Possible Rule changes

[Canard]

The 89 GF under the 5 metre rule is on the NRL site. Such a quick game and none of this wreslting crap. Just tough tackles and then straight off the tackled player.

It may have been played under the old 5 m rule.

But your kidding yourself if you think that was how it was reffed.

Basically the 10m rule when it came in just formalised what referres were already doing, i.e. standing back 10m.

If you want proper 5m go to the Canterbury/Parra GF of the early 80's some of the most boring games of all time. Tryless grand finals etc.

 

[*Paul*]

Gallop said the general view of the meeting was that interchanges should remain at 12 in total.

Good. Tiredness doesn't promote ball movement or whatever, because we don't do that anymore. Nowadays, all it does is promote soft tries.

 

[Twizzle]

they said on Foxsports it was a think tank,

but I saw Gordon Tallis there

 

[Noa]

I cannot for the life of me understand how introducing a 5m rule would open up the game....


If anything it would shut it down even more. Teams would no longer have to hold down as long before their team is onside, ensuring that even with quick play the balls most defensive lines will already be set.

Sure games from the 80s etc were still flowing, but that was also due to the sheer lack of fitness in players back then. Blocker was pushing 120 odd kilos, and he was one of the best in the game.

True. You could imagine how quick people like Asotasi, SBW etc would be up in the opposition teams faces shutting any attacking moves down.

 

[The Engineers Room]

The teams most advantaged by the 8-4 interchange will be Melbourne and North Queensland.

 

[nqboy]

how so?

Have you seen him play? Anything that takes Moi Moi out of the game will result in less injuries.

 

[Quidgybo]

Sounds like a highly effective day....

I really don't know how I feel about Video Challenges in general play. After watching Challenge systems in use in the NFL and CFL for a couple of seasons I'm well and truly converted on the concept of Challenges being superior to Referee initiated video review where the on field officials hand off decisions without making a call and end up second guessing themselves and doubting their own judgment. But challenges in general play? Without very tight limits on when and how often teams can challenge it has the potential to totally destroy the free flowing play that RL has built its reputation on. That said, I certainly think it's worth trialling in games like the Charity Shield and even across an entire season for televised matches in a secondary comp like the Toyota Cup. The concept has enough merit to deserve a thorough examination in real game play.

Leigh.

 

[The Engineers Room]

The problem is that we may make the game long and drawn out and in the end due to the nature of humans and subjectiveness the decisions may not get much more accurate. One of the best features of RL over NFL is the constant action.

 

[NK Arsenal]

Hopefully the NRL can grow a brain and switch to the AFL top 8

 

[Quidgybo]

The problem is that we may make the game long and drawn out and in the end due to the nature of humans and subjectiveness the decisions may not get much more accurate. One of the best features of RL over NFL is the constant action.

But it isn't the video replay that causes the NFL to be longer and more drawn out, it's the nature of the game itself. Based on my own observations I'd suggest that the average NRL game already has more stoppages for video review than the average NFL game. Largely this is because the NRL uses referee initiated review where there is no cap on the number of times the video can be called. Referees have ended up using the video as a crutch where they don't to make a call themselves. Conversly the video calls in the NFL are initiated by the aggrieved team and have a cap (two per game or three if the first two are successful) and a cost if unsuccessful (one of three timeouts per half). All video reviews proceed from the basis that a call has already been made by the officials on the field and that those calls are correct unless conclusively proved otherwise. The end result is teams have to be pretty selective when they challenge or pretty certain any challenge will be upheld before they make it. Last year in the entire NFL season there were only 237 video challenges - less than 1 per game. Of those 45.1 percent were upheld. And that's allowing video replay across the entire game. In the NRL I'd guess we're already well exceeding that figure just allowing it for Tries. Why? Because we're sending endless onside and grounding calls to the video that just don't need to be sent there. Let the referee make his call as he sees it with respect to onside and grounding and let the teams challenge if they don't like it. We'll halve the number of video reviews overnight.

Leigh.

