Free play rule

[TheFrog]

So whenever there is a zero tackle following an error, the team that gains possession retains their advantage until a tackle is made. This might work in a novelty event like the 9's, but would be awful in the NRL. Losing possession is already an adequate penalty for making an error.

In the 9's they should make it so that a kick in general play ends the advantage as well, or else you'll have teams hoisting it 50 yards downfield and getting possession afterwards, like a 40/20.

 

[Evil Homer]

So whenever there is a zero tackle following an error, the team that gains possession retains their advantage until a tackle is made. This might work in a novelty event like the 9's, but would be awful in the NRL. Losing possession is already an adequate penalty for making an error.

In the 9's they should make it so that a kick in general play ends the advantage as well, or else you'll have teams hoisting it 50 yards downfield and getting possession afterwards, like a 40/20.

Another merkin who doesn't understand what's going on.

 

[The Great Dane]

Another merkin who doesn't understand what's going on.

No we merkins completely understand it, we just think it's f##king stupid.

The "free play" essentially extends the advantage after an error by the opposing team until the conclusion of your first attacking play back with the ball.

Essentially meaning that one team can knock-on, the other team can pick up the ball run down the field gaining an advantage through sheer dumb luck then knock-on themselves and we come all the way back to the first knock-on and give the ball back to the team who just gained a free possession of the ball and messed it up and give it back to them anyway just cause.

Basically we punish the team that loses the ball twice for their mistake by not only taking away their possession of the ball, but also allowing the opposition one play with the ball where they have no penalty for making mistakes of their own!
And by extension we reward the team that gains a "free play" for reasons not of their own making but because they were lucky enough that the opposite team made a handling error.

It's as if two kids spill their milk but the parent only punished the first one that spilled their milk, then rewarded the other child with a lolly for not spilling theirs first.

It's an alright gimmick for an event maybe, like the 5 point try zone in the Nines, but not something to add into the rule book it's self.

 

[Evil Homer]

No we merkins completely understand it, we just think it's f##king stupid.

The "free play" essentially extends the advantage after an error by the opposing team until the conclusion of your first attacking play back with the ball.

Essentially meaning that one team can knock-on, the other team can pick up the ball run down the field gaining an advantage through sheer dumb luck then knock-on themselves and we come all the way back to the first knock-on and give the ball back to the team who just gained a free possession of the ball and messed it up and give it back to them anyway just cause.

Basically we punish the team that loses the ball twice for their mistake by not only taking away their possession of the ball, but also allowing the opposition one play with the ball where they have no penalty for making mistakes of their own!
And by extension we reward the team that gains a "free play" for reasons not of their own making but because they were lucky enough that the opposite team made a handling error.

It's as if two kids spill their milk but the parent only punished the first one that spilled their milk, then rewarded the other child with a lolly for not spilling theirs first.

It's an alright gimmick for an event maybe, like the 5 point try zone in the Nines, but not something to add into the rule book it's self.

No, your post literally illustrates that you don't understand it at all. It doesn't "punish" anyone. It's not a gimmick, it's not even a free play. It's nothing like a f**king 5 point try. It's a natural evolution of the rules, it has been in regular 13-a-side matches and not "events" for two years and every single person who has actually seen it agrees that it's a good rule and far more sensible than the stupid 'advantage line' rule you have in the NRL, in which everything you've said above still applies but only if the referee decides to apply it. It's like removing the corner flag, if that came from Britain you would say it was dumb too because you people are too f**king insular to accept anything from somewhere else.

 

[The Great Dane]

No, your post literally illustrates that you don't understand it at all. It doesn't "punish" anyone.

It does implicitly, just like the opposition gaining the ball after a mistake implicitly punishes the team that made the mistake.

It's not a gimmick, it's not even a free play. It's nothing like a f**king 5 point try.

I never said that it was a gimmick, a free play or anything like a 5 point try.

What I said was that it would make a good gimmick in an event like the bonus point try at the Nines, and the only reason that I use the term free play is because that is what it's commonly referred to as.

