Some interesting ideas bob up to in attempt to improve rugby league but today there was a report about one of the worst. Reducing the number of players to 11 a side. The idea is to open the game and promote attack.
More attack leading to presumably higher scores is not evolution. The idea seems borne of some bizarre marketing idea. Number of points scored is not an indicator of the quality of the game. In fact a large number of points in a league game by both teams can indicate a poor quality game. It must be noted that in the modern game a 12 or even 18 point break in the score is not insurmountable early in the game.
There are some concerns regarding the over reliance on dummy half play. One suggestion it to allow the markers to split and thus force teams to go wide with the ball. Also the knock on rule should be simplified to state that if any attacking player propels the ball forward (other than a kick) off their body it is a knock on – even if unintentional.
But reducing the number of players to 11 is just dumb. Attack should not be seen as more exciting nor important as defense. Points should by earned using skill and creativity to get around the defensive line and not by reducing the numbers of players to artificially promote attacking football.
4 responses so far ↓
Fabian Dal Santo // Nov 16, 2006 at 7:34 am
It may be a dumb idea to you, but it’s totally in keeping with the Australian attitude.
1. Soccer is always lambasted as too low scoring. “If only they got rid of the goalkeeper and they scored more I might watch it” is a common response amongst people I know.
2. The only nationally named sport we have (Australian Rules Football) has ridiculously high scores which everyone seems totally ok with. I mean you even get a consolation point for being a loser and missing the main goal posts.
I don’t agree with the reduction from 13 to 11, and I certainly don’t agree with the complaints about soccer, but you can see where the thinking came from. It seems to be a prevalent attitude in our country that more scoring is automatically better.
Makes you wonder why basketball isn’t more popular…
Patrick // Nov 16, 2006 at 7:57 am
I think it is a poor idea as well – if that is what they want they should just buy the Rugby World Sevens!!
Seriously, they’ll need 11 interchanges if they play 80 minutes like that.
Rafe // Nov 16, 2006 at 8:30 pm
It is a silly idea because some of the most engrossing games had very low scorelines, like the 1984, 85 and 86 grand finals.
84 Canterbury 6 Parra 4
85 Canterbury 7 St George 6
86 Parra 4 Canterbury 4
Rafe // Nov 16, 2006 at 8:31 pm
86 Parra 4 Canterbury 2