Would it not have anything to do with your dominant hand? i.e. similar to learning to write with your non-dominant hand, in as much as you can just about tell what it says but it's nowhere near as neat?

Interesting that Sean Maguire has picked up on the topic in todays Daily Post effectively condemining the current SL as a 'five drives and kick competition' and contrasting it to the finely balanced Australian and New Zealand performances on Saturday.

In relation to junior development, the question that begs to be asked is that why are our juniors more than equipped to defeat their Australian counterparts?

Is it because the game at that level is more reliant upon pure physical ability such as speed and strength and less reliant upon rugby skills such as handling, scheming etc or is it that the SL is just not breeding good rugby given its reliance on imports over the years.

All valid points Mike but it's a typical 'Free Mike McClennan' post that completely ignores the real points I am making and goes off at a tangent to describe other facets of the game, with a large dose of Oxford Dictionary, in an attempt to convince the 50%ers that your take on things is right.

Whichever way you look at it, the game in this country is largely about one man drives, kicking, defending and playing with zero flair. None of your comments alter the fact that Super League games are by and large boring to many of us whereas they never used to be so.

What were these "brilliantly entertaining" games? I could name about half a dozen that were reasonably entertaining to watch.

My interpretation of "brilliantly entertaining" obviously differs from yours. Just because a game is close does not mean the game is entertaining. 0-0 draws in football are close but can be boring as hell and that was the level of entertainment I was seeing, at Knowsley Road and watching other teams on Sky.

The brand of football that clubs in Super League are playing is negative and the emphasis has gone from teams trying to outscore their opponents to trying to concede less. That's a simplistic overview, I know, but teams are minimising risks and are unwilling to take a chance on forcing a gap in case they inadvertently leave one of their own.

The Aussies and Kiwis showed us on Saturday that it does not have to be this way, you can defend but still give the ball some air and try to fashion chances and, hopefully, the risk-free obsessed coaches of this country will have watched and learned.

Yes, hopefully they will introduce rules that force the clubs to produce players that can pass and kick well as well as thinking about the game rather than relying on a quick scoot from the play the ball.

Oh, they already have.

does anyone/everyone believe that the sooner we go back to the 5m defensive line,the sooner we will see a different approach to attacking rugby?

i often give an example of how good the game used to be under these rules,and i refer to the wigan v hull fc challenge cup final,when either team was in their opponents 20,the backline was standing so deep that their own winger was often stood in his own 20!

surely it's the cheap yards that the players are coached into making at present that is spoiling the game, it is surely the present rules which are to blame,and which make this action a neccessity and such a safe option to move your side upfield without the risk of losing possession,all of which is subsequently detracting from the obvious skills that our players possess,but arn't allowed to show

I made a similar point on the Leeds forum but got shouted down

Totally agree captain.

How would that rule change make a difference? Moving the defensive line back to 5m would mean that the quick ptb and scoot from dummy half would be far less effective, just as the slowing of the ptb has done now. It's a slightly different alternative to the rule change they have already imposed.

Teams would still be defensive and still prefer a possession and percentage game to throwing the ball around, meaning you'd still get a 5 drives and a kick game until the players found a way to break down the set defences.

What if we went back to the "very" old rule whereby the dummy half had to pass the ball. If he didn't and was caught in possession than a handover (or scrum with feed) to the opposition.

Would that work?

No.

Rule changes like this and the 5m one would not be agreed by other nations (ie the Aussies). We need to tinker with the current rules so there isn't a great deal of change come International games.

People think that there are problems with a few seconds difference at the ptb, never mind a major difference like that.

But whether it would be agreed Internationally is a different argument (discussion).

Do you think what I proposed would work for the benefit of the game generally?

That's why we need Offside Monkey's innovative (yet retro) new third competetion, as described on rlpage 15 of this threadrl.
This is the way forward

But wholesale changes that would affect the game internationally is part of the argument, it cannot be argued seperately, the decision has too much bearing on the game as a whole for that.



Maybe, maybe not. The Aussies don't need it, we are suggesting things to try and improve the skill levels of our players. The Aussies don't need to make wholesale changes to improve their skill levels. I think the slowed ptb has made the quick scoot far less effective than it was, we don't need the major change you propose because all it will do is stop the quick scoot. That has already been stopped for the most part.

The change to 5m may well take some of the collision out of the sport and would probably protect the players more, but we sell the sport on that collision. The game may eventually change that rule if too many players get injured. I'm not sure it will change the attacking quality of the game any faster than the current rule change.



I fear that it's too innovative and forward looking for even the innovative and forward looking RFL

Absolutely bob on.