If you could change ONE rule, what would it be?

[Nullajet]

the knock on rule...if the ball comes fwd off any part of your body (bloody intentional or otherwise) bar the foot as in a kick...then it should be a knock on. These tries from falcons ..what a jip!

 

[effnic]

Well I really dislike Double Movements.. If you can reach out and get the ball down, go for it.

Next would be Knock ons, if it comes off you above your shins its a knock on, except the head.

Stupid rule. Players on the 5th will just kick it as hard as they can into the opposite player.

 

[This Year?]

Golden point --> Golden try.

Definitely......there's nothing worse than watching two teams slog it out for 80 mins then for it to turn into a FG kicking comp. Golden try would be so much more exciting to watch.

 

[esssee]

Any infringement which either injures a player, or puts them into a dangerous position, ie. a dangerous throw or a late hit, SHOULD result in 10 in the bin.

 

[Quidgybo]

Allow refs to call time off for up to 30sec between a conversion attempt and the kickoff. It drives me up the wall when Nein flash to an ad during a live game as soon a try is scored and then give us the replays and kick afterwards. By this point the atmosphere and the moment have been lost. The old practice of going to the break after the conversion and missing the first couple of tackles after the kickoff wasn't much better (and famously highlighted in an Origin match when a try was scored from the kickoff). I'd never want to see American style 2 min timeouts, but given the reality that our major rights holder is a commericial broadcaster, I don't have a problem stretching a natural break in play by another 10-15 secs. It would greatly improve the presentation of RL's biggest games to what is generally its widest audience.

I remember hearing whispers somewhere a few months back that this may actually be introduced next year when Nein start regular live Friday nights.

Leigh

 

[taxidriver]

some good points raised in this thread.

another I'd add is a second ref (one each side of the ruck).

it's laughable that we expect a fourty year old bloke to keep pace with some of the fittest most elite atheletes in the country for 80+ minutes. The fact they can't keep up is highlighted in the number of errors made week in week out.

 

[hrundi99]

Overtime "losers" should get 1 point, as per the NHL.

 

[ledzep]

Overtime "losers" should get 1 point, as per the NHL.

In order to do this, you need to restructure the entire points system, otherwise you create extra points that wouldn't normally be there
You'd have to go with something like:
Outright victory - 4 points
Extra time victory - 3 points
Draw - 2 points
Extra time loss - 1 point
Outright loss - 0 points

 

[mighty eel]

No penalty Goals in Golden point

 

[Voice of Reason]

The biggest gripe that most of us have I think is inconsistency. If ANY rule is administered with "interpretation" then there is bound to be grief. Having said that,it would be impossible to referee strictly by the book as the game would be a farce. This means that the entire rule book needs to be re-written so rules can be applied with context. Until the time this happens we will all be complaining every week about referee decisions.Top of the list for me ar the double movement and stripping rules.:crazy:

 

[Quidgybo]

The second ref was another one I was consdering mentioning.

But not one each side of the ruck. The chief ref should move back to the traditional position over the ruck, with the second ref taking over the current standard position marking the defensive line. I'd give both refs a whistle and shared power to rule on knock ons, forward passes and off side.

The chief ref would maintain control of the ruck, scrums, awarding points and discipline (sin bins and send offs - but I'd allow the second ref to halt play to make a report) while the tackle count could be kept by either ref or even both. It might make sense to give that task primarily to the second ref to allow the first to concentrate on the play itself but either way it'd certainly make sense to have the man over the ruck telling the attacking team when it's the fifth tackle.

When play is within ten metres of the in-goal, the second ref would fall back to the deadball line and act as an in-gaol judge. The extra set of eyes and the additional angle that the chief ref could position himeslf at would allow fewer decisions to be referred to the video ref. By moving the chief ref back to over the ruck, there is no longer any chance for the players to not hear the refs calls and less chance for players to get away with (and so attempt) foul play or interefence in the ruck.

Leigh.

 

[Quidgybo]

In order to do this, you need to restructure the entire points system, otherwise you create extra points that wouldn't normally be there
You'd have to go with something like:
Outright victory - 4 points
Extra time victory - 3 points
Draw - 2 points
Extra time loss - 1 point
Outright loss - 0 points

On the topic of points changes I have something a bit more radical. Each match is worth 8 points - 4 for the result of the match, and 2 points for each half. So the following scenarios could occur...

