Should the 8 point power play stay?

[Timmah]

No chance, one of those things that was trialed and simply didn't work. Wall looked stupid too. It isn't football, it's rugby league.

 

[Talanexor]

I think it has some promise in exhibition matches, but I wouldn't like to see it become a permanent feature of NRL games. League's greatest asset is that it is a simple, fast game - anything that adds to the complexity or slows it down only detracts from it.

Having said all that, with a bit of tinkering the powerplay becomes feasible:

Instead of a tap restart in the middle of the 20m line against a set defence, how about a scrum 20m back from where the try was scored? This would mean that tries scored in one corner would lead to different scrum-base moves than tries in the middle of the field. It would also create a lot more room for backs to operate and bring back outrageous attacking set plays from the scrum.

Kicks need to be allowed. Without incurring any penalty in the way points are awarded. HOWEVER, if the defending team grounds it or knocks it it over the side/deadball-lines, a line drop out does NOT occur and the defending team regains possession.

With a bit of work, this could lead to some really enterprising and entertaining tries. Goalkicking isn't that interesting to watch anyway. I'd love to see what Tim Sheens could do with this.

Also, when the 40/20 rule was brought in, a lot of people criticised it. I think it's the best rule change since field goals were changed to only a single point. A lot of these high-risk-high-reward plays are exciting and entertaining, but would only happen once or twice a game.

How many 40/20s occur in a standard NRL Match?
How many field goals occur in a standard NRL Match?

This is the kind of thing that might only be used once a game or less, but it makes the game much more intense and exciting if it could be used successfully some of the time.

Give it another couple of chances with the two above conditions, and it could be great for the game.

 

[Loudstrat]

Conversions are boring too. I think it has too much bearing on a game.

While I don't like it the way it is being done now I think there's potential in the idea.

How about this. In stead of opting for the conversion you can have a full set of six starting from the 20m line. Play as normal, meaning all players are available, kicks are allowed and the opposition can score. If the opposition is tiring this might be put a dagger in the heart, or if you're way behind it has the potential to get you back into a game.

Tell me that O'Connors sideline kick to win Origin was boring.

Or Cronin's faultless kicking in impossible wind in the 81 gf.

Or Matt Ridge kicking goals from halfway.

Or Churchill from the sideline with a broken arm.

Or the stories of Dally M kicking from 60m out.

Or the skills that Hazem, JT and Halligan brought to the sport.

Or even watching the stupid prance of Soward, Inu's silly grin or Piggy's salute.

The whole point of a try is to close that phase of play, let the defence regroup, let the fans have a leak or scratch their stones, and start again. With a kickoff at halfway.

Besides, conversions are not mandatory as it is - teams can elect to go straight to the kickoff. That they don't means the quick break - gathered thoughts, quick drink - is quite valuable in the game. Would rather see players get their act together with a quick break than see them get burned out because the fans think goal kicks are boring.

Besides, League has the balance between tries and place kicks right. AFL and Basketball have the same scoring method used ad nauseum throughout the game. Union relies on kicks too much. League rewards the skills of attack and defence AS WELL as the skills of ball control with hand and foot.

 

[Marshall_magic]

I didn't mind it considering it was an exhibition game. Don't use it in a season though.

 

[innsaneink]

I thought they were going to recommence play in line where thr try was scored?
Big white circle bang in the middle 15 odd m out.

Give it 13 on 12 with play starting near one sideline, decoys here n tghere and some 2nd phase play, the winger on the other side will score every time

 

[BIKER_DRAGON]

ya 11

NA 100

That sounds like a no to me overwhelmingly.

 

[Lambretta]

I reckon a match up of scissors, paper, rock would have been about as interesting

 

[PARRA_FAN]

Yeah tried it, failed. So lets not try it again.

If they didnt use any, they (the NRL all stars) wouldve won the game.

And I'll never get sick of conversions, Im sure a lot of fans dont. It was a massive cheer last night when Thurston kicked one from the sideline.

 

[Non Terminator]

I reckon a match up of scissors, paper, rock would have been about as interesting

I would've enjoyed that.

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

I like the concept, but needs tuning. It should not be a play-the-ball but a scrum, the same distance from the sideline as the try was scored. Currently with a play-the-ball, no kicks allowed, it's just about impossible to score, and no team would elect to take it unless desperate. Scrums would be more likely.

 

[bartman]

f**k no.

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

Oh and I especially like the 4 quarters. Limit interchanges accordingly. This gives very substantial extra value to tv rights of live matches.

