Rule changes

[SeaEagleRock8]

The future is staring us in the face, and it is a speedier, less grappling, more ad lib version of the game, less dominated by robotic structures and the unending supply of fresh big guys coming off the bench. The pandemic was the catalyst for some hasty changes, but don't expect the rules to be going back to the old ways any time soon.

This of course has massive implications for recruitment and retention decisions.

We did not prosper from the sudden changes in rules this year (although to be fair, if Fainu, Turbo and Walker were fit all year I think we'd be in it up to our eyeballs).

The new game requires a team to have more speedsters, more forwards who are mobile and can play big minutes, fewer giants especially if not too athletic, and - probably most important - a few players with vision and skill who can exploit opportunities that arise when defenders are tired and on the hop.

I'm sure Manly is aware of all this (come on Mad professor, keep up with the times!) so I'm really looking forward to seeing who we keep and which new players we sign.

 

[47MVEagle]

This scrum rule confounds me!

Assuming your starting #8-13 are considered your forwards, that leaves another 4 to be named to make up your 10 scrum forwards.

Surely that means all your bench players are automatically those 4, as your starting #1-5 are your backs & your 6 & 7 are your halves?

So what happens if we have Jetski on the bench as cover for backs & second row, he's named as one of the 10 scrum forwards but goes on to replace an injured back?

Does that mean he can or can't pack into the scrum?

I'm overthinking this but it just seems overkill to me - why not just say "your scrum must be made up of your forwards only I.e. 2 props, 1 hooker, 2 second rowers & a lock with your half or 5/8th as scrum half?

 

[deanm]

Not a fan of the 6 again, myself. IMO, leads to more control of the game by the referees with less accountability. At least penalties are counted. Where can I find stats on '6 again' and the reasoning behind the decision? The answer, nowhere.

On the scrum rule, what's to stop clubs from naming backs, or the 6-10 players that will be packing scrums as happens nowadays. Are they saying that only certain numbers will be able to pack a scrum? Stupidity.

The 6 again stats are listed as Ruck infringements in NRL Stats .

 

[pjayz]

The bunker review of tries will see refs award more tries without going to the bunker only for the bunker to review it right up to when the kick for goal is kicked. Also gives them more time to interfere and find the 0.5% reason to disallow a try to a non favourable team. And will still result in a million replays if the bunker believes it should not be a try,

I actually think it won’t make any difference to how often they check a try - they do it every time now. I also think that teams will rush to take the goal so the video ref has no time to overrule it - especially if it’s an easy kick or they think they got a lucky call from the on field ref.

 

[Tragic Eagle]

What happens with the NRL is that they identify a good objective and then undermine with the application. By example the six again rule was meant to eradicate wrestling (fail) and was mooted as being appropriately used in the red zone following repeated infringements by the defending side. But it has morphed into this game changer utilized inconsistently by the referees across the paddock. The scrum was always about creating a contest between backs with space so trying to get the forwards back into the scrum and keeping them out of the back line makes sense to me. I'd rather see a skillful back score a try with blistering speed or a great step rather than a giant forward crashing over form close to the line. But my biggest gripe is that the rule changes have been rushed in during the season without the appropriate process of consultation and assessment.

 

[Shoe1]

What happens with the NRL is that they identify a good objective and then undermine with the application. By example the six again rule was meant to eradicate wrestling (fail) and was mooted as being appropriately used in the red zone following repeated infringements by the defending side. But it has morphed into this game changer utilized inconsistently by the referees across the paddock. The scrum was always about creating a contest between backs with space so trying to get the forwards back into the scrum and keeping them out of the back line makes sense to me. I'd rather see a skillful back score a try with blistering speed or a great step rather than a giant forward crashing over form close to the line. But my biggest gripe is that the rule changes have been rushed in during the season without the appropriate process of consultation and assessment.

Agreed, but I'd add that the scrum was always about a contest to win possession. That has sadly disappeared.

It is fascinating to watch how often manly wins scrums against saints in the 1957 grand final. Our front row was awesome at winning possession.

 

[ManEagle]

I actually think it won’t make any difference to how often they check a try - they do it every time now. I also think that teams will rush to take the goal so the video ref has no time to overrule it - especially if it’s an easy kick or they think they got a lucky call from the on field ref.

That may well be true but the wording is " If the bunker suspects it needs to check they will inform the ref so he can stop the goal attempt and further viewing can take place to check the try.
If the team is rushing the ref will call it if the bunker has told him the suspect something.

 

[Woodsie]

I have been wanting forwards only in scrums for a long time. The practice of having big boppers out in the back line when a scrum is packed is a blot on the game IMO.

I don't think there is any obligation to name your forwards as "scrummagers" ... teams can still name their fullbacks and centres as scrum worthy ... and their props as unscrum worthy ...

and the ref I suppose will need to remember which players have been named in the 10 by each side ...

