Beverley red wrote:Though not really bothered about the clock. Am I the only one who can’t understand why everyone seems to be getting obsessed with speeding up the game? Is it that big a problem? I watched Rovers against Saints 1992 or 3 on that well known video sight, an entertaining game with lots of action. They had just started to clamp down on laying on & head high tackles the game flowed well & the only difference from today was the game was not stopped for injuries and video ref as much as it is today. Union & NFL don’t seem to worry about nothing happening for long periods of the game yet they get good support & TV coverage. The only thing I have really noticed is our players now being full time are fitter & stronger so the skill full small players never get much chance to run at tired forwards, so the reduction in subs will help that & maybe even go down to six changes if we find eight to much? What’s any one else think?
The NFL has been concerned about and taken steps to improve the pace of its games. It's arguably a slightly different point, but Union was concerned with the time lost to repeatedly resetting scrums and the last game I saw it seemed like it was a more controlled process with fewer collapsing.
Also, maybe the world is changing - and our chairman has alluded to attracting the next generation of fans, and they possibly spend their time differently. Tbf, I suspect we all do versus 25 years ago. I think the feeling is that longer games with slower play are cutting against that grain. Life generally is faster now.
Being radical, could we just bin-off conversions altogether and have 5-point tries?
The big change I'd like to see is dramatically restricting the wrestle. There's a quote I've seen, I think from the early days of SL, something like: 'I have seen the future of rugby league and it is basketball' - it seems to have gone to the other extreme nowadays. And the growth in milking penalties at the ruck that has come with it is not entertaining or edifying.