NRL Offer to SL

I'll try to make sense of where it is now.

UK Objective: UK's Super League needs help and the Australian Rugby League commission (ARLC) put itself forward as the deliverer. 

ARLC Objective: To strengthen the game of RL and take it to another level globally. 

Initial Offer: Approximately £6 million per season over five years. The Australian Rugby League Commission (ARLC) wants its stake in the Super League's commercial arm increasing 10% each year until they hold a 50% share. That gives the ARLC virtually all control of the game internationally.

UK perspective: They are pretty much giving up control for minimal gain from what they have already.

ARLC perspective: They are taking on something that isn't strong, so they're not offering much for it.

Possible outcome: Unless the offer is somewhat better, it isn't happeneing. I feel that initial comments by the ARLC would have given the UK SL/RFL hope of quite a bit more. The first offer now made may just be to lower UK expectations. 

Conclusion: The whole concept has merit but the ARLC's first offer isn't good enough. What is the ARLC's primary objective? I believe it is to increase the game's international profile and increase revenue. 

If the UK is an integral part of that, then maybe the ARLC has to accept that cutting a deal with SL needs to be done. The expansion of revenue in future won't be in Australia or the UK but new media deals elsewhere. The initial offer suggests the ARLC wants to take the game over in the UK with as little outlay as possible. For the game in the UK, giving up so much needs to have a bigger carrot. 

Rule Refinements

Rugby league administrators tweak rules to speed up the game and nullify tricks to slow it down. Some are also to ensure a level of protection for players. What are some problems I see and what rule changes would I implement accordingly?

Momentum Problem: Recent refinements such as "six again" have means a team with momentum in its favour are rewarded and more one sided scores are occuring as a result. Do those in charge not realise that people want to see closer encounters?

Possible Solution: The team that just conceded points restarts the game with a tap on the half way line. They retain possession and have a chance to put pressure on the opponent and take the momentum back. Soccer does this for that very reason.

Touchline Problem: A player with possession fearing being forced over the touchline. It reduces the attacking side using the full width of the field.

Possible Solution: If it isn't the last tackle, a player forced into touch is considered tackled and it adds one to the tackle count. The tackled player comes in ten metres and plays the ball. It would encourge touch line running which is exciting to watch.

Dragging Problem: Dragging a tackled player. 

Possible Solution: Pushing or forcing a ball carrying player back over his try line or into touch should be rewarded. Dragging gives too much reward to the attackers, forcing officials to sometimes blow the whistle to stop it. Why not just ban it?

Golden Point Problem: Golden point becomes an exercise in drop goal attempts. 

Possible Solution: Drop the golden point. Make it a set period of time instead (like soccer), thereby making one point less valuable. A second possibility is also to reduce the extra time players to say eleven. This would open up the game and encourage try scoring.

RL UK & Governance

I live a long way from the UK so maybe I don't understand the situation properly. It could also mean that I focus on the overall situation and don't get sidetracked by details. You decide. 

Those that are aware of RL in the UK understand that the code needs a broader spread of clubs and supporters. A successful London club is an important part of that. The idea that is sometimes floated is that the responsibility falls on the professional SL clubs to grow the game because it is in their long term interest to me seems idealistic. 

SL clubs are doing it tough with reduced media return etc. so that is where their finances go. The only ones likely to sustain a SL presence are those supported by benefactor owners putting in money to keep them viable. That is their primary focus. 

It's easy to talk about what clubs should do but to achieve anything meaningful will involve an ongoing cost so is it realistic to think that will happen? The notion that all the SL clubs will unite in a vision of pursuing the greater good of the game and will put up what's necessary to achieve anything like what's really needed doesn't seem realistic to me. 

So rather than wheel out it's in their best interest mantra, what the sport needs is a strong governing body in the UK. Perhaps that's why the governing body of the sport in Australia (the NRL) getting involved could shift the control of the sport to a neutral governing body overseeing it with the resources required to spread the game and let the clubs do what they are supposed to do, run successful clubs. 

