WiganWarriorsFans.com

Fawdoffshed wrote:

First Try Tickle wrote:

Wiganer Ted wrote:I've never heard or seen a bad word about the 40/20.
It is a skillful play that deserves the reward it gets.
Corner flag tries are spectacular and worth watching.

Does anyone who goes to games want those pieces of skill abolished from our game?

Yes me.

To be honest I'm quite surprised to totally agree with Medlocke's last 3 posts.

If you can keep a team in there own 40 by great defence, you shouldn't be penalised because the half can hoof it a long way. The teams that do it are the poor attacking teams like Hudds and Hull. I'd ban kicking all together.

It's called rugby league football. The Aussies call it "footie".

How would you re-name the game? :eusa4:

I'd rename it "Rugby League"

The Aussie's can call it what they want.

More and more teams are playing for field position, just so they can put a kick in for the winger to run onto. Its boring and its not rugby.

Rugby is about unlocking the defence with good attacking play.

Defenders arnt gonna commit too tackling a player whose upside in mid air......they hesitate because they could break an arm or worse case scenario,land on there head.....lets get it right, if you pushed a player whole in this position it would probably stop a try...a a cost too the attacking player......all im saying is that defenders seem too hold back because ov the above and seem unsure about tackling an airbourne player...... some wingers even somersault into the corner..... imagine if this happened whilst the defender is charging him......like daveo said above....if he hits the corner flag hes in touch...... very simple rule thats been complicated.......ok you get flashy tries ,but lets be honest, the best tries are the skillful team efforts or individual long range ones

Very disappointed to see so much support for removing what to my mind, and I'm sure many others, are the best two rule changes in recent years. Hell, didn't union copy us on the corner flag cos they saw what a good idea it was?

And hey, I'm all for "... unlocking the defence with good attacking play", but I don't see that abolishing 40/20s will help bring that about. And it's not like we get three or four per game (if we did, the haters would have a point); they are rare. But they keep defenders honest, and making them hesitate before pushing up at the end of a set, giving more attacking options. Isn't that what we all want?

If we are talking about resurrecting 'old' rules, how about allowing players to ptb to themselves? Or at least when there are no markers, I never understood why that was stopped.

moto748 wrote:Very disappointed to see so much support for removing what to my mind, and I'm sure many others, are the best two rule changes in recent years. Hell, didn't union copy us on the corner flag cos they saw what a good idea it was?

And hey, I'm all for "... unlocking the defence with good attacking play", but I don't see that abolishing 40/20s will help bring that about. And it's not like we get three or four per game (if we did, the haters would have a point); they are rare. But they keep defenders honest, and making them hesitate before pushing up at the end of a set, giving more attacking options. Isn't that what we all want?

If we are talking about resurrecting 'old' rules, how about allowing players to ptb to themselves? Or at least when there are no markers, I never understood why that was stopped.

im all for the 40/20 rule moto...... the voluntary tackle is the worst rule at the moment

Firestarter wrote:im all for the 40/20 rule moto......

Pleased to hear it, but some aren't, it seems.

Firestarter wrote:... the voluntary tackle is the worst rule at the moment

It's annoying, but I don't see it as much more than a minor irritation.

moto748 wrote:

Firestarter wrote:im all for the 40/20 rule moto......

Pleased to hear it, but some aren't, it seems.

Firestarter wrote:... the voluntary tackle is the worst rule at the moment

It's annoying, but I don't see it as much more than a minor irritation.

The 40/20 is the same as giving the fat kid that came last in the cross country at school a mars bar, we shouldn't be rewarding mediocrity :conf:

The biggest issue in the game at the moment is the ball-steal penalties vs loose carry scrums.

The main problem is the frequency of stoppages caused regardless of what the decision is. That creates a very stop-start game with no flow and reduces enjoyment.

The second problem is infuriation with the randomness of the decisions and how much they can impact the game. A bascially random decision has an uneven effect. I'd make both result in a tap to whatever side, effectively reducing the impact of a bad call a bit. You can't blame the refs for getting individual calls wrong, they are impossible to get "right" even if you could see everything that went on - so mitigate that by making the impact less one sided.

Who wants a constant penalty, penalty, try sequence based on ball steal penalties - not me.

There's a place for the ball-steal, but I think most fans agree that the balance is currently wrong; there should be more responsibility on the ball-carrier to hang onto it.

Mike wrote:The biggest issue in the game at the moment is the ball-steal penalties vs loose carry scrums.

The main problem is the frequency of stoppages caused regardless of what the decision is. That creates a very stop-start game with no flow and reduces enjoyment.

The second problem is infuriation with the randomness of the decisions and how much they can impact the game. A bascially random decision has an uneven effect. I'd make both result in a tap to whatever side, effectively reducing the impact of a bad call a bit. You can't blame the refs for getting individual calls wrong, they are impossible to get "right" even if you could see everything that went on - so mitigate that by making the impact less one sided.

Who wants a constant penalty, penalty, try sequence based on ball steal penalties - not me.

I've thought for a long time that penalties for minor or disputable "offences" have too big an influence on the game.

Why not have an alternative of just giving 10 metres, or an extra tackle? If "penalising" the attacking team, reduce the 6 tackles to 5, or march em back a few metres.

The intention would be to reduce penalties to proper foul play, and also make the constant interference not worthwhile.

morley pie eater wrote:

Mike wrote:The biggest issue in the game at the moment is the ball-steal penalties vs loose carry scrums.

The main problem is the frequency of stoppages caused regardless of what the decision is. That creates a very stop-start game with no flow and reduces enjoyment.

The second problem is infuriation with the randomness of the decisions and how much they can impact the game. A bascially random decision has an uneven effect. I'd make both result in a tap to whatever side, effectively reducing the impact of a bad call a bit. You can't blame the refs for getting individual calls wrong, they are impossible to get "right" even if you could see everything that went on - so mitigate that by making the impact less one sided.

Who wants a constant penalty, penalty, try sequence based on ball steal penalties - not me.

I've thought for a long time that penalties for minor or disputable "offences" have too big an influence on the game.

Why not have an alternative of just giving 10 metres, or an extra tackle? If "penalising" the attacking team, reduce the 6 tackles to 5, or march em back a few metres.

The intention would be to reduce penalties to proper foul play, and also make the constant interference not worthwhile.

Have to admit Mike's initial post about the consistency of the ball steal rule is my biggest bug bear and Morley's idea for compensating for it is great. I would probably opt for the extra tackle (as what would happen if you were 10 yards from the in goal are for example) as it gains no serious advantage to deliberately losing the ball as a penalty (or another 6 tackles) would give and the team defending, are penalised if a player does attempt to ball steal, but not to the point it is deemed fine to do that as teams could then be "put on a warning" and a player sin binned for constant behaviour in this way if it does become an issue