The League Media
- Thread starter Set piece magic
- Start date
- Status
Firstly, enjoyed reading your post. I still think there are too many crooked feeds. The League scrum when it was contested was always a bit of a mess compared to the Union scrum. Basically, in all situations, when one team had the head, the other team the ball. What transpired was that the hookers feet were a tangled web of legs. If you had a big powerful open side prop and a good hooker, one team could monopolise the ball to an extent you never saw in Union. Of course this then led to cheating; they gradually changed the rules to the present farce. Plus when a team was penalised, they could kick for touch, but a scrum was formed; this was pre tap penalty days. They changed that rule because of the great English player Alex Murphy, who in the 66 cup final went repeatedly offside. The awarded penalty would be kicked into touch, but because Wigan had a reserve hooker, they hardly saw the ball all afternoon, so there was no benefit.
The play the ball was different as well. You had to touch the ball with your foot, but the opposition could kick at the play the ball therefore disrupting possession. In addition with a 3 yard rule, the opposition moved forward so that everyone was basically on top of each other.
The nearest scenario to that in Union is when the ruck has formed and the ball is passed, usually by the halfback, and the players are again about 1 or 2 yards away.
This is why you need contested scrums because it otherwise makes the game more predictable. Tired props can't make cover tackles; that was the territory of great League players like Johnny Raper and Ron Coote.
contested scrums are a laugh.
Died in the wool rugby fans like them because its now a point of difference to every other game.
If you want big fat blokes missing more tackles just restrict the amount of substitutes more, the heavier the load the more energy used in carrying it, simple physics really.
the question becomes what kind of game do you want to see.
I personally think this formula is popular for most games (see basketball or even soccer if you will)
- 1 - The number one part of the game is the attack trying to get through the defence with the defence doing everything in its power to stop the attack and regain possession.
- 2 - Fight for possession - I think there has to be the perfect balance of attack vs defence and the fight for possession.
right now where rugby league is short is the fight for possession isn't there, bring back the legal stripping and bingo it is back with vengeance.
Striking the ball at the play the ball, whilst I like it in theory imo it will just unnecessarily slow the game down and turn it into a bit of a shitfest at time , for limited turnovers as players learn how to play the ball in a defensively slow fashion.
If you want to start with rugby union as a starting point, that is fine too but you are going to have to make a lot more changes because the beast has been to slow and cumbersome to make them in the past.
- 1 - points system, it is an absolute laughing stock, when you have teams always electing for the penalty or taking a field goal for shits and giggles you know you have troubles.
Compounding this is sides playing for territory just to get the three points.
- 2 - Line outs, the organised nature of them is a joke, I don't mind allowing quick line outs to stay. However, if the defensive side gets there in time to stop the fast line out, the team with the ball should have the option to elect to take a tap. Obviously the defence can get set which they wouldn't do in a quick line out scenario.
- 3 - 13 phases of pick runs. It happens all the time. St George mastered it back in the day. its sad that died in the wool rugby fans don't recognise how boring a 5'5 round and 5'3 tall guy running two feet low to the ground before falling over just to keep his side in possession hoping they will get a penalty or the other side will contract ebola or they will hold there 3-0 lead for the next 60 minutes is entertaining for anyone else watching or on the field. Quite frankly you need a tackle count, just like basketball needs a shot clock.
If that feels to much like league to you, you can make it a shot clock, it doesn't matter just a way to make the attacking team use it or lose it.
- 4 - Play the ball. This one is going to frustrate some certain union people the most, as there is a whole host of union players, who have the speed of a fat mountain, the hands of a fat mountain, the movement of a fat mountain, and the brain cell count of fat mountain, who actually like watching fat mountains on tv.
I am sorry but having a fat mountain clear out the ruck or help you push forward in a maul is both boring for the viewer and wastes roster spots on teams on fat mountains who need to learn how to actually catch run and pass which is what the game is all about...
thus once the rugby union player has hit the deck or is no longer moving forward, so long as he has been able to not have the ball stripped from him, put the thing on the ground play to a man behind you and lets go again.
and so on and so forth.
Thus why I started from rugby league, its easier to get to an optimal product faster.
Died in the wool rugby fans like them because its now a point of difference to every other game.
If you want big fat blokes missing more tackles just restrict the amount of substitutes more, the heavier the load the more energy used in carrying it, simple physics really.
the question becomes what kind of game do you want to see.
I personally think this formula is popular for most games (see basketball or even soccer if you will)
- 1 - The number one part of the game is the attack trying to get through the defence with the defence doing everything in its power to stop the attack and regain possession.
- 2 - Fight for possession - I think there has to be the perfect balance of attack vs defence and the fight for possession.
right now where rugby league is short is the fight for possession isn't there, bring back the legal stripping and bingo it is back with vengeance.
