NRL announces rule changes

[TruSaint]

I’d love to see all balls be RFID encoded so contentious calls such as forward passes it can easily be determined..

The technology is available and relatively cheap.

How many games are scrutinised for forward passes ? Every single one.
Take the debate about forward passes out of the post game frenzy, and thats one huge step.
Billion dollar industry, having already adopted tech yet wont invest in RFID. Dumb.

 

[muzby]

How many games are scrutinised for forward passes ? Every single one.
Take the debate about forward passes out of the post game frenzy, and thats one huge step.
Billion dollar industry, having already adopted tech yet wont invest in RFID. Dumb.

I like to consider myself an innovator..

I was slicing bread lengthways before it was cool..

 

[41yearsaint]

Who is the major NRL sponsor and what team have the advertising on there back. Doesn't really matter what rules are brought in.

 

[2010]

I’m disappointed that the length of the field was not reduced to 98m.

 

[Willow]

Make scrums contested again.

The problem was with the number of scrum infringements, and referees penalising teams and thereby influencing the match result. The introduction of the differential penalty helped but there were still too many penalties.

One idea was to have the ref feed the scrum. But this didn't resolve the dozen or more other scrum infringements on offer.

My former forummer self once proposed an idea where the referee would force a play-the-ball rather than give a penalty. That is, the team breaching scrum rules would essentially lose the right to contest the scrum. That should (in theory) decrease the number of scrum infringements.

So yeah, I want to see contested scrums. For that matter, I also want to see striking in the play-the-ball brought back.

I know the limited tackle rules ultimately brought about these changes, and that has been a great innovation. But imo we lost one of the dynamics of the game when contesting the ball was all but abolished during the 1980s and 90s.

 

[jak]

now mary will have to start all over again.

 

[Bloodbath]

Is there another professional code that changes rules / regulations so often ? Maybe there is, but I cant think of one.

They cant even enforce the rules they have now, or use the technology at their disposal, let alone make changes a few months out from pre season games.

I think soccer is following the afl .that if you shoot at goal and miss you get half a goal.

 

[TruSaint]

I think soccer is following the afl .that if you shoot at goal and miss you get half a goal.

lol

 

[SBD82]

The worst change in my opinion is that the attacking player contesting a kick can’t be tackled in the air.

This is going to significantly change the way that sides attack inside the red zone.

We are going to need some tall wingers if we want to keep up.

 

[41yearsaint]

The problem was with the number of scrum infringements, and referees penalising teams and thereby influencing the match result. The introduction of the differential penalty helped but there were still too many penalties.

One idea was to have the ref feed the scrum. But this didn't resolve the dozen or more other scrum infringements on offer.

My former forummer self once proposed an idea where the referee would force a play-the-ball rather than give a penalty. That is, the team breaching scrum rules would essentially lose the right to contest the scrum. That should (in theory) decrease the number of scrum infringements.

So yeah, I want to see contested scrums. For that matter, I also want to see striking in the play-the-ball brought back.

I know the limited tackle rules ultimately brought about these changes, and that has been a great innovation. But imo we lost one of the dynamics of the game when contesting the ball was all but abolished during the 1980s and 90s.

100% agree Willow. It's all about the contest. Canberra did it well this year. Apart from the opposition making a mistake, there was no way of getting the ball.

 

[Gareth67]

now mary will have to start all over again.

No , it’s all French to the maestro , as he had no idea that the game was played that way in the first place .

 

[jak]

No , it’s all French to the maestro , as he had no idea that the game was played that way in the first place .

you could have stopped at no idea

 

[Too old too slow]

Well not to be negative Nellie but I will...these are hardly significant changes or ones that are really needed or will be a big positive impact as Teflon Toddy puts it.
The scrum setting delay....another waste of time For the ref to ask and the team works out what they will do..probably asking the sideline. It will take longer than 5 seconds
The rest...so what..except trainers on the field....,great news
...they will probably reduce it from 80 to 75 minutes

Tackling in the air..I would of thought 4 sets of eyes could use commensense anyway and tell when someone is "tackled" in mid air in lieu of legitimately jumping to catch

What about the farce of blockers and running people off the ball..still rife in the game.
So wrestling and ruck stalling tactics..all good
Interchange....all good
Refs taking to long to call "held"
Time wasting in all areas..ref chats..slow down tactics....no problem there
Faking modest injury..to allow defenses to catch their breath...No problem there
The captains general play challenge....how far can they take it and what can be challenged...the game could take longer?..I'm dubious about this in making more delays
eg. that canberra GF 6th tackle restart decision debacle. If they challenged that how long would it take to decide and what would be the result after waiting 2-3 minutes?
there is more...no need to go on... the important issues have been left untouched mainly.
Whinge over!

Rule change: The act of tackling a player in mid-air will be banned whether the player initiating contact is the attacking player or the defending player..


So if the defender tackles the attacking player mid-air in the act of scoring a try.. will it be a penalty try? What can possibly go wrong here?

Hope we are practicing kicking to the corners for young Saab... SuperCoach probably steering away as he devalues tries off kicks.

