Re: rules that you think would improve our game : Thu Dec 18, 2014 9:41 pm  

Andy Gilder wrote:

Does facing tired defenders really improve a half-back's skill levels though?

The effect would just be to make it easier for mediocre but agile smaller players to get around the bigger guys, rather than having to try and find ways to open up the defence with a pass or a kick.

I don't see it as a matter of skill levels though. I think the halfbacks today are just as skilled as the halfbacks 10 years ago yet if you watch the Leeds v Saints Cup Semi final in 2003 again you'll see a game that's far more open and, in my opinion, better to watch than the vast majority of games today.

The defences were slower with much bigger gaps and far, far less wrestling/tackle manipulation than today which led to a much more open game.

I think if you put today's halfbacks in those type of games theyd flourish. It's the speed and efficiency of the defensive line combined with a well trained techniques of turning the attacker and slowing the play the ball that means halves have sod all time to actually assess the defence, half the the time are getting tackled just as they get the ball (especially 2nd receiver) and even if they do have time there just aren't the gaps in the defences to put people through or for players to take advantage of.

It's why I'm sort of in favour (55/45) of bringing proper scrums back, mainly as a way of making at least some of the forwards less mobile.

Re: rules that you think would improve our game : Thu Dec 18, 2014 11:15 pm  

Agree about today's halfbacks. What they're far better than they were is geting quick passes away and using set plays. In fact the range of passing and kicking skills in general is far higher than it was. The classic Andy Greg running (or even jogging) across the defence probing for gaps simply wouldn't work today as they'd get smashed in possession far too often.

I have the same sort of thinking myself about scrums. Right now they are just a very limited way of giving the backs one tackle to make a play, but given the speed of backrows and the fact they aren't looking at anything other than peeling off the scrum as fast as possible, we very rarely get to see backs vs backs even on the first tackle.

I do understand the potential problems with contested scrums, and we'd see a lot of our big props suffer (not to mention the return of hookers), but if you want to radically overhaul the game that would do far more than tinkering with subs.

BTW I think its a real eye-opener to watch highlights of games from 10 or 20 years ago. I've watched a few NRL GFs from back then and the difference in speed and organisation on defence even from 10 years ago really is quite amazing, especially given how much bigger players are generally right across the park.

Re: rules that you think would improve our game : Thu Dec 18, 2014 11:35 pm  

The reason I advocate less interchanges is that you the same type of player replacing the guy coming off e.g. A prop replacing a prop. How many teams have one never mind two backs on the bench?
The great debater who said b0llocks when I suggested all players should be able to play a full 80 minutes never explained why or give any examples of QUALITY impact players.
Can anyone name 3 top class impact players in SL?

Re: rules that you think would improve our game : Fri Dec 19, 2014 12:08 am  

BrisbaneRhino wrote:

Agree about today's halfbacks. What they're far better than they were is geting quick passes away and using set plays. In fact the range of passing and kicking skills in general is far higher than it was. The classic Andy Greg running (or even jogging) across the defence probing for gaps simply wouldn't work today as they'd get smashed in possession far too often.

I have the same sort of thinking myself about scrums. Right now they are just a very limited way of giving the backs one tackle to make a play, but given the speed of backrows and the fact they aren't looking at anything other than peeling off the scrum as fast as possible, we very rarely get to see backs vs backs even on the first tackle.

I do understand the potential problems with contested scrums, and we'd see a lot of our big props suffer (not to mention the return of hookers), but if you want to radically overhaul the game that would do far more than tinkering with subs.

BTW I think its a real eye-opener to watch highlights of games from 10 or 20 years ago. I've watched a few NRL GFs from back then and the difference in speed and organisation on defence even from 10 years ago really is quite amazing, especially given how much bigger players are generally right across the park.

Yep agree with all that. I've recently re-watched the 2003 Cup semi v Saints and the 2004 season review dvd (Oldham Rhino & JohnD providing some legendary commentary!) and some of the gaps in defences were huge. They just don't happen anymore. Also something else I noted was that when we made a break the defence wouldn't try and chase back, they'd just rely on the full back. Now the defences react much quicker and there's usually at least 3 or 4 defenders chasing back covering support runners so the full back can take the ball carrier.

Re: rules that you think would improve our game : Fri Dec 19, 2014 8:37 am  

BrisbaneRhino wrote:

Agree about today's halfbacks. What they're far better than they were is geting quick passes away and using set plays. In fact the range of passing and kicking skills in general is far higher than it was. The classic Andy Greg running (or even jogging) across the defence probing for gaps simply wouldn't work today as they'd get smashed in possession far too often.

