Union games on average are generally lower scoring games, so they are likely to be closer. Also they play are a large part of the season in winter (Nov,Dec,Jan) where games are also generally lower scoring affairs. Most try scoring bonus points come at the start and end of the season when the weather is warm and more conducive to open rugby!

It's just too easy to score in RL. It doesn't take much inventiveness or skill to force your way over. In many cases, it is just teams getting over the advantage line, and falling over the try line. A RL pitch is 100 metres, so let's say, per set 10 metres are gained per tackle. That's half of the sodding pitch covered through just completing the basics.

I agree on the "kick the touch" option of penalties. They're just too influential on getting a team into the oppositions half leading to many comprehensive tries. It's not that any team can be completely absolved from conceding penalties. Things are just too "of the moment" for a team not to infringe in some cases. Perhaps technical offences should be a "back to zero", where as high tackles and other dangerous play can remain with the same reward.

Whether it is too archaic to go back to a 5 metres defensive line or not, I don't know. But I think it would lead to more yards earned through skill and inventiveness than just "doing the basics well". Which may well lead to scorelines more close together, because the intensity factor (which most teams lack) would be a lot less important.

When you see teams of reasonably comparable ability compete for 80 minutes and players really put themselves on the line, scoring becomes much harder. That level of commitment simply doesn't exist for long in most games (generally evaporating once one side is 12 points up), and in some games is non-existent.

I'm not suggesting all teams should be fired up Origin style every week - its far from that in the NRL - but if you watch the highlight reels from a week of SL games, half of the tries look like unopposed training exercises.

There are blowouts in the NRL, but they are fewer, and teams generally respond to going too far behind by redoubling their efforts to avoid being humiliated, and if they can't they generally put in a much better effort the following week. I just don't see that effect very often at all in SL. How did Leeds respond to the gutless home loss against Wigan? With an almost equally gutless loss at Wire, followed by a points fest with Wakefield when neither side seemed interested in defence.

I think fans have a right to expect more. Players simply wouldn't get away with turning out cr*p like that in Australia.

Ever wondered why sports persons being dominated often go to ? It isn't just poor attitude (often poor prepared attitude, Leeds in their hair colouring episode springs to mind), it is human nature for people's heads to go down when losing/being over-run. This has happened in actual battle many times, sheer bad luck and unjust decisions/circumstances contrive even further to put doubts in people's minds, your performance suffers as a consequence. Conversely the opposition gain confidence and can often take advantage of this.
Thus you have cases were two evenly matched teams can all of a sudden have 20, 30, 40 point differential, sport psychology tries to overcome these situations, even situations were you have been successful & then have doubts about continuing to be successful. Despite RL being a 'tough' sport, it is often clear to me (since the late 80s when I did behavioural studes) that the majority of players are not anywhere near as tough mentally. There are very few people who are naturally not quitters and can withstand hard mental (as well as the obvious physical) pressures that sport brings.

As for union, their scores are getting bigger I feel, the faster outside back play/passing from scrums in modern times takes advantage of the strict offsides at the scrum and the fact that 8 players are properly committed to it (unlike in League were the binds are slacker than a Leeds' prozzies gussett..lol)
This opens up a large area of the field where attacks can be swift, because of the stop/start nature of union (not unlike NFL) the outside backs can be bigger/bulkier as they do not need the ultimate stamina that a RL back has so they can put in swift/powerful short bursts. This is devastating and very hard to counter when on the back foot.

Possibly. The potential danger is that referees become more more willing to hand out free-kicks for trivial offences because the impact is slightly less.

The crippling effect of penalities cant be ignored either, how often (multiple times on a Sky game) do we see 2 or 3 back to back penalties awarded, sometimes in debatable circumstances that then leads to a try.

Teams make an error, penalty is awarded, next set they are over eager to make amends, penalised then having been rolled 60m upfield they are disorganised and give up a score.

(what compounds this is perceived lack of consistancy in players, where they are penalised for one thing, yet see the opposition get away with "the same thing" over and over)



Id also say that for all its razzamataz the NRL is and has always been a hugely defence orientated game, where the English game has always been attack orientated - regardless of what we purists we want to see, the casual fans want tries, and lots of em. (this is also perhaps why the RU is seeing bigger and bigger scores - no one wants to see a 12-9 score with not a single try scored)