"Same Tackle Scrum Feed" rule

[OVP]

Can we get this lunatic limited to posting only in the topball thread in the cave?

You're not funny GW.

 

[Haffa]

Well I'd probably get rid of scrums and just have a play the ball.
Increasing the value of filed goals to 2 would not hurt and decrease conversions to 1 point.

1 point.

 

[ek999]

Thats just typical LU hyperbole.
The STF rule would solve some problems.

What does this solve?

 

[POPEYE]

You should try the shallow end TB ol' mate . . . you need to touch a different bottom

 

[_snafu_]

Why didn't the OP start the thread with "GW here"?

 

[T-Boon]

I got the idea from the NBA where if the ball goes out of play from a deflection off the defender (i.e. the defender make a play on the ball and gets a touch) the offensive team gets the ball back, but there is no restart of the shot clock. Thanks for the positive feedback people.

 

[POPEYE]

You expecting positive feedback on anything entitles you to run for President . . . do we have one of those

 

[T-Boon]

You expecting positive feedback on anything entitles you to run for President . . . do we have one of those

Popeye, this thread has had 350 views and only criticism from several of the same rusty old fans who are always terrified of thinking about change and who always come in with the same stuff. I was expecting their negativity and personal insults. I love them.
But hundreds have viewed these ideas and next season when they see disastrous calls from refs on whether someone did or did not play at a ball they might think of the STF rule and reassess. Thats nothing but positivity man.

 

[KeepingTheFaith]

Bringing in a new problematic rule to eliminate another problematic rule isn't the solution. I don't see what any of these ideas would add to the game over what we currently have.

 

[DiegoNT]

Refs judging on whether someone played at the ball or not is actually one of the very few things refs get consistently right.
You don't actually think your rules fully through. While some initially may seem like a good idea, just a minute of critical thinking is enough for all your proposed rule changes to fall to pieces.
Your like a guy who thinks 'I'll own a bar!' Thinking it's all good times and happy hours, get to chill all day at the bar having a few drinks meeting interesting people when in reality it's earth starts and late finishes, it's dealing with aggressive drunks all day, it's stock control and balancing finances, it's earning and then keeping a liquor licence, it's trying to find reliable workers and appropriate security etc...

 

[T-Boon]

Bringing in a new problematic rule to eliminate another problematic rule isn't the solution. I don't see what any of these ideas would add to the game over what we currently have.

Whats the problem - it takes a decision out of the refs hands. Lightens his load.

The reason I want the no tackle count restart on charge down recovery ("NTCROCDR") rule brought in is to encourage more charge down attempts (currently there is too great a risk that it will just give the kicking team a repeat set). Charge downs are an exciting break up to the ebb and flow of the game. It is a player making a play (rather than a ref changing the momentum with a penalty which is currently the most likely change of momentum). It also means the kicker is generally under a lot more pressure.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

The kickers are already under pressure T loon.

I am convinced you have never watched a game of rugby league.

 

[El Diablo]

Lightens his load.

you want the ref to flog off during the game?

 

[T-Boon]

The kickers are already under pressure T loon.

I am convinced you have never watched a game of rugby league.

See how I said "a lot more pressure". The sentence has an inherent acknowledgment that they are already under some pressure.
One give away that they are not under enough pressure is that they often receive the ball fairly flat from the dummy half.
They generally haven't been under enough pressure since the ten metres was brought in. Thats why most teams are comfortable playing safe for 5 hit ups and getting to a kick from the 45 or 50. They know the kicker will boot it to the 15 fairly accurately.

 

[T-Boon]

You don't actually think your rules fully through. While some initially may seem like a good idea, just a minute of critical thinking is enough for all your proposed rule changes to fall to pieces.
Your like a guy who thinks 'I'll own a bar!' Thinking it's all good times and happy hours, get to chill all day at the bar having a few drinks meeting interesting people when in reality it's earth starts and late finishes, it's dealing with aggressive drunks all day, it's stock control and balancing finances, it's earning and then keeping a liquor licence, it's trying to find reliable workers and appropriate security etc...

Admit it, you would have said the same thing back in the day when the 40/20 rule change was being proposed. Or back when the 5m was being changed to 10m. You are one of the many frozen by fear at change in the game.
We need to keep the rules evolving to keep step with the coaches (actually to catch up with them at the moment). We need a more proactive rules committee. THEY should take the blame for the wrestling fiasco that many think can't now be unwound.
The game changes whether you change the rules or not. Look at all the goat f**k around bombs, coaches working out new ways to interfere with a contested ball etc. You can't just let the coaches run amuck with the way the game is played.

