2023 NRL rule amendments confirmed

[Ride the Lion to Zion]

I get that type grounding is ok when on a loose ball, but if its already in the hand then it's a knock on IMO.

It isn`t a knock-on unless there`s clear separation before the ball touches the ground.

This is linked to a common error in tackle and ruck terminology. The media, and even some top refs, often refer to a "knock-on at the PTB". There is no such thing.

After the tackle is complete, the tackled player is required to maintain control of the ball before bringing it back into play. If he fails to do so it`s a "lost ball" not a knock-on.

A knock-on is defined as "to knock the ball towards the opponent`s dead ball line with hand or arm". When the tackled player drops the ball whilst attempting to play it, the direction is irrelevant. If it travels backwards, he can`t just pick it up and try again.

but yeah rolling out of ya hand onto your wrist

In general play, if the ball rolls from hand to wrist and makes contact with the ground there`s every chance it will be deemed a loss of control since the ball touching the ground represents the completion of the tackle. This is without clear separation.

The question relevant to these rule amendments is therefore whether the knock-on law (before the tackle is complete) or the loss of control law (after the tackle is complete) should apply in relation to grounding.

 

[Ride the Lion to Zion]

The held/release one just makes me laugh. If someone is called held then they should release anyway. Why should they have been told to release?

Upright Tackle - "When the player in possession is held by one or more opposing players in such a manner that he can make no further progress and cannot part with the ball"

This is the point at which the ref is told to call "Held". He`s required to read the tackle rather than simply count seconds following initial contact. I`d like to see more emphasis on encouraging the ball-carrier to pass out of the tackle as a response to losing ground.

Hope the new guidelines don`t take us back to the time when refs, due to the obsession with speeding up the game, were calling "Held" prematurely. In the past couple of seasons tackle contests have been allowed time to develop. We`ve seen a lot more late offloads and expansive play as a result.

 

[gerg]

I posed the question on another forum and nobody could answer.

Does the new try scoring interpretation change the rule on a player having to re-grip the ball? Prior to this change if the player lost control in a try scoring situation, they had to basically get their hands under the ball to regain control. Simply applying downward pressure was not enough. Some clarity on this from NRL HQ would be good.

 

[siv]

I think you're both right - sort of.
IIRC, waaaay back when - I'm thinking up until some time in the early seventies maybe - the lock was not allowed to pick up the ball.

I have to find my old early 80s rulebook to check

 

[Valheru]

I agree, as long as agreed internationally! With bigger squads why not give more players game time? 5 man bench but only 7 interchanges

In the modern world of HIA and player welfare I would go 8 on the bench with 8 interchange. Up to the coaches in any given game if they go full rugby union substitute style or rotate a few players off/on the bench.

 

[Saxon]

I`d like to see more emphasis on encouraging the ball-carrier to pass out of the tackle as a response to losing ground.

Not agreeing or disagreeing; just commenting.

If the ref allows the tackle to continue to allow a ball carrier an opportunity to offload, he must perforce allow the defence to continue to tackle. Effectively encouraging a third man in and the 'waltzing' behaviour we already see slowing the tackle.

 

[Ride the Lion to Zion]

If the ref allows the tackle to continue to allow a ball carrier an opportunity to offload, he must perforce allow the defence to continue to tackle. Effectively encouraging a third man in and the 'waltzing' behaviour we already see slowing the tackle.

The reason why a ball-carrier loses the contact and is consequently held up and driven back is generally a mix of poor attack and good defence. The answer for the team in possession is to improve their attacking game. The ref shouldn`t bail them out with early calls of "Held".

In the 10m offside line era, cheap metres are easily available. Minimizing the potential cost of dull attacking play can see the game descend into the stultifying routine of complete your sets/get to your kick/build pressure.

The ban on more-than-one-in-the-tackle ball-stealing is designed to facilitate passing out of the tackle when the ball-carrier is held up. Doesn`t even need to be an airborne pass. As long as the recipient is behind their teammate, the ball can just be transferred as in a Union maul. The Maroons scored a try from a play like this in last year`s Women`s SOO.

