The NRL changes made to introduce fatigue and/or speed up the game

Malla

*********
Joined
Aug 30, 2007
Messages
10,870
Reaction score
13,470
Many think Vlandys is the messiah, I think he has ruined the game with all these rule changes. NRL is hard to watch.
I dont think he has ruined the game, he saved it last year when it was looking bleek but he only saved it because of his connections and ability to just get shit done.

Would not trust him to know whats best for way the game is played tho.
 

gbrussell

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
1,484
Reaction score
2,178
I agree with pretty much everything you've said.

We're already seeing a huge number of injuries at our club. I haven't monitored the injuries at other clubs, but have noticed that the Roosters seem to be mentioned frequently as being allowed to introduce new players outside their top 30. But the NRL admin don't really care as long as they and the gambling sponsors are raking in the money it's a win in their books. Players are a disposable thing to them.

The refereeing is shockingly poor nowadays too which I think is because the games are as scripted as possible due to bias. I see more and more people saying they can't watch the game anymore. I used to watch almost every televised game most weeks. I only watch the Bulldogs play these days. I used to be able to explain what had happened for penalties etc to less dedicated league watchers, with the 6 agains I rarely know why they've been called and when a penalty is given now they quite often seem to be very controversial. I think that they'll do away with the captains challenge as soon as they can too, because all too often wrong calls are caught out.

If the ratings are reflective of what I see people saying regarding losing interest as spectators, it's going to be very difficult to get a good TV rights sponsorship next time round. The frequency of gambling advertising and fucking menulog ads during the games I've watched pisses me off too. I don't notice much advertising outside of these two things during coverage.
I agree with pretty much every point that has been raised. The game is too fast and despite what commentators are saying the speed of the game is more than a little bit responsible for the rise in injuries as the collisions are harder.

To me the biggest problem is the ARL commission needs to be restructured. How many on that commission have played or been involved in the game at this level? Just one. Wayne Pearce. The rest are business people. Thus the ARLC is badly balanced. I have been on committees particularly in my golf club where they lurch from one disaster to another because they don't have someone with expertise in a key area.

I would make three changes.
1) A former referee particularly one who has gone on to become boss of the referees. Best option Greg McCallum who has experience in both hemispheres.
2) A former coach who has had success at this level. Not the agenda driven Gus Gould. Best option Tim Sheens.
3) A former club CEO who understands how clubs think and the machinations of the salary cap. Not a lot of good options there. Maybe Peter Doust.

This will leave room for about 4 business people but they will have people there with more understanding of the game and identify loopholes before they become loopholes.

At the moment I suspect Wayne Pearce is a lone wolf amongst people with limited football smarts.
 

_G-Dog_

Kennel Legend
Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Messages
13,304
Reaction score
7,733
Not a fan of 6 again always being a set restart.. team should have the choice of kicking into touch to gain metres or kicking penalty goal if in range..
 

B-Train

Kennel Immortal
Joined
Mar 1, 2004
Messages
32,598
Reaction score
48,175
Not a fan of 6 again always being a set restart.. team should have the choice of kicking into touch to gain metres or kicking penalty goal if in range..
You mean make it a normal penalty like it used to be where you get a choice and everyone gets a chance to see or scrutinise what the penalty was for? I agree with you, there was nothing wrong with that..

It's worked for 100 years and Vlandy's rides in on his horse with no Rugby League knowledge and changes the dynamic of the sport within one fell swoop. It's crazy that they've done this and there isn't more opposition to it.

The vast majority of fans and even players hate it, yet the media pretend like nothing is wrong with 18 point average margins in games and the top 4 teams being so dominant..
 

sifter6

Kennel Established
Joined
Jan 21, 2018
Messages
561
Reaction score
903
Not a fan of 6 again always being a set restart.. team should have the choice of kicking into touch to gain metres or kicking penalty goal if in range..
yep... dumbest rule change ever.
 

_G-Dog_

Kennel Legend
Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Messages
13,304
Reaction score
7,733
You mean make it a normal penalty like it used to be where you get a choice and everyone gets a chance to see or scrutinise what the penalty was for? I agree with you, there was nothing wrong with that..

It's worked for 100 years and Vlandy's rides in on his horse with no Rugby League knowledge and changes the dynamic of the sport within one fell swoop.
At least give the team thats won the penalty the option of 6 again, kick for touch or goal kick etc..
Hypothetically tied game 20metres out you win a penalty for a ruck infringement .. why shouldnt you have the option of going for penalty goal?
 

Dognacious

Kennel Immortal
Staff member
Administrator
Premium Member
NF Draft Champion
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
23,482
Reaction score
10,883
They should scrap tackles. Tackles really slow the game down. Make it a touch competition.
 

wendog33

Kennel Immortal
Premium Member
Ladder Champion
Joined
Aug 6, 2016
Messages
24,789
Reaction score
27,984
They should scrap tackles. Tackles really slow the game down. Make it a touch competition.
Max of 2 in a tackle. Asap 2nd tackler comes in, ref calls held and quick ptb.

No struggling 10 more metres down the field, 4 players hanging off and corrupt ref lets fav team offload after 5 seconds.

No need for 6 agains then bc game will flow.
 

gbrussell

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
1,484
Reaction score
2,178
Max of 2 in a tackle. Asap 2nd tackler comes in, ref calls held and quick ptb.

No struggling 10 more metres down the field, 4 players hanging off and corrupt ref lets fav team offload after 5 seconds.

No need for 6 agains then bc game will flow.
My only problem with a limit of 2 in the tackle is how does a defending team stop a big skilful forward who can stand in the tackle and unload. A lot of forwards these days are just metre eaters but every now and again you come across someone who is very adept with the offload and he draws defenders at will.