If the game in the UK continues as it is, it will get what is getting and has been getting. RL in the UK needs a major overhaul of its governance and with that finances to help the code grow. Can I see that happening or retention of the status quo? Probably the latter.

RL; The Evolving Game

France took to RL c 1934 and by the outbreak of WW II, were a top international team. That couldn't happen today. Looking at some of the rules (many before my time) showed what a different game it was. I'm not a rules nerd but try to keep up. So as I see it:

After the war the game had zero to five yard defensive lines, depending on rule changes over time. No replacements became two for injuries. There was no limit on tackles, you only lost possession for rule breaches. The game was slower, the impacts less intense.

Over the years ten metre defensive lines, limited tackle, four rotating replacements, six again calls. The game is super fast, players need to be fit, muscled and think very quickly. It works in a pro comp but doesn't work when sides are mismatched as evidenced in WC internationals. Pitting full time athletes against part time and amateur players is producing one sided score lines and few if any upsets. 

The solution: In horse racing they have a handicap system but I can't see that being adopted in RL. So I'd propose two WC divisions, each of eight teams with promotion / relegation between them. Putting Jamaica up against NZ or Greece against Samoa isn't right.

Summary: RL rules have evolved over time to suit a pro comp. They are then used in internationals but they are not designed for such uneven playing rosters. Even a moderate difference in standard can quickly blow out a to huge, lopsided score line. The WC was once played by fewer sides with closer matches. The desire to bring more teams in like other codes is good, but it doesn't work in a game which rewards superiority to an extreme degree. 

IMG Proposals

Rugby League in the UK recently entered into a 12 year strategic partnership with IMG to improve the overall management of the code. Some of their just released proposals are as below.

1) Pro clubs to be assessed and ranked. 'A' grade clubs guaranteed elite status provided they meet certain criteria. This would include both on and off field standards. 'B' clubs would be subject to promotion and relegation. Gradings would be monitored and could change.

The rationale being investors will be assured that putting money into the club will not be a risky venture provided they follow the guidelines to gain and retain 'A' grade status. Ranking: A qualified yes.

2) Continuation of second and third divisions, with promotion and relegation between them. Ranking: Yes.

3) The name Super League to be replaced. Seeing as it is used in many other sports, it's too generic. Ranking: Yes.

4) Spreading awareness of the game more evenly across the country, particularly aiming at London. Ranking: Yes but good luck with that one.

5) A reduction of club matches per season. The end of loop fixtures (some teams playing three times) and Magic Weekend. The first is a must, the second surprising. Ranking: A yes and a maybe.

6) A better intergration of domestic and international matches. Ranking: Yes.

7) Emphasis on the female part of the game. Ranking: Yes.

8) The number of overseas clubs to be capped. Understandable if the priority is growing the sport in the UK. However, surely an overseas quota would expand depending on what the objectives would be in any time. Ranking: A qualified yes.

9) A better planned calendar with more centralised systems to improve efficiency and revenue. Ranking: Yes.

10) The existing fan base being an essential part of the growth strategy. Ranking: Yes.

Summary: I think the ideas are good. Executing some of them will be plain sailing, others plenty of work. This is a world of constant - and at times hard to justify - change. I don't see this as change for the sake of it. RL in the UK needs to do better in so many ways. 

It's a start and like any initiative to take an organisation forward, the journey cannot be in a straight line. Flexibility will be needed and IMG knows that. Overall Ranking: Yes.

An Inconvenient Truth

The sort of thing I want to be celebrating, not the infighting. The grand final
between Villeneuve and Toulouse, 1964. Picture André Cros. 

I started this site to celebrate RL, a sport specialising in self-harm. What was I thinking? I stopped reporting on the NRL after the administrators within Australia undermined the 2021 World Cup to the point that it could not proceed.

Two teams based in France next year is surely a good news story for the sport. A grand final appearance for the current French based side and a nail biting match to savour. The owner comes out with angry comments about how his team was robbed by the arbitration. It provoked a lot of negative talk about the refereeing to the detriment of the spectacle. 

