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
"Travelling away every week will take it's toll soon enough"
"Definitely less effective, let's hope the game and the refs hold their nerve and don't start letting the storm and roosters wrestle."
"Going by the games seen so far in this round, the Raiders are the team to beat this year."
"Not dismissing them HKF.
Under the new rules they are less effective. FACT.
Doesn't mean they won't come good though."
Under the new rules they are less effective. FACT.
Doesn't mean they won't come good though."
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
I think it would be better to earn a bonus point for scoring 4 tries, like they do in Super Rugby. 4pts for a win, 1 bonus point for scoring 4 tries or more, winners and losers.
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.
True
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.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next