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

[ColdWetPanther]

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 appreciate we all want close games, but these are being manufactured and that is what this rule is doing more of.

The referees already referee second halves like its MarioKart; the further behind you get, the more ridiculous the advantages.

 

[Captain Apollo]

.....

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.

If they do, then they learned nothing from the Australian Super League competition in 1997. They did have that rule, and just about all spectators, media and SL players said it was a bad idea. Combined witrhg the way they spewd up play in that competition, everyone said it was more akin to touch football. It lead to higher scores, true, but that does not necessarily mean that it results in higher quality play with those higher scores.

 

[mave]

Stop
Tinkering
With
The
Fkn
Game
Every
Fkn
Year

 

[Chins get the wins]

Stop
Tinkering
With
The
Fkn
Game
Every
Fkn
Year

They have to if they want it to exist in 20 years. This decision is to limit big hit ups off kicks. CTE will end this game it's a matter of when not if

 

[mave]

They have to if they want it to exist in 20 years. This decision is to limit big hit ups off kicks. CTE will end this game it's a matter of when not if

This rule change does little to limit "big hit ups".

It does, however do a lot to discourage disciplined attacking teams applying more pressure.

This is purely a new rule to reduce the chances of blow-out scores....and therefore less eyeballs/gambling revenue.

 

[Chins get the wins]

This rule change does little to limit "big hit ups".

It does, however do a lot to discourage disciplined attacking teams applying more pressure.

This is purely a new rule to reduce the chances of blow-out scores....and therefore less eyeballs/gambling revenue.

Does little to stop 30m charges into the defence? You serious? The NFL f**ked with their kick-off rules for the same reason

 

[taste2taste]

Stop
Tinkering
With
The
Fkn
Game
Every
Fkn
Year

The game is far from perfect, the beauty about not being tied to a world governing body (like other sports ) is that we can tinker with the rules to make the greatest game of all even greater !

 

[taste2taste]

Does little to stop 30m charges into the defence? You serious? The NFL f**ked with their kick-off rules for the same reason

The cynic in me thinks this rule change is aimed at eventually getting rid of the kick off and drop out collision, which lead to far more concussions than a 10 meter hit up.

First the NFL banned defensive walls, then moved the restart from a dead ball kick forward to the 25yd line, then stopped the kick off team having a running start....and now we are left with zero kick off or punt returns.

 

[Iamback]

The cynic in me thinks this rule change is aimed at eventually getting rid of the kick off and drop out collision, which lead to far more concussions than a 10 meter hit up.

First the NFL banned defensive walls, then moved the restart from a dead ball kick forward to the 25yd line, then stopped the kick off team having a running start....and now we are left with zero kick off or punt returns.

Not that I want it to happen.

Though It is strange that someone can slightly brush someone in the head and be binned.

Yet the next minute a 110kg player can run at 25km/h and it is all good

 

[This Year?]

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.

Here's a lovely scenario. 15 seconds to go, Broncos are leading Cowboys by 1 point and have a dropout from their own goal-line

Knowing they won't get penalised for going short they could do one of the shittest drop kicks that roll over the sideline and inside the 10 knowing that the opposition can't touch it.

 

[_snafu_]

Needs a multi-ball option.

 

[some11]

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.

You're the only one pointing this out.

Is it really a good idea to shank a drop out on purpose and open yourself up to getting 6 points put on you?

 

[yobbo84]

I'm really sick and tired off all these bullsh*t changes.

Leave the game alone.

 

[Chins get the wins]

I'm really sick and tired off all these bullsh*t changes.

Leave the game alone.

This is the CTE world and the game will continue to do what is has to.....till it eventually just falls over

 

[Chins get the wins]

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.

Not trying to PENRITH! another thread up but up by 1 with a minute left Nathan will pump these kicks into row 20 and wipe some time off the clock. Then back the sports best ever defence to close it out

 

[snickers007]

“But we always try to think through the unintended consequences of new rules,” Annesley said.

“So the new rule will only apply to kicks where it’s intended to have a contest for the ball.

“It doesn’t allow for teams to kick [a kick-off] over the dead ball on the full, or into touch on the full, 20 or 30 metres out from the goal line just to concede a play-the-ball rather than a penalty. It has to be a kick that is capable of being contested.

“And we all know what that looks like - from short kick-offs or dropouts - chasers are immediately out there to contest for the ball.

“Some people will say that puts more discretion in the hands of the referees, but every decision comes with discretion.”

More details from Annesley

The warning about the NRL’s latest rule change - the 20th tweak in five years

The devil in the detail of the NRL’s new drop-out and kick-off rule is aimed to keep cynical coaches in check, but critics ask why the need for change at all.

www.smh.com.au

 

[Valheru]

More details from Annesley

The warning about the NRL’s latest rule change - the 20th tweak in five years

The devil in the detail of the NRL’s new drop-out and kick-off rule is aimed to keep cynical coaches in check, but critics ask why the need for change at all.

www.smh.com.au

lol so now they are going to differentiate between normal kick offs/drop outs and "contestable" ones which means interpretation and discretion will have to be used

We all know how well that goes. What a disaster.

 

[mxlegend99]

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.

Wtf? Teams do it all the time regardless of the score.

Some teams do it everytime. No matter the circumstances. Short drop outs and kick offs have become common place. Thd NRL didnt need to do anything to encourage it. Teams were already happy with the risk vs reward aspect.

Now they have less risk. This doesn’t make the game less predictable. Its more predictable now. We will see more lottery contests from drop outs and kick offs.

Teams had already cut back on trying to force drop outs because the risk of being punished for a 7 tackle set is the same and the potential reward with getting the ball back is lower than ever.

 

[mxlegend99]

The cynic in me thinks this rule change is aimed at eventually getting rid of the kick off and drop out collision, which lead to far more concussions than a 10 meter hit up.

First the NFL banned defensive walls, then moved the restart from a dead ball kick forward to the 25yd line, then stopped the kick off team having a running start....and now we are left with zero kick off or punt returns.

Instead it could potentially add more collisions.

We could have more games with sets of teams pinned on their own line getting smashed the entire set because Team A realised the risk vs reward of a drop out is bullshit now, and they can just get tackled 1m out. Hand the ball over and smash Team B for the whole set with a condensed defensive line ready to line up each runner.

Team B is forced to kick from deep inside their own half and Team A then gets a 30m kick return before hitting the defensive line and starting a set in good field position with a bit of momentum.

Less props doing 30m kick returns. But more heavy contact tackles.

 

[Maximus]

More details from Annesley

The warning about the NRL’s latest rule change - the 20th tweak in five years

The devil in the detail of the NRL’s new drop-out and kick-off rule is aimed to keep cynical coaches in check, but critics ask why the need for change at all.

www.smh.com.au

In other words, they didn't actually think about the consequences until a journo raised it, so now they are trying to cover that up by making the new rule solely based on interpretation of refs.