New Rules To Enhance The Game
- Thread starter Technical Coach
- Start date
I agree Dan, but I don't see the problem with including forward passes. What the problem is as well is getting competent video refs. Look at the mistakes yesterday. I'll give Merrit his 'finger touch', but he was definitely out when he batted the ball back for another of their BOD tries. I liked the way Jamie challenged that decision. When is out out?
DSM5 said:
I mean in general play.
I don't mind the video ref ruling on them for tries, but can you imagine him chiming into the general play with every second pass?
I would rather leave that for the touchies and on field ref's but allow him to rule on them leading up to a try
Absolutely agree with one ref. The game has become far worse with 2 refs, it is a failed experiment. I think the forward pass issue with video refs should be part of the BOTD rule, if there is a good camera angle showing a clear forward pass the video ref should be allowed to rule on it. If the angle is poor and/or the pass is questionably forward then BOTD goes with the attacking team. The Parra pass in 2010 is a good example, even before video refs had HD tvs a blind chimp could have seen that pass was forward.
As for the original suggestions, I did like the idea of rewarding the kicker for any attacking kick that goes 40m but since mention that it could become like rugby, I have changed my view. I agree that there would be too many kickers going for touch at every opportunity and the game would become slower and more predictable.
I think there is merit to moving the "mark" rule out 5m but then it is difficult to call on where exactly the player caufght the ball, just under, just over 5m. It has merit but I think it would be hard to police.
As for the original suggestions, I did like the idea of rewarding the kicker for any attacking kick that goes 40m but since mention that it could become like rugby, I have changed my view. I agree that there would be too many kickers going for touch at every opportunity and the game would become slower and more predictable.
I think there is merit to moving the "mark" rule out 5m but then it is difficult to call on where exactly the player caufght the ball, just under, just over 5m. It has merit but I think it would be hard to police.
Dan, as firechild said, the video ref can't rule atm on forward passes when looking at a try sequence. I think the bomb thing should be left as it is. Seeing Mini crunched was excellent. It rewards the attacking team for skill, with a drop out and possession, and gives the defending team a thirty metre (Ox notwithstanding) buffer.
Frank
Bencher
eagles2win said:
Can't agree with this one. A field goal is more difficult when the opposition knows it's on. Defences rush you to try and stop them. When it's not nil all with under 10 minutes remaining most defences don't expect them.
Taking a shot at field goal from right in front on the 4th tackle when the opposition isn't expecting it is not so difficult. I see this rule as making the game more boring as teams would slot over 4 or 5 a game. Sounds like another sport I hate.
I'd like to see a change to the interchange rule. More specifically I want to see less of them. No more than 6, maybe even 4. Maybe then we'll see a return to the great 5/8s like Cliff Lyons and co who got to work with tiring defences. These days we have super fit machines that work at full capacity in 20 minute spurts because they know they'll be coming off for a break of at least 30 minutes (half-time included).
Now that would be entertaining!
They've tried before with the video ref ruling on forward passes and it was an abject failure, so can't see the point in going back there. There is no way that the video ref can accurately determine whether a pass has gone forward or not. It's all good when the pass is 10m forward (like the Parra one) but what about the ones that go 10cm forward ?? All that leads to is more frustration from fans. Ditto with the video ref ruling on any indescretion in general play, they used to allow that as well but it slowed the game down so much because at every stoppage the video ref was trying to look back through footage to cover his ar$e in case they had missed something.
One rule I'd like to see abolished is the double movement rule. At any other point on the ground you get tackled and then you can wrestle and fight for every inch forward, however get tackled 3cm from the tryline and you must freeze every bone in your body in fear of a double movement. I reckon if you can get the ball over the line then it's a try regardless of how you do it, as long as the rules of the tackle aren't violated i.e. play on after being held. It will take away all that rubbish subjective calls you get on double movements.
TC I'm not sure if I understand your 7th tackle option play. If you don't have to tell anyone you are using one how does the ref know when the set is finished ?? Are we to assume that every play could be a possible 7th tackle set until they use their quota ??