It seems the sport can always find new ways to shoot itself in the foot. For years French RL has been dragged down by infighting and squabbling and I see that this mentality will be a huge negative factor moving forward. As the game in France is helped to prosper, some within the game in France will find ways to undermine any positivity that would otherwise be gained by this progress. Those with this mentality surely need to reevaluate what motivates them to be so negative. Enjoy life. Enjoy your pasttimes.

RL Govenance

As I understand it, in the UK there is the SL pro comp and the RFL which is the governing body. SL seems to have more influence than is desirable and the RFL has over time has had its wings clipped to facilitate this shift in power.

In Australia, there is the NRL, which is the pro comp and the ARL Commission which is the governing body. The NRL is now a brand that exists to identify a competition, not a body operating independently like SL does in the UK.

For the international scene, there is the umbrella IRL with the RLEF and Asia-Pacific RLC which look after the two hemispheres. These bodies have to appease those with the whip hand to get anything done, which is generally not very much.

With FIFA, they run their game, no misunderstanding. If they say there's going to be a round of friendly internationals, there is a break in fixtures and the pro clubs have to accept that. There's no doubt the World Rugby Board runs their game and clubs release players for internationals. They understand the need for the international game to flourish.

In RL, the clubs come out with comments that players won't be released for international games or they are unhappy with pre-season training disruption, etc. Of course, to expect pro-clubs to relish the extra games is unrealistic, but I see a conflict between those who believe the code needs a stronger international calendar and clubs worrying about how it affects them. You'd never ask a turkey to set the menu for a Christmas dinner so pro-clubs will always consider what's in their interests.

Part of the problem is the game is tough in bodies yet TV deals involve long seasons, too long already. Yet to maximise TV revenue, they agree. Squeezing in internationals then becomes problematic. Shorter pro seasons would be ideal and allow the international game to get a fair go. However, long season TV deals are set by clubs so those responsible for promoting the international scene have little to no leeway. 

It leaves me wondering who really governs this game? The role of a national sporting organisation is first and foremost to promote their domestic game. That is their priority, their responsibility. However, their having the role of leading the game, then self interest will override doing what’s best for the whole. The most powerful body in any successful sport will have no vested interest in a particular country. I can't see the IRL being handed the funds and authority to make decisions for everyone.  

RL doesn't have an independent leading body and in reality, never will. The current situation leads to parochial decision making which is poor governance. Poor governance leads to poor results, no matter how good the product is. With the governance issue as it is, RL will do well to maintain the status quo, nothing more, possibly less. To expect otherwise is unrealistic. It's the situation and acceptance of that is what is required.

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.

The Future of Contact Sport

We live in a world where safety and care have become major issues. I have no problem with that as we only get one body and it's too precious to unnecessarily damage. Contact sport is on a collision course with safety concerns. What can it do about it?

Rugby league is a contact sport and the impacts have become more intense as years have passed. Awareness of concussion is growing but is still not that well understood. The more we learn, the more sobering it becomes. So what can a sport like RL do?

Rotational interchange: Four players rotated through a game, coaches usually fill the bench with big forwards. They run very hard and are substituted when they get tired so they can come back after resting full of hard running.

Sounds fine in theory but with ten metre defensive lines and huge forwards repeatedly hitting the defenders is putting bodies through prolonged heavy impacts. The jarring accompanying this is especially tough on the brain. 

Conclusion: When a player is taken from the field, that should end his participation in the match. Players would then have to pace themselves and not hurl themselves around to the same degree. This in conjunction with the next point would reduce impact and brain damage.  

*******

Defensive line: Bringing back the defence from ten to five metres would mean the velocity at a tackle would be much lower. That would reduce the risk of trauma to the brain. However, any impact has some risk so it wouldn't eliminate the problem but certainly reduce the amount of potential damage.

Conclusion: Surely this measure needs serious consideration. A five metre defense is how the game was played for most of its history anyway.

********

Managing Tackling: Years ago, tackling around the legs was the main emphasis. As players became adept at offloading, wrapping up the ball in the tackle became the preferred way. That meant the tackle was aimed higher up the body and therefore more likely to end up around the head.