It's a natural evolution of the rules

No a natural progression of the rule would be to remove making a pass as being considered as gaining an advantage and having it that only if ten meters is gained that an advantage has been gained.

it has been in regular 13-a-side matches and not "events" for two years and every single person who has actually seen it agrees that it's a good rule

I know that it's been in full games for two years, I never said it hadn't been.
I have actually seen it dozens of times (believe it or not I actually watch more SL then NRL, apart from Raiders games I find the NRL incredibly boring because of the dominance of the Melbourne Storm over worked style of play) and I still think it's a stupid f##king rule, designed in my opinion with the express purpose of trying to manufacture more exciting moments where players try and succeed in pulling off amazing plays like chip and chases or what have you, by removing the risk of attempting such plays for a short period, without realising that one of the things that make those moments exciting is the risk involved in attempting such a play.

and far more sensible than the stupid 'advantage line' rule you have in the NRL

You don't understand the advantage rule, it's basically the double knock-on rule extended a little bit to punish bad ball security.

The advantage rule is simple, after an error has been made and possession taken by the opposing team it is considered that the opposing team has received no advantage from the oppositions mistake unless the ball is carried or propelled 10 meters away from where the mistake occurred or the player passes the ball (this last bit I agree is stupid).

So if team A knocks on and team B be gets the ball and runs, kicks, or throws it ten meters then it is considered that B team has gained an advantage from the mistake and no extra punishment (for lack of a better word) is required for the mistake.

However if team A knocks on and team B gets the ball and knocks it on, or whatever, it is considered that their was no punishment (again for lack of a better word) for team A's original mistake and team B be gets the ball back.

in which everything you've said above still applies but only if the referee decides to apply it

Yes and no.

Yes two teams can knock-on in row and one can be punished simply because it spilled the ball first but only when the second team knocks on without having actually had the chance to make a play with the ball, where as with the free play they get their chance to make a play with the ball, can actually gain an advantage in free meters gained before the first tackle is called, bugger it up by doing something stupid like a dumb attempt at an all or nothing play instead of taking the tackle, and then still get the ball back despite having just made however many meters and putting themselves into a much better attacking position then they ever could have hoped for had the opposition team completed their set.

No it's not at the referees whim when advantage ends unless they are playing the rule wrong or have messed up the call somehow.

It's like removing the corner flag, if that came from Britain you would say it was dumb too because you people are too f**king insular to accept anything from somewhere else.

Obviously I'm not to insular to accept things from somewhere else because if I was I wouldn't be a RL fan you dodo.

 

[Evil Homer]

I know that it's been in full games for two years, I never said it hadn't been.
I have actually seen it dozens of times (believe it or not I actually watch more SL then NRL, apart from Raiders games I find the NRL incredibly boring because of the dominance of the Melbourne Storm over worked style of play) and I still think it's a stupid f##king rule, designed in my opinion with the express purpose of trying to manufacture more exciting moments where players try and succeed in pulling off amazing plays like chip and chases or what have you, by removing the risk of attempting such plays for a short period, without realising that one of the things that make those moments exciting is the risk involved in attempting such a play.

Well if you watched the games then you would know that that type of play virtually never happens. Maybe 1 in or 30 times someone will try some type of trick play like a chip or something, and they usually get laughed at for doing it. All the rule change does is encourages teams to exploit an opportunity if there is a chance to do so without worrying about turning the ball over on the first tackle. If there is an overlap or some space out wide you throw the pass rather than just taking the hit up. And you've just said the NRL is boring so why would you be against a rule that makes it more exciting and attacking minded?

You don't understand the advantage rule, it's basically the double knock-on rule extended a little bit to punish bad ball security.

The advantage rule is simple, after an error has been made and possession taken by the opposing team it is considered that the opposing team has received no advantage from the oppositions mistake unless the ball is carried or propelled 10 meters away from where the mistake occurred or the player passes the ball (this last bit I agree is stupid).

So if team A knocks on and team B be gets the ball and runs, kicks, or throws it ten meters then it is considered that B team has gained an advantage from the mistake and no extra punishment (for lack of a better word) is required for the mistake.

However if team A knocks on and team B gets the ball and knocks it on, or whatever, it is considered that their was no punishment (again for lack of a better word) for team A's original mistake and team B be gets the ball back.

Yes and no.

Yes two teams can knock-on in row and one can be punished simply because it spilled the ball first but only when the second team knocks on without having actually had the chance to make a play with the ball, where as with the free play they get their chance to make a play with the ball, can actually gain an advantage in free meters gained before the first tackle is called, bugger it up by doing something stupid like a dumb attempt at an all or nothing play instead of taking the tackle, and then still get the ball back despite having just made however many meters and putting themselves into a much better attacking position then they ever could have hoped for had the opposition team completed their set.

