THE RL1908 BLOG

News, Reviews & Opinion - Sean Fagan - RL1908.com

I don't agree that rule changes for the NRL have to be held back until international agreement is found. Nor do I support the view that bush footballers should be playing by the rules of the NRL (rules designed for professional fulltime footballers to play).

Having to wait for international agreement is the reason RU has been held back for more than a century. The resistance to make timely changes was cited as a reason rugby league was born in England, Australian and NZ.

Historically, rugby league in the 4 major countries (France included) have all operated under local variations of the one set of rules. In every case, each country has its own unique priorities, competitors (other codes) and opportunities to consider. Pre-tour agreements overcame the variations - the world didn't come to an end.

In an ideal world we should all wait until rule changes are adopted together, but we are not operating in a vacuum from other sports. Do we want rugby league to be ham-strung like the IRB & RU?

One of rugby league's biggest errors in the past 15-20 years (in my view) has been this desire to adopt one set of rules across the globe, and across all senior and social levels of the game. But, unless you are in the NRL or SL you can't physically play that game - the 10m rule is too much for part-time footballers.

We have a situation today where rule changes are made to address the needs of the professional level of the game - the NRL & SL - but we then want to apply them uniformly to all other levels of the game.

That is a big mistake - one that kills off social, part-time and rural footballers, as well as new countries.

Football in the NFL is not played by the same rules in College Football and other competitions.

Rather than worrying about eligibility rules for countries for the RLWC, we would get far more parity across teams for the RLWC if we modified the playing laws of RL for international matches e.g. a 5m rule.

Britain and NZ have far more success over recent seasons against Aust when you get a referee who doesn't rigidly enforce the 10m rule. Australia's biggest wins since 2000 have all come under English referees who decided to apply a 12-15m rule (in Sydney in 2002 over GB, in Wellington in 2007 over NZ).

I'm sure some of you will disagree - but I don't think there is an easy one-fit answer to this problem, and I'd prefer our flagship competitions (NRL & SL) to not be held back waiting for international agreement - neither can afford to.

As for those arguing the rules shouldn't be changed - rugby has been evolving since 1845 when the first documented rules were laid down. Rugby league is not played on a fixed platform like cricket or baseball where there are few variables. Rugby league is a constantly evolving animal, particularly with professional coaches, and the rules have to keep pace.