Yet the need to win in the professional era had stealthily brought about a change in approach. Teams were winning ugly, five-drives-and-a-kick-ing their way to the playoffs and Grand Final. Defensively cynicism had also crept in, with the ability to wrestle valued at least alongside if not above the ability to tackle. Now, with Super League having gained some direction with the appointment of Robert Elstone as CEO, it is setting about addressing some of these issues with the announcement of at least one rule change, with more set to be ratified by the clubs in due course.
Let’s be clear, we are talking about the way the game is played here, the aesthetic value of it to the viewer. There is nothing too much wrong with it from a competitive standpoint even if the 2018 regular season was largely dominated by Saints and the identity of the top four playoff teams was revealed weeks before the Super 8s met its end. Generally in recent years the salary cap has evened out the competition, even if it has done so by dragging down the standards of the top clubs rather than raising those of the bottom clubs. Now any game can be won by either team involved on any given day in Super League. The cream generally rises to the top come the business end of the season but largely results are unpredictable. An influx of some surprisingly high quality NRL talent looks set to make 2019 even more competitive with most clubs making significant recruitment moves. It’s how we arrive at that unpredictability, the journey from minute one to 80, that needs further examination.
So in their wisdom, to try to manufacture a little more excitement to proceedings the Super League’s first measure is to introduce Golden Point extra time for drawn games. From 2019 if the scores are level at the end of 80 minutes of any Super League regular season game there will be two five-minute periods of extra time played, with the first team to score any point be it a drop-goal, penalty goal or try declared the winner. If at the end of the two five-minute periods the scores are still level the game will be declared a draw and the teams will receive one point each.
It’s interesting that the decision to introduce Golden Point, which has been in use in the NRL since 2003, comes at a time when Super League has also decided to automatically relegate the team that finishes bottom of the table at the end of the season. It is possible that a club could be relegated having lost a vital point during the extra period. A point that they had worked hard for 80 minutes for and which previously would have been a fair reward for their efforts. It has been suggested that teams keep their point for drawn games and play for an extra one in the Golden Point period, but doesn’t that afford an opportunity to a team to win a game that over 80 minutes they haven’t justified with their performance? Why should that team get more time to find a winning play? Just as it might be unfair to take a point away from a team after 80 minutes, so it might be to allow extra time to secure a second. Only four games were drawn in all of Super League last season so admittedly the odds are long on Golden Point being required in a game and perhaps even longer on it influencing the relegation issue or even a playoff issue should that extra point see a side jump from say sixth to fifth, but it is fair to run that risk?
If the risk seems unfair the rules around Golden Point within the context of a single game also seem a bit squiffy. As things stand and unless Super League make a subsequent announcement to suggest otherwise, the team receiving the ball from the extra-time kick-off must have a significant advantage. They only need to gain around 50 metres from their set of six to get close enough to have a shot at the drop-goal and should they make it there will be no opportunity for the other team to respond. The NFL amended their system in 2012 so that both teams have at least one possession in the extra period unless one side or the other scores a touchdown. If we must go down the Golden Point route then this seems a fairer approach. If a team is good enough to receive the opening kick-off and go all the way down the field for a try in their first set then maybe you say well done and accept the result. Maybe. But if all they have done is plod their way downfield for a drop-goal it doesn’t convince you that they have proved themselves superior on the day.
Does Golden Point add to the spectacle in any case? Currently the system is only in place in the UK for knockout games in either the Super League playoffs, Grand Final or the Challenge Cup. That is logistically sensible because replays are impossible given the already packed schedule and the issues around player welfare. And in that scenario it does add excitement as fans destroy their fingernails and use up every ounce of good will from whatever God they worship to try to will their team through to the next stage of a competition. But I’d argue that it adds nothing to the aesthetic beauty of the game. Fully aware that the easiest way to register the winning point is a drop-goal, teams spend all of extra-time methodically trundling their way down the field to set up the position for the one-pointer. And that after in all likelihood spending the final 10 minutes of normal time in a similar mode as they attempt to break the tie that has them heading to extra time in the first place. The game becomes a risk-free drop-goal contest with little or no room for any expansive rugby. Largely, it becomes rugby union.
