The need for change

[cos789]

This was written about the DOgs in the GF.

"Once a team establishes dominance under current NRL rules, they win the game.
Because the opposition can't get a crack with the ball, it is virtually impossible to fight your way back into the game.

In past days, defending teams could win the ball against the feed in a scrum, or steal it from a loose carry, or rake it back in the play-the-ball to even the share of possession.
They're either discouraged or illegal under modern rules.

The Bulldogs got no reward for their bravery. They had no option but to soak up tackle after tackle, and no opportunity to take back the ball and fight their way back.

When a team is near perfect, the game is over. And as the weekend proved, so is the spectacle.

Throughout this whole NRL finals series, an anticlimactic series despite the applause for teams one and two winning through to the decider, not a single team fought its way back to win once they lost the early grind.

NRL grand finals were always famous for two teams punching themselves to a standstill, the bravest left standing.

Now it is about completions."

Is time to put back some element of turnover into rl?

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...ing-sydney-swans/story-e6frexnr-1226486173054

 

[Hus83]

I wouldn't go changing too much. One rule per brain cell is usually a good indicator. At the moment they are at capacity.

 

[Leagueworld]

Dribble, Morris gets the right bounce, Barba gets around and we would have been talking a Grand Final of Epic proportions. There is no doubt the Storm shut out the Bulldogs, that is called Clinical and is the way any coach with fore thought would have gone. The Storm's performance was huge, they shut down the best attacking side in general in the competition. The players were disciplined and played the near perfect first half. The Storm would have strangled ANY side in the last fifty years under ANY rules with that play.

Scrums were a MESS, striking at the ball a MESS and rarely worked and just gave penalties away.

Is it time to put more turn over possibilities into the game? I don't think so. What may be required to giving some extra room on the field. Players are simply too fit and defensive structures too well drilled. Increase the field dimensions by Four metres and see the backs get that little bit more room.

Most of the AFL Grand Final was mind numbing except the last portion where it came close. Even Soccer is vaguely interesting in the last couple minutes of a big game if the scores are tied.

 

[moto748]

Funnily enough some people make the same complaint about rugby union! They're always tinkering with their rules; no need for us to do the same.

I don't think there is too much wrong with our game. The Storm have an extraordinarily well-organised defence, but even then the Dogs had some half-chances, as noted above. And in fact, the relative frequency with which incredible last minute come-backs are possible (and we've seen a few this season) are one of the best things about our code. It ain't over till it's over!

All I would say if that I'd like the balance between 'strip' and 'loose carry' tightened up a bit to place more responsibility on the ball-carrier.

 

[Mint Condition]

That article is pretty crap. The Bulldogs had plenty of possession in the Storms half, they just couldn't get past the defence. Being 'brave' doesn't win you grand finals. Skill execution and athletes win grand finals. The 6 tackle rule ensures both teams get a decent crack with the ball. The Bulldogs had plenty of opportunities to attack, they just weren't good enough on the night to score many points.

I don't think giving extra room on the field would be a great idea. It probably wouldn't even be possible in a lot of stadiums. Speed of the play the ball is the most important thing. The slower it is the more the game becomes like trench warfare. Faster and it's more like touch and higher scoring. So you need a balance. Maybe the PTB at the moment is slightly too slow.

A more radical idea I've seen someone here mention before is getting rid of knock on's ... in the sense that a dropped ball, instead of being a turnover would be treated as an incomplete play, similar to in American Football. So say you drop the ball forward on the 3rd tackle, the ball would then go back to where that PTB was, only it would now be the 4th tackle. It would encourage more risk taking in attack and decrease the importance of set completion rates. Could be a cool thing to trial in the All Stars game anyway.

 

[Mint Condition]

Funnily enough some people make the same complaint about rugby union!

Exactly. I would have thought that 'once a team establishes dominance the opposition can't get a crack with the ball' is the last thing you could criticise rugby league with and one of the first things you could say about rugby union.

And I say that as primarily a rugby union fan and just a casual/big game viewer of rugby league.

Though it's a pretty ridiculous criticism to make of any sport really. It's kind of like saying 'if one team plays much better than the other team the other team will find it too hard to win and that's terrible because what you really want is for the bravest team to win'

 

[cos789]

The Storm's performance was huge, they shut down the best attacking side in general in the competition.

And that was the point of the article.
The best attacking side in the competiton couldn;t score.

 

[cos789]

Though it's a pretty ridiculous criticism to make of any sport really. It's kind of like saying 'if one team plays much better than the other team the other team will find it too hard to win and that's terrible because what you really want is for the bravest team to win'

No. As a spectacle it's disappointing that once a side scores it changes it's style of play.

 

[cos789]

All I would say if that I'd like the balance between 'strip' and 'loose carry' tightened up a bit to place more responsibility on the ball-carrier.

Especially in one-on-one tackles.

 

[moto748]

Well, there is no strip rule as such in one-on-one tackles. A defender can knock the ball forward out of a players hands, though.

 

[Aucklander]

The Swans remind me of a Rugby league team. I was shocked they scored as many points as they did. Maybe Hawthorn's attacking style forced them to open up a bit. I wonder if the article would have been written if Hawthorn could kick straight?

I thought the first half of the NRL GF was brilliant and the 2nd very good. There was still lots of ball movement, just not as much scoring which is a credit to the defensive qualities of both sides. At the end of the day that's what the game is really about and (probably) should be seen that way.

FWIW, I really enjoyed both games.

 

[papabear]

I have always been against the stripping rule, you should be able to strip until the held call is made.

 

[Mint Condition]

No. As a spectacle it's disappointing that once a side scores it changes it's style of play.

You mean to defend a lead? Happens in pretty much all sports. It backfires often enough. I really don't see your point or the point of the article.

 

[tugga]

Did someone read this article to Manly? They would beg to differ.

 

[cos789]

You mean to defend a lead? Happens in pretty much all sports. It backfires often enough. I really don't see your point or the point of the article.

The point is that monotonous defending of a lead is not as exciting as say a shootout.

.

 

[Fire Storm]

The point is that monotonous defending of a lead is not as exciting as say a shootout.

.

Yeah but remember while one team is defending, the other is attacking? Kinda obvious but these issues only get brought up after storm win.

 

[Aucklander]

Yeah but remember while one team is defending, the other is attacking? Kinda obvious but these issues only get brought up after storm win.

The Swans only concede around 74 points per game. The best in the league. You could easily argue they monotonously use defense to win games. That's not a bad thing either as it helped them win a Premiership a bit like the Storm.

You can almost also tell Paul Kent hasn't watched much footy either.

 

[Fire Storm]

Paul Kent is a goose non stop. Storm apatped their attack to score points over the dogs. They wore em out in attack even. Then came up with a smart plan in defence to stop the dogs scoring. It worked and won them game.

Maybe the Bulldogs should've done then same? Anyway, who really cares what Kent - had to be careful with spelling - thinks?

 

[BORK]

Most of the AFL Grand Final was mind numbing except the last portion where it came close. Even Soccer is vaguely interesting in the last couple minutes of a big game if the scores are tied.

Would be an instant sig if you were a regular poster on any AFL related board. Just a staggering comment.

 

[cos789]

You could easily argue they monotonously use defense to win games.

As pointed out in other posts defense is part of the game
however the difference is that team has also been praised for taking risks in attack
which is always possible in Australian Football.
We're talking about the lack of opportunity to cause turnovers in rl
and wether something could/should be done about it..
.

 

[Fire Storm]

There' enough turnovers in the game. Not Melbourne' fault they hold onto it. Having it for 5 tackles ain't that long. An afl could hold possession longer then that.

Sour grapes from Paul Kent and Sydney media. Hope an outside Sydney team wins it for next 30 years...

 

[cos789]

Not Melbourne' fault they hold onto it.

Of course not and they should be congratulated for doing so well.
Doesn't mean we couldn't have more attractive football.
.

 

[imadodgyumpire]

Isn't the OP a troll?

I don't think giving extra room on the field would be a great idea. It probably wouldn't even be possible in a lot of stadiums. Speed of the play the ball is the most important thing. The slower it is the more the game becomes like trench warfare. Faster and it's more like touch and higher scoring. So you need a balance. Maybe the PTB at the moment is slightly too slow.

Trench warfare is awesome!. Never ever underestimate how awesome trench warfare is.

Like I stated in the other thread, with game like league, Union, and American footy, dominating defences make for way more of an interesting and honest game. Shoot-outs in these kind of games are ****. Because it means the defence is unorganised, not trying, or just ****. It's much easier to appreciate any brilliance from an offensive player as well, if defence dominates. The best league GF if ever was the '03 one. Not because it was a shoot-out, but because the Panthers and Roosters absolutely smashed each other and it was tight. Much easier to appreciate what an awesome game Luke Priddis played that night because it was so hard. Changing league so that it's a higher scoring game because footy is a higher scoring game? It's just a big w***. People who suggest this idea should just **** off.

 

[CooperCronk]

Paul Kent hates the Storm, so its not surprising he comes up with an article like this.

Then we have Cos to contend with. Always on cue when Storm or rugby league makes some sort of headline he likes.

Both should get a room together and bolt the door for ever.

 

[Aucklander]

The Bulldogs and the Storm were 2 and 3 in attack this year and easily the two best teams to watch from that POV. Yea we could probably do with a bit more scoring, but it was the Grand Final.

Hawthorn scored 40 less points in the GF than they average in a normal regular season game.