Power Play for NRL

[docbrown]

20-40 is another dumb idea. It will just lead to more kicking to touch, which is what we all criticise rahrah for.

It may seem like it would but it doesn't happen that way.

We undertook a series of trial games to experiment with a 40 metre kick advantage rule - that is a team must kick from within their own half and make at least a 40 metre gain into the opposition half (so the minimum would be a 10-50 and we set a 40-20 as the maximum).

What we found was that the kick attempts were still rare - less than 5 a game - and most games only 1 was successful or none.

The real effect that it has is that it forces the defence to drop back to cover. For the attacking team in their own half this creates a 13 to 11/12 advantage and instead of making simple dummy half runs they throw the ball around alot more to try and take advantage.

It seems like the whole point of the power play is to create an advantage to create a greater attacking spectacle - but - that's what the 40 metre kick advantage rule can do already.

For any of you guys who play, coach or are involved with grassroots, give it a trial yourself and you'll see what I mean.

 

[Loudstrat]

This power play business is ridiculous, i know it is a glorified exhibition but why introduce such a stupid and ridiculous rule that will never ever be implemented in Rugby League god forbid.

Why not use it to exhibit rules which might possibly be a good idea and might happen one day.

for example

the team who scores kick's off same as in super league.

if the defensive side is able to ground the ball in there own in goal from a kick they are rewarded with a twenty metre restart.

You are allowed to strike at the play the ball.

every forward must pack in his proper position from a scrum.

kick and regather means you receive 6 again.

40/20 with line breaks ie if you make a line break inside your own 40 and get tackled inside the oppositions 20 you get a restart of the tackle count.

really though in my opinion the powerplay is so so dumb there is no reason for it. we used to have a power play it was called the referee having balls and sending someone to the sin bin or sending someone off.

even the 8 point try was a better idea.

This. I dont think anyone has any problems with experimenting with rules that are a chance of being implemented. But it beats me how the all stars gamne benefits from such a ridiculous circumstance.

It's one game... get over it.

Lots of morons like you think the same. Trouble is, not one of them has given a reason for it! Tell me, oh mental giant, why it should be there?

Or is it OK to plonk any new rule in such a high profile match for any reason? How about making sides hop on their left leg inside their 20? Surely you would defend that rule?

There are a few people who like 20/20 cricket. 40,000 at the game I took my kids to at ANZ a while back.
The All Stars game? I wouldn't miss it and going by the ratings, neither would a lot of other people. Some joke.

20/20 cricket is a different kettle of fish that comes from different circumstances. What is being proposed is like sending 2 fieldsmen off for 5 minutes if one of the batters asks for it.

Id say the ratings are a chance of dipping over time if the integrity of the contest is not maintained. Lets see what the ratings are like this year.

 

[Didgi]

:lol: It's a fun way to start the season. Those saying this game is worth nothing and is a joke - obviously not, given the level of arguments surrounding a couple of trial rule changes.

 

[Clifferd]

I can't believe the people getting so worked up in this thread. It is just a bit of fun in an EXHIBITION match to EXPERIMENT a few new rules. Does anybody in this thread even care about the result? for me I will just be glad to watch some football again after the off season

 

[The.X.Factor9]

I'm kind of intrigued by this, curious to see how the "power play" will be used and how it will work out for players like Ben Barba, Matt Bowen and Slater who are awesome in broken field.

 

[Loudstrat]

:lol: It's a fun way to start the season. Those saying this game is worth nothing and is a joke - obviously not, given the level of arguments surrounding a couple of trial rule changes.

So it needs the power play to make it fun?

 

[Didgi]

So it needs the power play to make it fun?

:lol::lol::lol: if you can get that out of what I said, you should be employed pulling diamonds out of thin air.

 

[Chook Norris]

It's essentially a trial match.. i dont see what's wrong with mixing a few things up

 

[Canard]

Even less than a trial game surely, as trials count for suspensions etc. its an Exhibition match, so this seems the perfect environment for this stuff.

Surely it would be worth waiting to see it in practice before being to judgmental on it.

Its like rating a movie as crap based on its trailer.

