: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:46 pm  

Jemaine Clement wrote:

which circumstance do you mean?

were a player in an attacking position is held down deliberately to slow it down in the last few seconds of the game!

i think your idea has legs, the main problem i would see in practise is that it may speed the game up too much,

i know the offending team lose a lot from a penalty with either points or a lot of yards but they also get a little breather and to reset the line, back to one hammers a team struggling to get back with more tackles to make quickly, all the attacking team would need to do is keep running at the markers struggling to get in position making 10 yards down the field and staying on the 1st tackle

im not sure it doesnt put too much effort into fitness, but it would be interesting to see it trialled and see how players and coaches adjust

in a similar vain, i would like to see a 5 minute sin bin for all head high challenges, i think tackle technique would change very quickly and they would disappear from the game,

i also wonder, with the amount of dummy half running we see these days, whether allowing teams to have a third marker wouldnt change it up a bit, it would take someone out of the defensive line so there would be a bit more space on the fringes encouraging more creative play

: Thu Mar 19, 2009 1:10 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

were a player in an attacking position is held down deliberately to slow it down in the last few seconds of the game!

i think your idea has legs, the main problem i would see in practise is that it may speed the game up too much,

i know the offending team lose a lot from a penalty with either points or a lot of yards but they also get a little breather and to reset the line, back to one hammers a team struggling to get back with more tackles to make quickly, all the attacking team would need to do is keep running at the markers struggling to get in position making 10 yards down the field and staying on the 1st tackle

im not sure it doesnt put too much effort into fitness, but it would be interesting to see it trialled and see how players and coaches adjust

I understand what you're getting at.

But I think if the game were to become faster and more emphasis put on fitness then this would be a step forward for the sport.

some of the most enterprising play and skill is showcased when defences are tiring.

I think the tactic of teams committing a foul intentionally so their team can have a rest is something that we shouldn't accept. if the rules i'm talking about were put in place then teams would not intentionally give away penalties as there'd be no guarantee of a rest! All it would mean is that they'd have to make six more tackles.

The back to one would hammer tiring defences but surely this is a positive aspect of my idea? The incentive to be squeaky clean in all aspects of the game would still be there because if you're not then you're not going to get the ball.

in a similar vain, i would like to see a 5 minute sin bin for all head high challenges, i think tackle technique would change very quickly and they would disappear from the game,

What about clumsy tackles where there is no malice or agression?

: Thu Mar 19, 2009 1:13 pm  

Holty wrote:

thats just gonna complicate things even more.

Only complication would be for the ref, and players able to understand if it was a full blown penalty or reset the tackle count. Not sure the offences in the category 1 can be classed as minor. Interference at PTB is an effective way of slowing opponents ball down, downgrading that would just result in even more negative play.

: Thu Mar 19, 2009 1:14 pm  

How would spectators know of the 'penalty' and more tackles to follow?

: Thu Mar 19, 2009 1:14 pm  

Thoth wrote:

Only complication would be for the ref, and players able to understand if it was a full blown penalty or reset the tackle count. Not sure the offences in the category 1 can be classed as minor. Interference at PTB is an effective way of slowing opponents ball down, downgrading that would just result in even more negative play.

restarting the tackle count is still a fair penalty, its just not as draconian as a kick for touch & restarting the tackle count

: Thu Mar 19, 2009 1:15 pm  

Mark_W wrote:

How would spectators know of the 'penalty' and more tackles to follow?

the referree can signal six to go for the minor penalties

: Thu Mar 19, 2009 1:16 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

were a player in an attacking position is held down deliberately to slow it down in the last few seconds of the game!

i think your idea has legs, the main problem i would see in practise is that it may speed the game up too much,

i know the offending team lose a lot from a penalty with either points or a lot of yards but they also get a little breather and to reset the line, back to one hammers a team struggling to get back with more tackles to make quickly, all the attacking team would need to do is keep running at the markers struggling to get in position making 10 yards down the field and staying on the 1st tackle

im not sure it doesnt put too much effort into fitness, but it would be interesting to see it trialled and see how players and coaches adjust

in a similar vain, i would like to see a 5 minute sin bin for all head high challenges, i think tackle technique would change very quickly and they would disappear from the game,

i also wonder, with the amount of dummy half running we see these days, whether allowing teams to have a third marker wouldnt change it up a bit, it would take someone out of the defensive line so there would be a bit more space on the fringes encouraging more creative play

Your first point i'd agree, it could be at the referees discretion to pull it up and award the 'penalty' e.g. deliberate slowing with a minute to go.
I don't personally like your idea of all head high challenges in the bin. We have a contact sport and occasionally there will be them, for me it's part and parcel. IMO chicken wings should be an instant sin bin though.

Again sod 3rd markers..GET RID OF 'MARKERS SQUARE'!!
haha sorry it's something i'd love to see implemented, to stop all the dummy half running, or one out football and get rid of those feckin annoying penalties where the tackled player gets up moves a yard to the left and the hooker goes right 'PIIING'.
People would need to be 'slightly' more creative, no need for 5m defence lines or 3rd markers ere!

: Thu Mar 19, 2009 1:17 pm  

Holty wrote:

thats just gonna complicate things even more.

It's simplification by reducing the options. Basically a penalty is given, but the team that the penalty is awarded to can only take the tap - except that it's a re-start by ptb. Not a big change at all.
Would be interesting to trial it and see how it goes. I think that as a speccy I would get really confused as to what is going on - would need an in-stadium announcer to explain that the count was zeroed.

: Thu Mar 19, 2009 1:18 pm  

Thoth wrote:

Only complication would be for the ref, and players able to understand if it was a full blown penalty or reset the tackle count. Not sure the offences in the category 1 can be classed as minor. Interference at PTB is an effective way of slowing opponents ball down, downgrading that would just result in even more negative play.

a full blown penalty would be indicated the same way as it is now, a back-to-one penalty would be indicated by three short blasts of the whistle and the existing back to one signal.

interference is an effective of slowing opponents down but it would still be penalised so I don't think the incentive to interfere would be that great. You're still costing your side another six tackles.

It isn't a "downgrading" of offences as such, more a way of speeding up the process of the spotting and awarding of a penalty for a common offence.

: Thu Mar 19, 2009 1:19 pm  

especially when its for a penalty for a minor infringement

Illiegally slowing down opponents ball is not a minor offence, it breaks the flow, results in a succession of drives and a kick because the defence is already set by the time the ball is back in open play.