News 2021 NRL rule changes

[txta2]

Pearce. get rid of him

 

[Perth Red]

When props make more sense than the people running the game!

 

[Saxon]

Jesus, is Wayne dumber than his son?

LEAVE THE f**kING GAME ALONE NUMBNUTS!

 

[davi]

"My view is that there’s a difference between a player running into touch – whether it be trying to score a try or whatever – and a player deliberately kicking into touch to slow the play down."

Ummmmm yeah that's a strategy that's been used in Rugby league Wayne since the test of time. Actually what's so dumb about Wayne Pearce's idea is teams only occasionally do it at certain junctions of the game. And they use it strategically to settle the team down during games. It actually adds to the game, and its smart rugby league.

The bomb on the goal line when caught results in a 20 metre tap and 7th tackle restart on the 20 metre line when the ball goes dead needed to be brought in. And cannot even remotely be compared to Wayne Pearce's joke of an idea. They happened far more frequently and the rules were brought in to solve a problem.

Just on a different note. Interestingly Michael O'Connor claims in the 1985 Grand Final the Bulldogs tactic of constantly putting up a bomb. Which meant at the time if you caught the ball and were tackled it resulted in a drop out cost the Dragons a premiership.

 

[davi]

Funny, when we had proper scrums, kicking for touch was a legitimate weapon, a chance to gain territory and win possession. It kept you involved in the game, knowing that the scrum was not a foregone conclusion. A player that could find touch was much prized, and wingers would try and to avoid the ball going into touch if possible.

Now, like most things, they want everything to be clinical. No messy scrums, no messy play-the-balls. Everything must be predictable, black and white, no shades of grey. And it's boring.

The old scrum can't be brought back. Its messy, but also the amount of neck injuries that can potentially result from it. There is no way it can be brought back. If you knock the ball on and make a forward pass why should you get the ball back? It doesn't mean I agree with abolishing the scrum all together though because I don't.

 

[Babyface O'reilly]

If we have own goals in soccer, then can we have own tries in footy? Prevent teams from grounding the ball in their in goal and wasting time before the kick restart. You know- speed the game up. Send the clubs an email tonight and start it in tomorrow’s games. V’landys ball.

 

[txta2]

Unsuccessful one on one steal= 6 more tackles...should be looked at.

 

[lazza]

How about we start with if you smash someone high and break their face it's a send off?

 

[LineBall]

The old scrum can't be brought back. Its messy, but also the amount of neck injuries that can potentially result from it. There is no way it can be brought back. If you knock the ball on and make a forward pass why should you get the ball back? It doesn't mean I agree with abolishing the scrum all together though because I don't.

Yes, there is the potential for neck injuries with a scrum. You could also argue there is the potential for neck injuries making a tackle or being tackled. And just because scrums are messy, doesn't mean they don't have a place in the game. Trying to tidy the game up has resulted in it losing a lot of its character.

As to why should you get the ball back when throwing a forward pass or knocking on? Well you shouldn't automatically, but what's wrong with having a chance to regain possession. Maybe it would encourage teams to take more risks, knowing if they have a good hooker who could win the ball.

 

[Someguy]

If we have own goals in soccer, then can we have own tries in footy? Prevent teams from grounding the ball in their in goal and wasting time before the kick restart. You know- speed the game up. Send the clubs an email tonight and start it in tomorrow’s games. V’landys ball.

sounds like a safety from the NFL. Would be cool for the case where a player is driven back to there own in goal. Then we could see even more ridiculous offside play when a team is trying to get out of their own 10

 

[PARRA_FAN]

The 7 tackle set from the 20m is bad enough but to have this rule will be a complete farce. I remember they came up with wacky rules during the U 20s at the end of the season but no one was really interested.

 

[davi]

The 7 tackle set from the 20m is bad enough but to have this rule will be a complete farce. I remember they came up with wacky rules during the U 20s at the end of the season but no one was really interested.

The 7th tackle restart from the 20 metre line was brought in because teams were deliberately kicking it dead. To get the defense line set and stop a prime Greg Inglis returning the ball from fullback with open space. It was brought in for good reason.

 

[gerg]

Yes, there is the potential for neck injuries with a scrum. You could also argue there is the potential for neck injuries making a tackle or being tackled. And just because scrums are messy, doesn't mean they don't have a place in the game. Trying to tidy the game up has resulted in it losing a lot of its character.

As to why should you get the ball back when throwing a forward pass or knocking on? Well you shouldn't automatically, but what's wrong with having a chance to regain possession. Maybe it would encourage teams to take more risks, knowing if they have a good hooker who could win the ball.

Another factor was refereeing. By the time contested scrums were ending a lot of scrums were just ending in a penalty. They were an absolute cluster. Scrums taking 5 minutes out of a game (slight exaggeration). Referees getting the shits and just randomly calling a penalty to move on with the game.

Same as striking in the play the ball. Sometimes the marker would be all over the bloke trying to play the ball and get away with it.

I'm a big advocate of getting rid of these grey areas where the referee is making a 50/50 call. They're clearly not handling it so why make it more difficult for them.

