Has anyone heard of this idea for improving RL?

[rugged]

This idea was put forward by someone on RLeague Grandstand. They said I could post it on here. It has merit and might inspire further ideas to improve the game.




28-02-2005, 15:38
napoleon


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 70 An idea to improve RL by removing certainty

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Know this sort of overlaps with the rules side but IMO I think this idea would remove predictability on the 6th tackle.I had my proposal read over on radio 2BL by Warren Ryan(he liked the idea) others may not-here goes.
I will call it the option rule an option to add 2 more tackles (ie up to 8 tackles).
You still retain the 6th tackle rule and either kick(predictably on the 6th or run it on the 6th(rarely happens),or you decide to go for the option by instead of kicking on the 6th ,by using the option rule you get the bonus of 2 extra tackles -7th and 8th,with the proviso you cant kick on these last 2 tackles.The bonus option is for ball in hand only.
So whilst attacking the defenders qtr,the attacking side can choose either to kick on the 6th or chance their arm to try attacking with ball in hand by having 2extra tackles if needed to get the pill over the line.
Again it doesnt have to be in the defenders qtr,if you have a superior backline you can use the ploy deep in attack.But remember after the 6th no can kick.
If you are caught in possession on the 8th ,simple handover.
It removes the predictability of 5 tackles and a kick levelled at the game,the commentators saying Joe Bloggs will now kick on the 6th,it gives the attacking side extra armour and scope in its attacking moves ,and the defense has no idea where the attack is coming from.The only thing they know that they wont have to defend a bomb on the 7th and 8th.
It adds a little more uncertainty into the game,and I guess if the scores are level at near full time a little more spice.
Ithink it will reduce dramatically the bombs in goal ,which can be a lottery,OK a well placed kick is a skill.
Doesthe idea grab you or bore you to tears?
i think every code needs to look at ways of improving its spectacle.
Thumbs up or thumbs down ?
__________________
Rugby League continues to grow internationally,despite the knockers wherever they reside.

 

[rednut]

i reckon its a good idea

 

[Jake the snake]

Yeah it sounds good but how many times do u get to use the Option rule, is there a limit say twice a game???

 

[eelandia]

I personally don't mind attacking kicks to the in goal - it is something lacking from union due to their archaic in goal rules.
Sherwin is a master at this as is Johns and I think it takes real skill to do. Perhaps shorten the in goals to make it harder if you think these kicks are boring.

With your option plan, if the team is not in their attacking quarter, wouldn't the defending team's fullback and wingers come up to more easily snuff the attack, knowing there won't be a kick and partly blunt any attacking raids..??

 

[rugged]

Perhaps shorten the in goals to make it harder if you think these kicks are boring.

There's nothing wrong with kicking, just the predictability IMO.

 

[taipan]

Yeah it sounds good but how many times do u get to use the Option rule, is there a limit say twice a game???

You can use the option rule as many times as you like,however if you are jammed in your own qtr in attack,on the 6th tackle,think a kick on the 6th to get the distance or a 40/20 is the way the attack would react.
The whole idea is to reduce the monotonous kick on the 6th tackle and reduce the number of bombs used as an attacking weapon.To create uncertainty on the 6th the defence is wondering will the attack kick, will we get our back 3 back to defend,or will we remain up and at them in defence.
A glorious uncertainty is added to the game,if a side has a great backline they would probably take advantage of the BTO(bonus tackle option)and run the ball.Ask me which is more exciting ball in hand on an attacking raid or a lottery bomb.The kick will still remain an important weapon for the attackers,the 40/20, field goal ,conversion will still be there.
Rugby league will still be operating under the 6 tackle rule,where during and up to 6 tackles you can kick if you so choose,after that its ball in hand and either razzle dazzle,planned moves or forward barging take your pick.
There will be more ball in play time,less scrums,the chances of a more tired defence so more backline tries,and more offloads and most importantly more ball in hand and running.
One thing for sure no more will our code be called 5 tackles and a kick.

What my disclosure has done is blow my cover,Napoleon and Taipan are one and the same person. :shock: Still if it gets the message over,and maybe who knows is trialled down the line(better chance of winning lotto)it is worth revealling my persona. :twisted:

 

[taipan]

I personally don't mind attacking kicks to the in goal - it is something lacking from union due to their archaic in goal rules.
Sherwin is a master at this as is Johns and I think it takes real skill to do. Perhaps shorten the in goals to make it harder if you think these kicks are boring.

With your option plan, if the team is not in their attacking quarter, wouldn't the defending team's fullback and wingers come up to more easily snuff the attack, knowing there won't be a kick and partly blunt any attacking raids..??

The idea is not to remove completely the bomb in goal,just to reduce the
reliance on it too much by some teams.
The defence would still have the uncertainty up to the 6th tackle as it currently stands,although they know on the 6th that the ball in 99 cases out of a hundred will be kicked.
Under this plan if the defending backs decide to come up on the 6th tackle they will have a kick down into their territory,if that doesnt happen and they rush up for the 7th and 8th tackle to defend,they still leave their area undefended near the goaline for planned moves by the attack with ball in hand,andan extra 2 tackles could tire the defence giving a better chance to break the line.

