Curious.
Would it add to the modern real world game ie: 13 game. Attacking game , exiting for lesser teams jagging extra points to beat more fancied sides .Could it make the game better ?
You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!
This reply was deleted.
More stuff to read
"Hope you are right. Would love to see how we come out of Melbourne game, though under strength we are still travelling and it is a bastard of a place to play at."
"No because we beat a full strength broncos side in peak season. They make many mistakes we capitalised on it we win. Also that broncos side we beat was better than what they dished up. Just have to kick early and get Walsh in all sorts."
"We should have won that 2023 game..."
"Do it
please
Do It"
please
Do It"
Replies
No
No
It's a bit of a gimmick that is best left in the 9's format I think.
Maybe there is a try scoring zone which includes the area between the posts and 10M on either side of the posts that is automatically a 6 point try with no conversion attempt. Would speed up the game and kickers rarely miss ftom this range anyway.
That might work
Rarely but they do kicking is a skill that decides a game. The close kicks 1 would argue are more important to the outcome cause a missed close kicks haunts a kicker/team more then the sideline miss
The problem with this is the draw isn't even, you play some teams twice and others once, it would be an unfair advantage to the teams that get to play the bad teams twice while others will only get to pay them once.
Yeah I know. But to fix alot of things within the game. It would produce a complete rethinking of attacking. It also throws a psychological element into it. I'm behind by one etc. But yeah you need to play everyone twice.
Only for Parra. Everyone else has to score at least from 10 meters out.
I didn't mind the 20:40 kick. That was unexpected.
I didn't go but apparently the goal posts lit up when a conversion happened and a try was scored? Brilliant.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next