 

[LineBall]

Another factor was refereeing. By the time contested scrums were ending a lot of scrums were just ending in a penalty. They were an absolute cluster. Scrums taking 5 minutes out of a game (slight exaggeration). Referees getting the shits and just randomly calling a penalty to move on with the game.

Same as striking in the play the ball. Sometimes the marker would be all over the bloke trying to play the ball and get away with it.

I'm a big advocate of getting rid of these grey areas where the referee is making a 50/50 call. They're clearly not handling it so why make it more difficult for them.

I can't really agree with anything you've said here. Watching a lot of old games, the scrums would be packed and done with quicker than they do today. Sure, some would result in a penalty, but that wasn't the majority.

Striking at the play-the-ball wasn't happening every tackle. You had to pick your time, and run the risk of giving away 6 again by playing at the ball and not being successful. Just as stripping the ball wasn't happening every tackle, yet you could do it, no matter how many players were involved.

The grey areas in the game are what make it interesting in my opinion.

 

[gerg]

I can't really agree with anything you've said here. Watching a lot of old games, the scrums would be packed and done with quicker than they do today. Sure, some would result in a penalty, but that wasn't the majority.

Striking at the play-the-ball wasn't happening every tackle. You had to pick your time, and run the risk of giving away 6 again by playing at the ball and not being successful. Just as stripping the ball wasn't happening every tackle, yet you could do it, no matter how many players were involved.

The grey areas in the game are what make it interesting in my opinion.

So why were contested scrums scrapped?

What I meant by grey areas was referees having too much influence on games with their interpretation. There'd be differential penalties given regularly and nobody had any idea why.

Edit... scrums were quicker because back then you just played the game. You tackled a bloke to get him on the ground, then you got off him. You went to the scrum, packed it and got on with it. There wasn't players doing shit or not doing shit, until the referee told them to / not to do shit.

 

[Evil Emperor Zurg]

Bring back contested scrums and have the ref feed the scrum because halfbacks by nature are cheating little pricks.

 

[Valheru]

The 7th tackle restart from the 20 metre line was brought in because teams were deliberately kicking it dead. To get the defense line set and stop a prime Greg Inglis returning the ball from fallback with open space. It was brought in for good reason.

The problem with this rule is it punishes every other play that results in a stoppage in goal and/or the ball going dead. For example a player that gets their fingertips to the ball after a grubber but knocks on is punished with the other team getting a 7 tackle set.

In regards to this rule we should go down the Rugby Union route IMO. Go back to 6 tackle restarts from the point the ball was kicked to a minimum of the 20m line. So if you kick it dead form 40 out the opposition gets to start their set at the 40m line. This discourages the tactic whilst not overly penalising plays like a grubber that goes dead by a bees dick.

 

[Captain Apollo]

So why were contested scrums scrapped?

What I meant by grey areas was referees having too much influence on games with their interpretation. There'd be differential penalties given regularly and nobody had any idea why.

Edit... scrums were quicker because back then you just played the game. You tackled a bloke to get him on the ground, then you got off him. You went to the scrum, packed it and got on with it. There wasn't players doing shit or not doing shit, until the referee told them to / not to do shit.

They pretty much god rid of contested scrums to speed up the game and reduce the amount of penalties given. During the 1970s-1980s it wasn't uncommon to have 20 or more scrums in a match. Count in replacing them, and the number of rules which could lead to a penalty (e.g. defending backs being off side, halfback not retiring, feet across the tunnel, loose arm in the scrum, screwing the scrum, breaking from the scrum early) they wanted the ball in play more and less time spent on them.

The worst change was getting rid of permitting the defenders to strike at the ball in the play the ball. This was done to cut down on penalties as there was one rule about when the defender could lift a foot at the play the ball, and another about when they could actually strike for the ball. Due to perceived confusion, the ARL decided to do away with it completely to end the "confusion".

 

[LeagueXIII]

The old scrum can't be brought back. Its messy, but also the amount of neck injuries that can potentially result from it. There is no way it can be brought back. If you knock the ball on and make a forward pass why should you get the ball back? It doesn't mean I agree with abolishing the scrum all together though because I don't.

Surely they can tidy it up rather then the current scenario that looks like under 6's it's embarassing.

 

[davi]

The problem with this rule is it punishes every other play that results in a stoppage in goal and/or the ball going dead. For example a player that gets their fingertips to the ball after a grubber but knocks on is punished with the other team getting a 7 tackle set.

In regards to this rule we should go down the Rugby Union route IMO. Go back to 6 tackle restarts from the point the ball was kicked to a minimum of the 20m line. So if you kick it dead form 40 out the opposition gets to start their set at the 40m line. This discourages the tactic whilst not overly penalising plays like a grubber that goes dead by a bees dick.

I know its been floated that the NRL should only have a 7th tackle restart from a kick that goes dead when the kick is outside the 30 metre line. But they have never brought it in. I'm wondering the NRL may have not brought it in because they don't want clubs to do 90% of their try's from kicks. Not sure, but it may also be there is enough on the refs plate that the NRL may not want to complicate it more by bringing more rules in. But you wouldn't think that after the NRL was prepared to trial Wayne Peace's stupid idea.