Literally all the 'free play' rule does is remove this inconsistency. Please stop looking at it as a free play, that isn't even the name, it was invented by the commentators on Sky Sports. It's literally just getting rid of the inane advantage rule. It doesn't reward or punish anyone, it just removes an inconsistency in the rules. If a team runs the length of the field and then stuffs it up by doing something stupid then they lose the advantage they would have gained and that's their problem. And again, that type of thing never ever happens, it happened for a couple of weeks at first because players didn't understand the rule and, like you, thought it was some type of trick play. Once they figured out that it was better to take the tackle and gain the advantage than try a miracle all-or-nothing play the sport is unequivocally better for the rule change. Again, it's infuriating for me to try to watch NRL matches without this rule.

 

[The Great Dane]

Well if you watched the games then you would know that that type of play virtually never happens. Maybe 1 in or 30 times someone will try some type of trick play like a chip or something, and they usually get laughed at for doing it.

I said it was my opinion that the rule was designed to manufacture those plays, not that it actually succeeded in doing that.

All the rule change does is encourages teams to exploit an opportunity if there is a chance to do so without worrying about turning the ball over on the first tackle.

If that is such a good thing then why don't we just change the rules so there's no hand over when the ball is knocked on all the time, and instead just make it that if the ball hits the ground during a play that it's counted as a tackle or something, like in American football?

We don't do that for the same reason that we shouldn't do that for one play after a mistake is made, because it's stupid and rewards mediocrity.

If there is an overlap or some space out wide you throw the pass rather than just taking the hit up. And you've just said the NRL is boring so why would you be against a rule that makes it more exciting and attacking minded?

Changing this rule won't help the NRL break away from the boring style of play that has become dominant in the NRL (and in the most successful teams on the international circuit as well), apart from a reduction in the interchange and better adjudication of the ruck (maybe some new rules concerning the ruck as well) the only thing that will do that is someone coming up with a style of play that is more effective then the popular style at the moment, and many coaches and teams have made headway on that over the past ten of so years since the boring style became really dominant.
All we can do is hope that the new style that eventually takes over is more entertaining, which if things keep going the way they have been going I dare say it it will be, with teams like the Raiders, Panthers and Ipswich all becoming more successful with a much more open styles of play that they are developing using new innovative / res-erected forgotten tactics (especially Ipswich on this front).

Literally all the 'free play' rule does is remove this inconsistency. Please stop looking at it as a free play, that isn't even the name, it was invented by the commentators on Sky Sports. It's literally just getting rid of the inane advantage rule. It doesn't reward or punish anyone, it just removes an inconsistency in the rules. If a team runs the length of the field and then stuffs it up by doing something stupid then they lose the advantage they would have gained and that's their problem. And again, that type of thing never ever happens, it happened for a couple of weeks at first because players didn't understand the rule and, like you, thought it was some type of trick play. Once they figured out that it was better to take the tackle and gain the advantage than try a miracle all-or-nothing play the sport is unequivocally better for the rule change. Again, it's infuriating for me to try to watch NRL matches without this rule.

What inconsistency?

Seriously explain what the common inconsistencies are and/or where the confusion in the rule is.

I've literally never heard anyone apart from you complain about inconsistency in the advantage rule, and all the bloody commentators seem to do down here is complain about inconsistency and bad refereeing (often while getting the rules wrong themselves or simply not knowing the rules themselves), so if inconsistency in the adjudication of the advantage rule is such an issue then why isn't it being written and complained about every other week like inconsistency in the adjudication of the ruck, the obstruction rule, forward passes, shoulder charge, etc, etc, is?

And yes it does implicitly reward and punish teams, just like many rules do, for example giving one side the feed in the scrum, a handover, a twenty meter tap, a goal line dropout, etc because the other team made a mistake does reward and punish teams for good skills, better discipline, or whatever. That is the nature of many rules in many sports.

 

[Evil Homer]

I said it was my opinion that the rule was designed to manufacture those plays, not that it actually succeeded in doing that.

No it wasn't, it was designed to remove an inconsistency in the rules, for about the fifth time this is not a 'free play' or a trickshot and has never been described as such by anyone other than the idiotic Sky Sports commentators.

If that is such a good thing then why don't we just change the rules so there's no hand over when the ball is knocked on all the time, and instead just make it that if the ball hits the ground during a play that it's counted as a tackle or something, like in American football?

We don't do that for the same reason that we shouldn't do that for one play after a mistake is made, because it's stupid and rewards mediocrity.

Because that's f**king stupid, would fundamentally change the nature of the sport and would be horrible to watch.

