Should the 8 point power play stay?

[JB]

Think any coach in their right mind would always instruct his team to take the 2.

Could be interesting though if a team is still down by 4 after scoring late in the game.

 

[Gregbyday]

Also wouldn't let Kevin Rudd speak for our game again either.

 

[user_nat]

Bury it, never let it be seen again, along with 4 quarters.

What was wrong with 4 quarters?

 

[Azkatro]

I will say a big thumbs down, but having said that I think it got a poor advertisement in the All-Stars game. The idea of such a rule, tactically speaking, is to save it for when you actually need it. If it became permanent it would not be used 99% of the time. However if you're 8 points behind and you score at the death, that's when it would potentially have a bit of value.

Still, all that said I don't think there's a place in the NRL for it.

 

[mxlegend99]

No f*cken way. I was open to the idea of giving it a go... but after seeing it in action it's a weak gimmick that cheapens the feel of the game. I thought that the All Stars game was top notch in quality in nearly every area with exception of that.

 

[Dazzat]

Without the opposition team being able to score, it becomes a farce. There needs to be an element of risk about it ... otherwise we'd continue to get that scenario of the team throwing the ball around like a hot potato and going backwards for several minutes.

Sorry, the concept is promising but needs more work.

 

[DeeJ]

It looked like higgilty piggilty nonsense.

 

[Jono078]

I didn't mind the 4 quarters, but that's maybe because I'm coming off the NFL season and got use to it.

 

[Azkatro]

There needs to be an element of risk about it ... otherwise we'd continue to get that scenario of the team throwing the ball around like a hot potato and going backwards for several minutes.

There is an element of risk - the risk of throwing away a near-certain 2 points.

 

[BIKER_DRAGON]

I voted yes.....BUT.....It needs fine tunning, The whole of the defence should stand in goal with no markers on the attacking side. As soon as the ball is played the defence side then moves up out of the in goal area to tackle.

 

[Fui!!!]

I voted no.

I would say yes if it was 5 on 5. Otherwise it's just waste of 30 seconds. Let's face it, if anyone scores from there we will wast another 5 minutes with the vid ref because it will be right in the corner, or there will be an obstruction.

 

[Sugar]

I didn't mind it. Would be good to see. It is very NFL'ish. Maybe you could make it that if you use a kick you only get 3 points for the try instead of 4. Or even 5 points if you dont use a kick. :crazy:

We could improve it with forward passes,shoulder pads, helmets, time outs and pause the game for commercials.

Why hasn't anyone thought of this before

 

[Borat.]

Piss it off quick smart-

 

[Bulldog Force]

What was wrong with 4 quarters?

What's the point of reducing the limited interchange if we're giving players an extra break? It slows the game down and defeats the purpose of reduced limited interchange. Players are fit enough and have the required endurance and stamina to play 40 straight minutes in 2 sets. It's never been a problem before. If it's too hot and they require and quick fluid break, fine, but DO NOT make it a fixture of our game to split it up into 4 quarters.

 

[nqcowboy87]

not for regular season-nice addition to the all stars match

 

[Binga]

I think that it would work better if it was set up from an attacking scrum on the 10 metre line and put the fullback back in the defence line.

 

[Angry_eel]

I say yes. Its good but neither of the teams had prepared for it and it was obvious.

 

[StormChaser]

No. It didn't work, it just seemed like a waste of time.

 

[Whats Doing]

F#ck it off quick smart unless you want the NRL to look like under 7 playing

 

[Loudstrat]

It is a f*cking stupid rule that has absolutely nothing to add to the game, nor has any concept of that the game is about.

The whole concept of a try - historically - is to get the ball across the line so the attacking team could then "try" for a goal. The 'try' is followed by the conversion - and was given a points value to encourage free flowing footy.

The whole concept of the sport is to put two equal teams - 13 in attack, 13 in defence - and let them battle to score points. A player is taken off if their conduct is so contrary to the spirit of the game that they are not worthy to participate in it - hence the send off rule and later the sin bin. Not because some winger missed a tackle.

Fullbacks are probably the most important defenders in a side. The fullbacks we have are generally the best one on one defenders. They are least likely to make defensive lapses. So why penalise them if a winger misses a tackle, or gets outjumped from a bomb - or worse, a video ref ballsed up!

Imagine the same scenario in soccer after a goal. Do you take the goalie away and give the attacking side another go?

And if the original try was scored on the last tackle - where is the contest for posession or the turnover?

Any rule that contravenes the 6 tackle rule, the right for conversion, or the right of a player to participate if their conduct is worthy is a rule that decimates the very game itself.

The rule sounds like it was made up by a 13year old dickhead n an internet forum.