 

[Loudstrat]

Even less than a trial game surely,

I would have thought it was far more than a trial, given the stars involved, it's role as the "season" opener and the service it gives to promoting/celebrating indigenous culture. Lets not forget that it is televised as well.

No one has yet given a compelling reason as to why flippant rule changes are used. I can understand trialling genuine possibilities. I can even buy the "its only a fun game" argument as well. But no one can tell me why we need the "power play", or even how it will make the game better.

This IS the season opener, and it is hugely irritating to finally be able to watch the code's best after the off-season cold turkey - and then the game is buggered by some stupid rule that is pointless.

 

[Billythekid]

It's especially bad when the rule has such a big chance to backfire. It's going to look embarrasing if this just leads to a flurry of tries in every power play.

I think it just cheapens the brand to be honest. I also think it kinda looks like we aren't taking the game seriously which is in a way a little bit insulting to the cause it's supporting.

 

[Walt Flanigan]

How many tries are you going to score in 5 mins? It takes about 2 minutes for play to re-start after a try anyway. You might get 2 in tops.

 

[clarency]

No one has yet given a compelling reason as to why flippant rule changes are used. I can understand trialling genuine possibilities. I can even buy the "its only a fun game" argument as well. But no one can tell me why we need the "power play", or even how it will make the game better.

This IS the season opener, and it is hugely irritating to finally be able to watch the code's best after the off-season cold turkey - and then the game is buggered by some stupid rule that is pointless.

Lots of morons like you think the same. Trouble is, not one of them has given a reason for it! Tell me, oh mental giant, why it should be there?

Or is it OK to plonk any new rule in such a high profile match for any reason? How about making sides hop on their left leg inside their 20? Surely you would defend that rule?

Well actually, it was said in the original article.

The All Stars rugby league game on February 4 will trial a 'power play' rule

Power play ... There will be more experiments in the 2012 NRL All Stars match. Source: David Clark / News Limited


It has its origins in ice hockey and now the power play is coming to the NRL.



The All Stars game on February 4 will trial a number of rule changes including one where a team on the attack can ask the defence to drop two players from its team.
Each team will be allowed one power play per half of football and the defending team will have to sweat it out for five minutes before it can return to a full complement on the field.
Fans will get to enjoy the moment too with a shot clock appearing on the scoreboard counting down the time before the two players can rejoin their teammates.
NRL football operations director Nathan McGuirk came up with the idea and has already bounced it off NRL All Stars coach Wayne Bennett and Indigenous coach Laurie Daley.
"It's probably something that we're not looking to introduce into the competition but we thought it was an interesting way in which we could promote attacking football in what's becoming an important game on the rugby league calendar," McGuirk said.



While the power play might not have a long-term future in the NRL, the same can't be said for the other proposed changes in the tackle count restarting from where a penalty is given and a 20/40 kick option.
As it stands in the NRL at the moment, teams usually kick for touch following a penalty and have a fresh set of six in a better position on the field.
The new rule applies to the defending team if it attempts to slow play down while acts of foul play or infringements by the attacking team will still lead to a kick for touch.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/league/...-power-play-rule/story-e6frf3ou-1226212041184

discuss

... I'm not really sure what else to say here... You're just a dumb*ss, really.

 

[Loudstrat]

Look dribbler, I can read a f*cking article - and while it explains why they think it is a nice idea, it doesnt mention - as I asked - why we NEED it!

Seeing as though you are so adamant that it must stay, and that it is such an important innovation that anyone who dislikes it is a "dumb*ss", again, tell us why we NEED it.

 

[clarency]

Well learn to communicate consistently...

No one has yet given a compelling reason as to why flippant rule changes are used.

Lots of morons like you think the same. Trouble is, not one of them has given a reason for it!

You aren't talking about needs here. When you did use it the few times that you did, it just begged the issue. I'll answer why we NEED to change the rules if you can tell me why we NEED to watch rugby league.

I'm not arguing in support of this rule change or any rule change for that matter. Just that you're an irritating twat who gets his panties in a bunch every time he sees something he doesn't like, and those who disagree with him are objectively wrong.

