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
"Our assigned WWE role is to bend at the hips"
"Why bother. Long contracts don't seem to mean shit because (insert reason you feel like leaving for melb here)"
"They can't kick us out right now, And not for this. Best time to show some spirit is right now...but supine is a hard place to fight from"
"Weak as Piss is us not having it in us to fight. We don't know when to have a go and we wouldn't know what to do if we did"
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