 

[Callan Pk]

But it isn't the video replay that causes the NFL to be longer and more drawn out, it's the nature of the game itself. Based on my own observations I'd suggest that the average NRL game already has more stoppages for video review than the average NFL game. Largely this is because the NRL uses referee initiated review where there is no cap on the number of times the video can be called. Referees have ended up using the video as a crutch where they don't to make a call themselves. Conversly the video calls in the NFL are initiated by the aggrieved team and have a cap (two per game or three if the first two are successful) and a cost if unsuccessful (one of three timeouts per half). All video reviews proceed from the basis that a call has already been made by the officials on the field and that those calls are correct unless conclusively proved otherwise. The end result is teams have to be pretty selective when they challenge or pretty certain any challenge will be upheld before they make it. Last year in the entire NFL season there were only 237 video challenges - less than 1 per game. Of those 45.1 percent were upheld. And that's allowing video replay across the entire game. In the NRL I'd guess we're already well exceeding that figure just allowing it for Tries. Why? Because we're sending endless onside and grounding calls to the video that just don't need to be sent there. Let the referee make his call as he sees it with respect to onside and grounding and let the teams challenge if they don't like it. We'll halve the number of video reviews overnight.

Leigh.

As much as i agree with you, I can never see them going back.
Some times you just go too far forward and cant go back.
You may halve the number of reviews, but we'd get double, triple the amount of trys scrored that are not trys.

 

[Quidgybo]

You may halve the number of reviews, but we'd get double, triple the amount of trys scrored that are not trys.

But would we really? Or would we simply see the responsibility for catching those mistakes move to those who spend the most time whinging about them? The big problem I have with the current system is that the number of tries/no tries that the referees indisputably got wrong in the old days when they had no choice but to trust their judgment doesn't seem to bear any resemblance to the number of video referrals we see now. Do we need all these almost routine referrals just to catch the small number of calls the refs genuinely would get wrong? I honestly don't think so. The refs have become so scared of getting the odd call here or there wrong when they could've have gone to the video that they've become reluctant to make the many calls that they always would've got right anyway. And it's a legitimate fear. If they don't go to the video and the decision is actually wrong then there's no recourse and the commentators and coaches spend the next 48 hours publicly spotlighting everything other than what was good about the game.

What I'm suggesting here is to remove the second guessing and fear factor from the back of the referees' mind and let them get back to doing the job that they are generally pretty good at even without the additional aids. Instead, put the onus back on the team captains (and coaching staff) to take the responsibility for fixing their game day grievances as they occur instead of trawling them thru the media after the games in a continual stream of whinging, controversy and bad publicity. Instead of having the referee and video referee in the middle as this random factor that can decide games without recourse regardless of the merits of the two teams in the contest, put the responsibility for overcoming that factor back in the hands of those who would be victims of those mistakes and most likely to whinge about it. Ultimately, put the clubs in the position where the only question that can be asked when they get the raw end of a crucial call is "if it was that important to you and you thought it was so clearly wrong, why didn't you challenge it?" Would it lead to a vast increase in wrongly awarded/denied tries? I don't think so. But for any that did get thru the aggrieved team would be left with no one to blame but themselves. As with tackling or quick play the balls, skillfully using challenges becomes just another aspect of the game where a team's success is totally in their own hands.

Leigh.

 

[*Paul*]

You make sense, Leigh. I quite like the idea that coaches* and players would be placed in the same position as the referees i.e. having to use their own judgement about what just happened. Might open their eyes to the fact that it's not as easy as they'd like the world to think.

Do the coaching staff in the NFL get to see any footage before making a challenge, or does it have to be a quick call?

 

[Quidgybo]

Do the coaching staff in the NFL get to see any footage before making a challenge, or does it have to be a quick call?

They have until the next play to call a challenge. So frequently they do get to see at least one replay of the previous play before the next but it is not guaranteed. For a Touchdown, they have until the ball is snapped for the conversion which means they always get a chance to look at a replay before challenging those. On the other hand if the defense cops a bad call in general play and the other team is running a fast no huddle offense then they may not get a replay in before the next play. In those cases the coaches some times have to challenge just based on their own first impressions, or on feedback from their players or they have to challenge totally blind simply because the particular play is just too important to let stand. The art of challenging has become a team skill as much as tackling and passing. And running quick follow on plays before the opposition has time to decide whether they want to challenge has equally become a skill.

