NRL kills off 40/20 quick tap

[TruSaint]

Defending teams will be given every opportunity by referees to regroup following a 40/20 kick in the NRL's latest tweaking of its rules on Thursday.

The quick tap that followed a 40/20 kick is now effectively outlawed following the farcical scenes that concluded Parrramatta's loss to Canterbury last Friday, when Eels halfback Chris Sandow was prohibited from taking a quick restart because of a ballboy error.

In a statement released on Thursday just hours before the start of round 24, the NRL said a meeting of the game's Competition Committee, support was reiterated for the new rule, which eliminated scrums at the re-start following a 40-20 at the start of the season.

However, "from tonight, the tap kick can only be taken after the referee has blown his whistle," the statement read.

"Referees will give defending teams a reasonable time to get into position before signalling a restart of play."

NRL head of football Todd Greenberg said the change would eliminate confusion regarding the rule.

"The tap kick was never designed to allow teams a lightning fast restart of play," Greenberg said.

"It was introduced to eliminate time wasting in setting up a scrum which often negated the advantage of kicking a 40/20.

"The clarification of the rule is aimed at keeping the game flowing while giving defending teams a chance to get into position."

Sydney Roosters premiership-winning coach Trent Robinson, who is on the committee, backed the change.

"It will be clear to everyone now that the restart cannot be taken until the referee has blown his whistle," Robinson said.

Referees boss Tony Archer also welcomed the move.

"Teams will still be expected to be ready to restart play quickly but everyone will know when the tap can take place," Archer said.

Canterbury host Wests Tigers in the opening game of round 24 at ANZ Stadium on Thursday night.

http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8894256

 

[jenninga]

Some think tank,should have been this way from the start.

 

[GT0007]

This should always have been the case but I still have a slight concern with
"Referees will give defending teams a reasonable time to get into position before signalling a restart of play." I think there should be a time limitotherwise teams will claim one team was given more time than the other etc. Maybe 15 secs from when the ball goes out?

 

[jenninga]

This should always have been the case but I still have a slight concern with
"Referees will give defending teams a reasonable time to get into position before signalling a restart of play." I think there should be a time limitotherwise teams will claim one team was given more time than the other etc. Maybe 15 secs from when the ball goes out?

When both refs are in position ,players have a responsibility to get onside.

 

[64 Dragon]

We'll eventually go back to having a scrum. There were no problems with that.

 

[TruSaint]

We'll eventually go back to having a scrum. There were no problems with that.

I think so as well.
Its too " open ended".
Whats enough time? etc.

 

[Elias1983]

So we are asking the refs to give a reasonable amount of time...

Yep great result, give more responsibility and discretion to the idiots who stuff up every week anyway.

Fmd..

Go back to the scrum, it means can't screw that up.

 

[64 Dragon]

The defending team will just take as much time as they like unless the ref calls time off. If it gets out of hand like the Rooters goal line dropouts, something will be done. Bring back the scrums.

 

[GT0007]

When both refs are in position ,players have a responsibility to get onside.

Yep good call. If both refs can get there then the players should be able to as well

 

[The Commissioner]

Yep good call. If both refs can get there then the players should be able to as well

Agree mate
I think coaches milked the buggery out of the rule and tried to make touch footy the norm.
I reckon coach interpretation is a problem that's getting bigger daily, with everyone trying to get an advantage by hook or by crook.
I'm glad they have jumped on it.
Making the game faster is not making it better.
The mid 90's speed was fine with me.

 

[This Year?]

The thing that astounded me with the quick tap after a 40/20 is: why should a team that takes the ball out of play be given even more of an advantage? I thought a set of six inside the opposition 20 is reward enough.

 

[Mr Red]

i love how the NRL works...
- make a dumb rule change, largely not thought through properly.. despite the warnings from the experts
- allow it to blow up in their face
- rush through another rule change, largely not thought through properly to fix to previous rule change

- rinse and repeat

they need to understand - when its not broken, dont try and fix it...