Another issue for many fans will be the length of time added to the game. Kick-offs for televised matches were brought forward 15 minutes for 2018 because of complaints from fans and media that they were finishing too late. I’ve always felt this a lame excuse for excluding rugby league from newspapers given that football matches played at similar times always seem to find their way into every printed edition. In these times of electronic communication it should not be a stretch to be able to include a report on a rugby league game that finishes after 10pm. But to add more time to the game with a period of extra-time only gives the media another reason to ignore the game and justify it to themselves. The reasons why our game cannot afford that need no explanation. As for fans, I recall getting home after midnight from Huddersfield for a non-televised game on a Friday night last season. Add in countless video replays and the extra time reserved for a few more adverts for televised games and it is easy to see how an extra 10 minutes of drop-goal attempts could add to the frustration of fans who more and more now complain that the game is dragged out too much. Especially if they have an invariably closed M62 to negotiate on a Thursday or Friday night once the game is finally done and dusted.
I’ve heard it said that we shouldn’t concern ourselves with the relatively piffling matter of Golden Point, and that the game has bigger issues that it needs to deal with. I wouldn’t disagree that the game has bigger problems, but if we take the view that we shouldn't debate the smaller ones until we have solved the bigger ones then we shouldn’t debate anything including Brexit, gun crime and climate change because let’s face it we are all going to die anyway. It’s a nihilistic, nonsense argument the logical conclusion of which is anarchy and chaos. Clown shoes to be worn by every goalkicker? Why not, there’s bigger issues. One player to be given a golden shirt and be awarded 20 points for every try he scores? Sure, there’s bigger issues. It’s far-fetched but if you give Super League’s rule makers an inch they might take the proverbial mile.
To redress the balance some of the proposed but strangely as yet unannounced changes that Super League plans to make are more agreeable. A reduction in interchanges from 10 to eight is controversial for those who worry about player welfare, but there is every reason to believe that if players have to play longer minutes the game should open up as bodies tire earlier. Two fewer changes may also make coaches think about them a little more than they do now. Substitutions have become fairly formulaic with fewer coaches showing an ability to make a tactical change to really influence a game in recent times. Who knows, we may see more coaches employ Justin Holbrook’s favoured approach of naming a back on the bench rather than the bog-standard four forwards that have been the norm since Bull Mania. Interestingly, Holbrook abandoned that approach in key games against Wigan and Warrington at the back end of last season and it arguably proved costly.
Other measures are aimed at speeding the game up but seem entirely at odds with the introduction of Golden Point. It is proposed that a ‘shot clock’ is introduced at scrums and drop-outs to limit the amount of time spent with the ball dead and so reduce time-wasting. Scrums have increasingly become an opportunity for a breather and a chat about the weather, while almost every single drop-out seems to cause at least one player from the defending team to develop an injury requiring urgent attention. I’m less sold on the idea of allowing 100 seconds for conversions, partly because I think we are all still a bit confused about what this means. Are we talking about the game clock or real time? Currently kickers are allowed 60 seconds to take their kick before the game clock is stopped. If we allow 100 are we not losing 40 seconds of ball-in-play time per kick? With an average of around eight attempts per game could we about to see another five minutes of that ball-in-play time disappear? If so how does that enhance the product?
It is encouraging to see Super League taking some action. It shows at least that they are starting to think about the on-field product and to shake off the complacency that had undoubtedly set in about the game’s appeal. I’m just not convinced they have got it right with Golden Point in particular, something which I will no doubt forget all about should Danny Richardson pop one over in the extra period of our first game at home to Wigan on January 31.
If you enjoy my rugby league ravings why not check out my thoughts on other sporting matters at www.stephenorford.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment