Has Valandys ruined the game?

[the_third]

V'Landys should focus on the bush. AFL is taking over, and that is a real problem. Of course he has no idea about why that matters.

AFL has been paying schools to play, putting posts up and giving money for grounds for years, because they know why it matters.

Go west in NSW, and you start to see the influence it has had, go further west and there are more Qld supported than NSW for SOO.

He cant see the trees through the woods

 

[rustycage]

Lets be honest - V'Landys is pitching the game to Mums and 10 yr olds - the rest of us are dinosaurs in his eyes


its not a game for everyone to play

Thats good because fewer and fewer will want to

 

[the_third]

Lets be honest - V'Landys is pitching the game to Mums and 10 yr olds - the rest of us are dinosaurs in his eyes


its not a game for everyone to play


Thats good because fewer and fewer will want to

exactly - protecting heads and protecting the game can be done at once.

 

[rustycage]

Lets be honest - V'Landys is pitching the game to Mums and 10 yr olds - the rest of us are dinosaurs in his eyes


its not a game for everyone to play


Thats good because fewer and fewer will want to

exactly - protecting heads and protecting the game can be done at once.

We want a faster game, with bigger, better, more powerful athletes for greater collisions and fatigue to take effect. Then we want to penalise teams and clubs and fans for errors of judgement by fatigued players made in split seconds.

Makes sense.

 

[the_third]

Lets be honest - V'Landys is pitching the game to Mums and 10 yr olds - the rest of us are dinosaurs in his eyes


its not a game for everyone to play


Thats good because fewer and fewer will want to

exactly - protecting heads and protecting the game can be done at once.


We want a faster game, with bigger, better, more powerful athletes for greater collisions and fatigue to take effect. Then we want to penalise teams and clubs and fans for errors of judgement by fatigued players made in split seconds.

Makes sense.

completely. That will get the kids back for sure haha

 

[jirskyr]

6 again was good last year.
Not sure whats different this year why its blowing out, teams have just figured out better attacking structures i guess

I've been thinking about that a lot. I agree I thought the 6-again was a good introduction, for the reasons they introduced it: less stoppages, not let teams use penalties tactically, not give away a lot of field position for a ruck infringement.

On the latter, it was my feeling that touch-finding penalties were too severe for nonsense in the ruck, and it was always this tiresome debate about whether or not a player really did have their hand in the ruck or push on the PTB or similar rubbish.

My feeling is, without specific data to back it up, is there are several things going on.

Firstly, including offsides as 6-again has perhaps gone too far, because that's not a 50/50 or debatable penalty (in the way the ruck is).

Secondly, I think the refs are a little to trigger-happy on 6-against because of the lack of scrutiny. I don't actually know if they are blowing more 6-agains this year, and I wasn't particularly fussed about the recent "explanation" mechanism they started. But it seems to me that refs are less afraid to blow 6-again for minor indiscretions and they seem to have lost the knack for taking their hands off the wheel and letting the players control the outcome. That being said, I thought Origin I was well and restraintly reffed, and yet it was still a blow-out.

Thirdly this is the first "post-COVID" season and we may simply be seeing abnormal outputs in general, not just because of the rule changes, but because of societal / cultural impacts.

Fourthly, it may be that we are just having and odd year and things will settle down again in 2022. It may be that players adapt better to the new interpretations within a few years. A couple of cases in point; for example 2005 how Tigers won with flowing attacking football, but that was somewhat of an aberration rather than a new paradigm for attacking-focused teams. Then with the new interpretations for obstructions, you could fairly say that the past year or two on obstructions are not too bad, now that the "guidelines" are reasonably well known and both fans/media and players know what to expect. They are having the trouble right now with head-highs that they had when they first started to define obstruction parameters.

Lastly, it may be we are in a bad way with the overall quality of the sides. It's been a Top 4 for a few years now and much like tennis, there really hasn't been anyone properly step up to challenge those few best teams. The 6-agains may simply be showing how big the gulf currently is between best and "peloton".