Not to mention, potentially rewarding teams who can’t get themselves out of their own 20m in attack.

Greenberg .. instead of constantly dicking around with the rules.. any chance of cracking down on the biggest blight in the game... player managers.. or is that a box you don’t want to open... skeletons?

 

[Willow]

Just looking at the rule changes, two are commonsense, most are there to favour an attacking game.

Not sure about the one challenge rule. The jury is still out. IMO, it means more stoppages in play.

The 20/40 rule could be ok but I'm not totally sold. It helps a team trying to get out of trouble but does not reward the team with the better defence in keeping the opposition down their end of the field

The scrum possie rule is again there to assist the attacking team. It will lead to more set plays and reward the better coached teams.

The "mutual infringement" rule change is commonsense and overdue. Nothing worse than seeing a team disadvantaged because of a trainer or ref getting in the way of the ball.

Outlawing the tackling a player in mid-air (whether it is the attacking player or the defending player) is a no-brainer, It's about player safety and as the article said, in line with the current international laws of the game.

 

[SBD82]

Outlawing the tackling a player in mid-air (whether it is the attacking player or the defending player) is a no-brainer, It's about player safety and as the article said, in line with the current international laws of the game.

I’m not sold on this one. I understand the need for player safety, but you can’t mitigate all risk in a contact sport, and while I recognise the need to strike a balance I think this one errs too much on the side of caution.

Attacking players have the opportunity to not put themselves in a dangerous position when contesting a kick. Because of the momentum that they bring to the collision they have more influence on the direction that they move after impact. I can’t remember seeing situations that looked especially dangerous, and I’m not sure how this landed on the agenda. Obviously there is the possibility for danger, but there is the possibility for danger in every tackle.

Is the new rule consistent with ESL? Has it had a big impact on the way teams attack?

 

[BLM01]

Rule change: The act of tackling a player in mid-air will be banned whether the player initiating contact is the attacking player or the defending player..


So if the defender tackles the attacking player mid-air in the act of scoring a try.. will it be a penalty try? What can possibly go wrong here?

Hope we are practicing kicking to the corners for young Saab... SuperCoach probably steering away as he devalues tries off kicks.

Not to mention, potentially rewarding teams who can’t get themselves out of their own 20m in attack.

Greenberg .. instead of constantly dicking around with the rules.. any chance of cracking down on the biggest blight in the game... player managers.. or is that a box you don’t want to open... skeletons?

The problem with the tackling mid air stuff the useless on field and sometimes underground bunker nufties cant seem to determine a genuine leap and contest for the ball and when it is not and that you are allowed to bump mid air using your body in the art of catching.

 

[possm]

The problem was with the number of scrum infringements, and referees penalising teams and thereby influencing the match result. The introduction of the differential penalty helped but there were still too many penalties.

One idea was to have the ref feed the scrum. But this didn't resolve the dozen or more other scrum infringements on offer.

My former forummer self once proposed an idea where the referee would force a play-the-ball rather than give a penalty. That is, the team breaching scrum rules would essentially lose the right to contest the scrum. That should (in theory) decrease the number of scrum infringements.

So yeah, I want to see contested scrums. For that matter, I also want to see striking in the play-the-ball brought back.

I know the limited tackle rules ultimately brought about these changes, and that has been a great innovation. But imo we lost one of the dynamics of the game when contesting the ball was all but abolished during the 1980s and 90s.

I've always supported the idea that most on-field infringements should result in a turn over of possession, the exception being when the ball crosses the sideline or when a player carries the ball over the sideline. In this case a scrum should be formed and be contested.

 

[Willow]

I’m not sold on this one. I understand the need for player safety, but you can’t mitigate all risk in a contact sport, and while I recognise the need to strike a balance I think this one errs too much on the side of caution.

Attacking players have the opportunity to not put themselves in a dangerous position when contesting a kick. Because of the momentum that they bring to the collision they have more influence on the direction that they move after impact. I can’t remember seeing situations that looked especially dangerous, and I’m not sure how this landed on the agenda. Obviously there is the possibility for danger, but there is the possibility for danger in every tackle.

Is the new rule consistent with ESL? Has it had a big impact on the way teams attack?

I don't know but I didn't see any controversy in the recent internationals, happy to be corrected.

I get your point and any rule change should be seen in operation before making it law. And they are trialing some of these rule changes in lower grades.

But the game's direction is towards greater player safety and I believe that will ratify this particular rule.

 

[Willow]

The problem with the tackling mid air stuff the useless on field and sometimes underground bunker nufties cant seem to determine a genuine leap and contest for the ball and when it is not and that you are allowed to bump mid air using your body in the art of catching.

Maybe the criteria for choosing video refs is wrong. Or perhaps the fault lies in the systems they use. Or both. We've all seen extraordinary video decisions.

 

[avocado]

I’d love to see all balls be RFID encoded so contentious calls such as forward passes it can easily be determined..

The technology is available and relatively cheap.

Nah.

A pass can float forward but still be ok. This is one rule where only humans can rule on.