Of course Rugby League is a very different beast. While being able to fit at least one replay in between plays is the norm rather than the exception in the NFL, League is a free flowing game where there can be up to eighteen or more consecutive plays before there is a break long enough to show a replay. Some situations map pretty easily. Challenges of Tries based on replays shown while the conversion is being lined up are pretty straight forward. As are challenges of No Tries resulting in scrums or drop outs (in fact the potential for a challenge might even encourage defenses to stop wasting time and get on with taking their drop outs quickly before their opponents get a look at a replay). Basically any play that ends in a scrum, drop out or Try works pretty well in a challenge system. There is plenty of time for the aggrieved team to think about how important it is to them to challenge the call, how confident they are that they'll win it and look at a replay or two in advance of the challenge.

On the other hand plays that result in a turnover of possession, a penalty, or any other situation where a team can tap or play the ball straight away do not map so easily to the NFL example. If we allow challenges outside of simply Tries or No Tries, do we allow challenges during continuing play or only at stoppages? If only at stoppages, do we allow a challenge for incidents beyond the last play or do we introduce/maintain the inconsistency of only being able to address match turning errors if they occur on a tackle where play ends? So if the referee misses a dropped ball on tackle two and the team scores a try on tackle five, do we allow that to be challenged or do we only allow a challenge if the dropped ball occurred after tackle four? Or do we only allow the error on tackle two to challenged if the challenge is made there and then before the next play? I think the answer to how we deal with this very much depends on what limits are placed on the number of challenges. The last thing we want to see is continuing play being pulled up seven or eight times per match for challenges. On the other hand once or twice during continuing play at crucial turning points of the game and then once or twice more for tries/no tries is in my opinion probably tolerable, perhaps even desirable if it catches the most crucial match turning errors.

If we stuck with the NFL example and allowed only two challenges per team per game (and a third only if the first two were successful), and we had a cost for an unsuccessful challenge of one or two forfeited interchanges, then personally I'd have no problem with allowing challenges in general play (ie. beyond just Tries/No Tries). With those sorts of limits we could be assured of not seeing endless interruptions and lots of trivial challenges. And with only two challenges and a strategy changing cost for unsuccessful challenges, teams would have to preserve their challenges for those calls that really turn the game and generally only challenge when they feel they have a reasonable chance of winning it. Which brings me back to the question of limits. How much leeway do we allow? The absolute most I'd want to see is allowing teams to challenge any call in the last set of six tackles or the last minute of play - whichever is less. And once play restarts after a stoppage, you can't challenge anything before that. If you can't make up your mind that you want to challenge in that amount of time, then the call wasn't important enough to you to justify a challenge anyway.

Leigh.

 

[*Paul*]

Since we're not accustomed to replays in general play, no need to go down that path I shouldn't think. So I'd have challenges applicable in the same way they are now, the play that produces a potential try. The penalty for unsuccessful challenges is a good idea too, if a team got three no questions, they'd probably always use them for tactical reasons.

The VR getting involved in foul play during a stoppage is a fly in the ointment though, it's kind of a separate issue.

 

[sunday roast lover]

I thought I should recycle this thread instead of opening a new one.

I don't watch a lot of league. I just watch the state of origin and grand finals. I find it a bit boring when they just run it up for 5 and kick. Maybe they could have a rule change like in American football. If you reach a certain point, you get more tackles. For example, if you reach the 20 metre line during your set, you get another 6 tackles. It would make it more meaningful to try to reach the 20. You would also have interesting last tackles where you try to reach the 20 on a passing play or maybe bomb it inside the 20. These bombs would be contested because the defending team don't want 6 again. I see it as a variation on the 40 20 rule which was enacted for the same reason to make a repeat set more likely and make the game more interesting.

 

[Bazal]

Apparently the simulation is so broken we now have T Boon alts FFS

 

[sunday roast lover]

Apparently the simulation is so broken we now have T Boon alts FFS

I have no idea what that means.