Striking the ball at the play the ball, whilst I like it in theory imo it will just unnecessarily slow the game down and turn it into a bit of a shitfest at time , for limited turnovers as players learn how to play the ball in a defensively slow fashion.
If you want to start with rugby union as a starting point, that is fine too but you are going to have to make a lot more changes because the beast has been to slow and cumbersome to make them in the past.
- 1 - points system, it is an absolute laughing stock, when you have teams always electing for the penalty or taking a field goal for shits and giggles you know you have troubles.
Compounding this is sides playing for territory just to get the three points.
- 2 - Line outs, the organised nature of them is a joke, I don't mind allowing quick line outs to stay. However, if the defensive side gets there in time to stop the fast line out, the team with the ball should have the option to elect to take a tap. Obviously the defence can get set which they wouldn't do in a quick line out scenario.
- 3 - 13 phases of pick runs. It happens all the time. St George mastered it back in the day. its sad that died in the wool rugby fans don't recognise how boring a 5'5 round and 5'3 tall guy running two feet low to the ground before falling over just to keep his side in possession hoping they will get a penalty or the other side will contract ebola or they will hold there 3-0 lead for the next 60 minutes is entertaining for anyone else watching or on the field. Quite frankly you need a tackle count, just like basketball needs a shot clock.
If that feels to much like league to you, you can make it a shot clock, it doesn't matter just a way to make the attacking team use it or lose it.
- 4 - Play the ball. This one is going to frustrate some certain union people the most, as there is a whole host of union players, who have the speed of a fat mountain, the hands of a fat mountain, the movement of a fat mountain, and the brain cell count of fat mountain, who actually like watching fat mountains on tv.
I am sorry but having a fat mountain clear out the ruck or help you push forward in a maul is both boring for the viewer and wastes roster spots on teams on fat mountains who need to learn how to actually catch run and pass which is what the game is all about...
thus once the rugby union player has hit the deck or is no longer moving forward, so long as he has been able to not have the ball stripped from him, put the thing on the ground play to a man behind you and lets go again.
and so on and so forth.
Thus why I started from rugby league, its easier to get to an optimal product faster.
Antony
Alex Ross (28)
This is what I keep hearing from league fans - all this "optimal product" bullshit. Union is a participation game - you can see that in the way it organically grows on college campuses in the US, without that translating into some enormous viewer base. It's designed to be played, not just stuck on a TV - frankly the idea of it turning in to something designed for TV makes me want to throw myself off a building.
We get that you like league (though I still think it's strange that you spend your time on a rugby forum) but the ruck contest is comfortably the best thing in sport, with the possible exception of a tough century on a green pitch in test match cricket. There are a few million people around the world who would agree with me on that one.
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
Papabear, it's not the points system.
It's the fact that Union players are smart enough to understand the value of the points.
In League 4 penalties is worth 8 points and 2 converted tries is worth 12 points.
In Rugby 4 penalties is worth 12 points and 2 converted tries is worth 14.
There's a slight greater value in rugby penalties.
Where the difference is that union players are smart enough to see the value of the points as opposed to not scoring a try from your attempt, when you consider that there are on average less than 3 tries scored per game.
It's the fact that Union players are smart enough to understand the value of the points.
In League 4 penalties is worth 8 points and 2 converted tries is worth 12 points.
In Rugby 4 penalties is worth 12 points and 2 converted tries is worth 14.
There's a slight greater value in rugby penalties.
Where the difference is that union players are smart enough to see the value of the points as opposed to not scoring a try from your attempt, when you consider that there are on average less than 3 tries scored per game.
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
One of the biggest differences between the codes is that the NRL plays the game under what amounts to a different set of rules to other competitions, the next level down plays to its rules, and so on down the hierarchy.
Apart from rules governing front row play, rugby is played under the same rules everywhere and at every level.
That is the main reason that rugby thrives internationally, while in loig everything depends upon, and is measured against (and funded by) the NRL.
Does anybody play loig for fun?
Apart from rules governing front row play, rugby is played under the same rules everywhere and at every level.
That is the main reason that rugby thrives internationally, while in loig everything depends upon, and is measured against (and funded by) the NRL.
Does anybody play loig for fun?
Hugh Jarse
Rocky Elsom (76)
"Does anybody play loig for fun?"
I think the Cronulla Sharkes may do. When did they last win anything other than a wooden spoon?
I think the Cronulla Sharkes may do. When did they last win anything other than a wooden spoon?
terry j
Ron Walden (29)
seriously papabear, you just gonna have to accept that your views (at least on this forum) are the complete minority.
I mean, I just don't know how to dislike/disagree with your post more. It is not possible.
