Powerplay for penalties

[Perth Tiger]

I posted this in the sin bin thread but it got lost. What do people think of this idea?

First penalty inside the 20M is ok, second penalty in the same passage of play and the player is sent behind the in goal for the reminder of the passage, either the attacking team scores or loses possession through an error or the end of the set turn over. If the attacking team gets a repeat set then the player in the power play box has to stay off.

If the defending team gives away a third penalty then they have two players off, a fourth penalty and another goes off etc.

If the attacking team loses possession or scores then all the players come back on.

This way you are penalizing a team for giving penalties away on purpose in the 20 but then not really spoiling a portion of the game as with the 10 minute sin bin as the team with 10 then simply resorts to 5 fit ups and time wasting to get the player back.

 

[Frailty]

Or how about we use the sin bin for its actual purpose and not resort to crappy gimmicks?

 

[thorson1987]

Or how about we use the sin bin for its actual purpose and not resort to crappy gimmicks?

Nah man that's just too easy.

 

[Last Week]

If we're going to address penalties, I think our main concern is the kick for touch. It is too big of a disadvantage to the defending team.

I think it definitely has a place in the game, but it should be drawn back. Like maybe a kick for touch can only be taken once a possession, or only in your own half.

 

[MKCS]

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

 

[Rabbit toes]

What about some sort of underground recording and replay unit to debunk bad referee calls. They can call it the blunderbox...

 

[T-Boon]

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

There is a lot about the penalty system that is broke. Penalties are too influential on the outcome of the game so go with what Last Week said above get rid of the kick for touch. I'd prefer a penalty where the team loses a player for the set rather than a kick for touch. That way the attacking team still needs to try something, take some risks, exploit an overlap or make something happen some other way rather than just get gifted the territory.

 

[hunters]

Losing a man might be a bit harsh for some of the stupid penalties the refs blow. How about we keep it 13 a side but the offending team have to fit Luke Brooks into the defensive line for a set?

 

[TheVelourFog]

the last thing Rugby League needs is more rules

 

[POPEYE]

There is a lot about the penalty system that is broke. Penalties are too influential on the outcome of the game so go with what Last Week said above get rid of the kick for touch. I'd prefer a penalty where the team loses a player for the set rather than a kick for touch. That way the attacking team still needs to try something, take some risks, exploit an overlap or make something happen some other way rather than just get gifted the territory.

Why don't you advocate the formation of a new Australian Super League . . . give Benny a call. With all your changes it might take 3 hours to play a game when the referee has to have rule consultations but like that NFL shit you will find followers

 

[siv]

5 min sin bin was brought in for repeat infringements

Ie when the same penalty occurred 3 times in a row

Just use the rules the way they were intended

 

[ACTPanthers]

5 min sin bin was brought in for repeat infringements

Ie when the same penalty occurred 3 times in a row

Just use the rules the way they were intended

So much this

 

[LineBall]

If we're going to address penalties, I think our main concern is the kick for touch. It is too big of a disadvantage to the defending team.

I think it definitely has a place in the game, but it should be drawn back. Like maybe a kick for touch can only be taken once a possession, or only in your own half.

It would be simpler to allow a kick for touch - but not restart the tackle count. It would help counter the difference between a penalty on the first and last tackle of a set.

 

[Pig Champion]

Just wondering what role the Apex would play in all of this?

 

[T-Boon]

It would be simpler to allow a kick for touch - but not restart the tackle count. It would help counter the difference between a penalty on the first and last tackle of a set.

thats exactly what I think. They restart the count too often when fact is the first 2 or 3 tackles (at least) are invariably boring safe hit ups. Even in the red zone. Cut to the chase. Give them territory but no additional tackles. Maybe penalties within the 20 you also lose a player for the set.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

If a team concedes more than 3 penalties in a row the captain gets catapulted out of the ground naked.

 

[nick87]

 

[DiegoNT]

Not restarting the tackle count is probably the stupidest suggestion yet.
Teams build moment during a set, (which is why teams do hit-ups for the first 3 hit ups. It's not because they are devoid of ideas). If you slow down the play the ball on the last few tackles and give away a penalty it means you give the team another full set to get momentum. If you don't restart the set, it means that you've stopped their momentum and now only have to make a couple of tackles of the front foot. This would take away from free flowing football, and attacking teams would have to rely heavily on set plays or Kicks. Ask yourself, would you rather defend against guys like Thurston, Morgan and Granville, on the 50m line, after guy's like Scott, Cooper and taumololo have put you on the back foot or would you rather give up a Penalty after taumololo's run , let cowboys get to the 30m line, but now they are flat footed, you've had time to have a breather, get your line set, and defend on the front foot and only have to make 1 or 2 tackles