There are different opinions and, as with all the rules and their applications, it`s about striking the right balance.

There is another stipulation in the tackle and ruck rules addressing the specific point you raise.

Moving Tackled Player -

"Where opponents do not make a tackle effective in the quickest possible manner but attempt to push, pull or carry the player in possession, it is permissible for colleagues of the tackled player to lend their weight in order to avoid losing ground. Immediately this happens the referee shall call Held".

In cases where the ball-carrier is held up and dragged over the touch-line, the above is not being implemented. Which is effectively narrowing the width of the pitch by several metres.

 

[westerntiger]

We also have confirmation on the double knock on rule and ‘bobbles’

 

[Ride the Lion to Zion]

We also have confirmation on the double knock on rule and ‘bobbles’View attachment 69516

At first glance, that appears to be the Channel Nine theorem. Adapted from the Phil Gould school of applied and preposterous bobbleonomics. Which is itself based on Fox League`s first law of fabricated controversy.

 

[Chimp]

At first glance, that appears to be the Channel Nine theorem. Adapted from the Phil Gould school of applied and preposterous bobbleonomics. Which is itself based on Fox League`s first law of fabricated controversy.

It’s for the situation where the ball is tucked in the crook of the wrist… when you extend your hand to put the ball down, in those milliseconds before it touches the ground, fingers leave the ball, as you tilt hand backwards and promote ball forwards, and it ends up under the wrist…. No separation, just physics of stretching out your hand - and the bunker started disallowing them.
I always go back to my view of simplifying things - forget all these interpretations for the video ref. Just limit their ability to use super zoom and slow-mo. They should get a maximum of 3 or 4 looks at it, in full speed, and if there isn’t an obvious mistake, go with the refs call. Don’t need minute interpretations then, just the general principles of the rules.

 

[T-Boon]

The ball caught on the full by the defense from a kick should be something like a 7 tackle set or something.

 

[Banger]

More ways for the Dragons to get absolutely reamed

 

[siv]

The monitoring of concussion at training may have the biggest impact in 2023

 

[Perth Red]

It’s for the situation where the ball is tucked in the crook of the wrist… when you extend your hand to put the ball down, in those milliseconds before it touches the ground, fingers leave the ball, as you tilt hand backwards and promote ball forwards, and it ends up under the wrist…. No separation, just physics of stretching out your hand - and the bunker started disallowing them.
I always go back to my view of simplifying things - forget all these interpretations for the video ref. Just limit their ability to use super zoom and slow-mo. They should get a maximum of 3 or 4 looks at it, in full speed, and if there isn’t an obvious mistake, go with the refs call. Don’t need minute interpretations then, just the general principles of the rules.

The aussie refs showed they can do it in RLWC where they talked through the replay and made a call quickly. No idea why in nrl games they’ve got to look at it 20 times and take 2 minutes! Probably terrified of Gould slamming them and them losing their jobs.

 

[Chimp]

I genuinely believe reffing the game in slow-mo and zoom is one of the blights on our game. The VR was originally brought in to ‘eliminate the howler’, not to manage the game under a microscope.
A ‘howler’ should be visible to the naked eye, with no need for multiple replays. If it looks like a try to the naked eye, at full speed, then it’s a try. As an example, when 2 players both jump up to catch a bomb, and there’s a mid-air wrestle/contest for the ball, and 1 player wins the battle and comes out with the ball, without any obvious knock on, then play on. The naked eye can’t see that if it brushed one players fingernail first and went slightly forward, whoever wins the contest and comes down with the ball, without an obvious knock-on, gets the ball, play on. We actually get rid of lots of mini-contests, challenges for the ball if we start micro-managing every decision.
I’d say the same sh

 

[siv]

The aussie refs showed they can do it in RLWC where they talked through the replay and made a call quickly. No idea why in nrl games they’ve got to look at it 20 times and take 2 minutes! Probably terrified of Gould slamming them and them losing their jobs.

