Problems & Solutions - Part Two

The code needs to expand internationally but it has developed into a game that is about big men. It wasn’t always that way. Even a few decades ago, it had both big and small players. Things changed as new rules kept favouring size. Now, unless a team has some huge forwards, it’s all but impossible to compete. It’s especially noticeable at the international level.

Another issue is player safety and welfare. General injuries due to higher collision impact Are an issue but very importantly head knocks and concussion. The body can only take so much and eventually, bodies or brain tissue suffers. Ten-metre defensive lines and repeated rotational interchange are two rules that have had that effect.

We need a solution and I'd like to put one forward. It’s somewhat radical but each change is designed to mitigate the problems I’ve raised which retaining the essence of what makes it such a great spectator game.

Change One. Rotational interchange needs to end. When a player leaves the field, he cannot return. Three to four players on the bench maximum.

Effect. Teams will hold back interchange too late in the game to provide cover for injuries. Once the bench has been used, there are no more replacements.

Benefit. Fatigue will play a role, especially for bigger players. This will encourage more small, nippy types to be used.

Change Two. Return to five-metre defensive lines.

Effect. It will make attacking players stand deeper and spread the ball wider. The game will be more expansive instead of too much middle third stuff.

Benefit. Reduced impact in tackles.

Change Three. Unlimited tackle while a team is in possessions in its own quarter. Once a player is tackled outside that, the referee calls six tackles. Then regardless of where future tackles take place, they have the six tackles.

Effect. With only five metre defensive lines, it would hard for a team near its try line to make much progress upfield apart from kicking. If the attacking team wanted the ball back (if behind on the scoreboard), they may even not press too hard on the attack to get their opponents out of their quarter. Or there could be a limit of two defenders per tackle until the count restarts.

Benefit. Getting away from your try line with a five-metre defensive would be almost impossible and lead to a side constantly defending. This rule would give the defending team a chance, evening the game up.

Change Four. If a ball-carrying player is forced into touch, it counts as one tackle. The player comes in five metres and plays the ball.

Effect. Spreading the ball wider and flirting with the touching will be encouraged.

Benefit. More expansive game.

Change Five. The team conceding points retains the ball by being given a tap the ball to restart the game on their quarter line (or halfway line).

Effect. It will give the team conceding the chance to reply.

Benefit. Reduce the effect of momentum and score blowouts.

Summary. These rule changes are designed for player welfare and broader inclusiveness regarding body size. They will also bring in the fatigue factor, making the game more open as it progressed. It would hopefully even up teams and allow lesser international sides be a bit more competitive.

Problems & Solutions - Part One

About the only thing growing in RL is female participation

All aspects of life are constantly changing and only those prepared to adapt have any hope of survival. Sport is no different. Rugby league has always been a code that innovates. It can and has to for the same reason, it's a small sport.

The changes that have been implemented were to enhance the two professional competitions (NRL & SL). They provide the income and run the game so it's basically all about them. A few expansionists have dreams of taking a great product further, but the conflict of interest between looking after the NRL and SL as opposed to funding the game's international growth has always had the latter underfunded. Any increase in revenue the pro comps receive is given to the clubs to spend on player wages.

This operational model has been badly exposed by the coronavirus. With no financial cushion to cover it, the sport almost immediately went with cap in hand to the government for assistance. Unless RL changes how it operates, I'd call it throwing good money after bad. In other words, the whole sport of RL is irresponsibly run.

The only solution to this is player wages have to be less than the current percentage of earnings so that some of the money generated is set aside for a rainy day, plus some pumped into the international game to expand it. In the long run, this will create more income for the sport but the shortsighted attitude that now exists ultimately limits what the game could become and therefore earn. Self-centred policy coming home to roost.

Unless those controlling the purse strings wish to change, the sport will meander along, at best surviving as it is and at worst shrinking to even lesser relevance than now.

Part two will look at rule changes.