RL1908 - Rugby League Football History

NRL Team To Win By 100!

When the day comes - and it will come soon - that a NRL team wins a game by 100 points everyone involved will look at each other and wonder how it happened.

There will be plenty of people pointing the finger of blame at everyone but themselves. Those who are entrusted with the protection of the game are failing us, leaving rugby league open to ridicule and the advance of other codes.

It may be simplistic to say it, but most of the game's underlying problems can be solved on the field. The biggest concern in rugby league is the gap in playing standard between the top and bottom NRL clubs, the gulf in standard between the Kangaroos and its international opponents, and the game outside the NRL.

I am tired of hearing the response to these concerns being swept away by officials and commentators as the fault of everyone else. They say everyone else should lift their standards to match that of the Kangaroos or the top NRL clubs. Yet even top NRL clubs can belt each other by 50 points.

The NRL tries to address this by a salary cap and other attempts at talent equalisation. But no one seems to want to look at the playing rules as a means of 'talent equalisation' and ensuring games are regularly a contest.

The usual points spread in an NRL game is now 50-70 points. Is that what you call good rugby league?

Phil Gould is quoted elsewhere here on RL1908 as saying in early 2003: "You can't artificially create speed in the play-the-ball area to help attack because the defenders have rights, too. Fans don't want 40 and 50-point margins. They want to see and feel the desire in their team's players via the way they compete in defence. They want to witness the skill, imagination, innovation and variety they display in attack to get through the opposition's defence."

The NRL seemed to have overcome the problem of blow-out scores that riddled 2002 by adopting the 'dominant tackle' interpretation. It hasn't lasted. Since mid-season 2003 the referees have gone back to clearing tacklers off much quicker - even if the attacker has dived to the ground. Now the high scoring matches have returned, along with the floggings.

In late 2002 I asked then referees boss Peter Louis if the 'wide' 10m rule was the cause of the high-scoring and blowouts.He replied that it wasn't - the reason was the lack of application by the players. So the floggings - whether by Australia, in Origin or in NRL games - is apparently the result of teams not being switched on. Gorden Tallis in his book 'Raging Bull' talks about Queensland being thrashed by NSW because the Maroons were 5% off their game. Doesn't leave much room for not being perfect.

The problem as I see it is that the current rule interpretations are all in favour of the team with the ball. As long as your team can hold the ball, the more you will dominate an opponent.

In August 2003 we saw a 12-man Canberra team defeat Manly by 50 points. The Raiders did it by maintaining a simple game plan and not dropping the ball. Without the ball Manly could make no use of the extra man, plus the Sea Eagles were not as careful at holding possession.

A few weeks later Parramatta topped 70 points as they beat a 10-man Cronulla side. The Eels held a lead when the Sharks lost the three players, and for the most part of the second half Cronulla had no possession. Until the Eels dropped the ball, Cronulla could do nothing to stop the carnage. In both cases Manly and Cronulla were accused of inept performances.

Also in August 2003 Melbourne and Parramatta both managed to win and lose games by 50 points in the space of a week. Surely that tells us that the players attitude is not the problem. Attitude may result in a loss, but not by that scale. The rules of the game should be such that a team off its game by 5% or down in playing standard is not flogged by 50 points.

There would be little need for salary cap to close the gap between the NRL clubs if the playing rules were adjusted to restore the balance between attack and defence, and if there was a more regular turnover of 'usable' possession throughout games.

The lack of a contest in matches - many are decided by half-time - is ruining rugby league. Where is the desire to play or watch the game going to come from?

All NRL games are now shown on TV, we can't afford to serve up games where teams regularly win by 50-60 points. Rather than look to the rules as a way of equalising football teams - at all levels - we blame the players attitude or an absence of playing talent.

The game of rugby league is passed down from generation to generation. The men who played and administered the first 50 years of the game in Australia are all gone. It is currently those who run the NRL who are entrusted with the game's health and well being for today and the future.

At the moment they are failing the game of rugby league.

When a NRL team or the Australian Test team racks up 100 points shortly, don't come crying to me!

RL1908 Editorial