A defender getting his head in the wrong position in a tackle is another issue. Players will get tackles wrong occasionally. With a five metre defensive line, the impact from a misjudged tackle is reduced.

Conclusion: Tackling is an intrinsic part of the game that people enjoy. It has to involve impact and that has risk. Reducing the impact will reduce the damage that can be done.

********

Shorter Seasons: Short breaks between seasons give the body little chance to recover. Long seasons have been driven by TV companies wanting more content and maximising financial gain for the sport. Players get more money but that is soon forgotten after their playing days and they are suffering for the toll the sport took on their bodies. 

Conclusion: When money rules, people ultimately suffer one way or another. Would players accept less pay if it gave their bodies a longer break each year? Probably not but sometimes people need protection from themselves.

********

Keeping the game exciting: There is no doubt that a reduced distance between attackers and defenders would change the game. Going up the middle with big forwards would have less effect. Spreading the game wider across the field would become more likely, as attacks look for defensive weaknesses. Some suggestions.

1) Reducing the number of players by one even would open up the game more.

2) When a player is replaced he cannot come back later. With say just four replacements for a match including replacements for injuries, replacements would be used late in the game as seen in soccer. Again, creating fatigue which would open up the game.

3) When a team spreads the ball wide and the attacking player is forced into touch, it counts as one of the six tackles, the player forced out of play comes in ten metres and plays the ball unless it's tackle six when it becomes a turnover. This would encourage a wider, expansive approach.

Conclusion: People watch sport to be entertained but injuries have to minimised. Doing both is achievable but many angles need to be covered to maintain the excitement and improve safety as well.

********

Summary: Contact sport needs to act swiftly to address safety issues. They need to be proactive, showing concerns around concussion and other serious injuries are being addressed. It would create the need for creative rule changes and tweaks to retain the excitement. I certainly don't have all the answers and maybe no one has, but doing nothing is not an option.

Does RL Deal Properly With Thugs?

I played the game and certainly enjoyed the physicality of it, as long as it was within the rules. Wanting to hurt opponents isn't sportsmanship. Late hits, swinging arms and the like have no place in the game. Someone forgot to tell Robert Hicks, the UK match official for the Wigan (UK) and Syndey Roosters (NRL) World Club Challenge.

Jared Waerea-Hargreaves from the Roosters decided to hit a player late and then immediately went hunting for another player on the ground to try connect with a swinging arm, just in case anyone thought the first thuggish act gave him pause for regret.

The official should have at least sent him to the sin bin but chose not to. Perhaps he didn't want to be seen as favouring the home side. True, the perpetrator may have a case to answer later but the closer punishment is handed out to the offence, the more impact it has. The wishy washy option of putting everything on report is breathtaking in its ineptness. Foul play can be cited later regardless, so it is unnecessary. It allows a thug to stay on the field when he should be cooling down off the field.

There is another player in the same Roosters team who seems to have the knack of seriously injuring opponents, Dylan Napa. A coach has a responsibility to reign in aggression that goes beyond the rules and risks injuries that could have repercussions to that person's health, be it short or long term. On that issue coach Trent Robinson has failed miserably. The Sydney Roosters in my opinion the dirtiest team in RL.

The sport is often vilified for off field behaviour which is trumped up by a media intent on smearing the game. I take no interest in that, nor is it my business. Tacky journalism is off my radar. I am however wanting to see on field action taken against thuggish players. There are only a few of them but one is one too many. Giving them the feeling that they can get away lightly (or altogether) with it isn't good enough.

Trouble At Mill?

The above phrase is North English in origin, suitable as RL is basically a North English sport. It goes back to the mill factories in the area and how there were disputes between workers and owners. The lives of poor workers revolved around the mill and trouble there could affect their lives in a major way.

Fast forward to 2018 and with regard to UK RL, there could be trouble at t' mill again. A brief background. A few years back, a new format was introduced where two thirds of the way through a season the two professional/semi-pro leagues became three. It had mixed reviews as to its success.