 

[jirskyr]

Yes.
What other sport in the world changes rules and rule interpretations every year?

More to the point, what other sport is ALLOWED to change the rules and their interpretation so meekly. Where is the RLPA and, what do they stand for?

V'Landys is a dictator beholden to the vested interests of media bosses to provide a product that has no greater depth and meaning than MAFS or Farmer Wants a Root. He's trashed rugby league., as we knew it.

Well NRL can do what they please because the RLIF is comparatively weak. It's not true of FIFA or other global governing bodies.

The Americans can more or less do as they like with their codes as well.

 

[jirskyr]

80 points in the Manly v Titans game, 82 points in the Tigers v Storm game, blowout scores every weekend. Has Valandys and his rule changes ruined the game ?…he says he wants to introduce more entertainment in the game, I don’t think so. I preferred the tight close games of the past years….the current game has become glorified touch…


absolutely "the product" has ruined the game. V'Landys is the one who has done this.

It's a sport and a contest is the entertainment, a contest for the ball. Look at the NFL, they have a genuine contest for the ball on more plays than not, AFL, same thing.

When a comp is over 3-4 weeks in for most of the teams, he should address the bigger problems before he changed the rules for entertainment.

It needs to be thought of as a sport first, not entertainment. This is where he failed massively

What odds we have more changes coming next year.

Genuine contest for the ball in the NFL?


yes, well when its thrown and not run. It's a contest for the ball.

Not really, the average turnovers for game is 2.6. I hardly call that a contest for possession.


ok so they just run straight and the ball just gets passed to them?. Turnovers don't illustrate a contest for the ball.

Tell me where the contest for etc ball is in our game? ours is a game about errors and field position.

Even the Euros are better watching that the garbage we get served up every weekend

Turnovers include intercepts and fumbles, so there may appear to be a genuine contest for the ball, but in reality the defence is trying to disrupt the play and not gain possession.

All that doesn't really relate to what we are talking about anyway, just didn't think the NFL was a good example for a genuine contest for possession.

Rugby League hasn't had a contest for possession for 25 years, the new rules haven't changed that, just made it easier for the team with possession to keep the ball for longer.

Maybe we should go back to the unlimited tackle rule. 😉

You would need to allow striking in the ruck to get a genuine contest for possession.

Maybe they can put the ball in the middle of scrums again and have a genuine contest for the ball in the scrum as well. Then you would need real hookers rather than pseudo hookers.

Real hookers and real props.

The game has devolved to turnovers coming from errors. It really pisses me off to hear crowds cheering because someone has dropped the ball, or to see teams high-fiving because an opponent failed to play the ball properly (whoopee) . Apart from the strip, there is really no contest for the ball.

Both the scrum and the play-the-ball were once contests and I wouldn't mind to see that reinstated in our game.

Yep, I know, scrum penalties were a lottery. But let's face it, so are 6 agains.

Remember 1988 at Leichhardt Oval, Tigers kick the ball into touch 1 metre out from the tryline. Benny and his massive pack were a better than 55% chance of winning the ball against the head and feed. Tigers backline set for an attacking raid, defending team preparing for an onslaught, crowd going crazy with anticipation. If the Tigers win the scrum there's a sweeping backline move towards the opposite corner. If they lose the scrum, the opposition runs it out into a deep backline set to attack and launch their own raid against a desperately reorganising defence. Everyone in the crowd on their feet.
You can't tell me the game has gotten better.

Players have gotten better. It's no argument that there was some beautiful football in the 1980s and other decades, but modern footballers would stomp those old sides. You can't afford to be too adventurous in the modern game unless you are in a rich vein of form or you have earned your dominance.

The ball is also much much easier to shift by pass or kick than it used to be, by manufacture of the ball.

I challenge anyone, as I have done - go back to Kayo or youtube and try and sit through some old football matches, even the classic ones between good sides. Some very entertaining battles, some really really poor matches between the lesser sides. Usually very scrappy, often slow, often violent. You would not be able to get a modern professional footballer to play like that any more, they are too physically impressive, too well trained, too well paid.

