Change to the kickoff rule 2026

[T-Boon]

Ah but the 40-20 was addressing a problem. Teams would get camped in there 40 set after set. So the 40-20 was brought in to change things up and give teams a chance to turn the tables. We all remember the good teams of the 90s, but the bad teams their just wasn't the depth of talent and some of those games between the teams towards the bottom of the table were absolutely dreadful.

Yes, but in your previous post you said "you only bring rules changes in if coaches are taking advantage of stuff on the field. Thats how the game has evolved so far to make a better product" and I then said "there also has been great rule changes that weren't necessitated by dodgy coaching such as the 40-20 rule"

This here post, you are agreeing with me on that and contradicting your earlier post.

The point is there are numerous reasons to bring good rule changes in.

 

[Dogs Of War]

Yes, but in your previous post you said "you only bring rules changes in if coaches are taking advantage of stuff on the field. Thats how the game has evolved so far to make a better product" and I then said "there also has been great rule changes that weren't necessitated by dodgy coaching such as the 40-20 rule"

This here post, you are agreeing with me on that and contradicting your earlier post.

The point is there are numerous reasons to bring good rule changes in.

It was more a knee jerk reaction to Super League and there fast play the balls and little defence. A way to liven up the ARL version of the sport. There had been plenty of rule changes around kicking the ball in the years previous, like balls caught ingoal going to a 20m tap etc. This was just one that took away teams who were forcing the game to be a game of trying to get out of your half by kicking to the corners and just playing a very negative game.

Here is Gus explaining what it fixed.


You could probably say the same about making ingoal posts not out was a good positive rule change, but once again that was a good campaign by Vossy who pointed out the hypocrisy when the post was missing or folded down so you weren't out in those situations.

All the rules changes are around things that coaches are taking advantage of, even cleaning up the contests for the ball, taking away the kick through at the ruck when a player was attempting to play the ball. Probably one of the things I miss the most and the least. When done well it was good to watch, but most of the time it was horrible to watch and just made the play the ball very messy.

 

[siv]

One thing that could add some excitment is the ability to take a long range goal kick and get 3 points

Maybe arc from 35m sideline to 45m in front to 35m sideline

Where you can move the kick point back either from a penalty or a conversion to try for the extra point

 

[Saxon]

One thing that could add some excitment is the ability to take a long range goal kick and get 3 points

Maybe arc from 35m sideline to 45m in front to 35m sideline

Where you can move the kick point back either from a penalty or a conversion to try for the extra point

Hey @siv, I think T Boon has hacked your account.

 

[Captain Apollo]

IIRC, Bob Fulton was considered the "architect" of the 40/20 rule's creation.

 

[Wb1234]

IIRC, Bob Fulton was considered the "architect" of the 40/20 rule's creation.

Heard he invented zones in league in the 70s which totally changed the game

 

[Wb1234]

Bold plan for an extended substitutes bench could revolutionise the NRL

Some of the most successful coaches in rugby league want to potentially double the size of the current bench as the game becomes faster and more brutal. But will the change work?

www.smh.com.au

Mods is this ok to be here rather than starting another thread ?

And increasing interchanges is a horrible idea

 

[Dogs Of War]

Bold plan for an extended substitutes bench could revolutionise the NRL

Some of the most successful coaches in rugby league want to potentially double the size of the current bench as the game becomes faster and more brutal. But will the change work?

www.smh.com.au

Mods is this ok to be here rather than starting another thread ?

And increasing interchanges is a horrible idea

I could see the benefit with the concussion rule allowing a back and a forward to be your 18th and 19th man so they can keep some balance in the game. Hard when a back goes down and you have gone forward heavy on the bench and your sub is another forward.

And potentially then if you have 2 guys who do down that would fullfill the role that allows an extra replacement to come onto the field to replace those guys. But it would require 2 guys not returning to play.

What we don't want which I loved when Bennett did it, was the 40 interchanges to make a mockery of the rule at the time.

 

[siv]

Happy to have 8 players on the bench but only use 4

BUT you need NRL RG where all players play 40 min of RG or U21s first

 

[Munky]

I've been saying for a while there needs to be a designated back as an extra reserve.

Whoever they swap with can't go back on.

Essentially an injury replacement only.

 

[Valheru]

Just have 8 on the bench and maintain 8 interchanges. In normal situations the coaches will still only use 4-5 players off the bench. That allows the coaches to maintain coverage for all positions in the case of injury/concussion.

 

[Dogs Of War]

Just have 8 on the bench and maintain 8 interchanges. In normal situations the coaches will still only use 4-5 players off the bench. That allows the coaches to maintain coverage for all positions in the case of injury/concussion.

Yep. I would be happy with that. Injuries and concussion are handled well. Concussions are free interchanges. And it shows that the NRL are putting player welfare first and foremost.

 

[T-Boon]

Just have 8 on the bench and maintain 8 interchanges. In normal situations the coaches will still only use 4-5 players off the bench. That allows the coaches to maintain coverage for all positions in the case of injury/concussion.

That would create more work for the coaches as well (as in actual thought needed to go into replacements on game day).
Giving coaches something to do helps prevent them doing all the dark arts things because they do work hard its just that they don't have much to do so they have all that time to spend on the dark arts.

 

[Dogs Of War]

That would create more work for the coaches as well (as in actual thought needed to go into replacements on game day).
Giving coaches something to do helps prevent them doing all the dark arts things because they do work hard its just that they don't have much to do so they have all that time to spend on the dark arts.

How? Coaches are going to play their best team. If injuries or concussions happen, then they have the right players on the bench to use which means that as a spectacle the game doesn't lose as much. So a halfback goes down. You should have a half available on the bench who you wouldn't normally carry. Also means a lot of guys who wouldn't get a spot on the bench would get to experience first grade that way. Geez you could even consider the old school thing if reserve grade is playing the same day, that you get half a game in reserves then sit on the bench in first. Bringing back the 1980s.

 

[The Axe of Druss]

Happy to have 8 players on the bench but only use 4

BUT you need NRL RG where all players play 40 min of RG or U21s first

No you dont

 

[siv]

No you dont

Fitness of the bench will be a issue if you don't allow them to play regularly

 

[The Axe of Druss]

Fitness of the bench will be a issue if you don't allow them to play regularly

Sure, but you don't need the waste of money that a national reserve grade is to avoid that

 

[siv]

Sure, but you don't need the waste of money that a national reserve grade is to avoid that

Please outline where money would be spent

As 13 clubs already run in this structure

And Broncos, Nth Qld, Redcliffe and Townsville are already trying to run teams in U20s too

NRL clubs already pay for 30 + 6 players. And all U21 players. So its not players

Its not travel as NRL funds travel directly

 

[The Axe of Druss]

Please outline where money would be spent

As 13 clubs already run in this structure

And Broncos, Nth Qld, Redcliffe and Townsville are already trying to run teams in U20s too

NRL clubs already pay for 30 + 6 players. And all U21 players. So its not players

Its not travel as NRL funds travel directly

Bullshit, it will 100% costs clubs more to send more players to away games if they had to travel interstate. The NRL does not pay for travel at all bud

If it made no difference it would be a thing already. There is a reason clubs are against a national RG

The state cup system works and shouldn't be messed with

 

[T-Boon]

I think the undercard of all NRL games should be about growing/promoting the game so have high school games, university games (growing the game at uni level would be huge), women's games etc.