Rule changes you'd like to see for next season

[Saxon]

submit to an egging?

I reckon the Wests fans would settle for hanged, drawn and quartered.

 

[>zuzu<]

I swear he kept calling Isaac Liu JWH in the gf or one of the semis, I mean wtf they are not similar at all.

Re-watched the 04 grand final recently.

I counted 4 times he confused Matty Utai for Hazem El Masri and vice-versa. And this was 16 years ago!

That being said, love his voice. Love his passion. But his vision is letting him down, and he is slowly moseying off into the sunset.

 

[ACTPanthers]

Nope.

He behaved like a merkin to the club and its' supporters; he should man up and accept some well deserved anger.

Or, you could, you know, get the f**k over it...?

Never noticed how petty Tigers fans are before. It's actually f**king sad.

 

[nick87]

The Raiders shall receive a penalty kick 10 metres out, in front of the posts for each point scored against the Raiders above 4.

 

[Saxon]

Not a rule change, but after watching the games so far this weekend it's one they need to enforce.

STAND UP TO PLAY THE BALL.
No putting the ball down when you're still on your knees, no using it to lever yourself up. I must have seen a hundred rotten play-the-balls this weekend.

Then the ref calls back a try for a bad ptb that wasn't.
Go figure?

 

[LeagueNut]

Probably already covered in this thread, but there needs to be some changes to how the bunker operates.

1) Only check what you're asked to check. "Confirm there's no obstruction" means exactly that, you don't need to waste time with slow-mo replays of the grounding or anything else you feel like looking at.

2) Previous live calls shouldn't be reviewed by the bunker. If there's a break upfield and the ref calls play on, and a try is scored directly from that break, no you can't go right back to review it. You made the call, live with it. If the player had been tackled short of the tryline you wouldn't have been able to review it anyway.

 

[Penrose Warrior]

I suggested this in the Warriors forum - decisions upstairs like the Simonsson one, and the Hetherington no try in the Warriors game should not be allowed to be viewed in slo-mo. They must be watched in real time - over and over if required, but at real speed. League isn't played in 0.25x mode. They completely rip the feel out of it, then morons make decisions like they did on the weekend. No issue if it's a try at the corner, a leg out, separation for a try etc...but f**k me, when we slow it down we end up getting people making dumb decisions.

 

[Frailty]

Probably already covered in this thread, but there needs to be some changes to how the bunker operates.

1) Only check what you're asked to check. "Confirm there's no obstruction" means exactly that, you don't need to waste time with slow-mo replays of the grounding or anything else you feel like looking at.

2) Previous live calls shouldn't be reviewed by the bunker. If there's a break upfield and the ref calls play on, and a try is scored directly from that break, no you can't go right back to review it. You made the call, live with it. If the player had been tackled short of the tryline you wouldn't have been able to review it anyway.

I'm actually confused because your two points pretty much contradict each other. Why would they be allowed to check for an obstruction that leads to a try, but not for an obstruction that causes a line break that leads to a try.

What is the minimum distance to check? What is the minimum time?

Furthermore, with your first example, say the Bunker clears the obstruction but there is clearly a dropped ball when attempting to ground it, are you seriously ok with the bunker ignoring it?

 

[Perth Red]

VR to adjudicate on grounding of the ball situations only. Every thing else capt challenge. Give them 2 challenges if need be.

 

[LineBall]

VR to adjudicate on grounding of the ball situations only. Every thing else capt challenge. Give them 2 challenges if need be.

I'd go further and say the only time they should go to the bunker is captain's challenge. Two challenges per team for the entire match.

 

[T-Boon]

I'd go further and say the only time they should go to the bunker is captain's challenge. Two challenges per team for the entire match.

I think if they went that way they should ban TV showing replays of 8 different angles because there will be way more bitching about decisions and refs errors than we have right now.

 

[LineBall]

I think if they went that way they should ban TV showing replays of 8 different angles because there will be way more bitching about decisions and refs errors than we have right now.

Or maybe make them show all decisions in normal speed as well as slow-mo to give the audience an idea of what the refs and touch judges have to deal with.

