zylya

I'm excited to see how this additional profile translates in the next couple of years - as someone involved in a community club outside of the heartlands, I'm also hoping that the extra attention and availability (BBC, streaming etc) of top flight Rugby League will also help generate interest in people playing the sport across the country, both kids and adults. A rising tide lifting all boats scenario.

No we didn't. We had a semi professional league 1 with a variety of expansion teams created to join it. That's not a pathway because there's no ongoing process. What I'm saying is remove the arbitrary barrier between League 1 and the two Conference Leagues and let clubs build how they want, with a promotion & relegation structure (that could include minimum standards if necessary). e.g. League 1 bottom team gets relegated (suspended for a few years til League 1 gets to the right size) and the winner of the SCL and NCL Grand Finals play off for the spot. You could even have a playoff game between the bottom team and the winner of the NCL/SCL final. That way, if Skolars ever attracted the investment they were looking for, they could re-earn League 1 status over time. At the moment, it's a huge slog for League 1 clubs to find the funding to operate (limited number of home games, limited central funding etc). Likewise if a group ever invested into a lower down Rugby League club, they could in theory work their way up to Super League without any outside interference, e.g. when Manchester Rangers were denied entry because "too many other teams nearby." If you're good enough, and build your business well enough, you can find promotion. Clubs that don't want to push towards promotion don't have to, but clubs with ambition have a viable pathway to get their club up the pyramid. Additionally, Hemel and Skolars are now both rebuilding in Southern Conference - so you already have the relegation part of it available for clubs. But at the moment, when a club drops out from League 1, it's a traumatic process, whereas a natural promotion/relegation would allow for a smoother transition of teams. Wests and Hammersmith both beat NCL Premier teams in the challenge cup so the gap in playing ability has clearly been closed.

This is what I was trying to say as well - get rid of the whole “this is the semi pro league and this is the amateur league” and have a pathway through for clubs to hit their own aspirations if they choose to dedicate the resources to it.

Obviously the neatest short term solution is a 12/11 split, but I think it’s time for the RFL to start looking at a national pyramid like they’ve introduced in the women’s game. League 1 to sit above NCL/SCL with a promotion playoff between the two regions (with NCL renamed Northern Conference). Of course, they would have to make promotion to League 1 be an attractive proposition, which I’m not sure it is at the moment. That said, there have been some teams wanted to join League 1 in the past - a national pyramid would remove the “block” on new clubs (E.g. Manchester) but they’d have to prove their stripes before they could get there. Obviously you’d have to change things around so there’s not a clear pro/amateur split which has a lot of historical context so wouldn’t necessarily be a simple process.

Whether growth of Rugby League as a sport is their stated purpose or not, everyone here seems to agree that NRL wants to make money off the back of this. It might only be small numbers, but now you've got a group of Rugby League enthusiasts who are ###### off and won't go to the game. It's probably not the end of the world, but the NRL would probably do well to send some free kit to these guys with an apology and even better if they can get a player to visit as well. The video on the article also clearly shows the kids rucking over after a carry, so Leniu's not even delivering a Rugby League session. He called a high school rugby union team "the pinnacle of Rugby League" in the area. It's not that this is the biggest mistake they've ever made, or that it's not salvageable at this stage, but running things like coaching clinics is part of a strategy to get supporters interested in the product. Creating life time fans rather than just plugging a few events in Vegas. If the NRL stars runs a coaching clinic and the 4 youth clubs in Utah all get an extra 10-20% membership and that catalyst helps them grow to more clubs etc then you've got a ready-made group of people who are going to want to come and watch the NRL when it comes back the next year. Going to a rugby union high school and coaching rugby union is pretty one-and-done in terms of getting fans through the door. The marketer in me also thinks that this is actually an opportunity for the NRL - because you could send them a load of free NRL stash, make an apology and offer some time from your marketing/design department to create some cool graphics and website for the Utah clubs to help them get seen. And offer a coaching session when you next can.

The changes I were referring to with my post were the tag/touch til U10 - so a few years of playing before they get to contact work - promoting evasion and catch-pass skills. My hope would be that smaller players will still be able to find success on pitch once they then graduate to contact, by using some of those evasion/catch-pass skills that they've spent a few years developing. I also think that a kid who plays for 2-3 years will be less likely to have a single negative contact experience that makes them want to leave the sport. Obviously some players will come to realise that contact rugby isn't for them, however they may remain involved in the game in non-contact environments if they've had positive experiences.

I am not a lawyer

IANAL, but given that the game already carries an element of risk, I imagine that any good-faith effort to reduce the likelihood of head injuries would not count against the RFL, especially if the research done post-change highlighted this and they reverted. The current lawsuit alleges that Rugby League (via its governing bodies) didn't take action to protect players from concussion and repeated concussive events. If they can point to the research they've carried out and the changes they've made because of it and then, if they're wrong, revert the change in good time then I don't believe that they would be specifically liable in that instance.

