Trial of 11-a-side - Sharks v Cowboys (Round 26) - Stories & Discussions

[Granty]

The NRL are going to trial having 11-a-side in the Sharks v Cowboys Toyota Cup (Under 20's) game.

I'm going to put any stories I find on this in here - feel free to make comments :smile:

[Granty]

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24229327-5001023,00.html

Eleven-a-side trial a step forward

By Ricky Stuart
August 24, 2008 12:00am

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.

[Granty]

http://www.leaguehq.com.au/news/news/under-20s-to-undergo-radical-rule-trials/2008/08/24/1219516265122.html

Under 20s to undergo radical rule trials

Glenn Jackson | August 25, 2008

AFTER giving the green light to a radical trial of 11-a-side in the final round of the National Youth Competition, the NRL has also foreshadowed more key changes - including giving greater power to kick-defenders in an attempt to curb the number of tries scored from the boot.

The NRL has revealed it will trial a new law in which the defending side is given a 20-metre tap if a player diffuses any kick into the in-goal in two matches, one in round 25 this weekend and the other in the final round of the under-20 competition. The current law allows a team a tap on the 20-metre line only if a ball is caught on the full in the in-goal, although the trial will, presumably, make kicking to force a drop-out or score a try less attractive than it is now.

There has been widespread criticism of the direction of the game this year with a significant number of tries being scored off kicks - most notably the Sydney Roosters, who at one stage of the season had scored half of their four-pointers off the boot.

That led to Canberra chief executive Don Furner suggesting a radical change in the Herald - having less points available for tries off kicks. The NRL has effectively admitted that they believe too many tries are scored via that avenue with the latest change.

"We've got to keep pace with the trends in the game," chief operating officer Graham Annesley said.

"If there's a view out there that there's too many tries scored off kicks, this kind of rule change would obviously discourage so much kicking into the in-goal."

While that rule - or something similar - could be introduced into the NRL in the short term, 11-a-side would take far longer to be put drafted in.

The change - proposed by Cronulla coach Ricky Stuart to dull the dominance of athleticism over football ability - will be trialled in the last-round NYC clash between the Sharks and North Queensland. But in describing it as "the great unknown", Annesley denied the game's officials were becoming "desperate".

"It's probably a sign of a couple of things - the general view of the rugby league community that we need to make the game as attractive as possible, and a sign of the Toyota Cup being a vehicle to do some things that are out of the ordinary," Annesley said.

"We always said that the Toyota Cup was a great opportunity to experiment with some new ideas … this is something we can't experiment with in the NRL.

"It would be several years before a law so dramatic would be brought into the NRL because of the significance of such a change. Because it's such a radical idea, I'm sure it's not something that would change in the short term, in the immediate term."

Asked if he thought the change could work, Annesley said: "I honestly don't know. It's one of those questions you can't answer until you've seen it in operation … whether it would be a better outcome remains to be seen."