 

[KeepingTheFaith]

Whats the problem - it takes a decision out of the refs hands. Lightens his load.

The reason I want the no tackle count restart on charge down recovery ("NTCROCDR") rule brought in is to encourage more charge down attempts (currently there is too great a risk that it will just give the kicking team a repeat set). Charge downs are an exciting break up to the ebb and flow of the game. It is a player making a play (rather than a ref changing the momentum with a penalty which is currently the most likely change of momentum). It also means the kicker is generally under a lot more pressure.

For me any new rule has to carefully pass the "player/coach exploitation test" which I don't see how yours does.

How many times does a team run it on the last, the winger runs out of room and basically kicks it right back into a defender for it to bounce out of touch? What happens then? The kicking team immediately get a new tackle? And you can't say that it's up to the ref to decide because the whole idea of your new rule is to remove decisions from them - lighten the load.

Charge downs are the same, the refs often get it wrong in regards to when a ball is charged down/played at and just kicked into a defender who can't get out the way. Why should a team automatically get a new tackle/second go at it if the ball comes back to them? Ref can't make a decision on it because lightening the load.

As for the intercept, players knock down the ball when tackling all the time because someone in the defensive line f**ked up and caused an overlap. Why reward them with less defensive work? In a situation where there's a normal interception, the defender should learn to catch. Why reward him for channelling his inner SKD?

Smart players/coaches would exploit the hell out of this rule if there was no element of "the defender has to have played at it" and that is and will always require the referee to make a decision. So in this instance the load just can't be lightened. The refs have to accept that they will continue to carry a full load.

 

[POPEYE]

Popeye, this thread has had 350 views and only criticism from several of the same rusty old fans who are always terrified of thinking about change and who always come in with the same stuff. I was expecting their negativity and personal insults. I love them.
But hundreds have viewed these ideas and next season when they see disastrous calls from refs on whether someone did or did not play at a ball they might think of the STF rule and reassess. Thats nothing but positivity man.

Just think, you could save people the trouble of searching for you if you initiated and confined yourself mostly to something like Redneck Redfaces, no more having to pop up in every thread annoying the shit out of everyone. Crikey, I've had over 88k views and almost all love my ideas so why not make yourself easier to find . . . oh shit, I've pissed myself laughing, fmd

 

[DiegoNT]

Admit it, you would have said the same thing back in the day when the 40/20 rule change was being proposed. Or back when the 5m was being changed to 10m. You are one of the many frozen by fear at change in the game.
We need to keep the rules evolving to keep step with the coaches (actually to catch up with them at the moment). We need a more proactive rules committee. THEY should take the blame for the wrestling fiasco that many think can't now be unwound.
The game changes whether you change the rules or not. Look at all the goat f**k around bombs, coaches working out new ways to interfere with a contested ball etc. You can't just let the coaches run amuck with the way the game is played.

40/20 is a relatively minor rule. When discussing the rule they would of weighed up whether it would have a dramatic effect on the game. That's why it's 40/20 and not 30/30 or 40/30. They would have all been discussed and how much they would effect the game and because it is a hard thing to pull off it was included.
10m was an evolution. Players fitness and training had come along so much, defence had been fine tuned so much under coaches like warren ryan that the game was ready for that change. Again the rule change would have been debated, the main debate over whether it would make such a huge effect on the nature of the game.

All your ideas are never fully thought through. All your rules would dramatically effect the nature off the game. Everytime you post a new whacky rule somebody points out a fatal flaw in it within 3 posts.

I'm not afraid of change, I'm not afraid of new rules that can improve the game. But the game is great how it is. The balance between attack and defence is probably the best of any sport. Every rule change you want will ruin that balance. I am against stupid rules and stupid ideas that make up 99% of what you post

 

[PANTHERMIKE]

'NTCROCDR'

What a pisser.............

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Just think, you could save people the trouble of searching for you if you initiated and confined yourself mostly to something like Redneck Redfaces, no more having to pop up in every thread annoying the shit out of everyone. Crikey, I've had over 88k views and almost all love my ideas so why not make yourself easier to find . . . oh shit, I've pissed myself laughing, fmd

Time to stop then pervert.