- Team A leads 10-0 at half time, and wins 20-8. Team A = 8 points for winning match and both halves, Team B gets for a poor effort all round.

- Team B leads 10-0 at half time, and loses 14-20. Team B = 2 points for winning first half, Team A = 6 points for winning second half and match.

- Match is drawn at half time, team A wins 20-8. Teams = 7 points for winning second half and match and draw in first half, Team B = 1 point for drawing first half

- Team A leads 30-0 at half time, and wins 36-10. Team A = 6 points for winning first half match, Team B gets 2 points for winning the second half.

...and so on. Golden Point would not affect the awarding of points for the two halves, only the match points.

The point of all this is to more accurately represent the way a team won or lost in points, and to encourage teams to keep playing even when the match is over and thus maintain spectator interest. In this respect it is a variation of the bons point concepts used in Rugby Union. But rather than have points that may or may not be warded, this is a systematic distribution of a consitent number of points. A match becomes worth 8 points.

If the competition leaders play the wooden spoonser but turn up thinking they'll win easy then they might only get over the line in the last twenty minutes after trailing all day. On the other hand they might come out and outclass the opposition form start to finish. In the first case they could miss out on points for a sloppy win against lesser oppositioin as opposed to a ruthless execution in the second case. Likewise the team that gets thrashed in the first half but puts up a real fight in the second can actually get rewarded for that effort whereas if they just capitulate they get nothing.

Leigh.

 

[Nullajet]

Stupid rule. Players on the 5th will just kick it as hard as they can into the opposite player.

that would be classed as not played at and no 6 to go...as well as dangerous territorilly!

 

[mepelthwack]

Simply put,

if the ball floats forward the pass is forward.

Zero care factor for physics, the pinky pointing backwards when the ball was thrown etc.

Make it simple,

forward IS forward.

 

[Quidgybo]

Simply put,

if the ball floats forward the pass is forward.

Zero care factor for physics, the pinky pointing backwards when the ball was thrown etc.

Make it simple,

forward IS forward.

If you actually tried to enforce that I think you'd find you'd have a very different game - a lot slower and stop-start. Players would in large part only be able to throw a pass when standing still or at a slow jog. Passes at pace are almost inevitably forward relative to the ground, even if they don't look it at first glance.

Leigh.

 

[[FKN-SIK]]

i would either make scums back to how they used to be or scrap them altogether

they are a f**kin joke!

 

[mepelthwack]

It is easier to say a ball is forward regardless of how it got there rather than the current interpretation.

I guarantee just as many forwards will be let go as are already but at least the old pinky pointing backwards excuse is irrelevant, as it should be.

 

[SOULS 04]

i love the idea of golden try. I think the biggest benefit of it would there would be more draws... nothing wrong with draws to change the competition. it would be a more outright of decided semis rather than dealing with for and against.

the ones i would change are
1) Bring back quick taps: Personally near enough to the mark is good enough for mine and makes for very exciting football. this also includes 20 metre taps. if the opossing team cant get back quick enough its their own problem.

2) Stripping the ball rule: Should be abolished. only time you shouldnt be able to strip the ball is when the player is on the ground.



@

 

[The Preacher]

The one that allows 1999 and STSAE to post here, and also the rule that allows "The Scum from The Swamp" to participate (lowly) in the NRL

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

Golden Point rule is a biggy, and some suggestions in here have merit. I read somewhere else a suggestion which I think is perfect for Extra Time (and so I'm not taking all the credit for it). Hows this sound?

Golden Try - As the name suggests, a Try during extra time would win the game for the scorer.

Field Goals, & Penalty Goals do count in Extra time - but do not stop the game. Should neither team score a try during extra time, highest scorer wins.

Basically its like the old extra time rule in League (10mins each way), but a try trumps all scoring - and automatically wins the game.



Apart from that - I hate the stripping the ball rule - more so that it is so difficult to define & rule on. I dont know the true solution for it but it does need a review.

And scrums - currently a farce. The ball should be fed between the feet of the Props and nowhere else.