Re: Our Game : Wed Aug 30, 2017 3:15 pm  

rubber duckie wrote:

S Grandad might have hit the nail on the head.
Players of skill is replaced by players if fitness.
Long gone are the days of old...The John Woods and the Kelly Shelfords.

Sadly you are correct.

It is all about completion rates, and 'dominating the ruck and the arm wrestle'. Maverick players and plays are out of the window and just not fit for purpose in the modern game.

Re: Our Game : Thu Aug 31, 2017 7:50 pm  

To reduce the number of tries from kicks in the air, how about incentivising running tries by awarding 5 points and say 3 points for a try where there has been a kick during that particular tackle. I for one am bored with kicks on the last tackle and the eternity taken by the VR deciding if it was/wasn't a try.

Re: Our Game : Fri Sep 01, 2017 9:25 am  

Create a new line thats 5m out from the try line, then if the defending side catches a kick (without the ball bouncing) behind said line (in the air or stood on the ground), they get a penalty on the half way line.

Re: Our Game : Fri Sep 01, 2017 9:44 am  

Seeing as a lot of kicks are necessary because a team are running out of options would a complete overhaul of the system be in order as so....1. Do away with 6 tackles altogether & have say 10 tackles to allow a team to do more with the ball in hand,2. reduce the ten metres at the ruck to suit something more like Saints,Wigan ,Leeds distances, 3.allow striking by the marker at ptb & 4. encouraging more aggressive defence to get the ball back. 5.disallow kicks intended to turn a team round to getting possession further back than their last tackle play which currently allows an attacking team to punish defensive effort.

[Winslade's Offload]

Re: Our Game : Fri Sep 01, 2017 9:53 am  

For me, the low quality games are due to fewer juniors playing the game at grass roots, leading to lower quality players coming through to SL. So rather than change the rules I would suggest that all SL clubs should be forced to spend 5% of their income in promoting / supporting local clubs in their area. If they can't afford it, then they drop into the Championship.

Unless we turn around the decline in playing numbers we will eventually cease to exist.

[Fantastic Mr Catpiss]

Re: Our Game : Fri Sep 01, 2017 10:05 am  

ninearches wrote:

Seeing as a lot of kicks are necessary because a team are running out of options would a complete overhaul of the system be in order as so....1. Do away with 6 tackles altogether & have say 10 tackles to allow a team to do more with the ball in hand,2. reduce the ten metres at the ruck to suit something more like Saints,Wigan ,Leeds distances, 3.allow striking by the marker at ptb & 4. encouraging more aggressive defence to get the ball back. 5.disallow kicks intended to turn a team round to getting possession further back than their last tackle play which currently allows an attacking team to punish defensive effort.

i'd welcome striking at the ptb returning, it would encourage tackles to get up and off and not mess about as much in the ruck, and it would make ppl in possession play the ball properly with the foot, because of the danger of losing possession

Re: Our Game : Fri Sep 01, 2017 12:52 pm  

The marquee player allowance.

Scrap it and raise the cap.

We don't want the best and brightest leaving the league. But RU and the NRL can offer more money (and prestige).

The cap is designed to keep things financially on a relatively level playing field. But as not all clubs are operating at or near to the cap, the financial playing field is currently not level anyway, regardless of the cap.

Want more excitement and box office players? Let the big clubs spend their money, to bring in (and keep) quality players into the league.

The marquee player rule doesn't work. There are probably fewer than 5 marquee players in SL, of an available 24 slots.

The signing of Tomkins and Sandow show how it should work. But both clubs could probably have signed those players regardless of the marquee rule. Tomkins wanted to come home, and Sandow was in exile. It just gave the players more licence to demand more money, as they knew any more they asked for didn't count towards the cap. It put the clubs in a worse negotiating position, most likely costing them more than if the rule didn't exist.

George Williams is not a marquee player. Wigan had to use their one remaining slot to keep a young player with potential. They've kept an existing player, who again was in a strong bargaining position due to the vacant slot, who's cost them a lot more in wages than if the marquee slots didn't exist. They're actually worse off for it.

I think you'll see those slots being used by the big clubs more to juggle more cap room anyway by adding their current players in order to take part of their existing wage off the cap, rather than being used to attract top talent to the league.

I'm yet to see the marquee rule make a real difference to the players in or out.

Raise the cap, scrap marquee, allow clubs to pay top players their market value - given the "market" contains two other leagues that can pay bang average players far more.

Re: Our Game : Fri Sep 01, 2017 1:48 pm  

I think there is a danger that a so called marquee player can cause resentment within any team. To be respected as earning his extra money a marquee player needs to put in the appropriate stint each & every week & to prove he is worth every penny.
As for 24 possible marquee spots available, i doubt there are anywhere near enough quality players worthy of that mantle.

Re: Our Game : Fri Sep 01, 2017 1:58 pm  

Winslade's Offload wrote:

For me, the low quality games are due to fewer juniors playing the game at grass roots, leading to lower quality players coming through to SL. So rather than change the rules I would suggest that all SL clubs should be forced to spend 5% of their income in promoting / supporting local clubs in their area. If they can't afford it, then they drop into the Championship.

Unless we turn around the decline in playing numbers we will eventually cease to exist.

I think grassroots youngsters are the way forward Charlie providing there is a full network to promote & support the lads through to open age level. I don't know whether schools still promote sport these days or is it still frowned upon as persecuting the less physically competitive ?

Re: Our Game : Fri Sep 01, 2017 3:01 pm  

Seeing as

1) We have had clubs go into administration with the salary cap in place (defeats financial argument)
2) Only 4 teams have won the GF with the salary cap in place (defeats competition levelling argument)

Is there an argument for removing it completely. If that means that realistically only Wire, Leeds, Hull, Wigan, Saints, Salford can spend big - so be it.

The benefits would be attracting higher calibre players "stars" from the NRL and raising the quality of games. Presently all teams are being levelled downwards.