 

[Broncomum]

Rugby League is a great game at the moment, it doesn't really need any change.
But it's a foolhardy option to sit back & rest ion your laurels when you're successful. You always need to have eyes trained on the horizon and preparing for a shift in the wind.
Innovative ideas need to be coming forward all the time and this is just another chapter in paving a way for many roads in the future.
The game WILL progress and evolve, as it has in the past. The apparently contentious Power Play looks at giving the spectators something different & exciting to watch.
Some work & some don't.

The early post here suggesting you 'wait till you're close to the line & then use the Power Play' would be foolhardy, a waste & a negative for your team in reality. And way too obvious.
Let's see, 'get close to the line & then have 2 opponents sit out for 5 mins'? Translated : 'get close enough to score in the set of 6, then because you don't have faith in the team to finish the job off, 'weaken' the opposition, score an easy try and have it converted'..... oops that took about 5 minutes all up. Cheap points don't bolster a team's morale.
Look at where the hard slog is onfield; look at where having ONE more player than the opp would be a bonus and work on that. THEN be secure in the knowledge that you have ONE MORE extra player to move around the field.

And how about for a better understanding of this Power Play idea, you read what the coaches for the All Stars game have to say? It gives a better understanding to the concept:

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/coaches-honour-star-of-the-game-20111203-1oceq.html


It's the old adage 'don't knock it till you've tried it.'

 

[Quidgybo]

It's especially bad when the rule has such a big chance to backfire. It's going to look embarrasing if this just leads to a flurry of tries in every power play.

How many tries are you going to score in 5 mins? It takes about 2 minutes for play to re-start after a try anyway. You might get 2 in tops.

To be fair, the rule as announced has the Power Play end as soon as a try is scored so talk of a "flurry" is a bit wide of the mark. One try then back to thirteen on thirteen. But I agree with the general sentiment that it is pointless to trial a rule that no one in the Rugby League world would ever seriously consider adopting.

That said, it has been suggested from time to time that when a player is sin binned, that the sin bin would end immediately after the opposition scores a try. The reason being to prevent attacks running away with a game with a "flurry" of tries due to a perhaps dubious sin binning. The impact of a sin bin would be limited to the cost of one try and the energy lost in playing a man down until that happens. This in turn could lead to referees being less afraid to use the sin bin.

Perhaps this is the real senario that the rule makers are trying to test with the Power Play. Effectively they are engineering a couple of artificial sin bins per half - perhaps to test the impact on the game of having more sin binnings while allowing players back from the sin bin after a try is scored.

Leigh.

 

[canberra_raiders2k2]

Wouldn't a 7's game provide more attacking footy? Just make a 7 comp as a preseason tournament. Keep the all stars game as a proper game of league after the season.

 

[Quidgybo]

Six to go seems ok, but I don't see how it improves on the current situation. In fact, the attacking team will lose out because currently the kick downfield and start a new set there. This just means they lose the advantage.

They don't lose the advantage, the advantage is just not as big and is different in nature. Or to flip it around, the penalty for the defense is not as great and the impact of a poor call by the officials is not as great.

The argument is that in the modern game played by full time professionals under a ten metre rule, the penalty of a fresh set of six *and* a 30m kick for touch is too much - especially for technicalities or borderline play the ball indiscretions that are largely the subjective view of a perhaps unsighted ref. The impact on the game is disproportionate to the offense.

The proposed rule, doesn't take away the advantage given the attack but it does change it. Instead of gifting the additional territory that a kick for touch gives, it takes away the breather that the defense gets while that kick for touch is taken. The ref waves six to go (or whatever the signal will be) and play continues.

The logical extension of the rule is to adjust exactly how many extra tackles are given until a new balance is found between penalty to discourage infringement and advantage to the attack. Perhaps it will evolve towards only two or three extra tackles instead of a full new set of six.

To me, this is by far the most interesting of the rules to be trialled and I'd hope to see it given a lot wider trial (eg. Toyota Cup) with a view to fast tracking it if it is shown to have a desirable effect.

Leigh.

 

[VictoryFC]

Even if its a trial match, there's no need for the gimmick. It's the most geniused alteration they could have come up with.