What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

2014 rule changes

strider

Post Whore
Messages
78,631
i liked the idea of just taking a tap after a 40/20 instead of packing a scrum for no reason

you can say that about every scrum these days .... i wonder how long until they are all changed to tap restarts?


But yeah I like all the rule changes - nothing seems silly .... the quick penalty one will possibly cause some angst tho cos there will still be times refs don't give the mark quick and othr times they will
 

Snoochies

First Grade
Messages
5,593
Do they still have to pack a scrum to stop the clock and hold that position until the other team decides to join in?
 

byrner

Juniors
Messages
667
Doesn't bother me either way, but I reckon the attacking team might prefer the scrum though.....to take several defenders out of the line...better for set moves etc.

Not if its a quick tap. They will just need to sprint down and get the quick tap to get overlaps.
 

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
85,100
I am glad that they have included something on the cannonball tackle.

I was watching a game with a mate last year. This merkin is a died-in-the-wool Victorian. Not particularly interested in the AFL (he does go for Hawthorne, he just doesn't watch them until they're in the grand final). Anyway, he hates Sydney and the NRL. He says the game itself is actually pretty good, but the players are all f**kwits and it is extremely poorly administrated.

But I digress. We were watching a game, as I said, and some player ran the ball, hit two defenders and was pumping his legs making ground. Then the third man came in at his ankles and the ball carrier was brought down. My mate goes "Look at that shitmerkin! The bloke was pushing those two defenders back and then shitmerkin comes in like a dog and grabs his legs! Shitmerkin!!!"

I thought it was an interesting way for a neophyte (this bloke doesn't watch much NRL) to view this fairly standard defensive technique in first grade rugby league. I just accepted the cannonball as best practice tackling technique, but it must seriously detract from the game for a lot of viewers.

I certainly think the ruck is far too slow these days (especially Parra's) but trying to eliminate the wrestle places too much interpretation into the referee's hands. He should ideally be adjudicating rules, not interpreting them.

Anyway, third man tackling above the knee is fairly black and white so hopefully it works in practice and doesn't just lead to a swathe of controversial penalties.
 
Last edited:
Messages
19,174
I thought it was an interesting way for a neophyte (this bloke doesn't watch much NRL) to view this fairly standard defensive technique in first grade rugby league. I just accepted the cannonball as best practice tackling technique, but it must seriously detract from the game for a lot of viewers.

.

It's certainly been banned in the NFL for a long while...if a player is engaged with another, you can't hit him at the knees or below. Too many ACLs destroyed.

I guess the trick is to distinguish between cases where the attacker is still making forward progress, and when he is just playing he-man with the defenders or trying to slip a pass. If the guy is still actually making forward progress (i.e. is not tackled as per the rules of the game) I don't think there's a big deal if a guy comes in low...coz it's usually not dangerous. It's the static attacker who has not been called tackled who is a risk.
 

lingard

Coach
Messages
11,215
Doesn't bother me either way, but I reckon the attacking team might prefer the scrum though.....to take several defenders out of the line...better for set moves etc.


That's exactly what I was thinking. It might actually favour the defending side. Which I don't mind, because I don't much care for the forty-twenty rule anyway. If you're a good side you don't need them; and if you're a bad side you don't deserve them.
 

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
85,100
But do we want the stronger side to beat the weaker side every time?

Any rule that increases randomness benefits the weaker side in any given contest. This can only be good for the game's competitiveness, since the salary cap isn't exactly working (three of 2013's top four were also top four in 2012, and two of those were top four in 2011 as well).
 
Messages
2,376
But do we want the stronger side to beat the weaker side every time?

Any rule that increases randomness benefits the weaker side in any given contest. This can only be good for the game's competitiveness, since the salary cap isn't exactly working (three of 2013's top four were also top four in 2012, and two of those were top four in 2011 as well).

92.3% of those arguements can be attributed to clubs having assembled strong squads.

Im curious to see how the quicker held call on erect players is going to go, sounds like it might be preferable than going to ground & having 3 fat merkins laying all over you. Which may mean certain players will get a leg up.

As far as the kick in goal rule goes i dont really like the idea of teams getting an extra tackle because a grubber trickled over the line.

Otherwise, ive just had a good feed and im content.
 
Last edited:

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
85,100
92.3% of those arguements can be attributed to clubs having assembled strong squads.

Which arguments?

As for clubs assembling (and more importantly retaining) strong squads, the salary cap is supposed to spread the talent. All it does is stop the weak clubs from rebuilding quickly, by forcing them to pay more for each player in their squad, pushing the general talent level down throughout the top 25.

Im curious to see how the quicker held call on erect players is going to go, sounds like it might be preferable than going to ground & having 3 fat merkins laying all over you. Which may mean certain players will get a leg up.

As far as the kick in goal rule goes i dont really like the idea of teams getting an extra tackle because a grubber trickled over the line.
I think it's only if they deliberately kick the ball dead in goal.

Otherwise, ive just had a good feed and im content.
I'm away working, but I'm about to go to lunch.

#strayamerkin
 

Eels Dude

Coach
Messages
19,065
Interesting. Looks like the rule changes are going to speed up the game a bit which is only a good thing. I don't agree with stop the clock in just the last 5 minutes really, it should be consistent through the whole match. A penalty in the 25th minute shouldn't be treated any differently than a penalty in the 78th minute. Also captains only being allowed to question the ref on stoppages of play seems a bit unfair too, sometimes you can go 10 minutes without a stoppage of play under such definitions where at that point the ref has probably forgotten about such query, possibly captain too.
 
Messages
19,174
Interesting. Looks like the rule changes are going to speed up the game a bit which is only a good thing. I don't agree with stop the clock in just the last 5 minutes really, it should be consistent through the whole match. A penalty in the 25th minute shouldn't be treated any differently than a penalty in the 78th minute.

Why? Players have much less incentive to waste time in the 25th minute. What actual harm would be done to the game if this particular 'time wasting' rule is applied only in the last 5 mins (I'd actually make the threshold the last 10 minutes)?

They (briefly) tried stopping the clock for all goal kicks about 20-25 years ago, and the games dragged on forever for no good point. (EDIT: correction, they might have actually stopped the clock before and after the kick....can't remember)
 
Last edited:
Top