2024 rule change: drop-out and kick-off penalties

[Iamback]

CTE is the reason. Enjoy the sport while it still exists

Another reason to keep watching Ice Hockey, still beat the shit out of each other

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Bizarre change if they're not going to get rid of the seven tackle set restart.

Agree here. Seven tackle sets should only apply to kicks from outside the 20 or thereabouts. The intent was always to stop teams just booting it dead to negate dangerous kick returns, not to discourage grubbers and chips.

 

[ColdWetPanther]

I dont know guys... like i get it, we've had a lot of rule changes under PVL and some of them have SUUUCKED!
But i wouldnt immediately rule out the idea that this could be good

I agree it will disincentivise kicks in behind the line, which are good try scoring opportunities but also a means to build pressure.

My view is I expect we'll see teams use the football more on 6th tackle in the red zone and not just settle for a kick, and be willing to hand the ball over if tackled, rather than to roll it in, force a drop out and and try to build pressure.

Which could end up being a good thing if teams actually use the ball expansively on the last, i think that's more in line with the football we want to see rather than a boring bomb/or conservative kick in to force a drop out and build pressure
However, it could be a bad thing if they just settle for getting into a corner and handing it over and trying to rip in defensively. Potentially as a means to build pressure you'd take it to a corner and on the last tackle take a crack from dummy half... if you score, great, if not you hand the ball over to the team in a corner, a metre off their line and you can probably get 3-4 tackles into the set before the team is up over the 20 if you're disciplined enough

Not saying this is definitely going to be great for the game, just not willing to rule that out.

Well reasoned and I can see your point. I don’t necessarily agree as I think we won’t see more attacking play on the last.

 

[T.S Quint]

Agree here. Seven tackle sets should only apply to kicks from outside the 20 or thereabouts. The intent was always to stop teams just booting it dead to negate dangerous kick returns, not to discourage grubbers and chips.

Or someone dropping the ball over the line.

 

[JamesRustle]

Every kick off and drop out should be short unless you’re protecting a lead late in the game

That change has, in my view, completely flipped the risk reward component of that and the reward now substantially outweighs minimal risks

edit: I don’t have strong views on whether that’s ultimately a good or bad thing for the game, I’ll reserve judgement until I see it in action but for better or worse, short kick offs should be the norm going forward

Rather than making only the stated change, I think they should have reviewed other scenarios that generally play out in the lead up to a contested restart with the objective of retaining more of the risk/reward to the attacking team:

1. Wind back 7 tackle sets so they do not apply in attacking scenarios e.g. kicks inside the 20m (that don't go dead on the full/don't hit the fence), knock-on over the line (so long as not trying to throw it dead).

2. Attacking team can attempt to secure the ball before it travels 10m and play on - removing that crap when the ball is bobbling near the 10m and players are standing around watching/waiting.

 

[Chins get the wins]

Another reason to keep watching Ice Hockey, still beat the shit out of each other

Island

 

[Someguy]

So the new strategy will be to have kick that dribbles along the ground inside the 10m with the hope that it goes out of bounds just past the 10 or that a defender misjudges and touches it before it goes 10. Not sure there is much incentive for the kicking team to contest the kick as it would be a far lower percentage play, and there will be a very small window for the receiving team to contest the ball

 

[pims]

Sorry I don't agree. See rugby union where short kick offs are the norm. You want to tell me that leads to close contests in that code?

wtf i'd say about 10% of kick-offs are made actually contestable, maybe 5% regathered, and about 0% of goal-line or 22 dropouts are kicked short

 

[Desert Qlder]

Murphy's Ninth Law: Nature always sides with the hidden flaw.
Murphy's Eleventh Law: It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious.
Murphy's Thirteenth Law: Every solution breeds new problems.
Murphy's Fourteenth Law: If anything can't go wrong on its own, someone will make it go wrong.

 

[Valheru]

Every kick off and drop out should be short unless you’re protecting a lead late in the game

That change has, in my view, completely flipped the risk reward component of that and the reward now substantially outweighs minimal risks

edit: I don’t have strong views on whether that’s ultimately a good or bad thing for the game, I’ll reserve judgement until I see it in action but for better or worse, short kick offs should be the norm going forward

Drop outs, yes, I can see very few of the not being short with this change. There is absolutely no negative to failing

Kick offs I don't think will be the same. Certainly more will be short but there is still a genuine negative to failing IMO. Instead of tackle 1 occurring on the 10-20m line, if you fail it will between the 40s depending on if it was regathered or resulted in a tap.