 

[The Engineers Room]

A few points. If it was used this is what needs to happen:

The game clock is stopped once the attack calls for it.
13 on 12 and no kicking remain.
If the initial try is scored from a kick regathered in the 20m then it cannot be attempted.
If the play that the try is scored from starts outside the 20m it is 13 on 11 and 13 on 10 for outside the half.
If a player deliberately knocks the ball down or commits a penalty, the play is re done and that player is excluded (the defence loses another defender).

Only then but they need to change the rules to not allow a kick for goal if the team scores from a kick that is regathered inside the 20m.

 

[Gaba]

A few points. If it was used this is what needs to happen:

The game clock is stopped once the attack calls for it.
13 on 12 and no kicking remain.
If the initial try is scored from a kick regathered in the 20m then it cannot be attempted.
If the play that the try is scored from starts outside the 20m it is 13 on 11 and 13 on 10 for outside the half.
If a player deliberately knocks the ball down or commits a penalty, the play is re done and that player is excluded (the defence loses another defender).

Only then but they need to change the rules to not allow a kick for goal if the team scores from a kick that is regathered inside the 20m.

no kicking would make the play boring like union , there wont be many trys scored

AND why reward the attacking team if thier play gets knock down by the defending team not the defending team fault the attacking team didnt execute thier move.

If the defending team gives away a penalty its automatically a try


anyway rather see the kick for goal , then the powerplay ,

 

[RL1908]

Didn't see anything on Sat night to make me change my position from what I wrote earlier: "Double Jeopardy for Double Try Option" .

If anything, it proved that modern rugby league is a game of "sets" and momentum - you score tries from advantages/gaps gained in consecutive plays, not via a one-off play where both teams are beginning from a set start.

We don't see many tries from scrums or taps these days, so why would anyone expect a higher % return from a set play-the-ball, especially as they can't kick the ball.

 

[Springs]

Terrible, played out exactly as I thought it would. The line will never break because there is always at least one-on-one. No need to ever use it again.

 

[jargan83]

My thoughts were that it was a stupid concept to bring into Rugby League in the first place. I haven't seen the game yet (taped it saturday night) so I haven't seen the idea in action but hopefully it will be the only time the concept is used in the game

Tell me that O'Connors sideline kick to win Origin was boring.

Or Cronin's faultless kicking in impossible wind in the 81 gf.

Or Matt Ridge kicking goals from halfway.

Or Churchill from the sideline with a broken arm.

Or the stories of Dally M kicking from 60m out.

Or the skills that Hazem, JT and Halligan brought to the sport.

Or even watching the stupid prance of Soward, Inu's silly grin or Piggy's salute.

The whole point of a try is to close that phase of play, let the defence regroup, let the fans have a leak or scratch their stones, and start again. With a kickoff at halfway.

Besides, conversions are not mandatory as it is - teams can elect to go straight to the kickoff. That they don't means the quick break - gathered thoughts, quick drink - is quite valuable in the game. Would rather see players get their act together with a quick break than see them get burned out because the fans think goal kicks are boring.

Besides, League has the balance between tries and place kicks right. AFL and Basketball have the same scoring method used ad nauseum throughout the game. Union relies on kicks too much. League rewards the skills of attack and defence AS WELL as the skills of ball control with hand and foot.

Very well said

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

We don't see many tries from scrums or taps these days, so why would anyone expect a higher % return from a set play-the-ball, especially as they can't kick the ball.

I think there is a lot of potential in scrum plays. But currently this aspect of the game is are not perfected because there are six tackles after a scrum, no need to take risks to try and score from the first.

But it would definitely need to be a scrum, rather than a simple tap or play-the-ball.

 

[Whoosh]

No, I didn't like it. Maybe it's a worthwhile gimmick for the All-Stars match each year only.

 

[RL1908]

But it would definitely need to be a scrum, rather than a simple tap or play-the-ball.

You're right - but it still wouldn't produce a plus for the game.

Starting the "double try" option via a scrum would hold RL up to even more ridicule re scrums than it is now.

At least with the current scrum, there is some pretence that there is a chance for either side to win the scrum.

In the "double try" are we going to let the defending team push in the scrum, try to win the ball? if not, then it is just a charade. We don't need to invent a rule to give the game another instance of a sham or charade - there's enough current rules that do that.

If you start the "double try" play via a scrum, you're really asking 6 defenders and 6 attackers to pack into a "sham" scrum, just to provide space for the backs. The defenders will never pack it properly, never bind - they will want to break up and chase the attackers.

It would be simpler (though ridiculous) to create the equivalent space by reducing both teams to 7 players each for the "double try".

No matter which way anyone tries to tweak this "double try" option, it is only going to end in disappointment and/or grossly over-valued reward for the success of scoring the 2nd try.

The NFL equivalent is worth 2 points (1/3rd of the points) of the original 6 points touchdown, not another 6 points.