11 a side rugby league....IT'S HAPPENING

[DIEHARD]

Eleven-a-side trial a step forward

THE NRL will trial an 11-a-side game with the Sharks and Cowboys Toyota Cup sides in the last round, in what could be a bold change in direction for our game.

Warren Ryan, one of the smartest brains in rugby league, has been pushing for an 11-a-side game for years after arguing that the growth in size and speed of our players has, in effect, made the football field much smaller than it once was.

During the week, all NRL coaches received an email for discussion points at this year's coaches-referees conference and among the topics was things like wrestling coaches and passive offside.

I thought about it for a while and realised that, as much as we like to talk about things that could improve our game, we can't make educated decisions until we have actually seen them in action.

So I called the NRL's Graham Annesley and spoke to him about it and we have agreed to let our Toyota Cup sides be the guinea pigs.

Every coach will receive a DVD of the game with normal camera vision and another DVD with eagle cam, which is what all of us use to run a rule over our sides.

It will give us the chance to look at the game and walk into the end-of-season conference with an educated opinion.

Some people might not agree with the change - it could significantly change the whole fabric of our game - and to be honest I am yet to be convinced as well.

But it can't hurt.

Anybody that has watched the Olympics this past fortnight will see great athletes breaking world record after world record.

Their sports are going forward because of the advancements in technology, science, professionalism, coaching and training, all designed to make the athlete better.

Our athletes have improved as well, but the difference for us is that the improvements have led to a shift towards greater athletes, without necessarily giving us better footballers.

It goes back to what Ryan said: the improved athlete has reduced the field.

Whereas the big, slow front-rower patrolled the middle of the field, nowadays we have front-rowers that are quicker and more athletic.

They can cover another three metres in the defensive line that old frontrowers couldn't.

With two of them, that's another six metres across the field, and then when you work out through each player, it reduces the potential for linebreaks massively.

Dropping two players will change this, but what other effects it has on our game remains to be seen.

The best thing is that we will be able to see it, though.

When we head into the end-of-season conference, we will be able to talk about it in real terms without having to visualise what might or might not happen.

I don't think there is too much wrong with our game at the moment but the NRL must be congratulated for allowing an experiment like this to take place.

Source: http://www.news.com.au

[Capital_Shark]

A good place to start, but I don't think the NYC will give a real good representation of how it would go at the elite level. NRL games hinge on defense. NYC games are attack orientated and a lot of defensive lines in NYC look a man or two short already.

[DIEHARD]

When I was told this was happening, I dismissed it as a bad joke. Cause I didn't believe it was real.

But it is. I believe that rugby league is perfect with 13 men. It's not just a game of attack but defence in equal portions. I love it.

But it will be an interesting experiment. It's just a shame it won't be televised.

[Paul]

What are they aiming for? americanised 48-46 scorelines?

If a team is good enough they will find a way over the line. The game needs changes but not the number of players on the field.

[kwigibo]

A 1 man reduction would have been enough to open it up, you could just drop the lock forward, 11 men will be too easy for certain kinds of player.

[DIEHARD]

I admire the defence as much as the attack. So I can't say I'm a fan of the concept off hand.

But I would love to see it. If it was televised it would get great ratings, simply for the novelty factor.

[Chaos]

It will be very interesting to watch but the criticism above is warranted.
The score line would be the worry...we'd have to restrict the amount of scoring from bombs and allow markers to chase attacking plays...I suppose we need to do those even in todays 13 a side game.

I had an idea for a golden 3 points in extra time to encourage the try, instead of the current golden 1 point...but played with only 11 players.
It's an idea that wont go away and would like more feed back about it.

[Ryan]

Bugger all that, just make the field bigger!
- And you can't kick a field goal inside the 40

[Steve]

Just reading about it here http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,...-23214,00.html

Apparently they'll try to discourage tries from kicks, making any bomb diffused in goal a 20m tap.

I'm not sure about that. Kicks are used so much because they have the highest chance of something coming from it, that won't change for the attacking side. A precise kicker is an asset to a team, and a good try from a kick can be spectacular. Jordan Atkins anyone?

I agree with DIEHARD. You have to love some good defence. Manly are averaging close to 5 converted tries a game this year. That's plenty of action. Make it too easy to score tries and you devalue them.

[Darren Lockyer]

I believe t he game should stay as it is....because it is perfect.....we need to find a way to generate more income to pay the players better.

[Blunt_Beno]

i hate that they keep making changes to the game, leave it as it is and there wont be any problems.

here in bundaberg they have an 11 a side comp, it is pretty much the reserve grade comp cause most ppl dont like playing it because for the quiker players its pretty much a rough game of touch.

[Supergoose]

The game is not perfect and the rules should continue to be tinkered with. As far as 11 a-side goes, I'd give that a miss - I think 13 is the right number. I think there are two major problems with the game
1. there is too much dummy half running - I would remove the necessity for the markers to be square and allow two players to be within the ten meters, where ever they like, but they can't advance over the play the ball line until the dummy half has passed the ball.
2. the video replays - I would replace the referee making the call to go to the ref with an appeals system. The coach from each team could appeal any decision they like with the video ref with unsuccessful appeals resulting in the loss of an interchange for that side. I would also suggest that the technology for this needs to be improved so that a team could have 4 or 5 video reviewers watching different angles of the play and advise the video ref of the angle they believe shows the infringement - the video ref would then review this angle first and only if in doubt review one other. There would have to be a time limit to make the appeal of 5 or so seconds so the team video reviewers would have to be on the ball! The appeal would only be looked at by the video ref at the next stop in play.

[Chaos]

There's no doubt we have a great game but if you don't change, you go backwards...in economic terms, it's called inflation.

In saying that we don't wont to make too many changes at once, otherwise we don't know what change makes the difference.

If think we should try changing a few of the 13 side rules before radically changing it to a 11 a side game.

The markers area is one we could nearly address without changing the rules to much...at present, it's the interpretation that takes them out of play.
I don't believe a marker can be late to his position...if he makes the position, he makes it...don't worry when the dummy half gets the ball...and don't penalise markers if the dummy half runs back into the ruck.

Save the 11 side game in a golden 3 point extra time.

BTW I like the idea of increasing the reward for a defused bomb

[Supergoose]

I also think there was more to the defusing of bombs in that they are talking about the defusing of grubber kicks in goal as well. This would make getting repeat sets even tougher. Not sure I like this as it is a great skill the players have in getting out of the in-goal area. I'd have to see it in action, the kicking would have to be even more pin-point to try and build pressure as you would have to turn the winger/fullback around, have them pick the ball up a metre out and then bash them back into the in goal to get a repeat set! At least the ball would be in play more. And what does defuse mean? Do they have to ground the ball or can they just bat it out over the dead ball. If it is like the bomb, they just have to secure it - probably resulting in more replays.

[Chaos]

I also think there was more to the defusing of bombs in that they are talking about the defusing of grubber kicks in goal as well. This would make getting repeat sets even tougher. Not sure I like this as it is a great skill the players have in getting out of the in-goal area. I'd have to see it in action, the kicking would have to be even more pin-point to try and build pressure as you would have to turn the winger/fullback around, have them pick the ball up a metre out and then bash them back into the in goal to get a repeat set! At least the ball would be in play more. And what does defuse mean? Do they have to ground the ball or can they just bat it out over the dead ball. If it is like the bomb, they just have to secure it - probably resulting in more replays.

I'd have to say that you have to catch the ball on the full to warrant any reward...rewarding a bat out of play would eliminate the kick altogether and we don't want that.

I also like the repeat sets attacking the line and wouldn't want the grubber taken away...what was the suggestion there?