More recently there has also been a shift in power as the professional clubs have taken control of decision making for themselves at the expense of the game's overall authority, the RFL. However, before the trouble an oveview of the present system.

Overview:

The top eight sides from the top division continue for another 7 weeks. That later becomes a top four, who go for the grand final victory.

The bottom four from the top division join the top four from the second division, becoming the middle eights. The top four from this group go into the top flight the following season and the bottom four move into the second division.

A lower eight from the second division play on to win that group, the bottom team relegated and the second to bottom in a playoff match.

Situation:

The problem I feel with the top eights is the teams carries over points from the league. That means little changes as it is too much to ask teams with fewer points to overhaul teams that have performed better all season up until then. It becomes a procession, waiting for the final four playoffs.

The middle eights are exciting as anything from none to four teams can be promoted or relegated. In reality at best only one side in a season swaps places with a team above. However, it gets teams in the first division rattled and nervous with the uncertainty. It gives much hope to teams wanting promotion, so a two edged sword.

The lower eights are somewhat depreciated with the best sides moving into the middle eights and it doesn't garner too much excitement.

Development: An announcement has been made by the newly appointed chief executive of the first division Super League that the system will revert to not having a dividing of teams into three playoff divisions and that there will be one team up, one down between div 1 and div 2 without a playoff match required.

Also, in such a physical game, an opportunity has opened up for less matches per season, which would be kinder on battered bodies. Unfortunately, it seems a long season will still exist, perhaps to give the TV paymasters a longer season of games. The same TV people who buy all the games in the UK, yet show so few each week.

Trouble at mill: The problem is one chief executive of a SL club has come out immediately after the above mentioned official SL announcement and said some pro clubs are enforcing their new found power. They are coming out with their new scheme that hasn't been agreed to by everyone. A statement from the Leeds club as quoted from the BBC:

"Today's announcement regarding plans for next season appear to be an absurd grab for power for the game by a small group of men who think they own the game. Leeds Rhinos are not party to this and are totally against the creation of a separate Super League executive".

Summary: This sort of thing goes on in governing bodies but RL manages to play it out in public. I have no problem with that as we all know power produces this sort of behaviour, although not a good look in a pc world. What we see is SL clubs marginalising the governing body (RFL) and key players in SL having a lobby group that is now getting what they want, without sufficient dialogue with all stakeholders.

The fact is the professional SL is the pinnacle of the RL system and generates the money. It wants to use that position to run things its way and the rest of the sport has to follow. Even a minority within SL who disagree will have to yield to their wishes.

The risk is vested interests will prevail at the expense of the overall good for the game. If SL has sufficient pragmatism to protect the game as a whole, then no need for concern. If self interest is the over riding mentality, the game below the top level will suffer. Time will tell. Indeed, trouble at t'mill.

A Duty Of Care

Duty of care: A moral or legal obligation to ensure the safety or well-being of others.

RL has to provide that. It cannot stop over aggressive behaviour taking place but it can and must act decisively against it. The brain for example is a very important, but also fragile, part of our body. It was never designed to take the impacts contact sport delivers.

I was watching the highlights of a RL game in the NRL today and several incidents stood out. One defensive player was flattened when he got his head in a poor position, but the ball carrier didn't help matters by driving his hip against the defender's head. Player taken off and took no further part. It happens but brain injury material.

A little later a player is hit hard from behind after passing the ball. No injury but that sort of hit creates a whiplash effect. It's unnecessary as the tackler would have known from the body language of the other player he was too late to stop the pass. The same thing happened again, only this time the intent and impact was much harder and the defender stayed down. A penalty ensued and the incident put on report.

Then a player leads into a tackle with his head rammed into someone's face without arms being used and then two swinging arms followed. They didn't connect as the victim had been poleaxed already. The action wasn't a head clash but using the head as a missile. This led to the aggressive player being sent from the field. It also contributed to his side losing in the dying minutes of the game.

The player concerned is one of the dirtiest players around, trying to play the tough guy. He showed no remorse after the impact and seeing a player lying prone. His coach - who's team is a disgrace - felt no action should have been taken on the field at all. Outrageous.