 

[pjayz]

That may well be true but the wording is " If the bunker suspects it needs to check they will inform the ref so he can stop the goal attempt and further viewing can take place to check the try.
If the team is rushing the ref will call it if the bunker has told him the suspect something.

Ahh, so is that the rule? I thought the point was to limit the time the video ref had to make a decision so they have the kicker preparing to kick in parallel to the video ref checking. If the video ref can stop the goal attempt until they check it then what is the material difference to what we have now?

 

[mosto]

This is how it was worded elsewhere

Use of the “Six Again” rule for 10 metre infringements

So I assume up until now, offside was a penalty,, now it will be 6 again

This is the one I don't like. At present you can't take a quick tap for an offside penalty. Reason being you can just run into the players that are already offside and get another penalty, then another, then another. Now, any smart dummy half is going to scoot out and run straight at the offside defenders and get another 6 again, then another, then another....

 

[ManEagle]

Ahh, so is that the rule? I thought the point was to limit the time the video ref had to make a decision so they have the kicker preparing to kick in parallel to the video ref checking. If the video ref can stop the goal attempt until they check it then what is the material difference to what we have now?

That's my understanding of it but I could be wrong, wouldn't be unusual haha.
Once the try is given the vidiot will check while the kick is being set up if the viidiot thinks something is suspect he will let the ref know and he will stop the kick for further viewing.
That was the press release sent by NRL .

Exactly my thoughts pjayz hope I'm wrong . Though

 

[40 nil]

I don't think there is any obligation to name your forwards as "scrummagers" ... teams can still name their fullbacks and centres as scrum worthy ... and their props as unscrum worthy ...

Maybe the teams shouldn't be given the choice to nominate the forwards. Rather, any player in the starting 17 who isn't wearing 1-7 would automatically be deemed a forward. Coaches might try to manipulate this, but it would become very complicated for them.

 

[HoldenV8]

Seems weird that new rules are being trialled in the regular season in only 2 games. Not much time for the four teams to prepare. I think all the changes are positive.

I have been wanting forwards only in scrums for a long time. The practice of having big boppers out in the back line when a scrum is packed is a blot on the game IMO.

Here is the article link

NRL to trial radical new rule changes — including ONLY forwards in scrums

NRL to trial radical new rule changes — including ONLY forwards in scrums

www.foxsports.com.au

As an old front rower I hate seeing wingers and fullbacks packing into scrums.

 

[weev]

The assumption that all tries are valid will be confusing to many. Essentially you have taken the ref out of the picture and left it to the bunker to determine a try. A quick set up for conversion will be a ticking clock for the bunker to get it right. Imagine if a grand final hung on a potential interference play leading to a try in between the posts. There will be confusion.

 

[Woodsie]

Maybe the teams shouldn't be given the choice to nominate the forwards. Rather, any player in the starting 17 who isn't wearing 1-7 would automatically be deemed a forward. Coaches might try to manipulate this, but it would become very complicated for them.

Problem is the poor ref, or another NRL official would have to keep track of changes ... eg Gojetski starting at 2nd row and moving to centre etc ....

 

[40 nil]

Problem is the poor ref, or another NRL official would have to keep track of changes

Well the refs are paid big dollars ($300,000 I think), so hopefully they can manage to keep track. Mainly, the ref would need to know who the backs are & then turf them if they pack in the scrum. If a player with a large number starts the game as back, e.g. Turbo started in 21 last week, then they would be deemed as backs, not forwards, and ineligible to pack in the scrum

 

[Woodsie]

Well the refs are paid big dollars ($300,000 I think), so hopefully they can manage to keep track. Mainly, the ref would need to know who the backs are & then turf them if they pack in the scrum. If a player with a large number starts the game as back, e.g. Turbo started in 21 last week, then they would be deemed as backs, not forwards, and ineligible to pack in the scrum

All seems far too much ado about something I really couldn't care about ... the only value of scrums today is that it concentrates 6 defenders .... I don't care which 6 they are ....

A coach should have the right to choose ... it is a part of his tactics in both attack and defence ...

 

[The Who]

All seems far too much ado about something I really couldn't care about ... the only value of scrums today is that it concentrates 6 defenders .... I don't care which 6 they are ....

A coach should have the right to choose ... it is a part of his tactics in both attack and defence ...

After consideration I tend to agree that this rule is too complicated to enforce. The refs have more than enough to do, although some of it is there own doing.
Why does a ref have to memorise all the first names of players so he can address them in a friendly manner?
Why does a ref have to warn players they are offside, or in jeopardy of breaching the rules?
Allow the ref to return to referring players by the number on their backs, and to not tipping them off about infringements -- just penalise them if they break the rules.

 

[eagle66]

The RFU, English Rugby Union, has announced of changes to tackles. The highest a tackle can be made will be waist high.
Interesting to see how this develops.

 

[eagle66]

Rugby union's new tackle height laws may be a sign of what's to come for league

The changes will be put into practice from July.

www.examinerlive.co.uk