Changing this rule won't help the NRL break away from the boring style of play that has become dominant in the NRL (and in the most successful teams on the international circuit as well), apart from a reduction in the interchange and better adjudication of the ruck (maybe some new rules concerning the ruck as well) the only thing that will do that is someone coming up with a style of play that is more effective then the popular style at the moment, and many coaches and teams have made headway on that over the past ten of so years since the boring style became really dominant.
All we can do is hope that the new style that eventually takes over is more entertaining, which if things keep going the way they have been going I dare say it it will be, with teams like the Raiders, Panthers and Ipswich all becoming more successful with a much more open styles of play that they are developing using new innovative / res-erected forgotten tactics (especially Ipswich on this front).

It wouldn't change it, but it does encourage attacking play from a dead ball situation and I'm not sure how and why you would be so against that if you think the competition is boring and lacking in attacking play.

What inconsistency?

Seriously explain what the common inconsistencies are and/or where the confusion in the rule is.

I've literally never heard anyone apart from you complain about inconsistency in the advantage rule, and all the bloody commentators seem to do down here is complain about inconsistency and bad refereeing (often while getting the rules wrong themselves or simply not knowing the rules themselves), so if inconsistency in the adjudication of the advantage rule is such an issue then why isn't it being written and complained about every other week like inconsistency in the adjudication of the ruck, the obstruction rule, forward passes, shoulder charge, etc, etc, is?

And yes it does implicitly reward and punish teams, just like many rules do, for example giving one side the feed in the scrum, a handover, a twenty meter tap, a goal line dropout, etc because the other team made a mistake does reward and punish teams for good skills, better discipline, or whatever. That is the nature of many rules in many sports.

The inconsistency is that 'advantage' in the NRL is determined by a vague, imaginary line that is decided by the referee. If a team has not crossed the advantage line then they are free to try and attack, if they have crossed it then they need to retain possession at all costs and nobody is sure exactly where this mysterious line is apart from the ref. In other words a nonsensical, outdated rule that doesn't make sense. Just because it doesn't have a massive impact on the game doesn't mean it's not an anomaly in the rules. The inconsistency with the corner posts raising the touchline wasn't a big issue either, nobody ever complained about that or even thought about it but when it was removed everyone agreed that it made sense and was the right thing to do and it has improved the sport. The 'free play' objectively improves things, it has been in the league for a couple of years now and is universally liked and considered a positive change. Apart from either being insular and resentful of something not coming out of Australia or not properly understanding the rule I don't see how you can be against this.

 

[The Great Dane]

No it wasn't, it was designed to remove an inconsistency in the rules, for about the fifth time this is not a 'free play' or a trickshot and has never been described as such by anyone other than the idiotic Sky Sports commentators.

Can we stop with this BS that it's not a free play because effectively that is what it is and you know it.

It's one play with the ball with no consequences except that you have to go back to where the initial mistake was made if you f##k it.
If that's not a free play then what is it?

Because that's f**king stupid, would fundamentally change the nature of the sport and would be horrible to watch.

So it'd suck if every set of six was like it but it's all right in this one set of circumstances.

It wouldn't change it, but it does encourage attacking play from a dead ball situation and I'm not sure how and why you would be so against that if you think the competition is boring and lacking in attacking play.

It's not a dead ball situation, hell often the broken field created by the opposition not having a set defence is a massive advantage in it's self. I mean you act as if after a knock all the players just lay down or take two steps towards the nearest defender, yet quite often it creates a break or the ball is quickly spread wide because the opposition isn't set and there're holes all over the place.

The reason I'm so against it is that it rewards mediocrity and that just seems the absolute opposite of what RL as a sport is and should be about (leave that to the AFL with their 1 point for missing lol), and quite frankly we don't need it to encourage attacking play.

If we were really worried about encouraging attacking (which the NRL seems to be since they've been making minor rule changes to encourage it over the past 2-3 years), then the best thing that we could do is reduce the interchange even further down from 8 too 6 (I'm not sure how many interchanges are allowed in SL off the top of my head?) and we could adjust the way that the ruck is adjudicated so that there're much harsher penalties for wrestling, that'd have a much larger effect without adding a stupid f##ing rule with minimal effect in the first place, and that is the way that things slowly seem to be going down here anyway.

And anyway, I don't know who your mob are but my mob don't need any encouragement to attack, that's all they do some times, and if the Raiders and Panthers can do it and get some consistent success then some other clubs will follow.