Sadly the NRL has decided no further action will be taken retrospectively. What kind of message is that sending out? If I want to watch thuggish violence, I'll watch cage boxing or the like. For RL I want to see skill. Sure, it's an impact game and as player in my youth I didn't flinch at tough, fair play. However, not the sort of play when a man thinks he's the 'big man' if he injures others.

These impacts I've highlighted above all affected the brain of the hit player in some way. It's a precious organ and repeated damage to it will have an effect at sometime, probably after retiring. Is the NRL doing enough to protect the innocent from the testosterone fueled he-man who wants to play the tough guy, seeking to intimidate and hurt others?

In the future at some time, lawyers will form some sort of class action suit and use footage of the above game (and many others) to show that dangerous play was going on. Then the leniency shown by the judiciary will also be exposed. Brain damage is permanent as it results in cells being killed. That cannot be fixed by court action but the heafty payout the victims deserve will come back to bite the NRL. They have a duty of care but failing in this regard will be a costly exercise somewhere down the line.

Old Fashioned RL Scrums

There used to be a scrum that were contested in the sense the ball had to be fed down the middle of the tunnel between the the two sets of forwards. The hookers dangled from the front row ready to strike as the ball left the halfback's hands. All sorts of gamesmanship was involved.

It slowed the game down to the point it was a blight on the action packed game that it was supposed to be. The rule makers stepped in and effectively turned the scrum into a means of restarting the game but nothing more. It does take twelve players out of action for a brief time, which on occasions helps the side that wins the ball from the scrum.

Rules of sport are like tax laws. They have to keep changing to clamp down on those who want work outside the spirit of the law. It's to stop people who want on unfair advantage for their own benefit and don't care about the overall good compliance with said laws brings.

Adding Variety To RL

Is there an issue with RL fans turning off the game? Crowd numbers have grown for many years but of late a small falling off is taking place in the UK. I don't think the same teams winning is a problem. Compared to Soccer in most European countries, RL has no more of an issue (less in many cases) and Soccer has no problem with supporters turning up.

One difference is a in lower scoring game, a team of lesser quality can get a draw or nick a win against the run of play. The modern game of RL rewards the better side but that creates predictability and sport thrives on the opposite. What RL also has in SL is just 12 teams, possibly whittled down to ten soon. Most Soccer comps have 18 to 20 teams the same teams meeting happens less often. So seeing the same teams playing too often - with a likely outcome - isn't ideal. So what could help?

A few suggestions to possibly help:

1) Reducing the number of interchanges allowed in a game.

Adds fatigue later in the game that should create unpredictability.

2) When a ball carrying player is taken into touch, it counts as one tackle. Only on the last tackle it would count as a change over of possession. Either way, the ball is taken five metres in from touch and played.

Encourage players to chance their arm wider out and bring centres back into the game more.

A bit more radical:

3) Return to 5 metre defensive lines.

Attacking sides would have to stand a little deeper and go wider. Easy metres from dummy half would be harder to gain.

4) Reduce the playing number to 12 per side.

It could encourage more old fashioned ball playing skills with slightly more space in the defensive line.

5) Aim for 14 SL teams asap, with a goal to add more later.

The better Championship sides shows that talent is there. Talk of watering down standards is a red herring to me. People go to be entertained. If the games are open, less predictable, and have more variety with opponents fans will enjoy. More off shore teams will help with revenue streams so the money to each team isn't reduced. Earnest efforts to grow the media take and not have all the eggs in the Sky basket. If Sky walks away, diversifying will mitigate the problem or make it irrelevant.

Summary:

The above suggestions used in tandem would be interesting to see how it would make the games less predictable.

Pressure On Referees

It's too easy to blame the official in the middle for issues in the game. RL is no exception. I hear so many saying that the referee cost the team the game or that the match didn't flow due to the way it was managed. So who's to blame?

Problems:

1) The decisions favoured one side. The person with the whistle is scrutinised by cameras that catch every angle while he/she gets one look in real time. Vision can be obscured and even replays on TV can be inconclusive so they have a difficult job.

