More rule changes forecast

[The Who]

I think I’ve posted before re Golden Point.
There seems to be a lot of debate and time spent on what is the best determination for a drawn game - something that happens in approx 5% of all games played throughout a season.
They’re not going to scrap it, so either make it 5mins each way with all scoring options in play or give both teams a point with a bonus point for winning in extra time.
They keep trying to come up with all sorts of fancy equations when they could be using that time and energy on things that affect most games like, I dunno, pretty much everything else.

The suggestion: one point for each drawn team plus a bonus point for the eventual winner has been around for 20 years or so. It seems sensible, but then is dismissed by 'amateur mathematicians' saying that it means some games are worth three points and most others two, which is unfair.
Frankly, I thank that is a spurious argument.

 

[John Nicholson]

Another "old chestnut" - why does the receiving team get a half way penalty on a restart, if the ball is kicked out on the full?

That is overcompesating for a poor kick or a sudden gust of wind.

Should be the same as a kick over the sideline. Restart the game with a new set from where it was kicked (or even a scrum if you want to be traditionally consistent).

 

[StuBoot]

The suggestion: one point for each drawn team plus a bonus point for the eventual winner has been around for 20 years or so. It seems sensible, but then is dismissed by 'amateur mathematicians' saying that it means some games are worth three points and most others two, which is unfair.
Frankly, I thank that is a spurious argument.

Yep,
There doesn’t seem to be a problem for the thousands of soccer competitions around the world that some games are worth three points and some worth two.

 

[Chip and Chase]

Less knock on's when the ball goes backward or doesn't hit the ground at all.
Play on ffs.
Why the stoppages for bobbles, I f*ckin hate that stupid word, or if the ball touches another player. If it's not deliberately propelled forward or
If the bloody thing doesn't touch the ground play on...

I'd like to see them change a knock on to include any part of the body EXCEPT the lower leg (below the knee), which you can deem a kick. Those situations where the attacking team make a mess of it and the ball comes off a head or torso but they deem it play on is just a joke. You've got no control of the ball but you get an advantage because it hits your big melon as you got in the road of the cut pass.... please !!! They are quick to blow a knock on for a ball that clearly goes backwards but in the above situations it's multiple replays and freeze frames to try and manufacture a result that is contrary to the whole point of the rule in the first place.

The other thing that peeves me is that they decided to change the rule where the player can't deliberately knock the ball forward and regather it - why they did that I have no idea, to me that takes skill to chase through a kick tap it up away from defender and regather it again. If you've previously had control of the ball then fair enough you can't throw it forward or knock it forward to yourself, but in a "live" ball situation why can't you tap it up away from defenders and regather before it touches someone or the ground ??

 

[John Nicholson]

I'd like to see them change a knock on to include any part of the body EXCEPT the lower leg (below the knee), which you can deem a kick. Those situations where the attacking team make a mess of it and the ball comes off a head or torso but they deem it play on is just a joke. You've got no control of the ball but you get an advantage because it hits your big melon as you got in the road of the cut pass.... please !!! They are quick to blow a knock on for a ball that clearly goes backwards but in the above situations it's multiple replays and freeze frames to try and manufacture a result that is contrary to the whole point of the rule in the first place.

The other thing that peeves me is that they decided to change the rule where the player can't deliberately knock the ball forward and regather it - why they did that I have no idea, to me that takes skill to chase through a kick tap it up away from defender and regather it again. If you've previously had control of the ball then fair enough you can't throw it forward or knock it forward to yourself, but in a "live" ball situation why can't you tap it up away from defenders and regather before it touches someone or the ground ??

Penalty for deliberately knocking the ball forward, goes back to Daily Messenger, who used to throw the ball over the defenders head, run around him and catch the ball.

 

[Chip and Chase]

Penalty for deliberately knocking the ball forward, goes back to Daily Messenger, who used to throw the ball over the defenders head, run around him and catch the ball.

Yes I understand that, but that is a different scenario, you were in control of the ball before the act. I thought you were always able to deliberately tap a ball forward and regather if you weren't previously in control of it - i.e chasing a kick through and knocking it up out of defenders reach and regather it and score as Snake did in that memorable try against the Tigers. They've changed that interpretation now, which makes no sense to me. What's the difference between that and knocking the ball up when going for an intercept and regathering it before it hits ground or opposition ? It's the same situation, you don't have possession, you deliberately play at ball and it goes forward but you regather.

 

[Desert Eagle]

Yep,
There doesn’t seem to be a problem for the thousands of soccer competitions around the world that some games are worth three points and some worth two.

Agreed. It'd also certainly be more likely to encourage both teams to get a result in the 80 minutes.

 

[John Nicholson]

Yes I understand that, but that is a different scenario, you were in control of the ball before the act. I thought you were always able to deliberately tap a ball forward and regather if you weren't previously in control of it - i.e chasing a kick through and knocking it up out of defenders reach and regather it and score as Snake did in that memorable try against the Tigers. They've changed that interpretation now, which makes no sense to me. What's the difference between that and knocking the ball up when going for an intercept and regathering it before it hits ground or opposition ? It's the same situation, you don't have possession, you deliberately play at ball and it goes forward but you regather.