 

[Valheru]

Agree here. Seven tackle sets should only apply to kicks from outside the 20 or thereabouts. The intent was always to stop teams just booting it dead to negate dangerous kick returns, not to discourage grubbers and chips.

I don't think 7 tackles should apply at all, just give the team possession from where the opposition kicked it with the minimum being the 20m line. So if you kick it dead from 40 out the other team gets a tap from the 40m line and 6 tackles.

 

[Valheru]

Rather than making only the stated change, I think they should have reviewed other scenarios that generally play out in the lead up to a contested restart with the objective of retaining more of the risk/reward to the attacking team:

1. Wind back 7 tackle sets so they do not apply in attacking scenarios e.g. kicks inside the 20m (that don't go dead on the full/don't hit the fence), knock-on over the line (so long as not trying to throw it dead).

2. Attacking team can attempt to secure the ball before it travels 10m and play on - removing that crap when the ball is bobbling near the 10m and players are standing around watching/waiting.

2 is a good point and I agree

Has the NRL said what happens if the receiving team does touch it before it travels 10 under this rule? Surely not a penalty.

 

[snickers007]

Has the NRL said what happens if the receiving team does touch it before it travels 10 under this rule? Surely not a penalty.

Not mentioned in any of the articles I've seen. Will likely still be a penalty, which is ridiculous. Affords such a massive advantage to the kicking team.

 

[mxlegend99]

The game shouldn’t be rewarding a lack of skill by reducing the punishment for mistakes.

If the opposition are skillful enough to have scored a try or forced a drop out while risking a 7 tackle set as punishment for a mistake.

Then a team trying to get the ball back from the restart should also have the threat of giving away a penalty if they dont have the skill to execute.

They have the advantage already considering they get to choose who they want contesting the ball, and where they want them contesting it. They know where its going. If they dont have the skill to execute, they should be penalised.

Next up they will probably decide to make the team scoring kick off, reward every ball in goal with a 20m restart etc. because god forbid teams require skill to be competitive.

 

[Canard]

How about making it an optional penalty? You can either kick for goal, or having a set of 6 from the 10m line?

Its weird that this wording has been used by the NRL:

The change will give more incentive for teams to attempt short kick-offs or drop-outs.

I would think, depending on the game situation, having a team on the attack 10m from goal would be worse then conceding the two points.

 

[hrundi99]

Another reason to keep watching Ice Hockey, still beat the shit out of each other

They also have issues with CTE and the "beating the shit out f each other" is exaggerated.

Yes you can fight but you get heavily penalised for it.

 

[Iamback]

They also have issues with CTE and the "beating the shit out f each other" is exaggerated.

Yes you can fight but you get heavily penalised for it.

You can also fall belt someone in the head in accident and it is seen for what it is

 

[Valheru]

How about making it an optional penalty? You can either kick for goal, or having a set of 6 from the 10m line?

Its weird that this wording has been used by the NRL:



I would think, depending on the game situation, having a team on the attack 10m from goal would be worse then conceding the two points.

??

That is the current rule? You don't have to go for goal and can tap the ball

 

[taste2taste]

I must be the only one who thinks this is a good change.

Teams only risk trying short kick offs/goal line drop puts when they are trailing, it's a desperate attempt to get the ball back.

If the short kick is misjudged and they get penalised the team that's leading gets either a penalty, going ahead by a further 2 pionts, or kicking for touch and being on attack 10m out and probably scoring.

Game over ! Change channel !

Personally I'd prefer a closer game where the loosing team had a better chance of coming back.

 

[Iamback]

I must be the only one who thinks this is a good change.

Teams only risk trying short kick offs/goal line drop puts when they are trailing, it's a desperate attempt to get the ball back.

If the short kick is misjudged and they get penalised the team that's leading gets either a penalty, going ahead by a further 2 pionts, or kicking for touch and being on attack 10m out and probably scoring.

Game over ! Change channel !

Personally I'd prefer a closer game where the loosing team had a better chance of coming back.

I don't see the point to it, I have to see it during a game to decide if it is good or bad