KFC ad hasnt finished

 

[Ride the Lion to Zion]

As an example, when 2 players both jump up to catch a bomb, and there’s a mid-air wrestle/contest for the ball, and 1 player wins the battle and comes out with the ball, without any obvious knock on, then play on. The naked eye can’t see that if it brushed one players fingernail first and went slightly forward, whoever wins the contest and comes down with the ball, without an obvious knock-on, gets the ball, play on.

This is now largely governed by ref paranoia. Logic has flown the coop. The media are culpable.

After a contest for the ball, on the ground or in the air, you`ll often hear "there had to be a knock-on in there somewhere" from some genius commentator aghast that the bunker hasn`t been asked to get the microscope out and go searching for one of Gould`s little bobbles.

In circumstances where they can`t go to the bunker, the ref will sometimes blow the whistle, saunter across to a touch judge, and begin a discussion with "what have you got?". Which means - we don`t know what happened, but "there had to be a knock-on in there somewhere". Hence, at various points in a modern RL game, possession is determined by the random guesswork of officials rather than the rules of the game or the laws of physics.

The knock-on rule is essentially part of the prohibition on passing forward. It exists to prevent players gaining an advantage from propelling the ball towards the opposition`s dead-ball line. It is not intended to catch and punish little bobbles. Over the past 20-30 years there`s been a ratchet effect to the point where the application of the knock-on rule is now completely detached from it`s original purpose.

 

[Ride the Lion to Zion]

No sign of a rethink of what some people call "lateral turnovers" i.e. the change from scrum to PTB after the ball crosses the touchline.

According to PVL the move was designed to speed the game up. Really? Has he ever seen this pedestrian mind-numbing soul-destroying exercise?

Bit of mooching around to start with. Then we get the big question -"Where do you want it?", "Er, the middle", "What a surprise. Middle it is". So everyone dawdles off in-field. Trainers come on with water.

Next, the ref has to set the defence - "markers lock in, wait, hold, wait, hold, wait, hold, go 1".

We finally snap into action with a one-out basic hit-up. Followed by another. And another. And so on. A static first play against a fully-organized 13-man defence stultifies the whole set.

It's also fundamentally absurd and an affront to the history of the game to stage a PTB, which is an integral part of the tackle and ruck, when there has been no tackle. The RL PTB is not a set piece. It should not be used to restart play. We technically get away with the tackle 6 handover since this is subsequent to a completed tackle. Same logic at the 10m line when a player is held up in-goal.

At a time when there's a perception that RL lacks variety, this rule change was exactly what we didn't need.

 

[T-Boon]

No sign of a rethink of what some people call "lateral turnovers" i.e. the change from scrum to PTB after the ball crosses the touchline.

According to PVL the move was designed to speed the game up. Really? Has he ever seen this pedestrian mind-numbing soul-destroying exercise?

Bit of mooching around to start with. Then we get the big question -"Where do you want it?", "Er, the middle", "What a surprise. Middle it is". So everyone dawdles off in-field. Trainers come on with water.

Next, the ref has to set the defence - "markers lock in, wait, hold, wait, hold, wait, hold, go 1".

We finally snap into action with a one-out basic hit-up. Followed by another. And another. And so on. A static first play against a fully-organized 13-man defence stultifies the whole set.

It's also fundamentally absurd and an affront to the history of the game to stage a PTB, which is an integral part of the tackle and ruck, when there has been no tackle. The RL PTB is not a set piece. It should not be used to restart play. We technically get away with the tackle 6 handover since this is subsequent to a completed tackle. Same logic at the 10m line when a player is held up in-goal.

At a time when there's a perception that RL lacks variety, this rule change was exactly what we didn't need.

100%
I like this dude.

 

[siv]

I remember when I proposed this rule change

It was only for scrums when the ball went into touch. And this was for them to be set 10m.or 20m in from the sideline

Knockons scrums to be set where they occurred

Instead we ended up with a mess