I work in rugby environments of both codes, ranging all the way from U12 (and very occasionally primary school) all the way through to Open Age, and I can honestly say that one of my biggest challenges with young players is lack of catch-pass. The majority of youth rugby that I see, up to around U14/U15, is determined by which team has either the oldest kids (i.e. relative age effect) and/or most early onset puberty kids. I've seen games at U13 & U14 level decided by a team that gave the ball to their biggest player over and over again and that player does 80%+ of the work. That doesn't make for great learning outcomes for the other 12 players! Especially because give it to the big lad as a strategy only works for so long - loads of opportunity to learn how to read the game/play tactically/develop the majority of your players missed. My experience as a player and subsequently as a coach, as well as anecdotally from others, is that the players who have that initial physical dominance tend to either drop out when everyone else catches up in terms of physical maturation or find themselves unequipped in skill terms to hold their own any more. There is an effect where smaller players who matured later do find themselves with excellent skillsets (no doubt from trying to avoid getting tackled by the aforementioned physically dominant players) however, I wonder how many kids got stream-rolled at 8/9/10 years old and decided "rugby isn't for me." I think there's a bigger element at play than just the future professionals of the game - we need loads of kids playing and being involved in the game because they're our future supporters, volunteers and coaches as well as players, even if most of them will never progress beyond community rugby. More skilful players, and longer development time on those core skills of evasion and catch-pass will have positive outcomes in the longer term. I don't believe it will have a long term detrimental impact on the game - in fact, by having players start to learn the complex multi-faceted movement patterns involved in tackling later on in life, they're likely going to be better at tackling in the long run.

Ah didn't see this before I posted it on the International Forum. But to repeat myself, have been really impressed with what they're doing in the Netherlands at the moment. Lots of good stuff, working hard to grow the game.

https://rugbyleague.nl/u19s-squad-named-for-inaugural-tour/ Two matches against community sides and visits to professional clubs. Have been really impressed with the Netherlands recently - lots of good stuff in both men's and women's and now pushing their youth as well.

This is an excellent post and mirrors a lot of my own experience as someone who was born in a non-RL area and only took up the game for the first time at uni and am now involved in running Rugby League activity (club and some schools stuff). There was no "effort" to expand into my home town, I set it up by getting in touch with people and making it happen. The idea that the RFL is ploughing tons of cash into expansion areas is demonstrably false - even at the pro level, look at the fates of West Wales & Skolars over the last couple of years. There's a skeleton staff at the RFL dealing with "The South" (i.e. everything that's not the heartlands, even though that covers way more than just South of England) and they've always been really helpful, but it's a drop in the ocean. To suggest that there's money wasted on expansion projects is crazy when there's only one full time staff member for the largest part of the country. Despite that, small pockets of progress are happening - I took a local school to the London & SE Champion Schools festival the other day (U14) and there were 7 schools there all playing 13-a-side rugby league. The more that can be made of these things, the more likely it continues. The problem for the traditionalists is that there's practically zero money to divert from the expansion areas to the heartlands - since as FI has pointed out here, most of it is coming from enthusiastic amateurs. Because as someone who's never lived up North and only took up the sport at university, I'm not going to be sending any money to places over 5 hours away from me. I'll either invest my time and energy into building something in my local community or I'll simply spend that same time and energy in other pursuits. This heartlands vs expansion debate is trite and irrelevant since there's no real funding or time/energy invested into non-heartland areas at a NGB level.

Got it, you don't have any examples at all. Even in the post pointing out your own hyperbole you still suggested that World Cups have been built around the very minor nations, but it's good to know that you can't actually point to a single time this was the case and are therefore talking out of your ###### about it.

Take it that's a no on pointing to any World Cup that was designed for the tiny countries as you've claimed a few times? As I mentioned earlier in this topic, I don't even have a problem with the IRL deciding that the World Cup should be smaller and acting accordingly. But why, as the global governing body, have they not created anything to help these developing nations as well as their top nations? Looking at the "international calendar" it's mostly about what's happening with England and Australia, aside from a brief mention of a potential World Series competition. I don't see how you can legitimately try and claim that the IRL has shown any real interest in anything OTHER than the very top nations. And I don't see how anyone can justify a global governing body being so lackadaisical with a large segment of their membership.

I wouldn't 100% be against a 4-3-3 group system as long as it's drawn like this: Pot 1 (top 4 ranked teams) - 2 into Group 1, 1 into G2/3 Pot 2 (teams ranked 5-7) - 1 into each group Pot 3 (teams ranked 8-10) - 1 into each group So that there's still an element of fairness in the groupings. 2 teams would qualify from the group of 4, 1 from the 2 groups of 3. Creates some good jeopardy - still likely that the top 4 teams would end up in the semi finals, but a single upset in a group of 3 would be enough to get a different team in. Also means a marquee game in Group 1. Would be happy for the hosts (Australia or New Zealand depending on where it ends up held) to be in Group 1 and their game against the other Pot 1 team to be the tournament opener - less random, but gives a decent opening game. Would make the draw easier to explain as well. Super Group can get in the bin though.