I have the same sort of thinking myself about scrums. Right now they are just a very limited way of giving the backs one tackle to make a play, but given the speed of backrows and the fact they aren't looking at anything other than peeling off the scrum as fast as possible, we very rarely get to see backs vs backs even on the first tackle.

I do understand the potential problems with contested scrums, and we'd see a lot of our big props suffer (not to mention the return of hookers), but if you want to radically overhaul the game that would do far more than tinkering with subs.

BTW I think its a real eye-opener to watch highlights of games from 10 or 20 years ago. I've watched a few NRL GFs from back then and the difference in speed and organisation on defence even from 10 years ago really is quite amazing, especially given how much bigger players are generally right across the park.

Perhaps if you prevented the 10 players in the scrum from participating in the first play you would open up that play i.e. 8 v 8 for that play and also give it as an option on a penalty i.e. you can tap, kick or scrum if awarded a penalty. Getting a penalty in the opponents 20 isn't really that much of bonus as you are cramped for space against a set defence - sides seem quite prepared to give penalties away in the 20.

Re: rules that you think would improve our game : Fri Dec 19, 2014 6:39 pm  

The speculation can end, confirmed changes. Clarity over Obstruction and Sin Bin guidelines. Extra sub when concussed and on field ref must make a decision before referring to Video Ref. Disappointed they haven't removed the negative "being able to step over the line and as long as the ball was moving it's out rule" but pleased with all the changes. http://www.therhinos.co.uk/news/25314.php#.VJRwI8N8GA

The speculation can end, confirmed changes. Clarity over Obstruction and Sin Bin guidelines. Extra sub when concussed and on field ref must make a decision before referring to Video Ref. Disappointed they haven't removed the negative "being able to step over the line and as long as the ball was moving it's out rule" but pleased with all the changes. http://www.therhinos.co.uk/news/25314.php#.VJRwI8N8GA

Re: rules that you think would improve our game : Fri Dec 19, 2014 7:46 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Perhaps if you prevented the 10 players in the scrum from participating in the first play you would open up that play i.e. 8 v 8 for that play and also give it as an option on a penalty i.e. you can tap, kick or scrum if awarded a penalty. Getting a penalty in the opponents 20 isn't really that much of bonus as you are cramped for space against a set defence - sides seem quite prepared to give penalties away in the 20.

I quite like that idea. It also means you might get more focus on the actual scrum as at the moment the defending pack just wants to break ASAP to get out and defend. If they cant do that they might concentrate more on the scrum itself.

Re: rules that you think would improve our game : Fri Dec 19, 2014 8:04 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Perhaps if you prevented the 10 players in the scrum from participating in the first play you would open up that play i.e. 8 v 8 for that play and also give it as an option on a penalty i.e. you can tap, kick or scrum if awarded a penalty. Getting a penalty in the opponents 20 isn't really that much of bonus as you are cramped for space against a set defence - sides seem quite prepared to give penalties away in the 20.

Aren't there 12 players in a scrum? Or are the loose/locks allowed to break to join the attack/defence? I like the idea though.

5 4-----------------6 1 3 2

-------13
------12 11
-----10 9 8 7
-----10 9 8 7
------12 11
-------13

2 3-----------------6 1 4 5

Re: rules that you think would improve our game : Sat Dec 20, 2014 12:44 pm  

_dyl_ wrote:

Aren't there 12 players in a scrum? Or are the loose/locks allowed to break to join the attack/defence? I like the idea though.

5 4-----------------6 1 3 2

-------13
------12 11
-----10 9 8 7
-----10 9 8 7
------12 11
-------13

2 3-----------------6 1 4 5

You are correct I meant 12 bad day yesterday - 7 v 7 even better more space

Re: rules that you think would improve our game : Sat Dec 20, 2014 3:00 pm  

Just when we've finally got the referee's judgement out of the obstruction rule and made it a matter of physical fact, we've taken a massive step backwards on it IMO.

The whole "was the defender disadvantaged" is a subjective judgement that creates inconsistency. I'll give it a couple of controversial big decisions before fans and pundits are screaming for clarity again.

How - after the Ryan Hall decision in the Four Nations - anyone can suggest the VR having to find incontrovertible evidence to overturn the on-field decision is workable simply amazes me. Nothing wrong with the VR system as it was.

I like the idea of the sin bin now being an option for crusher/chicken wing tackles and other foul play. Just hope referees have the guts to use it rather than cop out.