 

[Elias1983]

Yep good call. If both refs can get there then the players should be able to as well

The question is though will they blow the whistle when they are ready?

How many time have they been ready but for whatever reason they hold up play?

I just don't have enough faith in the refs to get this right.

Packing a scrum makes it fair for both teams.

 

[Godz Illa]

A scrum is a better reward than a tap anyway, gives the the opportunity to attack on the first tackle against a thin defence. More enjoyable for the fans as well - instead of a basic hit up into a set of forwards on tackle 1, for example. We scored a try from a scrum on the weekend. Just a dumb rule change.

 

[jenninga]

A scrum is a better reward than a tap anyway, gives the the opportunity to attack on the first tackle against a thin defence. More enjoyable for the fans as well - instead of a basic hit up into a set of forwards on tackle 1, for example. We scored a try from a scrum on the weekend. Just a dumb rule change.

There should be a 30 sec time limit to pack the farce we call scrums,they introduced a time limit to dropouts now.
If they can race to set a scrum to get time off,they can form the scrum throughout the game within the 30 sec.

 

[bottle]

A dumb rule exposed as a dumb rule, better that it's gone now.
Lets get on with the game.

I'm happy for it to be a tap. Scrums are a farce and becoming more so as time roles on. The introduction of the spider cam only serves to illustrate how much of a joke they are. Binding has been consigned to the history books. Scrums are so loose and break up so quickly I wonder if there is any real advantage to an attacking side, apart from the opportunity to run a set play.

i love how the NRL works...
- make a dumb rule change, largely not thought through properly.. despite the warnings from the experts
- allow it to blow up in their face
- rush through another rule change, largely not thought through properly to fix to previous rule change

- rinse and repeat

they need to understand - when its not broken, dont try and fix it...

Which experts warned against it? I thought the rule changes were proposed by a panel of 'experts' in the first place, including current coaches. This is of more concern to me. Seems a major conflict of interest/opportunity to implement changes that compliment the playing style of their current roster.

 

[Mr Red]

Which experts warned against it? I thought the rule changes were proposed by a panel of 'experts' in the first place, including current coaches. This is of more concern to me. Seems a major conflict of interest/opportunity to implement changes that compliment the playing style of their current roster.

i agree with your thoughts regarding a conflict of interests where coaches vote on rule changes based on how that rule change will help their team style of play... very dumb again by the NRL.

i saw several interviews/discussions on TV where Cameron Smith, Andrew Johns and Peter Sterling all warned against the NRL rule changes that were designed to "artificially" increase the speed the game is played at, quick taps being one of those rule changes where the game speed is artificially increased beyond its "usual" play speed...

IMO all that needs to be addressed is the wrestle in the ruck, the rest of the game speed was fine..

The NRL need to understand that a faster game is not necessarily a better game. Fans dont necessarily want a 40-30 scoreline, its the gladiatorial aspect of the game that is just as precious....

 

[bottle]

i agree with your thoughts regarding a conflict of interests where coaches vote on rule changes based on how that rule change will help their team style of play... very dumb again by the NRL.

i saw several interviews/discussions on TV where Cameron Smith, Andrew Johns and Peter Sterling all warned against the NRL rule changes that were designed to "artificially" increase the speed the game is played at, quick taps being one of those rule changes where the game speed is artificially increased beyond its "usual" play speed...

IMO all that needs to be addressed is the wrestle in the ruck, the rest of the game speed was fine..

The NRL need to understand that a faster game is not necessarily a better game. Fans dont necessarily want a 40-30 scoreline, its the gladiatorial aspect of the game that is just as precious....

The bolded statements nail it. The wrestle is vile and is what is really killing the game as a spectacle. Eliminate that and the game improves immensely. Reward legs tackles. Both of these actions would reduce risk to player welfare and get us back towards approaching the spirit of the game.