Yup.

Not garnering much support from fans of other clubs so far this viewpoint is it?

Got to agree with all that.

That is why my argument has always been that Rugby League has been boring for three or four years and not just this year.

The slower play-the-ball has made the game even more boring but, hopefully, in the long term, that might help address the issues.

The discovery that the quick play-the-ball and the scoots from dummy half were far more effective than passing the ball about was the single most defining moment that turned the game from being the entertaining spectacle it was to the game we have got now.

Whilst it won't be admitted by some, Daniel Anderson's tactic of employing James Roby the way he did, had a significant impact on taking the flair out of Super League, across the board.

Any move to inspire a more 'skillful' game needs to be carefully thought about, which the RFL single-handedly fail to do on just about everything.

I concur that the PTB were favouring attacking teams and gave rise to the boring 'scoot,' but the game has been slowed to a ridiculous extent.

Finding the balance between the right emphasis between attack and defence is dificult. The failure to change or acknowledge that there are other factors that dictate the style of a game has also led to the dour dish served up this year.

Worse still a culture has evolved around negative rugby plough it down the middle and hope to use inovative skullduggery to outlast the opposition. As D.D said, many coaches will go for the NRL of the 80's and lock themselves into an arm wrestle. Just about every team runs the same moves.

Essentially this has boiled down to the return of holding down, and wrestling moves that belong in the Olympics. I am all for physical defence being rewarded, but not cynical manoevring to reducde flair and enterprise.

The worst blight has been the return of flopping - the worst sight being Paalesina almost belly diving onto a ball carrier after he had no involvement whatsoever in the tackle.

The interchange rule remains whereby 'the 10 minute men' trot on and off the field - it may lead to an overtly physical match, but it does nothing to help creative rugby. A team will rarely tire and given that the PTB is now so slow, creates a toxic mix.

So you agree there's no quick fix? I'm all for "giving us our game back" as it says in your sig but I don't believe it's as easy as some think.

Slowing down the PTB is the first stage to getting back to proper RL I think. If we follow it up by cutting down the number of substitutions and outlaw the plodding forwards like Paleassina and start to value players who have genuine fitness and endurance who can be skilful at any time in the game and we have a more exciting game to watch.

It'll take time. The 10m rule and the quick PTB gave us players like James Roby and Paul Anderson who for the most part are one trick ponies in their own way. I'd prefer to see us get back to a game where we had more skilful front rowers like Ward and more skilful hookers like Elias or McKenzie. If players have to develop their skills to break defences then so be it.

Amen to that - see my last post. The RFL needs some joined-up thinking rather than a carte blanche slowing of the PTB.

To be fair we're only just beginning the change to slower PTBs. It'll take time before players and coaches get over the negative period. After all we've been playing to the "old" set of rules for over 10 years. It takes time to un-learn old habits.

Agree on the subject of substitutions. Let's get rid of the "impact" props like Paleassina who's more suited to Union than League. It's time we got back to valuing more traditional virtues like endurance, fitness and the ability to create a bit of magic despite being on the field for 79mins already. In the past players like Fulton, Pearce, Hanley etc were superb at this and it's been negated by having more subs.

I guess we need a more subtle view on things. It's not black and white, e.g slow PTB = BAD fast PTB = GOOD. It's about looking at the game as a whole. I think we're hopefully at the start of the change for the better. Things may be a bit sterile on the field at the moment but sacrifices have to be made for longer term gain. If in 3 or 4 years we're still not any further forward then look at it again but with careful monitoring I think the game will improve with some rule changes here and there.

Again, I totally agree and I know there is no quick fix. It will take time and I'm hoping that one day we will look back at the slowing of the play-the-ball as the first step on the road to "giving us our game back"

One thing is for sure, I don't go along with the theories that slowing the play-the-ball has ruined the game. It hasn't because it was boring before. The quick dart from the play-the-ball produced cheap yards and we were the best exponents at it. We might have suffered most as a result of the new directives but that suits me if it gets rid of that tactic for good.