The inconsistency is that 'advantage' in the NRL is determined by a vague, imaginary line that is decided by the referee. If a team has not crossed the advantage line then they are free to try and attack, if they have crossed it then they need to retain possession at all costs and nobody is sure exactly where this mysterious line is apart from the ref. In other words a nonsensical, outdated rule that doesn't make sense.

What a load of absolute bull sh!t!

I've explained the rule multiple times, it's not some line that the ref has just made up where he or she thinks that the team has gained an advantage, it's 10 meter from where the mistake happened.
Just because you didn't understand the rule doesn't mean it's inconsistent.

Also in the NRL (which I'm now starting you don't watch to much of) the play after a knock-on is often when a team gets an opportunity at an attacking play because of the broken field.

And again from where I'm standing you are the only one complaining about inconsistency.

Just because it doesn't have a massive impact on the game doesn't mean it's not an anomaly in the rules. The inconsistency with the corner posts raising the touchline wasn't a big issue either, nobody ever complained about that or even thought about it but when it was removed everyone agreed that it made sense and was the right thing to do and it has improved the sport.

Do you know what inconsistency means?

There was no inconsistency with the corner post, there weren't some refs interpreting that the corner post was in touch and some that it wasn't, there wasn't even any confusion within the fans as to whether it was in or out, only as to why that was the rule and what logical reason there was for that rule.

So what are you on about with inconsistency with the corner post, or did you not comprehend that old rule as well?

The 'free play' objectively improves things, it has been in the league for a couple of years now and is universally liked and considered a positive change.

You haven't objectively proved sh!t least of all that it improves the game, you've only asserted that.
And it's universally liked and considered a positive change by a bunch of people who if represented by you didn't understand the original rule, got it all arse about and in the end changed something for no reason.

Apart from either being insular and resentful of something not coming out of Australia or not properly understanding the rule I don't see how you can be against this.

Or it could be a case of you backing an unnecessary rule change because you're desperate for Britain to be truly relevant in RL for the first time since the early 90's and you're resentful of the fact that Australia has dominated RL both on the field and in innovation off it for the last 60 years give or take.
See two can play at that stupid, baseless and foundless game.

I mean, apart from some stupid decisions made in the 90's what is their for Australian RL fans to be resentful about? Apart from a short period at the end of the 00's we've been the strongest and most successful country since the 50s and 60s on the field and the Kiwis would not have been on top in that small period (and hopefully again one day) if it wasn't for the massive investment of time, money and resources made by us, we've been the most successful at growing the sport as a business and we've got the strongest competition in the world with all the best players playing in it, etc, etc, etc.

I mean have you ever thought about it for a moment, I mean look in the mirror mate.

 

[Evil Homer]

Can we stop with this BS that it's not a free play because effectively that is what it is and you know it.

It's one play with the ball with no consequences except that you have to go back to where the initial mistake was made if you f##k it.
If that's not a free play then what is it?

It is in effect a free play, it isn't some type of trickshot or a gimmick play which is what you seemingly continue to see it as.

It's not a dead ball situation, hell often the broken field created by the opposition not having a set defence is a massive advantage in it's self. I mean you act as if after a knock all the players just lay down or take two steps towards the nearest defender, yet quite often it creates a break or the ball is quickly spread wide because the opposition isn't set and there're holes all over the place.

And as things stand currently in the NRL teams are encouraged not to take that advantage and instead just run into the nearest defender to take a hit up and retain possession, that's the point.

The reason I'm so against it is that it rewards mediocrity and that just seems the absolute opposite of what RL as a sport is and should be about (leave that to the AFL with their 1 point for missing lol), and quite frankly we don't need it to encourage attacking play.

How is it rewarding mediocrity? If team sees an opportunity to attack and then takes it instead of just doing nothing then how is that 'rewarding mediocrity' in any way? The advantage line rule discourages attacking play in favour of taking a tackle, which is absolutely not what the sport is about.

What a load of absolute bull sh!t!

I've explained the rule multiple times, it's not some line that the ref has just made up where he or she thinks that the team has gained an advantage, it's 10 meter from where the mistake happened.
Just because you didn't understand the rule doesn't mean it's inconsistent.

Also in the NRL (which I'm now starting you don't watch to much of) the play after a knock-on is often when a team gets an opportunity at an attacking play because of the broken field.

And again from where I'm standing you are the only one complaining about inconsistency.

Yeah, and nobody on the field knows where that 10 meters is or if the advantage has been taken or not. I've played the sport and been frustrated by it, nobody knows what is going on in that situation, the Super League rule means you play instinctively, the NRL rule means you just drop on the ball or take the hit up.