 

[jirskyr]

Lets be honest - V'Landys is pitching the game to Mums and 10 yr olds - the rest of us are dinosaurs in his eyes


its not a game for everyone to play

Ah I think the point is he may be looking forward the next few decades for rugby league in Australia. It may be that the NRL doesn't really need to convince or retain the rusted-on league fans, they need to build their future fan and player base.

 

[jirskyr]

I reckon of everything I've heard the last 2 years, Tim Sheens may have had the best suggestion yet to be tried out - give the conceding side the ball after a try.

The 6-again was introduced to reduce stoppages and add fatigue, also reduce the fuss over ruck interpretations for the preference of keeping the game flowing. "Opening up" matches means points, and currently that seems to mean that one side piles on points whilst the other dies, rather than an even-share of attack.

V'Landys said himself that the rule may indeed be showing the gulf between good and bad sides, but he wasn't about to remove the rule simply because some teams weren't good enough to still compete. He wants the ordinary teams to learn to be as good as the good ones, rather than reinstating or maintaining rules that keep bad sides competitive.

And on that one he may be correct - if we repealed the 6-agains and suddenly the contests got tighter, that might make for improved viewing, but would it be hollow at all to know the bad sides got more competitive because they took a rule away? It may be that the teams will adjust in another season or two, like they always seem to do when some system or rule becomes periodically dominant.

I would argue if many teams, not just the dud ones, are battling to stem the tide of possession under current rules, but the rules were introduced with a specific intent, then if we consider Sheens' proposal, to let conceding sides take possession, then we remove the instant ability for a dominant side to roll down field set after set after set? You give the conceding side at least one set to play themselves back into the match in standard kick-off conditions, rather than giving the dominant team the ball back every time.

 

[the_third]

Lets be honest - V'Landys is pitching the game to Mums and 10 yr olds - the rest of us are dinosaurs in his eyes


its not a game for everyone to play

Ah I think the point is he may be looking forward the next few decades for rugby league in Australia. It may be that the NRL doesn't really need to convince or retain the rusted-on league fans, they need to build their future fan and player base.

I get that, there has been much written about it.

Junior participation needs to go up, but if the rusted on fans are not watching, who is taking the kids to the games. Who talks about it at the dinner table.

he may say that's the reason, but its more likely the huge number of ex players with brain damage and fear of a lawsuit that got the quick decision made. Boyd Cordner, Paps recently and all the old guys. there is a massive file on it at a media organisation.

The changes are not thought out and are reactionary at best.

If there was a plan it would have happened in the off season, instead of a panic change mid way through the season.

 

[jirskyr]

Lets be honest - V'Landys is pitching the game to Mums and 10 yr olds - the rest of us are dinosaurs in his eyes


its not a game for everyone to play

Ah I think the point is he may be looking forward the next few decades for rugby league in Australia. It may be that the NRL doesn't really need to convince or retain the rusted-on league fans, they need to build their future fan and player base.

I get that, there has been much written about it.

Junior participation needs to go up, but if the rusted on fans are not watching, who is taking the kids to the games. Who talks about it at the dinner table.

he may say that's the reason, but its more likely the huge number of ex players with brain damage and fear of a lawsuit that got the quick decision made. Boyd Cordner, Paps recently and all the old guys. there is a massive file on it at a media organisation.

The changes are not thought out and are reactionary at best.

If there was a plan it would have happened in the off season, instead of a panic change mid way through the season.

I agree that an end-season implementation could have been the best strategy and I'm not clear what made them hit the trigger at Magic Round. I would not be surprised at all if they have expert legal opinion that the league is at high future risk of culpability if they don't police the head knocks more aggressively.

But whether or not it's the well-being of future or current players, I don't think the response is necessarily incorrect, they just haven't the ability to be consistent about it (when perhaps they foolishly thought they could be consistent). As comparison, I'm pretty sure the no-punching rule was implemented mid-season and it has basically eliminated the all-in brawl from the game. The difference being it's easy enough to police, after a fight, whether or not someone threw a punch, and therefore easier to be consistent.