ALL you have done is 'highlight' the things that make rugby different from league and suggest they change them to become league.
We get it. Honestly. You prefer league. It bores the fucking death out of the rest of us here by it's dreary monotony and slowness, it's absolute predictability and lack of contrast.
I mean, I just don't know how to dislike/disagree with your post more. It is not possible.
ALL you have done is 'highlight' the things that make rugby different from league and suggest they change them to become league.
We get it. Honestly. You prefer league. It bores the fucking death out of the rest of us here by it's dreary monotony and slowness, it's absolute predictability and lack of contrast.
qwerty51
Stirling Mortlock (74)
RugbyFuture
Lord Logo
Competitive scrums aren't a laugh and I don't like them because its a point of difference, I like them because they were the most fun to play for a big guy and there's a tremendous amount of skill that isn't seen in being in the front row.
Though there are some points in papabears opinion I doubt much will come from arguing about it here
Though there are some points in papabears opinion I doubt much will come from arguing about it here
T
TOCC
Guest
I like the fact that Rugby Union is a game of all sizes, how many other contact sports are there where you can have a 1.9m tall 140kg player running at an 80kg halfback?
It creates variety and excitement, if you remove the scrums in any form then the players are going to become leaner and lighter.. You will have a front row of blindside flankers. The bigger, slower forwards create gaps in the defensive lines as well as provide poor ball running options(for the most part), depowering the scrum has enormous consequences.
I think the current laws are pretty good, as long as your team isn't on the receiving end :/
It creates variety and excitement, if you remove the scrums in any form then the players are going to become leaner and lighter.. You will have a front row of blindside flankers. The bigger, slower forwards create gaps in the defensive lines as well as provide poor ball running options(for the most part), depowering the scrum has enormous consequences.
I think the current laws are pretty good, as long as your team isn't on the receiving end :/
I fully appreciate that I am not preaching to the choir.
It was just in response to a few replies which appeared to suggest , instead of using league as the starting point for a reunified code you should use union. So I used union to show what would need to be done imo, and hopefully highlight why I used league as the starting point in the first place.
The NFL I imagine would have just as high a weight range from probs 100kg quarter backs to some absolute obese fat blokes in the middle. Equally, AFL would have a decent weight range from some of the skinnies to some of the ruckman.
Don't get me wrong, rugby union for what it is, is a great game, it wouldn't have lasted this long if it wasn't. I am just going to what I think would be the optimal product to sell to the world.
In terms of rugby leagues issues re the NRL setting all the rules. I agree that for rugby league this is a problem, however the NBA has different rules to the FIBA or whatever they are called, for very fundamental things like shot clocks and the three point lines, yet they seem to get along fine. But whether to centralise power or not is a long and separate argument but to be fair I agree with you in general.
As for bigger slower forwards creating gaps in union, I don't really think this is the case, generally there is so many off them bunch together there isn't any real space there, its only if they are off having a breather on the wing that shit might happen. Generally speaking there will be more space/gaps away from the big fat blokes in union imo.
It was just in response to a few replies which appeared to suggest , instead of using league as the starting point for a reunified code you should use union. So I used union to show what would need to be done imo, and hopefully highlight why I used league as the starting point in the first place.
The NFL I imagine would have just as high a weight range from probs 100kg quarter backs to some absolute obese fat blokes in the middle. Equally, AFL would have a decent weight range from some of the skinnies to some of the ruckman.
Don't get me wrong, rugby union for what it is, is a great game, it wouldn't have lasted this long if it wasn't. I am just going to what I think would be the optimal product to sell to the world.
In terms of rugby leagues issues re the NRL setting all the rules. I agree that for rugby league this is a problem, however the NBA has different rules to the FIBA or whatever they are called, for very fundamental things like shot clocks and the three point lines, yet they seem to get along fine. But whether to centralise power or not is a long and separate argument but to be fair I agree with you in general.
As for bigger slower forwards creating gaps in union, I don't really think this is the case, generally there is so many off them bunch together there isn't any real space there, its only if they are off having a breather on the wing that shit might happen. Generally speaking there will be more space/gaps away from the big fat blokes in union imo.
as for the SMH article.
The wallabies are free to purchase any kiwis / kangaroos they have the money to spend on.
Purchase a backline of
Cam Smith 9
Thurston/Johnson/foran/cronk (10)
Inglis IC
Hayne (I know rugby isn't the NFL but he might be back) OC
Pick a winger from the morris brothers to whomever you like depends on how much kicking you want from them
and slater fb
you are not going to see the other side score through the backs and I imagine if you have a decent bunch of forwards you will score plenty of points.
