O... M... F... G....... Why don't we just go the whole hog and make the players all play with giant foam rubber feet and clown costumes on? We could make them play with a wet fish instead of a ball as well for even more comedy value. How about installing hidden trip-wires at random locations on the pitch - that'd be hilarious too... Rugby League is inately the most entertaining spectacle there is in sport - why the **** do the jerks who run it insist on constantly trying to denigrate it and make it into a laughing stock with this kind of nonsense? We desperately need rule changes to encourage creative half and back play and penalise one-out forward barging. We do not in any way shape or form need "It's a Knockout" segments instead. Where the hell are the heads of the guys who run RL anyway? Not in the real world that's for sure...

Why do we need to take forward play out the game? It's part and parcel of rugby league and sometimes the battle of teams that use forward play against teams that play with their backs is great to watch.

They should just leave the game as it is!

This game is often used to trial things, does not mean they will be adopted.

It's a safe way to test new rules at a elite level without it having to be done in a game that means anything

For this powerplay idea to have got as far as being trialled in a match is an absolute abomination. Whoever suggested it should have been laughed out of the boardroom and forced to wear a dunce hat for the rest of the week.

Why?


If it does not work then it will go no further. It's an exhibition match nohing more. It's like going to watch the harlem globe trotters and then complaining that every single player has not been pulled up for travelling.

You can't test an idea without seeing the practical impact of it in an actual match.

I'm sure when we moved from unlimited tackle people where saying it was a daft idea. Or maybe the 5 meter defensive line to 10. From no interchanges to 4 now 12 or what ever number we are having.

People love to throw out ideas without actually seeing them, but you would think for a sport based on the idea of moving the game on to make it more entertaining, we would not be so quick to shoot down an exhibition match.

It probably will not be adopted, but without trying who knows??

Lets face it we had Jonny Vegas playing in an exhibition match for a testimonial, but that idea of having a strange looking excuse for a rugby player taking a drive in of the ball was not adopted anywhere outside of Wigan.

I don't have an issue with ideas being trialled in exhibition matches or friendlies. My point is that for an idea to get to that stage there should at least be a reason for doing it. I've got no problem with the other two ideas being trialled (I don't really agree with either of them, but I can see why there might be a debate to be had), but the powerplay idea is completely arbitrary and doesn't address anything that might be considered a problem with the game. If I walked into a meeting and suggested that we should trial a new rule where if a player shouts "by the power of Grayskull" no-one is allowed to touch him until he has run 7.5 metres, I would hope that someone would politely tell me that my idea was stupid and that trialling it would be a waste of everyone's time.

Perhaps you should read what people have said [url=http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/nrl/rugby-league-all-star-match-to-see-three-new-rule-innovations/story-e6frfgbo-1226212746691about its introduction[/url because it suggests it's not completely arbitrary (let's be honest it won't have happened as you suggested with somebody just throwing it into the mix without discussion).

When I first read thei "power play" suggestion I had to check in case I was reading an old thread that had been started on April 1st.

Its a ludicrous idea.

S57

Fair enough, my 'jackass in the boardroom' scenario was far-fetched.

So there is some logic behind it, but it would seem to be based on what I think is a fundamentaly misguided notion, namely that the game will be more exciting if more points are scored. Not only is the basis for the idea unsound, but introducing a rule which manufactures a totally arbitrary advantage to one team for a given length of time just seems to me utterly wrong-headed, and runs entirely contrary to the spirit of the game. Rugby League is a game in which you have to earn your territory and work hard to create space for your backs - the battle to do that is, as far as I'm concerned, the central focus of the game. Why even consider undermining it?

I wouldn't disagree with you but having read that article I'm a bit more open-minded towards it now. There's sufficient logic there for it to be looked at although I share most people's opinion that it seems a bit too artificial for our game i.e. it adds an intervention from the sideline which isn't by an official. I'd like to see it in operation though having heard Wayne Bennett be positive about it.

I agree the notion is totally mis guided and a solution for a mainly australian problem. As is the 20/40. Namely that defense is stagnating the game. For me the solution is coaches working on attacking plays to break down defences rather than changing the rules to benefit a team that cant make it out of their own half by forward work and clever half back play.

I'm not closed to new ideas. For example I certainly think the corner flag should not be out of bounds if a player touches it. And more officials is a good idea. Although the current touch judges should do a better job of watching the offside in my opinion.