The new Ruck rule - The final verdict

[MatthewA]

I don't like it. In my opinion, it will just give the referees more right to call what they like on the go without any explanation, any recognition of what was done wrong and no chance for a club captain to respond to the referee.

We'd end up with teams getting 20, 30 tackles in a row and milking the hell out of most things, where the referee will be so quick to say "6 again" for the sake of it. It's just not a good idea IMO.

 

[eozsmiles]

I have no problem with the game moving on before the captain can question the decision. That conversation usually goes like this - Captain says "what's that for?" and the ref says "strip" and we all move on. The player knows what's happening and they aren't in a position to pretend they don't know why the whistle was blown. Even if they think they are innocent they still know why the whistle was blown. They just come across as sooks, as trying to influence the ref, and as trying to pinch a breather for their defenders.
It was the best part of the rule for me.

 

[eozsmiles]

Not worried about the refs seemingly being without scrutiny or the need to justify their decisions during the game. Nobody else has to at any stage so I don't see why the ref is singled out.
Fans will always hack on the refs for a bad call and forgive the players for a bad decision. We can't ignore a possibly good rule change for that reason.

 

[Nightward]

I think it worked well enough. May need some tinkering, but could be a useful addition to the game.

I think the better idea from the game to apply to the NRL would be having the referees linked to the stadium loudspeakers, though. Gives the crowd another perspective on the game, and players can't say they didn't hear the ref.

 

[StormHi]

Yeah I really liked the Refs Verbalisation being projected.

 

[Raidersrawesome]

No way , it was crap.

The commentators said it only worked last night ( their opinion ) as it was unlimited interchange and 20 man squads.

The game is fast enough , it doesnt need to be sped up. I also felt the refs didnt police it properly , the penalties themselves seemed a bit easy , if it was a normal game there wouldnt have been penalties.

Also part of our game is set plays , why do we always try and remove them from the game.

 

[Loudstrat]

The game has speeded up since the 1980's with such things at the 7 then 10m rule, 20m tap restarts, unlimited interchange, the downtown rule, time limits for kicks etc. Super League wanted the game to be faster, and it was diabolical. In 2001 the game was super fast - my mob benefitted as much as anyone - but in the next few seasons the downsides apparent in the "touch footy" attitude were dealt with.

There has to be a place in our game for defence - and good defence to be rewarded. That is why the dominant tackle emerged.

Last night one of my great bugbears emerged - the attacking player walking around the marker, taking 2 steps forward, and playing the ball - making the marker offside and effectively taking a man out of the defensive line. It is one of a series of little things that Bill Harrigan clamped down on when he got to top referees job last year. Despite the hue and cry, I loved seeing those little things penalised - like the goal line drop 1m in front of the goal line, the sloppy play the ball etc.

Last night these things were relaxed. It looked like touch footy out there. While a great spectacle - face it, indigenous players are great when the game is fast - the only time it looked like fair dinkum Rugby League was when JWH fired up like all good serious forwards do. I hate the sight of a marker who makes a good dominant tackle, stands up to mark, only to see the ball player walk past him to play the ball! Face it, the marker does ANYTHING and he's penalised.

The game is lightning fast, but it does not need to be faster. It is already too fast for playmakers to construct plays rather than simply react to them.

 

[adamkungl]

I also felt the refs were restarting way too often and too easily.
All you have to do is change the rule so it's still a penalty but you can only tap the ball.

This. It should be a play-stopping penalty but with no kick option.

 

[Perth Red]

Power play sucked and a stupid idea. I like the ruck restart though. What I would do is have the penalty blown as per usual but rather thank kicking for touch and getting a free 20-40metres which usually results in a cross field bomb on the try line just have 6 again from the penalty spot.

 

[Loudstrat]

To the offenders get less penalty. Great idea.

 

[adamkungl]

To the offenders get less penalty. Great idea.

I feel it's unbalanced in its current form. 40m march downfield or a game deciding 2 points is very harsh for something like a borderline marker infringement.

 

[the beavers]

i think its a good idea but i agree it should be a tap start
ref blows peanalty ( eg penalty not square or holding down etc)
points to the mark (doesnt need to run over to the exact blade of grass)
attacking team gets an advantage... 6 more and quick tap
offending team gets disadvantage of another set but gets a second or 2 to reset
everyone knows there was an infringement and what for
possible tweak is that a ruck infringemnt in the set immediately following a tap start could be a full penalty ( removing the time wasting/deliberate infringrments in golden point etc)

when you consider how 50/50 some ruck penalties are i think its fairer than a 40-60m kick down field

 

[2010Dragons]

Anyone else notice in the All Stars game, when the tackle count was restart for a penalty the team who received the zero tackle restart either drop the ball or lost position of the ball.