One rule I'd like to see abolished is the double movement rule. At any other point on the ground you get tackled and then you can wrestle and fight for every inch forward, however get tackled 3cm from the tryline and you must freeze every bone in your body in fear of a double movement. I reckon if you can get the ball over the line then it's a try regardless of how you do it, as long as the rules of the tackle aren't violated i.e. play on after being held. It will take away all that rubbish subjective calls you get on double movements.
TC I'm not sure if I understand your 7th tackle option play. If you don't have to tell anyone you are using one how does the ref know when the set is finished ?? Are we to assume that every play could be a possible 7th tackle set until they use their quota ??
Chip and Chase said:
As I said, it could be ruled on only when it is abundantly clear that it is a forward pass. The problem with that would be that they couldn't really send it upstairs to check a forward pass given that the chance of being able to rule it so would be low but they could only really rule on it if something was being checked. So, if someone kicks, the regarther is thrown 5m forward and not called, they could rule on the pass while checking the onside. However, that doesn't help in the majority of cases where there is no kick and often there is nothing else that needs checking.
Correct. Every set can potentially go to 7 tackles, if a player gets tackled on the 6th then they automatically use one of the options. I don't really see it working. It isn't bad in theory in that it creates some uncertainty in the defending team and potentially allows a team to benefit from a break on the last that amounts to nothing (Watmough's break in SOO3 comes to mind). However, I think it just makes things more confusing.
I wouldnt mind a rule along the lines of, if you score off of a bomb, you don't get a shot at goal, so it's a maximum of 4 points for a try from certain kicks (probably just all kicks is easier, though I think there is more skill in threading a ball through the line for a good grubber).
The only caveat to this would be that you can score of long range kicks and get a shot at goals, so any kick inside the say, 40 can only lead to 4 points.
Will then lead to less kicks and bring a bit more skill into the footy.
The only caveat to this would be that you can score of long range kicks and get a shot at goals, so any kick inside the say, 40 can only lead to 4 points.
Will then lead to less kicks and bring a bit more skill into the footy.
But would you really want to penalise some of Snake's most brilliant tries and try assists (think Tigpies '07, assist for DCE Broncos '11 or even Dragons '11) by reducing them to 4 points? I agree in theory but then there would be so many great tries that are not rewarded for what they are. The Slater origin try in about 2006, would that be 4 points because it was kicked by Slater inside the 40 or would it be a potential 6-pointer because Lockyer made the first kick outside?
Daniel said:
I haven't seen a replay but it looked like it hit the line at the ground? I assume from what you've said it was actually out?
We weren't far away and the touchie was no where near it when it happened, hesitated for a bit and then just made up the call. Pathetic work even if the call was right, way out of position.
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
2020 Ladder
| Team | P | W | D | L | PD | Pts | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bulldogs | 8 | 7 | 0 | 1 | 94 | 16 |
| 2 | Raiders | 9 | 7 | 0 | 2 | 60 | 14 |
| 3 | Warriors | 8 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 14 |
| 4 | Storm | 8 | 5 | 0 | 3 | 76 | 12 |
| 5 | Broncos | 9 | 5 | 0 | 4 | 54 | 10 |
| 6 | Sharks | 9 | 5 | 0 | 4 | 49 | 10 |
| 7 | Sea Eagles | 8 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 36 | 10 |
| 8 | Tigers | 9 | 5 | 0 | 4 | 20 | 10 |
| 9 | Cowboys | 8 | 4 | 0 | 4 | -14 | 10 |
| 10 | Roosters | 9 | 4 | 0 | 5 | -42 | 10 |
| 11 | Dolphins | 10 | 4 | 0 | 6 | 10 | 8 |
| 12 | Dragons | 8 | 3 | 0 | 5 | -14 | 8 |
| 13 | Knights | 8 | 3 | 0 | 5 | -48 | 8 |
| 14 | Rabbitohs | 9 | 4 | 0 | 5 | -70 | 8 |
| 15 | Panthers | 9 | 3 | 0 | 6 | -2 | 6 |
| 16 | Titans | 8 | 2 | 0 | 6 | -88 | 6 |
| 17 | Eels | 9 | 2 | 0 | 7 | -121 | 6 |
