2007 rule changes

[LeagueNut]

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,21138148-23214,00.html

Golden try great for game: Tigers

THE NRL board will decide today whether to ratify several changes for the season, including a proposal to scrap golden point and replace it with golden try.

Wests Tigers' coach Tim Sheens raised the idea of rejigging the extra-time rule at a players and coaches conference last year, saying golden-point games had degenerated into field-goal shootouts. The proposal was embraced by several other clubs.

The board will decide whether to keep golden point, replace it with golden try, or simply play out 10 minutes of extra time.

Competition rules such as golden point and the judiciary are administrative matters that can be determined by the NRL board as they only affect the NRL competition," chief operating officer Graham Annesley said yesterday.

Tigers' chief executive Steve Noyce urged the board to change the rule for the sake of fans.

The club lost two games last season controversially under the golden point rule.

Our game for 80 minutes has a certain style and then it just seems to become a field goal-a-thon after that," Noyce said.

"It certainly was our recommendation at the conference that we make it golden try and we think that's going to be a good result for clubs and fans. You'd see some sensational footy.

"The Tri-Nations (final) when Darren Lockyer scored that try at the end (in golden point time) ... that was fantastic and that sort of excitement would really engage all of our fans."

The board will also consider whether to adjust the judiciary system, with the Tigers leading a campaign for a greater reward for cleanskins.

A player currently receives a discount if he has an incident-free record over seven years. The board will consider today whether to reduce that timeframe to five years.

Fingers crossed on the Golden Try proposal! Otherwise I'd vote to have the whole Golden Point thing scrapped (except for finals).

 

[nqboy]

So what happens if one team kicks two penalties and a field goal before the other scores a golden try? Who wins?

 

[LeagueNut]

Errmm ... no penalty kicks in extra time? Just tap or kick for touch.

That's a gess, but probably the only way they could do it.

 

[Quidgybo]

So what happens if one team kicks two penalties and a field goal before the other scores a golden try?

Exactly. If penalties become worthless then the field-goal-a-thon will simply become a penalty-a-thon. In my opinion it should be first to score four points (ie. a golden try *or* equivalent - eg. two penalty goals, one penalty goal and two field goals etc etc) or the result at the end of five minutes each way stands. Of course that's for those matches that actually use golden point. Whether it should be used for anything other than finals and Origin is another matter entirely.

Leigh

 

[Ice777]

So what happens if one team kicks two penalties and a field goal before the other scores a golden try? Who wins?

Why would a team even attempt to kick a penalty or field goal in extra time if the only way you could win was by scoring a try? If they change the rule to golden try it's just that, the first team to score a try.

IMO it should be changed, i'm a fan of extra time and getting a result but just not with the current system.

 

[dannyboy]

So what happens if one team kicks two penalties and a field goal before the other scores a golden try? Who wins?

A field goal attempt would result in a 20m tap re-start for kicking the ball dead in goal.
A penalty goal attempt would not be allowed...a tap kick or kick for touch only

Golden try means that a try is the ONLY way to score in golden point.

 

[RL1908]

The games become "field-goal shootouts" because the players don't work at that skill.

If they could kick a decent field goal the game wouldn't even go into extra time in the first place, or if it did, would be over far sooner.

Why take a scoring option out of extra time just because we've "dumbed down" our footballers?

The Wests Tigers problems centred around the referees awarding (or not awarding) penalties - I'm all for getting rid of penalty kicks at goal - but what has this got to do with banning field goals?

Ban penalty goals if you like, but let a team kick a field goal if they have field position & a decent kicker. It is an art form, a skill, and why should it be cut out of the game just because teams don't train to properly to set up that sort of play and/or can't kick a football?

Brisbane (Darren Lockyer) & Manly (Matt Orford) don't seem to get caught in "field goal shootouts".

 

[brendothejet]

The games become "field-goal shootouts" because the players don't work at that skill.

If they could kick a decent field goal the game wouldn't even go into extra time in the first place, or if it did, would be over far sooner.

Why take a scoring option out of extra time just because we've "dumbed down" our footballers?

The Wests Tigers problems centred around the referees awarding (or not awarding) penalties - I'm all for getting rid of penalty kicks at goal - but what has this got to do with banning field goals?

Ban penalty goals if you like, but let a team kick a field goal if they have field position & a decent kicker. It is an art form, a skill, and why should it be cut out of the game just because teams don't train to properly to set up that sort of play and/or can't kick a football?

Brisbane (Darren Lockyer) & Manly (Matt Orford) don't seem to get caught in "field goal shootouts".

Very well put.

Australian Rugby League is where it is now in terms of being the pinacle of the game because our footballers are always pushing the skill level.

What happens when we need to kick a field goal at the world cup next year and no ones done it for 2 seasons?

