We all love the thrill and spectacle of huge hits, tackle busting linebreaks,
intricate footwork, the subtlety of reverse angles, desperation defence, acts
of individual try-scoring brilliance...I could go on and on but we all know what
I mean. What league isn't is setting two teams up against each other with
no other objective than to try long range, ever hopeful, mostly failing field goals.
If that was the essence of the game no one would watch it.
GP extra time is boring for mine. It strips the game of everything that defines it,
reducing it to a kick-off contest. And for what? Do those who actually follow the comp
remain totally committed to this outcome? Has any recent research asking that question
been undertaken since it was introduced, and if so, where is it?
Since when were sports fans unable to accept a draw anyway?
We have them in rugby, football, netball. Heck we even just had one in the CWC final!
(Please don't go there - Ed).
When it comes to the playoffs then sure. That's when you need to have something in place
because there has to be a winner - but not the regular season comp.
Maybe I'm in a minority here, a lone voice even, a one-man protest making noise about
something only I care about.
But I LOVE league, I LOVE the NRL and this to me is dumb, unnecessary and adds nothing
to the spectacle. And that's my point.
Has this experiment enhanced the product?
Does it improve the visual spectacle?
Is it essential to the enjoyment of the contest?
If your answer to any of those is NO then the question is why would you want to retain it?
AND how do we get the NRL to at least review it?