 

[simostorm]

it sounds interesting, id like to see it in a preseason game,

I wouldnt mind seeing a game where teams dont have the option
to kick a goal from a penalty.

Penalty goals slow the game down, waste time and bore the crowd at times.

If teams didnt have that option and had to kick for touch or play on
it might add a bit more excitement, I personally dont like seeing GF's
SoO's or any other games being decided by a penalty goal.

 

[eelandia]

I personally don't mind attacking kicks to the in goal - it is something lacking from union due to their archaic in goal rules.
Sherwin is a master at this as is Johns and I think it takes real skill to do. Perhaps shorten the in goals to make it harder if you think these kicks are boring.

With your option plan, if the team is not in their attacking quarter, wouldn't the defending team's fullback and wingers come up to more easily snuff the attack, knowing there won't be a kick and partly blunt any attacking raids..??

The idea is not to remove completely the bomb in goal,just to reduce the
reliance on it too much by some teams.
The defence would still have the uncertainty up to the 6th tackle as it currently stands,although they know on the 6th that the ball in 99 cases out of a hundred will be kicked.
Under this plan if the defending backs decide to come up on the 6th tackle they will have a kick down into their territory,if that doesnt happen and they rush up for the 7th and 8th tackle to defend,they still leave their area undefended near the goaline for planned moves by the attack with ball in hand,andan extra 2 tackles could tire the defence giving a better chance to break the line.

It is a good idea but what happens if they have made a break but the cover comes across. They won't be allowed to kick or chip to beat the cover defence.

 

[Pierced Soul]

dont like it, the idea's been around for a few years. Ok teams kicks 99% of the 6th, this rule just means that on the 7th or 8th you know they wont kick so there's still predictability with it.

It'll also mean the ball being thrown around like hot potato on the 8th which whilst can look good just gets scrappy and filled with knock ons

 

[***MH***]

I'm against. It sounds like your rewarding the attacking team for not being able to complete their set. "Oh I stuffed up the last tackle and couldn't get a kick away. At least I get two more tackles!"
And it would create predictability rather than render it. As stated it would cause defense to rush up making attacking play rushed and scrappy. And not being able to kick would bring the fullback into the defense line.
When your about to score and it's 5th the probability of the attacking team of running would be increased and (predictable) if they were guanteed an extra two tackles.
An when a defending team is keeping the attacking team deep in their own half, they are getting punished for their efforts with having to make two more tackles.

And how would I make a ("7th and last") signal? :roll:

 

[SOULS 04]

yeh i dont like it at all

the risk of running the ball on the 6th tackle is gone and it leads to more predictability.... also have to agree with the point made what if good pressure is being put on the kicker and they get tackled.. instead of a handover they get to cart it forward 20 more metres

 

[Evergreen]

If the rule happened to be approved and was in use for an extended period of time, we could see teams begin to place less emphasis on having a good kicker.

Kicking IMO is still one of the most skillful aspects of our game, and it would be a shame to see players like Johns, Gower, Sherwin etc set aside their kicking prowess in favour of hot potato football on the 7th and 8th tackle.

 

[Kurt Angle]

Man, if they didn't kick on the 6th tackle, then the fullback would come into the line and make breaking the line even harder.

Even a grubber is not allowed with this 8 tackle rule right ?

 

[JoeD]

I like it. Anything to spice the last tackle option would be good.

 

[macavity]

dont like the idea. you get 5 tackles where you can use any attacking option.

every ruck brings uncertainty.

thats what makes our game the greatest.

dont complicate things.

 

[Thunderstruck]

lemme get this straight. if you don't kick on the 6th you get two extra tackles? and if you kick and regather, what happens then?

 

[Matt M]

I think its a ridiculous idea, the 8th tackle would just be a whole lot of passing around for trying to keep the ball alive. It wouldn't work well at all, and I don't actually like the whole idea of it anyway.

 

[Kurt Angle]

I think a good idea would be the 6 tackles extended to 8, and shallow in-goals.

There would be more variety in the 8 tackles because you couldn't just have 7 hit-ups, you'd drain your forwards.

The 8 runs would get you from your own 20 to the opposition 30, and shallow in-goals mean bombs-away or grubbers for goal line dropouts would be very difficult.

More running and passing.

 

[TigerMo]

dont like it, the idea's been around for a few years. Ok teams kicks 99% of the 6th, this rule just means that on the 7th or 8th you know they wont kick so there's still predictability with it.

Agreed, he is trying to get rid of the "predictability" on the last tackle, but he is only just simply increasing the predictability factor with this new rule because on the 7th and 8th tackles there will be no kicks, simply just hit ups. This rule is also very unfair, it's already hard enough trying to defend 6 tackles while the other team is attacking on your own line, adding an extra 2 tackles would be ridiculous.