However, you have to pay for it, cant blame the NRL/AFL, when it is the ARU not wanting to pay for the best athletes, presumably because they believe they already have the best for their code, or they don't have the money.
The wallabies are free to purchase any kiwis / kangaroos they have the money to spend on.
Purchase a backline of
Cam Smith 9
Thurston/Johnson/foran/cronk (10)
Inglis IC
Hayne (I know rugby isn't the NFL but he might be back) OC
Pick a winger from the morris brothers to whomever you like depends on how much kicking you want from them
and slater fb
you are not going to see the other side score through the backs and I imagine if you have a decent bunch of forwards you will score plenty of points.
However, you have to pay for it, cant blame the NRL/AFL, when it is the ARU not wanting to pay for the best athletes, presumably because they believe they already have the best for their code, or they don't have the money.
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
You'll see plenty of tries through the backs. Players like Thurston are absolutely woeful at 1 or 1 tackles.
Remember Hayne's try in Origin? Look at it again. Every tackle attempt was a pathetic jersey grab.
Whilst many of these guys are good players, they won't be quite as dominant in situations where the opposition can actually tackle as well. Once again I only watched origin this year, but I saw Inglis make a break with one player in support and only the fullback to beat. He made no attempt to draw the full back, just ran a cut 10m before the defender and the play shut down as the principle of drawing and passing seemed lost on him.
Remember Hayne's try in Origin? Look at it again. Every tackle attempt was a pathetic jersey grab.
Whilst many of these guys are good players, they won't be quite as dominant in situations where the opposition can actually tackle as well. Once again I only watched origin this year, but I saw Inglis make a break with one player in support and only the fullback to beat. He made no attempt to draw the full back, just ran a cut 10m before the defender and the play shut down as the principle of drawing and passing seemed lost on him.
Antony
Alex Ross (28)
Mate, it's the myth of the supreme NRL back. Will Chambers played origin this year, they can't all be that good.
terry j
Ron Walden (29)
(BTW, what was the gist of the smh article?)
But, is it not true that 'the world' has already voted?
Take for example your making rugby have limited tackles a'la league. Seriously, what other game does that? Imagine football only allowing a team six kicks then you give the other side a go.
Or basketball, 'sorry, you have had your five dribbles, now you gotta give the ball to the other side.'
I mean frankly it is so damned lame. So, historically, how did that rule come about? Because, as you well know, initially there were unlimited tackles and so a team just ran up the field getting tackled and playing it again till they reached the goal line, scored, then do it all again.
Dull as shit right?
So why did it not play out that way in rugby? Because we have this thing called a contest. That was removed in league (and even moreso in recent times).
And your solution to making rugby 'better' is to move all of the contests?? No scrums, no rucks, no line outs.
Heck, we'd end up, dunno, at league.
And the world has already voted which they prefer.
Joe King
Dave Cowper (27)
While I enjoy watching union more than league, I did appreciate the law-tweaks in the NRC. If a casual spectator complains that rugby is boring because of the slow bits, they had no reason to complain watching that competition. It really was quite thrilling rugby. Anyway, just saying that dramatic law changes in union are not necessary to attract the casual spectator looking to be entertained, or the casual spectator who may have thought rugby has too many slow bits.
There was a contest for the ball in league when they had unlimited though I am relatively young I believe it was because st George changed there tactics to take no risks to maintain possession and just try and grind wins out to keep the game entertaining league bought in limited tackles.
Same thing happened in basketball teams who were winning would just dribble around in circles forever. A shot clock is the se thing essentially as a tackle count it makes you do whatever u want to do in a set time without twirling around.
NFL also has four downs an immensely successfully sport.
NFL also has four downs an immensely successfully sport.
But that's only part of the story. So long as you make 10 yards in your 4 tackles, then the 'drive' continues. Best I've seen so far as games management was Joe Montana for the 49'ers. I remember one drive where it was started on the 5 yard line and went upfield in at least 20 plays to get in the end zone. The crowd got louder and louder as the drive went on and nearly raised the roof when they got in the end zone.
I enjoyed watching the AB's try by the prop that went through 20 stages before touchdown.
None of the above would be possible now under League rules. It's a shame to me that the game's gone this way.
But that's only part of the story. So long as you make 10 yards in your 4 tackles, then the 'drive' continues. Best I've seen so far as games management was Joe Montana for the 49'ers. I remember one drive where it was started on the 5 yard line and went upfield in at least 20 plays to get in the end zone. The crowd got louder and louder as the drive went on and nearly raised the roof when they got in the end zone.
I enjoyed watching the AB's try by the prop that went through 20 stages before touchdown.
None of the above would be possible now under League rules. It's a shame to me that the game's gone this way.
Polynesian Warriors
Frank Nicholson (4)
- Status