Rule Changes

[Squishy_Da_Byatch]

I was thinking about the rules and I started thinking about what rules I would change.....and was wondering which all of you would change...

Here is what I think!!


Here are the points of the game that i believe should be changed.

Scrums- The ball must be fed into the middle of the scrum or penalty goes the way of the opposition for incorrect scrum feed. OR not have scrums at all and it is simply a trun over.

Golden Point extra time- this should be non existent during normal season, if it ends in a tie that's how it stays, obviously the teams played well enough to keep it at a tie therefore they deserve a point each, but come into the finals then obviously they need golden point as not all teams can advance, when it comes to representative games golden point should be kept!

Stripping of the ball - this should be gone completely, it is a rule that doesnt nothing but cause problems, for players, coaches, officials and fans alike.

Obstructions - going back to the Dragons and Bulldogs game when a team is on the attack there is no reason for any of their players to be standing right in from of the oppositions deffense. therefore if they are seen standing right infront of the defense or if they walk into line with the defence as O'mealy did then it should be a penalty.

Video Ref - this is something that should be done away with. They are not getting any more calls right then what they were in the 80's without the video ref. All the video ref does is chew up time and slow down the game. There's no need for it they have one ref and two touch judges on the field, thats all they need. This will in effect let the game flow and speed it up to the pace it should be played at.

Tackles - the definition of what is a head high, graple, dangerous etc etc should be reviewed and made absolutly clear, so that there aren't uneccesarry calls. I don't know about you guys but i'd hate to see any grand final determined by a call like that.

Salary cap - this should be a thing that involves imput from clubs, and the NRL as the NRL don't know the inside workings of each club therefore they do not know their needs, hence the most effective way would be to involve club management OR start pushing for clubs to become at least part privatised.

and the last thing i think should change is this buisness where players have not heard calls made.There have been two incidents that i know of one was involving the Dragons and the other I cant remember the team, but either way the ref made a call but the player in question did not hear the play the ball call and proceeded to play on, now to me it should just simply be taken back and the player be made to play the ball, as lets face it your in a stadium with 30,000 odd fans screaming it would become a bit hard to hear calls, BUT if a particular player time and time again goes againts calls that are made THEN and only then should they award a penalty.

 

[Sanchez]

Agree on the stripping the ball rule cant be bothered reading the rest right now...

 

[Squishy_Da_Byatch]

LOL yeah 8:46 is a bit late on a Friday night....brains frazzled by now!

 

[Dogs Of War]

I like stripping the ball, otherwise it just goes back to how it was with poor ball security by players getting rewarded with penalties. Better if it was allowed with more people in the tackle.

 

[Squishy_Da_Byatch]

Well whether they have it or not then there is still poor ball security because obviously they can't hold onto the ball if the opposition can just pull it from their hands! so if they lose it, they lose it.....where as now with the stripping rule, because they know its there, whenever they do lose the ball they appeal for a strip and most of the time it holds up the game, where as if there is no stripping rule, then they have no reason to appeal for a strip, therefore its a turn over and the game goes on!

 

[Kurt Angle]

The stripping rule is to promote outrageous offlands.

If there is not penalty for stripping, the likes of Ben Kennedy will never offload. Their opportunities arsie from holding one arm out in the open looking to pass it.

Without the protection of this law, people will just stick it under their jersey and go to ground with it.

 

[*Paul*]

Many of us remember the old rules, or lack of a rule. It was fine, offloads happened (more so than nowadays) and stripping the ball was not a common occurrence.

 

[Squishy_Da_Byatch]

Even back then they didn't have all the rules we have now and the game was more enjoyable and more free flowing than it is today and thats what i loved about the game, the fact that it just flowed with hardley any penalties or stopping was great.

 

[Phillips]

5 minute sin binnings?

 

[Dogs Of War]

5 minute sin binnings?

Be nice if thats what happened when you went on report, as least the team you commited the foul against would get some reward, rather than the teams that play them in the following weeks.

 

[Iafeta]

Stripping: Done away with. The Toni Carroll no try was a farce. Price attacked the ball to lock it up, Grothe had a loose carry... penalty? WTF?

Knock on: Change the definition from hands/lower arm only to anything other than legs. Hodgson made a bad error in judgement, but was rewarded for it and his team subsequently nearly won Origin series as a result. WTF? Nathan Fien passes to Steve Price, hits him in the head due to a bad pass, Tuimavave stays alive and scores a try. WTF? That should be a knock on, its an error by the attacking team. Why should the defensive team be unrewarded?

