: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:14 pm  

silver2 wrote:

For a radical idea, the game could consider putting a weight limit on the team, in a similar to how boxering is regulated. If each team were limited to an average of say 14 stone, then we would proabably start to see less injuries and a marked differential between forwards and backs - leading to a more open game.

14st a man i think you mean. there is a movement in RU similar to this i think the limit is 85kg's it was introduced as a way of getting smaller statured races to get involved. very big in the south east asia apparently.

a bit of an unworkable idea i think, but perhaps it could be introduced at academy level to promote better skills

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:52 pm  

Huddersfield are already playing the 5m rule. Go on , fine me 4K.

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:57 pm  

saucer of milke for churchil

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 10:16 pm  

oxford-pie-eater wrote: Take on board your arguement and I'm not one of these folk who think players are in any way hard done to. If you don't like it, go and work in a factory or office somewhere, like the rest of us. I'll trade places with Jon Wilkin any day of the week. But its not the day of the week or the kick off time I'm talking about, it's the scheduling to suit TV, and even the TV companies make no bones over the fact this happens. Anyone who thinks clubs can decide exactly when and - crucially - how many matches they play is deluded - why do you think they're all bloody moaning about it? In cases where a club can decide whether they play on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday and they choose to give their players a longer rest, it clearly gives em a shorter break before the following game. That works vice versa too and therefore has little bearing on this arguement. I'm talking about too many games in a season (and not a long enough closed season) for sportsmen now testing their bodies well beyond the rigours of what Kel Skerrett and Kevin Ward put themselves through. Sure, the game's always been 'tough' - perhaps even more so in the old days than now - but the impact of collisions and the speed around the ruck are light years from where they were even 10 years ago. It's a different game with different physical attributes required. Mal Meninga was the Man Mountain, a fine physical specimen at his pomp, but he wasn't the athlete Israel Folou is (IMO), and yet he was probably the best of his generation. Like everyone else, I'd watch a game every night of the week if I could, but if it's at the expense of players' medium to long term health and the quality of what I'm watching, that doesn't make any sense at all. My only suggestion was that we err more toward doing what's best for the game and its players, and not what's best for the pockets of the big telly bosses. Unfortunately, TV money rules the world so you either live with it, or find a compromise. What I'm saying is that it's up to the main power-brokers in our sport to take a lead, do some research, put this on the agenda and find a compromise - but I wouldn't hold your breath as they seem to understand it about as much as you. - This is a just summary of conclusions from just one study. It's a few years old and it's also a study of risks for 'subelite' rugby league players: http://ajs.sagepub.com/content/33/3/428.abstract It's interesting all the same, and perhaps suggests we need a thorough study at the highest level. Some very valid points, however the fact is that the RFL and the clubs run the game, and if they wanted to, they could limit the number of games each player could play in a season, or even shorten the season overall. The TV companies do not dicate how many games we play, it is the RFL/SL who do this and then sell this to the companies. A few years ago we used to play 30 games, and now we play 27. Sky's deal went up, and I'm sure they now just double up the odd game here and there. If teams were that bothered, they could arrange games for Friday evening each week, then they would always get at least 6 days recovery time, but some clubs play on a Friday by their own choice, after playing away on the previous Sunday.

oxford-pie-eater wrote: Take on board your arguement and I'm not one of these folk who think players are in any way hard done to. If you don't like it, go and work in a factory or office somewhere, like the rest of us. I'll trade places with Jon Wilkin any day of the week. But its not the day of the week or the kick off time I'm talking about, it's the scheduling to suit TV, and even the TV companies make no bones over the fact this happens. Anyone who thinks clubs can decide exactly when and - crucially - how many matches they play is deluded - why do you think they're all bloody moaning about it? In cases where a club can decide whether they play on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday and they choose to give their players a longer rest, it clearly gives em a shorter break before the following game. That works vice versa too and therefore has little bearing on this arguement. I'm talking about too many games in a season (and not a long enough closed season) for sportsmen now testing their bodies well beyond the rigours of what Kel Skerrett and Kevin Ward put themselves through. Sure, the game's always been 'tough' - perhaps even more so in the old days than now - but the impact of collisions and the speed around the ruck are light years from where they were even 10 years ago. It's a different game with different physical attributes required. Mal Meninga was the Man Mountain, a fine physical specimen at his pomp, but he wasn't the athlete Israel Folou is (IMO), and yet he was probably the best of his generation. Like everyone else, I'd watch a game every night of the week if I could, but if it's at the expense of players' medium to long term health and the quality of what I'm watching, that doesn't make any sense at all. My only suggestion was that we err more toward doing what's best for the game and its players, and not what's best for the pockets of the big telly bosses. Unfortunately, TV money rules the world so you either live with it, or find a compromise. What I'm saying is that it's up to the main power-brokers in our sport to take a lead, do some research, put this on the agenda and find a compromise - but I wouldn't hold your breath as they seem to understand it about as much as you. - This is a just summary of conclusions from just one study. It's a few years old and it's also a study of risks for 'subelite' rugby league players: http://ajs.sagepub.com/content/33/3/428.abstract It's interesting all the same, and perhaps suggests we need a thorough study at the highest level. Some very valid points, however the fact is that the RFL and the clubs run the game, and if they wanted to, they could limit the number of games each player could play in a season, or even shorten the season overall. The TV companies do not dicate how many games we play, it is the RFL/SL who do this and then sell this to the companies. A few years ago we used to play 30 games, and now we play 27. Sky's deal went up, and I'm sure they now just double up the odd game here and there. If teams were that bothered, they could arrange games for Friday evening each week, then they would always get at least 6 days recovery time, but some clubs play on a Friday by their own choice, after playing away on the previous Sunday.

: Fri Apr 24, 2009 12:11 am  

Don Brennans Leg wrote:

[/b]

Yes we did have a 5M rule, but players still got injured. For example I've just finished reading Kevin Ashcrofts biography and he's had knee replacements, Phil Lowe has had hip replacements. Bill Ashursts knees wre jiggered when joined Wakefield in 1979, however recouperation and treatment techniques were'nt as good when those guys played as they are now.

I'm on the fence a bit with this one. A 5M rule did encourage more skilful players, but a 10M rule I believe gives us more open play. Pro's and con's for both IMO.

I'd fully support a return to the 5m rule purely on this basis - the 'flap about on the floor for a ridiculously quick PTB or penalty' technique is really grating.

: Fri Apr 24, 2009 1:05 am  

Cragganmore Kid wrote:

I'd fully support a return to the 5m rule purely on this basis - the 'flap about on the floor for a ridiculously quick PTB or penalty' technique is really grating.

But with 5m, wouldn't the importance of quick ptb's be increased? An average speed ptb can cause problems at the mo.