The most skilfull forward I have ever seen was Arthur Beetson and he could offload with 3 or 4 defenders hanging off him. Players of his type would have to be a lot fitter to survive in the modern fast tempo game but gee they could cause a defensive team some damage if there was a limit of 2 in the tackle.
 

wendog33

Kennel Immortal
Premium Member
Ladder Champion
Joined
Aug 6, 2016
Messages
24,789
Reaction score
27,984
My only problem with a limit of 2 in the tackle is how does a defending team stop a big skilful forward who can stand in the tackle and unload. A lot of forwards these days are just metre eaters but every now and again you come across someone who is very adept with the offload and he draws defenders at will.

The most skilfull forward I have ever seen was Arthur Beetson and he could offload with 3 or 4 defenders hanging off him. Players of his type would have to be a lot fitter to survive in the modern fast tempo game but gee they could cause a defensive team some damage if there was a limit of 2 in the tackle.
That rule would develop those kind of forwards. Be great to see Artie back and be better than 6 again rubbish.
 

TwinTurbo

Kennel Legend
Gilded
Joined
Oct 22, 2018
Messages
9,347
Reaction score
15,419
My view is that what we have now is a fundamental change to the game itself. The way the game is played is very different and it requires not just the current players to adapt to that. It requires "different" players, based on far more concentration on aerobic fitness, the ability to run marathons at a fast pace. Whereas it used to be about strength, power and durability, the fitness to absorb a hit and get back up and do it again, run a multitude of 30 metres dashes based on a quick recovery in between.

This will change the type of player that develops through the ranks physically, they will inevitably be lighter, more nimble, with their development from juniors upwards concentrating on endurance training, more like an AFL player (up to 20 kilometres in a game) than an NRL player (up to 10 kilometres in a game and rising) as we know it. The problem with that will inevitably be more injuries, particularly legs (knees and ankles) and arms (elbows and shoulders), players simply won't be able to carry the protective muscle to shield them from the impacts. Their bodies overall will in fact be weaker in outright strength terms.

I see it as basically the end of the traditional NRL prop forward, they will develop more like 2nd rowers, lighter, taller, more nimble and able to run half marathons every game. Merrin nailed it in his retirement declaration, I can see the end of players in the mould of JWH, AFB, Ogden, Taupau et. Right now we are in exploratory times, teams, particularly coaches, are searching their rosters for players that suite the way the game is developing. In a few years the average NRL player will look very different, they will be selected and have training that will push them physically in a different direction.

Personally I don't like it, it's getting too far, far too far, away from the game that I grew up with.


Go Dogs
 

chisdog

Kennel Legend
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
8,165
Reaction score
7,811
Agree with everything in the OP and have been saying the same for years. They're changing the sport completely and it's for the worse.

Most of the games are unwatchable now and we're seeing less skills than ever to unlock a defence as defending teams are on the back foot and fatigued so much through unlimited tackles that more soft tries are scored than ever.

It's funny.. They got rid of unlimited tackles in the 60's because Saints won 11 comps straight and were too dominant, and now they've essentially brought back unlimited tackles for the dominant teams to create an even bigger gap between the top and bottom. Way to innovate the game dickheads!

They thought it would be more entertaining but I'm bored watching the cow bell getting rung and the favoured team scoring off 16 tackle sets like it's touch Rugby..
BINGO!!!

Part of the problem is we have CEOs of the NRL who don't know rugba league & listen to idiots like Andrew Johns. These people don't know the history of the game & why rules were changed in the first place. I think if you are going to introduce a rule then you need to have a panel look at it to see how they would exploit it first - ex coaches & players.

I understand Coaches wanting to exploit things for their own benefit but usually it's not for the good of the game as a whole.

Interesting thing is we wouldn't have needed to speed things up if wrestling wasn't introduced. It was a blight on the game.
 

chisdog

Kennel Legend
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
8,165
Reaction score
7,811
The game is garbage now. I know old dinosaurs that have been watching the game closely for 40+ years reminisce about the good old hard 80s and 90s, it was a different game then, but a better game! New rules are rubbish and the game is barely watchable now.
add me to that pile.
That's why I go back & watch old games, it was entertaining & left you on the edge of your seat. These days I know the results of most games before they are played. I used to watch every game, now only 1 & that's only because I love the Dogs & have OCD. Why do I torture myself?
 

B-Train

Kennel Immortal
Joined
Mar 1, 2004
Messages
32,598
Reaction score
48,175
BINGO!!!

Part of the problem is we have CEOs of the NRL who don't know rugba league & listen to idiots like Andrew Johns. These people don't know the history of the game & why rules were changed in the first place. I think if you are going to introduce a rule then you need to have a panel look at it to see how they would exploit it first - ex coaches & players.

I understand Coaches wanting to exploit things for their own benefit but usually it's not for the good of the game as a whole.

Interesting thing is we wouldn't have needed to speed things up if wrestling wasn't introduced. It was a blight on the game.
And there were easy measures to eradicate wrestling and speed up the game: Reduce the interchange to 6, 5 minute sin bins for repeated infringements, especially inside the 10, Get rid of scrums.. That's basically it. That would have solved their problem.

But instead they had to go overboard and change everything last minute which caught more than half the teams off guard and the players too. Rule changes like this should be made three or five years in advance and like you said be voted upon by the 16 clubs. But instead it was all ushered in last minute and only drastically favoured the top teams...
 

Shanked

U been Shanked
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
11,525
Reaction score
2,527
Think you could scrap half of those starting with 7 tackle restart
 
Top