 

[dannyboy]

What happens when we need to kick a field goal at the world cup next year and no ones done it for 2 seasons?

What just so the Roos can win by 47-12 instead of 46-12

 

[Zigwaa]

The games become "field-goal shootouts" because the players don't work at that skill.

If they could kick a decent field goal the game wouldn't even go into extra time in the first place, or if it did, would be over far sooner.

Why take a scoring option out of extra time just because we've "dumbed down" our footballers?

The Wests Tigers problems centred around the referees awarding (or not awarding) penalties - I'm all for getting rid of penalty kicks at goal - but what has this got to do with banning field goals?

Ban penalty goals if you like, but let a team kick a field goal if they have field position & a decent kicker. It is an art form, a skill, and why should it be cut out of the game just because teams don't train to properly to set up that sort of play and/or can't kick a football?

Brisbane (Darren Lockyer) & Manly (Matt Orford) don't seem to get caught in "field goal shootouts".

I disagree. As said by the tigers in the article the whole style of game changes, it goes from a free flowing game where the focus is getting a try scoring position to a scrappy game style where teams are blatantly off-side to stop a field goal and the ref's are hesitate to blow penalties as it will result in handing the game to the attacking team.

I have always said it should be a golden try since the rule came in.

 

[Jono078]

I like it how it is now, just golden point. I dont care how you get the points.

 

[nqboy]

Removing penalty goals and field goals changes the whole game. Now everyone can just stand off-side, knowing the other mob can't kick for goal.

A better argument is why have golden point/try/whatever at all.

 

[Sanchez]

sounds like a good idea

 

[I Bleed Green]

As a Canberra Raiders fan who has won 6 golden point games over the last two years, I'd be very disappointed if they changed the rule. ;-)

 

[dannyboy]

Removing penalty goals and field goals changes the whole game. Now everyone can just stand off-side, knowing the other mob can't kick for goal.

Until the players get binned for constant professional fouls. Anyhow, it changes a few minutes of extra time in the game and has no impact on the previous 80 minutes where a team is free to kick as many field goals as they want.

Personally, I have no time for golden point at all - i believe a draw at fulltime to be a perfectly acceptable result. Golden point should be reserved for Origin matches & finals only.

 

[RL1908]

I disagree. As said by the tigers in the article the whole style of game changes, it goes from a free flowing game where the focus is getting a try scoring position to a scrappy game style where teams are blatantly off-side to stop a field goal and the ref's are hesitate to blow penalties as it will result in handing the game to the attacking team.

I have always said it should be a golden try since the rule came in.

Then the referees are the problem, not field goals. Players (& coaches) break rules when they know they will get away with it.

It just seems to me that over the past 10-15 years whenever RL has a difficult situation to face with its rules, we always seem to take the easy option rather than confront the real problem.

As Tim Sheens said two months ago: "Referees only give mandatory penalties, not discretionary penalties." That is what is causing the problem - and not just with extra-time either.

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

I disagree. As said by the tigers in the article the whole style of game changes, it goes from a free flowing game where the focus is getting a try scoring position to a scrappy game style where teams are blatantly off-side to stop a field goal and the ref's are hesitate to blow penalties as it will result in handing the game to the attacking team.

I have always said it should be a golden try since the rule came in.

Agree to a point.

If Golden Try is introduced under these rules (ie no penalty/field goals allowed), then it encourages teams to do anything in stopping a try, offsides, professional fouls, slowing play etc etc. This could make extra time very, very ugly.

I'm for Golden Try, but where penalties & field goals are allowed. To elaborate..

Eg. Penrith scores a penalty goal in extra time, now leads 22-20. Souths then score a golden try - full time Souths win. If souths do not score the try, and no further points are scored, Penrith Wins.

Even if Penrith score 2, even 3 penalty goals in extra time - Souths would win if they scored a try.

Points scored in extra time should not count in the overall For & Against on the premiership table.

This way, a team can still be penalised and possibly lose the game due to their indiscretions. But a try trumps all other scoring.

 

[S.S.T.I.D]

I've never understood what is wrong with a draw. More often than not it is the fairest result.

Quite frankly both suggestions have problems and are far from perfect. Golden point always descends into a farce, I don't think that will change whether the rule stays the same or is changed to golden try.

 

[adamkungl]

I'd actually prefer just straight out extra time. 10 mins each way, no other changes. I don't like the idea of golden try, like its been said by others, it takes out a perfectly valid scoring opportunity from the game. If golden point stays, the referees need to have the guts to give that crucial penalty right in front if the opposition is blatantly offside. If they lose due to a penalty goal its their fault and only theirs. In saying that, I wouldn't mind going back to the draw either. Although extra time adds that extra excitement to a game. Draw, extra time, golden point, none of these bother me. But golden try is crap.

 

[Twizzle]

I think the golden try is a god idea

better than the dropkick-a-thons we see atm