Do you know what inconsistency means?

There was no inconsistency with the corner post, there weren't some refs interpreting that the corner post was in touch and some that it wasn't, there wasn't even any confusion within the fans as to whether it was in or out, only as to why that was the rule and what logical reason there was for that rule.

So what are you on about with inconsistency with the corner post, or did you not comprehend that old rule as well?

It was an inconsistency because it was the only part of the field where the touchline was raised above the ground. The advantage line rule is an inconsistency because it creates a situation where one rule applies up to a certain arbitrary point and then another rule applies afterwards, at the referee's discretion. It's nothing to do with the consistency of referee's interpretations. Maybe this has been lost in translation or something or you just haven't comprehended what I'm saying.

You haven't objectively proved sh!t least of all that it improves the game, you've only asserted that.
And it's universally liked and considered a positive change by a bunch of people who if represented by you didn't understand the original rule, got it all arse about and in the end changed something for no reason.

It has objectively improved the game because it has created exciting moments like the one posted earlier by DP which wouldn't have happened otherwise. It also massively helps with the flow of the game because you have teams looking to attack from the start of a set rather than just dropping on the ball and forming a scrum. The amount of times play has to come back because of a knock on downfield is minuscule in comparison to the amount of times things are improved because play restarts in a faster and more exciting way.

Or it could be a case of you backing an unnecessary rule change because you're desperate for Britain to be truly relevant in RL for the first time since the early 90's and you're resentful of the fact that Australia has dominated RL both on the field and in innovation off it for the last 60 years give or take.
See two can play at that stupid, baseless and foundless game.

I mean, apart from some stupid decisions made in the 90's what is their for Australian RL fans to be resentful about? Apart from a short period at the end of the 00's we've been the strongest and most successful country since the 50s and 60s on the field and the Kiwis would not have been on top in that small period (and hopefully again one day) if it wasn't for the massive investment of time, money and resources made by us, we've been the most successful at growing the sport as a business and we've got the strongest competition in the world with all the best players playing in it, etc, etc, etc.

I mean have you ever thought about it for a moment, I mean look in the mirror mate.

Lol, I couldn't care less about British RL being relevant, British RL is pathetic and probably always will be. That doesn't mean this rule isn't a logical evolution for the sport. As you've said, the NRL f**k with the rules all the time but when one comes along that they didn't think of they don't want anything to do with it even though it makes all the sense in the world. For you to be so strongly against it is weird to me and I still don't think you really understand what it is and what it's about.

 

[deal.with.it]

I probably watch one SL game per week and I was always an advocate of the free play rule.

But this thread has made me reflect that for me, when I watch SL, many times the free play rule has resulted in a player simply booting the ball down field with a foot race ensuing.

I guess it depends on the team and their style if play.

As for the boringness of the NRL, if the referee actually made the defence wait for the ball to clear the ruck before moving up, it would be mucher better. In stead the defence is allowed to move as soon as the ball touches the ground and before it has even been rolled back.

 

[Travitoh]

The SL is "more attacking" than the NRL because the standard of professionalism isn't the same. We see it every year at the WCC that NRL sides are much better structured and when up against a decent defensive line, the SL side more often than not struggles for points.
I'll meet halfway and suggest that maybe the advantage rule only applies if there is a line break? Once the team in possession gets in behind the defence (with or without the ball) it is play on and all knock on's are treated as turn overs?

 

[T-Boon]

The SL is "more attacking" than the NRL because the standard of professionalism isn't the same. We see it every year at the WCC that NRL sides are much better structured and when up against a decent defensive line, the SL side more often than not struggles for points.

This is the exact reason why some rule changes are required in the NRL.

The rules where designed for a less professional era. The makers of the rules did not anticipate someone like Bellamy coming along and working out the importance of ruck dominance and how to take advantage of the ruck. THE RESULTS OF PROFESSIONALISM ARE UGLY - ESSENTIALLY WAY LESS ENTERTAINMENT.

What has allowed Bellamy to remain dominant so long is a lack of quality coaches. The coaches are sort of an in-bread species. They all have the same game play philosophy and are also a bit too cowardly to try alternative game plans.

The free play rule is a great idea.

 

[Travitoh]

All the NRL needs to do i believe is speed up the ruck and a big way to do that in my opinion is one of two ways - ban the third man into a tackle who is there purely there to slow the game down and have the officials call 'held' quicker.
This will get the game flowing more but keep a fair contest between attack and defence, which for mine is the biggest attraction of a sport to me.