It probably is, but it's to try and get over the force and power going into what are considered just "regular" hits these days. Because many people really don't realise the effect of these hits on the body and think of it as not that far away from amateur level, when it's a million miles away.

We have many RL fans saying players and coaches should stop moaning about playing more than 1 game per week and that the game is going soft and even ex-players like Schofield saying players could play 3 games in 3 days like he did in the 80's.
So they clearly have absolutely no idea how powerful these hits are despite that coaches and conditioners say players need at least 4/5 days recovery due to the effect on the body and that due to post game recovery a lot of players will only get 1 training session in before the next game and some, like Jamie Peacock, will get none.

Not wanting to derail the thread, of course.

But I'd like to question this modern idea that RL has to be played at an optimum of 1 game per week.

Maybe, just maybe if RL was played more regularly (on the weekend, with weekend fixtures), most coaches would be concerned with the game itself, working on tactics, moves, and game plans. Rather than teams spending half the week in the gym, getting stronger, and as a consequence more destructive.

It seems counter-initiative that RL was played on weekends and during midweek for many seasons, despite 80% of the players being semi-pro and having employment on the side. But I think this focused teams to work on the game, play the game better, rather than constantly beefing up its players.

That said, what other sports have their teams play just once-a-week? Football is jam-packed with fixtures. What about NFL? NHL?

The time spent lifting weights will be only around four hours a week. The rest if rehab/prehab. Don't think game or skills work is being neglected for those.

NFL is once a week. Outside the NFL, seasons are just 10-12 games long. The NFL is 4 pre-season games where the major players play very little, 16 regular season games, and up to four playoff games. The shortest turnaround between games would be Sunday-Thursday, but that only happen once a season for most teams. Soccer isn't an intense collision sport.

Thanks for the reply. Very enlightening.

Makes a 30+ game season for RL seem gruelling in comparison then!

Though I wonder what can be tweaked towards making RL "less collision based" to a sport with more playability and emphasis on ball handling[1]. If that's the consensus of opinion.



[1]. Not that I would necessarily want a try-fest free-for-all.

A maximum of two defenders involved in the tackle (with an exception for a defending side's in-goal area). With only two men involved, the tackle area should clear more quickly and the tackled player will have a better opportunity to regain his feet and play the ball at pace.

Would also stop players coming in third man and looking to chop the legs out from underneath the ball carrier. If a defender wants to take the legs, then he can only have one team-mate up top to secure the ball which gives players more opportunity to offload.

That would sometimes be to the detriment of the attack as you wouldn't be able to draw multiple defenders and move them out of position?

I'd say make the ball carrier play the ball "correctly". Many play the balls are taken "incorrectly". Either players haven't properly regained their feet, are still moving forward, not facing forwards and of course often don't roll the ball back with their foot.

If we make players play the ball properly it would obviously slow it down. So would defences then not focus quite so intensely on slowing the play the ball themselves?

Also I think the refs calling held quicker and the held call being similar to the surrender call I think would help reduce some twisting injuries.

But that wouldn't reduce the impacts/size or power of players.

A reduction in interchanges?

My pet hate is tackled players moving off the mark at the PTB, either forwards to gain yards and more in particular sideways, thus leaving the markers open to be pinged for not being square.

I don't blame players for moving sideways to get some room because the previous tackler has failed to clear the ruck and is lying around on the ground in the way. Would you rather they tried to ptb on top of him and 'milked' a penalty?

The advent of the gang tackle was for precisely that reason - to slow down the clearing of the ruck and by extension, slow down the ptb; by the time the mess of bodies has been resolved, momentum is lost and the defensive line is set.

I wouldn't be against limiting the number of defenders allowed in a tackle and I'd instruct referees to call held much quicker - thus discouraging the 'holding up' of the tackled player while other defenders arrive; if the held call is sooner, they'll want him on the floor asap. And I'd enforce the bejesus out of clearing the ruck as soon as the held call is made - again, discouraging the wrestling, twisting and turtling that currently happens. And finally, insist that the play the ball is done properly, from the correct position, and that markers are square - ideally with a touch judge rigorously enforcing the ten metre rule. And while you're at it, penalise the life out of anyone who a) milks a penalty b) traps the defender in the tackle or c) shouts and screams at the official.

If all of that was done with ruthless efficiency and consistency, coaches and players would get the message pretty sharpish and the game would be better for it.

I agree that stricter enforcement of existing laws wold probably do more good (and less harm) than bringing in new ones.

As mentioned by a few the ref's need to call held sooner. Regularly neither attacker or defender has won collision and a wrestle ensues, momentum has stopped but the ref doesn't call held allowing other players plenty of time to join the tackle late and put the player to the floor. It's rarely against the rules but often dangerous. If held was called sooner, ie when momentum has stopped, the attacker would still be on his feet allowing a quick play the ball which is exactly what the defenders are trying to prevent. Defenders would then be encouraged to put the player to the floor sooner effectively eliminating the third man in problem.

I agree with those who said the attackers should be made to play the ball correctly. I've no issue with them stepping to the side to avoid a defender who hasn't cleared the rook but they shouldn't be allowed to step forward.

By the way, if you're interested in the conditioning work a player goes through, there's a nice article here: rugbystrengthcoach.com/a-week-of ... parations/ Whilst it's RU, and not quite a normal in-season our out of season session, it's a good insight. Keir is working in RU right now, but a league guy at heart.

By the way, if you're interested in the conditioning work a player goes through, there's a nice article here: rugbystrengthcoach.com/a-week-of ... parations/ Whilst it's RU, and not quite a normal in-season our out of season session, it's a good insight. Keir is working in RU right now, but a league guy at heart.

BUMP - having seen the tackle on Crabtree ( yellow card ) noone would have batted a eyelid 5/10 years ago and the Wardle tackle wasnt great but would never have been a red card in a millions years

To be fair, Crabtree landed with his head and neck bent, I'm sure we all want to see more Alex McKinnon's don't we?
And the Wardle one was a red card every day, it wasn't malicious but it was lazy.

There is more emphasis on duty of care now, especially concerning heads, than there was 10-15, 20 years ago, and rightly so, i don't think rugby league has gone soft, i think society has, because there has to be more responsibility and care now, otherwise you're likely to end up in court.