Obstruction: Clarification please. One rule for the season. No changing mid season. No Brent Sherwin tries as opposed to non try for Sione Faumuina v Manly earlier this year for near on the same incident. Video refs to understand the roles of players and their acting, in that no try, Steve Price stood parallel with Sione Faumuina as a potential second receiver, so Steve Bell ran in from the blind side and made a play at Price having no chance of getting to Faumuina. The ruling - no try. WTF is up with that?

Dominant Tackles: Too often dominant tackles are called when an attacking player bumps away from a would be tackler, makes 2-3 metres, and then gets tackled. How's that dominant? The attacking player made a good play, but as a result, the ruck has slowed down.

Tackle: It's not a tackle when a fullback dives back into the field of play and has no one physically tackling him. If the defensive team get underneath him and drive him back, play on. Goal line drop out. Why reward a defensive play like that? If that same play happens 50 metres up field its either a voluntary tackle penalty or allowed to play on as a dominant tackle.

Voluntary tackle: Bring it back.

Forward passes at the ruck: Watch 'em. No 2 metre forward passes.

Ball not being touched with the foot at ruck time: Start watching it again. I saw 87 incorrect play of the balls last week.

Watch for sideline to sideline play of the balls: Deadset, some of the players are looking at their mothers in row F34 when playing the ball.

Defensive players MUST either get back to marker going AROUND the ruck, no bunny hopping or running through the ruck to get back. Automatic penalty. Too many errors are caused at ruck time by players trying to get onside getting involved with the player playing the ball. The old "ball control" line is trotted out, but clearly the defender has a massive obligation to roll clear of the ruck and get back to marker legally by not going through the ruck.

DELIBERATE forward passes. The rule still exists. Use it.

 

[salivor]

Dominant Tackles: Too often dominant tackles are called when an attacking player bumps away from a would be tackler, makes 2-3 metres, and then gets tackled. How's that dominant? The attacking player made a good play, but as a result, the ruck has slowed down.

Dominant and surrender calls need to be scrapped alltogether, some of the tackles they call dominant these days are nothing but just standard tackles, it's become a joke.

The other thing that's bugging me of late is this new interpretation by referees that you can't drive a player back anymore coming out of the in-goal. If a fullback/winger wants to be negative and just dive at the opposition's feet the defence should be entiltled to pick him up and push him back.

 

[Iafeta]

I agree salivor.

The worst one of those is when the fullback/winger dives to ground. The defenders put their hands up, and don't touch him, and the refs call play on. WTF? It's a voluntary tackle, and a penalty. And if its not, the defensive players should have the right to push him back in goal as long as momentum is not completely stopped.

 

[Wests is Best]

Many of us remember the old rules, or lack of a rule. It was fine, offloads happened (more so than nowadays) and stripping the ball was not a common occurrence.

I remember those days too and you are right, stripping was not a common occurance. I think the difference was that players tackled low, and there was never more than 2 in a tackle. This made it harder to strip the ball.
Also, players were not taught to exploit the rule like they are now.
If you did away with the rule altogether, there would be a "stripper" in every tackle and our game could start to look more like rugby union. God help us then!

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Video Refs: Agree. Get rid of them. They were introduced to check for grounding of the ball mostly and now they not only look at anything and everything leading up to a try but the video ref is even calling things in general play like high tackles and strips etc. Go back to a referee, two touch judges and two in-goal judges and if they make any errors, that's life, get on with it. Video refs don't get that many more calls right anyway.

Voluntary tackles: This rule was brought in to stop players diving to the ground in general play, conceding in tackles, so that they could get a quick play the ball and catch the defence out. When a player dives into the field of play from the in-goal he is not trying to gain a quick play the ball, he is just trying to avoid a drop-out. I see nothing wrong with this. It's pretty hard to ask a fullback to run head-long into a tackle, fully upright on his own goalline when he knows full well he's just going to be smashed. If players thought their only options were to give away a voluntary tackle penalty or get hammered back into their in-goal they'd probably just give up and boot the ball dead rather than try and bring it back into the field of play. Sometimes watching a fullback or winger attempting to get the ball back any way he can is a great thing to watch and if the defence is good enough to stop him legally they also fully deserve the rewards.