A referee that allows personal feeling to shape a result would be rare, if non-existent. If the official has a way of judging situations that doesn't go with a particular team's style, it could give the impression of favourtism. However, refs will tell you they are objective and I believe them.

2) The game didn't flow. If teams push the boundaries of the rules to try and get an advantage and they are penalised accordingly, that is the teams fault, not the official. They are instructed by their coaches to try and disrupt the opponents game, usually by slowing down the play the ball.

3) The play the ball area is a mess. Many fans for some reason blame the official for this. Hello? Taking too long to get off the tackled player is the player's problem. A tackled player getting up slowly while staring at the referee is the player's fault.

Solutions:

1) The decisions favoured one side. In any given match, 50/50 decisions will favour one side but over the course of a season, they will level out.

2) The game didn't flow. I know, why not try sportsmanship? You know, that word that once meant something but today no one knows the meaning of.

3) The play the ball area is a mess. This is because fast play the balls - catching out retreating defenses - is a vital tactic to taking control. Players on the receiving end then try to slow this down. The poor official has to try balance the two conflicting efforts and is blamed for the ensuing mess that often occurs.

This needs to be looked at through the rules of the game. It's certainly not the referees fault.

Summary: These people do a fine job, trying to be fair while under constant pressure to deliver precise and accurate decisions in a high speed sporting environment. If you think they are useless, join ranks their ranks and see how you get on.

Ideas For Improving RL

Games need to evolve otherwise they can become predictable and less interesting. I find RL can be at times too much drive up the middle with big forwards. How could that be modified to give more variety?

Minimal change: This would involve a player forced of the pitch along the sideline. Currently that means loss of possession. It encourages teams to stay away from the touchline unless there is a clear defensive deficiency on a particular flank. The change would mean that when a player goes out, it counts as one tackle and the play the ball would be made either five or ten metres infield.

Result. Teams would not be penalised when spreading the ball wide and getting forced out. On the fifth tackle they would lose possession as now but otherwise they could continue with their attack. The game would see more of the field used more often.

Caveat. I can't see a down side to this.

Major change: This would be going back to the five metre defense rather than the current ten metre one. The ten metre gives the big boys more time to wind up and hit the defensive line with greater impact. The attacking side makes plenty of ground by that one dimensional play. It requires high fitness levels as defenses have to run back and forth up to ten metres each set. Less fit amateurs and semi pros cannot keep that up when playing full professional players. It also rewards teams with big, fast players.

Result. Attacking teams would have to have a deeper formation. Passing the ball wider as going up the middle would be less advantageous. Then coupled with the rule above, not such a problem with being forced out. It would mean lower scores and less blow outs of the scoreline. At World Cups for example, the one sided scorelines that blighted the 2017 edition would have been mitigated.

Caveat. Would fans dislike the tighter matches, with less scoring and more emphasis on kicking down field to make yardage? The ease that attacking teams can march down the field would be reduced. I think that's good but some may not.

Summary: The first rule is a no-brainer to me. The second would need trialing to see how it panned out. Coaches would have to rethink strategies big time. I'd like to see them tried at the very least. I hope policy makers read my blog.

2017: In Review

A busy year of RL has passed by. What has the year achieved as far as the code is concerned?

World Cup Year.

The Good: The number of top tier nations grew as some players who normally turn out for the strongest nations instead took advantage of birth or heritage connections to switch allegiance. This lead to improved knock out matches that were much closer than last time.

The Bad: Nations that relied less on heritage players didn't fare nearly as well and this led to some pool games that were lopsided. The Australian public didn't turn out like they should for such an event (no real surprise there) and the assigning of where games were played was seemingly designed to add to that problem.

Internationals.

The Good: There were so many more of them. New nations are taking up the game and wanting to play other countries. Some of the initiatives have been most impressive.

The Bad: The RLIF has limited resources and some of the countries coming to the game may fold as quickly as they arrived without support.

Governance.

The Good: Within Europe much effort and money is being spent developing coaching and officiating standards, funded by government and well utilised by the RLEF.

