: Thu Mar 19, 2009 1:29 pm  

JOGGER wrote:

my concern would be that most players tend to stop and look at the referee when he blows his whistle - usually to find out why the whistle has gone (because the players never commit fouls or break the rules you know )

so the ball carrier stops but the defenders push him back 10 yards - where do you play the ball from - where he was tackled or where he ends up? You'd end up having to stop the game anyway to play the ball in the right place.

Just can't it working myself

they arent going to push him back 10 m?

thats a minor gripe.

: Thu Mar 19, 2009 1:32 pm  

JOGGER wrote:

my concern would be that most players tend to stop and look at the referee when he blows his whistle - usually to find out why the whistle has gone (because the players never commit fouls or break the rules you know )

so the ball carrier stops but the defenders push him back 10 yards - where do you play the ball from - where he was tackled or where he ends up? You'd end up having to stop the game anyway to play the ball in the right place.

Just can't it working myself

If a player continues the current offending act after the penalty has been given (indicated by the three blasts of the whistle and back to one signal) then I guess the referee would be forced to step in and decide a harsher punishment for the offending party.

I guess one solution would be, if the above does happen then the ball is marched ten yards forward (ala talking back to the ref) from where the penalty was given. otherwise the back-to-one penalty would be played from where the ball carrier was when the referee's whistle blew.

: Thu Mar 19, 2009 1:39 pm  

What you are suggesting is a measure to encourage illegal play, that results in less attractive games to watch and games not flowing so much. You say you want games to flow more, yet you are proposing something that would mean games would not flow so much.

As for repeated offences, that is down to interpretation. Foul play is not being penalised appropriately in NRL and particularly SL currently, so I am sure a 5 min bin for repeated offences would be used sparingly.

: Thu Mar 19, 2009 1:40 pm  

Thoth wrote:

What you are suggesting is a measure to encourage illegal play, that results in less attractive games to watch and games not flowing so much. You say you want games to flow more, yet you are proposing something that would mean games would not flow so much.

As for repeated offences, that is down to interpretation. Foul play is not being penalised appropriately in NRL and particularly SL currently, so I am sure a 5 min bin for repeated offences would be used sparingly.

its not encouraging illegal play, its just reducing the penalty

they used to behead people for things they now put them in jail for

the punishment should fit the crime

: Thu Mar 19, 2009 1:43 pm  

with the introduction of the 10 m. rule then the impact of a penalty is much larger given the ground teams can gain.

under a 5 m. rule you couldnt easily make 50 m. in one set of 6 so a penalty didnt lead to a try most of the time.

these days with the amount of ground you can gain under 10 m. rule then if you get a penalty in a fair field position ie your 30 m. or closer to the opponents line, then you have a great chance of scoring a try.

: Thu Mar 19, 2009 1:50 pm  

Thoth wrote:

What you are suggesting is a measure to encourage illegal play, that results in less attractive games to watch and games not flowing so much. You say you want games to flow more, yet you are proposing something that would mean games would not flow so much.

it isn't a measure to encourage illegal play at all. all illegal play would still be punished by a penalty. it could even be said that a "back-to-one penalty" is a bigger punishment (particularly for a team defending their own line) as there is no opportunity for a breather. indeed, some offences are committed intentionally by players so that their team-mates can get back onside/regain their shape/get their breath back. this would eradicate that.

i'm not sure how my idea would prevent a game flowing as most offences would not result in the game being stopped.

: Thu Mar 19, 2009 1:58 pm  

sounds like a good idea - too sensible for Red Hall though

: Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:07 pm  

GIANT DAZ wrote:

sounds like a good idea - too sensible for Red Hall though

It IS a good idea.
But it's so drastic that it would have to be properly thought out/researched by your friends at red hall. It wouldn't be easy to say 'right from next year we do this', for me it would be such a revolutionary change to the game.
By the time they ever got round to introducing this the chances are something better will have come along.
The more I think of it, the more I like this idea actually.
There's POSSIBLY a way of implementing it at first for one or two offences, see how it goes before moving on to cover offside etc

: Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:12 pm  

what the nrl does with new ideas is either trial them first.

if the results of the trial look good then maybe its a goer.

play some trial games to see if its an improvement

weve been trialling 2 refs in some lower levels of the game for a year before bringing it in to the nrl

: Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:16 pm  

Jemaine Clement wrote:

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.



?

re dragons 1965