. I mean, if you couldn't get over the line on the previous five tackles why should you deserve another shot dribbling it over the line and trapping the man in goal? For me the attacking side has all the advantages in such a position because it's very, very difficult for the receiver to clear the in-goal with 13 guys bearing down on him.
I guess what I'm saying is the payoff is too great for comparatively little effort. One of the discussions on the Saints site mentions the fact that wingers are becoming bigger and bigger precisely because of this negative
"play for a mistake" tactic. Like English football in the stagnant eighties players are being picked less because they are skillful and more because they are the tallest guy in the side. This can't be right.
I'm not saying we should do away with all kicking. But I do think we need to look at
reducing the rewards for kicking. I agree with Anderson & Bennett in that it is too tied up with luck and depressingly negative. Even the best players find it impossible to cope with the chaotic behavior of a ball caught by a rogue gust of wind. Time and time again you see such being slaughtered for blowing a catch (even losing the game) which is all but impossible to make whilst the try-scorer is labelled a hero despite the fact that he did little more than put himself in the vicinity where he then lucked out with the ball popping up right into his hands.
Surely I'm not the only person who thinks this? Surely?