 

[LeagueNut]

I'm actually confused because your two points pretty much contradict each other. Why would they be allowed to check for an obstruction that leads to a try, but not for an obstruction that causes a line break that leads to a try.

Because in the second example the line break may not lead to a try. If the break is made but the player is tackled 50 metres upfield then the opportunity to review is lost. I hate seeing referees basically hoping for a try to be scored so they can go back to something that happened 50 metres away.

I'll never forget Jason Death in the Warriors vs Northern Eagles game in 2001. He made a line break and was certain to score but "accidentally" tripped over untouched allowing the Eagles to catch up with him and complete a tackle. The Warriors scored within the next couple of plays. If he'd gone all the way, which was definitely possible, they would have reviewed the line break and found a clear knock-on. It's that sort of cynical play that I'd hate to see again, but the way the bunker works at the moment, it's only a matter of time.

Furthermore, with your first example, say the Bunker clears the obstruction but there is clearly a dropped ball when attempting to ground it, are you seriously ok with the bunker ignoring it?

I'm making the assumption that the on-field referee had a crystal clear view of the grounding which is why they didn't ask for it to be checked. In that case there should be no need for the bunker to waste time looking at it.

 

[Last Week]

I'd like to see a rule that makes it legal to tackle Kalyn Ponga.

 

[Frailty]

Because in the second example the line break may not lead to a try. If the break is made but the player is tackled 50 metres upfield then the opportunity to review is lost. I hate seeing referees basically hoping for a try to be scored so they can go back to something that happened 50 metres away.

I'll never forget Jason Death in the Warriors vs Northern Eagles game in 2001. He made a line break and was certain to score but "accidentally" tripped over untouched allowing the Eagles to catch up with him and complete a tackle. The Warriors scored within the next couple of plays. If he'd gone all the way, which was definitely possible, they would have reviewed the line break and found a clear knock-on. It's that sort of cynical play that I'd hate to see again, but the way the bunker works at the moment, it's only a matter of time.

How long has the video ref been in place? You've found one example, and you've made the assertion the referee has not made a call 'hoping' they score. The way 'the bunker works at the moment' is the same way the video referee has worked in this scenario since its inception.

But regardless of this scenario, and obstruction on the 10m from their own line should be able to be checked when they score, just like if the obstruction took place 10m from their opponents line. If they don't score in either scenario the result is the same.

I'm making the assumption that the on-field referee had a crystal clear view of the grounding which is why they didn't ask for it to be checked. In that case there should be no need for the bunker to waste time looking at it.

So because you assume the referees had a clear view, you're absolutely fine for the bunker to ignore a knock on? I highly doubt you'd be ok with that scenario.

 

[2010Dragons]

1. Attacking team allow to play will two balls on the field after a deliberate second indiscretion by defending team.
2. Team losing by 40 plus can pick a fan from the crowd to help them score just one try. Dragons would have a lot of fans on the field...win..win
3. Teams can request a change in referee mid way through the game if the current Referee Pelican is making too many mistakes.

 

[LeagueNut]

If the break is made but the player is tackled 50 metres upfield then the opportunity to review is lost. I hate seeing referees basically hoping for a try to be scored so they can go back to something that happened 50 metres away.

Happened with the Waqa Blake try last night. Klein allowed play to continue, waited until he'd run pretty much the length of the field to score, then reviewed his decision. If Blake had been tackled the review could not have happened. Given that he sent it up as a try and had allowed play to continue in the first place, it just seems like a total waste of time to review. That shouldn't be what the video ref is used for.

 

[Saxon]

Or, you could, you know, get the f**k over it...?

Never noticed how petty Tigers fans are before. It's actually f**king sad.

Not a Tigpies fan. Just think Cleary behaved like a merkin to them.

 

[The big boy pants]

Not a rule change but I would like the stadiums to be more inclusive towards fans who are nudists. I have never been able to attend a proper NRL match because of my strong nudist beliefs. I attend local footy matches and have even gotten into a few trial matches throughout the years, but what I would give to watch a proper match in the flesh!