High,grapple,dangerous tackles: The high tackle rule is written in black and white but many actual incidents are not so clear cut. It will always be up to the officials to make a judgement. There is no grapple tackle rule as such. The referees have just decided it's contrary conduct and they enforce it if they see it. Dangerous tackles I agree should be looked at. The rule seems to be that if the player's legs end up above his head it's a dangerous tackle, but again these things are never as simple as that. I think the momentum of the tacklers is the key point, especially in determining the severity of a dangerous tackle. Although that's more of a job for the judiciary or match review committee than referees.

PS: I also have opinions on those other rules but these are the key ones for me (that I can think of).

 

[Desert Qlder]

A reintroduction of the striking rule is an absolute must for Rugby League. We have limited contests for possesion as it is and this is a great skill in that area.

 

[Iafeta]

Video Refs: Agree. Get rid of them. They were introduced to check for grounding of the ball mostly and now they not only look at anything and everything leading up to a try but the video ref is even calling things in general play like high tackles and strips etc. Go back to a referee, two touch judges and two in-goal judges and if they make any errors, that's life, get on with it. Video refs don't get that many more calls right anyway.

Voluntary tackles: This rule was brought in to stop players diving to the ground in general play, conceding in tackles, so that they could get a quick play the ball and catch the defence out. When a player dives into the field of play from the in-goal he is not trying to gain a quick play the ball, he is just trying to avoid a drop-out. I see nothing wrong with this. It's pretty hard to ask a fullback to run head-long into a tackle, fully upright on his own goalline when he knows full well he's just going to be smashed. If players thought their only options were to give away a voluntary tackle penalty or get hammered back into their in-goal they'd probably just give up and boot the ball dead rather than try and bring it back into the field of play. Sometimes watching a fullback or winger attempting to get the ball back any way he can is a great thing to watch and if the defence is good enough to stop him legally they also fully deserve the rewards.

High,grapple,dangerous tackles: The high tackle rule is written in black and white but many actual incidents are not so clear cut. It will always be up to the officials to make a judgement. There is no grapple tackle rule as such. The referees have just decided it's contrary conduct and they enforce it if they see it. Dangerous tackles I agree should be looked at. The rule seems to be that if the player's legs end up above his head it's a dangerous tackle, but again these things are never as simple as that. I think the momentum of the tacklers is the key point, especially in determining the severity of a dangerous tackle. Although that's more of a job for the judiciary or match review committee than referees.

PS: I also have opinions on those other rules but these are the key ones for me (that I can think of).

So what reward then for the good kick? A voluntary tackle opportunity, and the inability to get a repeat set?

IMO, if you get continually drilled in goal by a top kicking game, tough luck really. The game should be about rewarding classy play, and that to me is classy play. Diving at the ground to get a cheap set of six that in a contested game you're otherwise not entitled to is cutting out the opportunity for rewarding a classy piece of play.

I'd take a fullback driving in nice and low to the ground to get to the ground quickly in the tackle, but I don't think we should have to cop the fosbury flop.

 

[Iafeta]

I remember those days too and you are right, stripping was not a common occurance. I think the difference was that players tackled low, and there was never more than 2 in a tackle. This made it harder to strip the ball.
Also, players were not taught to exploit the rule like they are now.
If you did away with the rule altogether, there would be a "stripper" in every tackle and our game could start to look more like rugby union. God help us then!

While I could agree somewhat on the stripping thing, and obviously it'd need to be trialled to see how it really would pan out, I've seen a lot of one on one tackles where defenders aren't good enough to rip the ball out at vital stages of the game.

The reason I bring it up is recollections of the Carroll no try. I mean, Eric Grothe Jr runs across field, and Steve Price goes to tackle around the ball. The ball comes free from the impact (its all very quick, Price doesn't rake at the ball, infact he kind of gets bumped off which gives the illusion he has) and all of a sudden we have a penalty. Grothe's carry here was very poor and he deserved a turnover. Nowadays you shouldn't tackle low in case you spear someone, you can't tackle high, it leaves the middle part of the body where the ball is carried. That's the type of situation I'm more or less getting to.

Perhaps video referees and referees should change their rulings to only call a strip if they're absolutely deadset sure it was intentionally stripped, and give some more responsibility to the attacking player?

 

[Squishy_Da_Byatch]

Alot of the problem i think too is that players aren't playing fo rthe love of the game any more its mostly about the money so they need to do anything they can to win games, hence the introduction of all these new rules to keep everything to a minimum but at the same time it's slowed down the game.

 

[*Paul*]

Funny, happened to be reading RLW from 1971, and some bloke was complaining about rule changes even then. His ideas: Go back to unlimited tackles, and a *one* yard rule for the defensive line. Maybe we should give that a go