 

[aqua_duck]

The thing that I don't like is it's basically open season on the first tackle, teams won't mind conceding an extra tackle if it's on the first and you'll see alot of things like holding down, and other such tactics to disrupt a teams momentum early on in the tackle count

 

[Bulldog Force]

Ok so for all of us who watched the All Stars game, you would've noticed that throughout the match, there were powerplays and running penalties trialed in the game.

As far as I'm concerned, Ray Warren hit the nail on the head in regards to future usage of these rules throughout the competition. The answer is quite simply no. These rules can by all means be used in the All Stars and Exhibition domains, but NOT in the NRL.

The game is simply too different today than it was when most of us here started following it, and we need to at least try and keep some sort of tradition in it.

Powerplay

It is NOT FAIR and simply NOT PART OF OUR GAME to at any stage disadvantage a team by removing 2 of their defenders on the field. Even though the said team will get a chance to strike back, let's keep it traditional and not become the NFL by doing something as ridiculous as this.

Running Penalty

My views on the running penalty are similar. While the game was going on and we saw what the running penalty was used, I found that on plenty of occasions, the team who was defending got penalised on more than 1 occasion. In fact it was quite common that the defending team got done 2 times on the trot. What does this tell us? It tells us that the running penalty simply does not work. Stopping play and allowing the teams to either take the quick tap or kick for touch (or goal in some cases) is the way our game should be kept. If the players don't have time to set the line, have a shorter breather and get their mind sets right, then all the running penalty will do is create more (unfair) penalties for teams.

Further to this, how on earth are the fans supposed to know that a running penalty has been given considering no gesture is shown by the referee.

That's my take on the matter. I'm happy for these rules to be trialed and used in the exhibition domain, but NOT for the NRL or rep games.

 

[gUt]

I think the running penalty is a good idea. The NRL could introduce a sound effect over the PA or a light on the scoreboard or something to indicate it to the crowd.

 

[Canard]

It is NOT FAIR and simply NOT PART OF OUR GAME to at any stage disadvantage a team by removing 2 of their defenders on the field.

Im not a fan of the proposed changes, but your arguement is on the wrong track.

To disadvantage a team by removing players simply IS PART OF OUR GAME. (i.e. due to repeated infringements or foul play)

 

[The Brain]

Ive always said the game was at its peak late eighties and early nineties rules wise.The only rule that came in was the 40/20 and a bit of restriction on the bombs .Why keep messing it? The players would not like to play in a match where it never stops its one of those most physically demanding sports in the world .I say leave it as it is.
That Power play is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen and who ever came up with it should be sacked.

 

[Canard]

Ive always said the game was at its peak late eighties and early nineties rules wise.The only rule that came in was the 40/20 and a bit of restriction on the bombs .Why keep messing it? The players would not like to play in a match where it never stops its one of those most physically demanding sports in the world .I say leave it as it is.
That Power play is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen and who ever came up with it should be sacked.

Off the top of my head, Since the late 80's the following rules have been added/amended on top of the two you have mentioned:

- 10m rule
- Only being able to play the ball backwards with your feet after the tackle (no-quick tap forward), and no striking if in defence
-Numerous interchange amendments, unlimited, 12 then 10 etc.
- Reduction of scrums in certiain situations (i.e. handover rules)
-"Downtown Rule" 10m from opposition player
-Zero Tackle
- Mid air tackle rule (for defending players)
-Numerous changes to stripping rules, one on one etc.
- Held up rule, rewarding attacking team etc.
- Dominant tackle
- Benefit of the Doubt in try scoring situations.

Thats not even getting into two on-field referee's, video ref etc.

 

[age.s]

The thing that I don't like is it's basically open season on the first tackle, teams won't mind conceding an extra tackle if it's on the first and you'll see alot of things like holding down, and other such tactics to disrupt a teams momentum early on in the tackle count

You might have to bring in full penalties for ruck infringements on the first tackle only. After that point I think a slow play the ball is not worth an 8 tackle set for the defending team.