My biggest concern is that the coaches are that ingrained in their obsession with yardage, percentages and territory that the abolition of the scoot will just lead to more impact runs from the big forwards rather than trying to be adventurous to find an alternative route through.

Therefore, the reduction back down to six substitions, I feel is a neccessity to help get our game back. The interchange rule has been a blight on the modern game and has been another major ingredient in producing the watered down, economy pack, game we have today.

There can be so much more to this game than simply bashing the opponents into submission, yet at least 75% of the skills that we used to see on a regularly basis are no longer required in the incredibly simplistic and unadventurous tactics of today.

Hopefully, with the implemenation of a few measures here and there we can get back to the day of passing movements, offloading, off the cuff rugby, pacy wingers taking the man on the outside, long range tries and half back craftsmen unlocking defences.

I've had the idea in my head about introducing a thrid competetion to our calander.

Now, we're obviously chocked full of games already, so I suggest this extra competetion at the expense of 6-7 of the weekly rounds. Before you start, the NRL teams don't play each other all twice each.

4 groups of 4 teams, including the 1st and 2nd placed NL1 teams from previous season. The top team from each group goes through to a semi final (or top 2 and play quarter finals). This would mean the competetion lasts 5-6 weeks. I would impliment the following rules for this new competetionbut if the DH is tackled in possession, then its a turn over.
At least 7 of the 15 man squad must be 24 or under (perhaps not the NL1 teams).

The 5 metre rule will save the bodies of the players and therefore benefit the younger players and NL1 guys especially. The 4 interchange rule will mean that fatigue later in the game will be more difficult to cope with (sorry Feka).
A speedy play the ball will make the game quicker to watch, but stifling the scoot will stop the lazy tactics which lead to boring rugby. Whilst the defence only have to go back 5 the so defences will still be organised and therefore no pushover.

-I think the variety that a slightly different competetion would bring could help develop a better range of skills.
-It would be another chance for a team to win a trophy (and i'd like to see the playoffs turned back to a 5 team comp)
-It would help bring on the youngsters
-It would be an excellent oppotunity for the top NL1 teams to test themselve against better opposition.
-It would mix up the monotomy of the weekly rounds.

What do you think?

Trouble is there's no easy solution. We will still get stuffed in the 4 nations this year because we've bred players to play a system that isn't and has never been played internationally. We'll only get more skilful players more gradually. We mustn't write off this year's rule changes too soon.

If we just revert to the old interpretations of the past 10 years it'll solve nothing. If anything that's what's got us into this mess.

And I agree with other posters who say lets not look at the PTB in isolation. There's other areas too like the number of subs. Coaches have to be forced to coach rather than to take the easy "route one" approach. Through SL we saw Saints dominate largely through a quick PTB and the Bulls from getting a forward roll on. To me RL is about more subtle skills and should be a balance between skill and power. I don't think we're a million miles away and quite a few on here see where changes need to be made so there's hope there!

Agree totally. A reduction to six subs would be a revoltionary change for the better. You can bet coaches would be dead against it, it'd take away the safety net they enjoy at the moment and they'd be wheeling out excuses or "medical advice" to argue against it. They did the same when we dabbled with the farcical unlimited interchange. We got rid of that and we should take it a stage further.

a reduce in substitutions would mean forwards would have to get fit, and undoubtedly open up holes in tired defences, the game has gone to far of an emphasis on defence rather than attack

Saints V Leeds final eliminator the other year at KR
Rhinos V Storm WCC

both low scoring & brutal in their intensity.

It's definitely worth reducing the number of subs. Haven't they already done that in the NRL?

The challenge for us in this country is to treak the rules in order to breed better players who are more skilful and can do well without having to rely on a big pack or a quick scoot. Once we can do that we'll do better in internationals. Who's to say we couldn't tweak our rules to take it a stage further so we breed the best attackign players over here? The NRL has constantly done it's own thing and made rules changes to improve. We should seize the initiative over here.

Fancy a new petition??