As you say, it changes with the interpretation given by the referee's directorate and by individual referees. It's in the rule book - they follow it accordingly.

I think Rugby Union has an even stronger stance on this scenario and they always pull up intercepts where the ball is propelled forward.

Knocking the ball up in the challenge for a bomb is probably covered by a separate rule.

 

[MissKate]

Under what capacity is lockyer there exactly?

Would it not have been of value to have some current players included, surely they would offer more than lockyer

 

[The Wheel]

Under what capacity is lockyer there exactly?

Would it not have been of value to have some current players included, surely they would offer more than lockyer

Lockyer is there for a very good reason and you should know that Kate! Any rule changed implemented must advantage the Broncos game style.

 

[nightster]

I'd like to see a 5 minute sin bin for time wasting and trainers only allowed on for real injuries

 

[Cameron]

I hate the 7 tackle set especially for field goals.
I Understand it was brought in to counteract kicking the ball dead to take attacking fullbacks out of the game. It should be if you kick the ball dead from outside the defending teams 40 it’s 7 tackles. Anything else including a catch on the full in goal is a optional restart at the 20 meter line with 6 tackles.

 

[Tomay]

Over representation of Queenslanders as usual. what suits their chances of a SOO win next season?

 

[Rodo]

If the NRL are serious about improving player welfare and reducing injuries then they should follow the rugby by having only substitues and no interchanges. Each team could have 7 replacements. Then a player can only be replaced once and can not return except if a teammate is concussed or bleeding. With this rule change, players would not be as big as they would need to have more stamina to last 80 minutes. This would lead to far less injuries as there would be far fewer big collisions.

But then we all know that this is one thing the NRL would not change as they want big collisions as this sets the game apart from other sports and makes it a more "attractive" "product".

 

[cherry_poppins]

That's the ridiculous thing - at a time when Newtown Jets' games are packed out with bearded millennial hipsters (drinking locally brewed alcohol free IPA, and cold brew lattes) they think the solution is to go all out with technology to broaden appeal to younger fans .
Meanwhile parents will continue to chose to put their kids in AFL or soccer comps after watching the number of injuries each week, not to mention the constant off field scandals. I hate to say it but the AFL is so far ahead in terms of encouraging people to get out and play the game and not just watch (with a gambling app in hand).

AFL schoolgirl gang bang, they have a bigger rug and a lower set of ratings, when do they have they're next world cup,???

 

[Woodsie]

Piss off the strip all together ... it is a blight on the game ... and will become a nightmare ....

The skill of stripping a ball is not one that I am going to go to a game to see ... or tell my grandkids ... that I once say Josh Hodson strip the ball .....

Like every othre contested possession situation over the years ... scums .... striking and raking in the play the ball .... they end up becoming free for all ****fights .... that achieve nothing other than resist free open play .....

We all ready have players learning the new .. must have skill ..... hold him up and let go when I tell you ...... FMD ...... this essential skill is now being taught in the u/10's ...... forget about tackling and passing and running ............... let's practice fukken STRIPPING !!

... and the biggest mystery ..... there are numbnuts that actually support stripping .....like a Langlands sidestep ...... or a Beetson offload and a Randall tackle ....... they applaud the strip like window licking Le Feebles ........ convinced in their own Universe of Folly that they are witnessing the "new Era of Rugby League ..........

 

[lsz]

My pet hate continues to be the use of the video ref.

I think there should be a time limit on how long a decision can be reviewed (say a minute). If you still can not make a clear call after that time call advantage to the attacking team and play on

 

[Tragic Eagle]

Why they moved away from the one on one strip not applying after more than one player has had their hands on the ball runner is not known to me. But it was an extremely dumb decision. Four on the bench and no interchanges just replacements for injuries. Therefore only 4 replacements possible. Will bring fatigue back into the game and the smaller players will have more impact later in the game. Get rid of the stupid dominant tackle rule with players laying on top of a player looking up at the referee. 3 second rule should apply if on top and if not on top once they are trying to get to their feet let them go. Will result in less structured defensive lines and more 2nd phase play. No golden point or extra time for comp games only semis and finals. Start penalizing players for walking off the mark usually stepping over the top of a player getting up in front of them. One referee to encourage (Sorry Todd) consistency. No frame by frame adjudication every incident should be viewed and adjudicated on in real time. No on field guess requiring "try" or "no try" call required. If not sure then refer it to bunker who decide watching it real time. Benefit of the doubt to the attacking team. The NRL Commission determine correct interpretation of rules and not the referees. If unsure they should ask for rulings from the NRL. No rule changes mid season.

 

[MissKate]

My pet hate continues to be the use of the video ref.

I think there should be a time limit on how long a decision can be reviewed (say a minute). If you still can not make a clear call after that time call advantage to the attacking team and play on

It’s not only the time it takes the muppets but, if after say 3 replays they can’t make a judgment on it, then it’s not conclusive. So just go with the call from the field ref and get on with it

 

[BOZO]

What I would like to see .......

Every time the ref goes to the video ref that takes 10 minutes to go through freeze frame replays we should send out the cheerleaders to take away this boredom