The Bad: The most powerful group within the game now seems to be the professional clubs in Australia. They will look after themselves (very human and very Australian) so that development is a concern.

Professional development.

The Good: North America offers so much and there are people who are keen to start up teams to play (initially at least) in Europe. The money and player opportunities are huge, but it needs managing carefully.

The Bad: The lack of any expansion or vision within the professional scene in Australasia for some years now continued unabated. It relies on its existing popularity but isn't growing as it should be.

Summary. While the good and bad may appear about even, in terms of the points raised, overall there is more good than bad going on...for now. The lack of funds to expand and at times the lack of will by those with the most power is a concern. The Southern Hemisphere is where RL is strongest but the Northern Hemisphere is where the most exciting potential is. It's up to NH RL to make sure the staid, self absorbed SH doesn't hold it back.

The RL Farce

USA has won the rights to co-host the RL WC in 2015. The organiser wanted to have a game in Denver, Colorado, USA in an international window in mid 2018. The game was to be between England and New Zealand, with a substantial sum of money for each team. Most of the players are involved with the Australian NRL competition but as it is two weeks between games, that was not seen as a problem.

It would be an excellent opportunity for the promotor to start building interest in a sport that the USA knows nothing about. It's being fully underwritten by the organiser and money paid out to the teams. It's exposing the USA to a new sport. Sounds a no-brainer, right?

However, the pro clubs in Australia don't want any of their players to go and in effect are killing the fixture. They will sanction a game played in Sydney. The NRL clubs are dictating who can play internationals and where they are played. It's reached a point where if the NRL competition says jump, the rest of the RL world jumps. The tail is wagging the dog!

In Soccer they have international windows. It may involve friendly games in South America, Africa, Asia etc. Clubs in Europe who have paid huge sums for these top players release them. If any come back injured, the clubs accept it. Jet lag? Whatever. Why? Because the big European competitions don’t run Soccer, FIFA does. When FIFA says jump, they jump. If RL wants to learn from the most successful sport in the world, then maybe RL will stop being the tiny sport that it is.

The current situation is Australia runs RL internationally with both England and NZ kowtowing to them because it financially advantageous. RL around the rest of the world is largely ignored, with lip service paid to growing the world game. Only with an international body with power above individual nations will international RL have any hope of growing. The NRL, SL and any national body must accept the international body as the leader of the the game. They cannot dictate to the RLIF, it's has to be the other way round. What a farce!

RL's Strength It's Weakness

Canada's Toronto Wolfpack creating a stir in the UK.
Would they have been allowed into Australia's RL system?

A strength becomes a weakness when it makes us complacent. A weakness becomes a strength when we see it as such and keep working to improve it. How do those two qualities apply to RL? We shall see.

First up, the weakness. I see RL's biggest weakness it’s lack of international reach. The opportunity in NA is huge and has landed on RL's lap. There are risks in expansion but even bigger risks in simply maintaining the status quo. There is a realisation by many in RL of the need to take the bull by the horns and give it a go. As expansions go, this one is relatively risk free due.

Now for the first point. Where is RL's strength? Australia. Some years back, the game was expanding there, plans to take the game nationally were unfolding. After SL in Australia, the game retreated and expansion ignored. What I thought was regrouping proved to be prolonged inaction. The game in Australia still rides on its popularity but the mindset certainly isn't visionary anymore. The recent issue over a lucrative match in the US (I thought a no-brainer) risks being stymied by some clubs concerned about injuries. It would also be a good run for the 2025 WC organiser (behind this one off game) to test the waters. Australian clubs are not happy about it. If they say no, it doesn't happen.

A game that is run by introverted clubs in Australia deserves nothing more than to fail. Their strength is proving to be the game’s weakness. If Australia continues to dominate all decisions made in RL, it will hold the game back. There is no vision of growth in Australian RL. Opportunities to expand don't come along very often. Shortsighted self interest will keep RL in the backwaters. Australia is in my opinion RL's weakness, too self absorbed. Can RL overcome it's greatest weakness and take the game international? Time will tell.