Also re "who is taking their kids to the games?" It could be argued that long-term junior participation is not great the way it is, and that a shake-up is required for future generations of players. It may be argued that the NRL can afford to lose some rusted-ons in order to tap a wider market of worried Mums and kids who don't want to get smashed at sport. That's the permanent disadvantage that league will always have against tennis, football or AFL, because you can't avoid the heavy contact.

 

[tigerbalm]

Yes he has ruined the game. 2 years ago i loved watching every game - this yr i stryggle to watch a full game outside the tigers. And no its not because my team are crap they were crap then too

Up until last season I’d watch or catch the replays of most games during the week. Now I struggle to make it through an entire wests games .

Cant see the current form of the game being sustainable.

 

[Russell]

Teams with the Star Talent are the ones loving it
Manly with Tommy Turbo
Pamfers with Chin and Laui
Slimmeys with [This word has been automatically removed],Gutho and Brown
Souffs with Latrine ,Walker and Reynolds
Storm with Paps Hynes Munster JAC
These players only need half a chance to create something because there is a mile of room out there the attacking team gets all 50/50 calls and the toughness has been taken out it.

Well 2019 ladder before 6 again was 1. Melb 2. Roosters 3. Souths 5. Eels 6.Manly.

Scores might be blowing out more but hasn't really effected the W/L column

That's because they are the favoured teams - unfortunately there are 16 teams.

 

[clokan]

Yes, the blowouts don't make great viewing. Probably for the first time ever I've watched more AFL that NRL.

 

[Curaeus]

People want to see a contest. The NRL clowns' rules tinkering this year has produced at least a couple of ugly blowouts every single week. Broncs got blown away by 46 the other night, Titans had 48 unanswered points scored against them in the 2nd half after leading Manly at half time today and then there was our disaster losing by 50. They've made the game a complete joke!

 

[supercoach]

I reckon of everything I've heard the last 2 years, Tim Sheens may have had the best suggestion yet to be tried out - give the conceding side the ball after a try.

The 6-again was introduced to reduce stoppages and add fatigue, also reduce the fuss over ruck interpretations for the preference of keeping the game flowing. "Opening up" matches means points, and currently that seems to mean that one side piles on points whilst the other dies, rather than an even-share of attack.

V'Landys said himself that the rule may indeed be showing the gulf between good and bad sides, but he wasn't about to remove the rule simply because some teams weren't good enough to still compete. He wants the ordinary teams to learn to be as good as the good ones, rather than reinstating or maintaining rules that keep bad sides competitive.

And on that one he may be correct - if we repealed the 6-agains and suddenly the contests got tighter, that might make for improved viewing, but would it be hollow at all to know the bad sides got more competitive because they took a rule away? It may be that the teams will adjust in another season or two, like they always seem to do when some system or rule becomes periodically dominant.

I would argue if many teams, not just the dud ones, are battling to stem the tide of possession under current rules, but the rules were introduced with a specific intent, then if we consider Sheens' proposal, to let conceding sides take possession, then we remove the instant ability for a dominant side to roll down field set after set after set? You give the conceding side at least one set to play themselves back into the match in standard kick-off conditions, rather than giving the dominant team the ball back every time.

Agreed 100%. Mentioned the same thing in a previous post and also sent the NRL a email on the same subject. I actually remember Warren Ryan advocating for the rule change back when he coached Balmain.

I guess my only concern is we would be making a rule change to try fix a previous rule change that is not working

 

[happy_tiger]

Another thread wanting to disguise the complete incompetence of the WT's

None of us would give a crap if we were on the top of the table

Simple answer again ...start winning games ...buy better players ......

 

[twentyforty]

Another thread wanting to disguise the complete incompetence of the WT's

None of us would give a crap if we were on the top of the table

Simple answer again ...start winning games ...buy better players ......

Is it possible that coaches haven’t adapted quick enough to the rules which make the game faster?
I would love to be coaching against a team which insists on having slow moving forwards defending in the backline.