Re: NRL trialling rule changes - any good? : Sun Dec 04, 2011 2:04 pm  

Wellsy13 wrote:

Well these are the reasons they're trialled I suppose.
I think, as someone else mentioned, that there should be different weights of penalty for technical offences and foul play. Technical offences being a tap penalty, and foul play being a full penalty (then there's the differential penalty for scrum offences as well).

If you had a tap penalty or wiping of the count for both holding down and offside, anytime anyone made a break you would simply hold them down until the ref wiped the count, then the team mate next to you can tackle the player from an offside position (because they can just hang around the ruck) wipe the count again, lay on, wipe the count. Meanwhile the defensive line organises itself and any advantage has been lost yeah you can give a penalty in that situation but we give a penalty for just one of those offences now. The point the wiping of the count rather than tap penalty would be to speed up the game and allow refs to be more consistent on judging those offences. We would lose that by allowing offside players to be punished with a wiping of the count.

Being a Hull fan, I haven't seen many 40/20s this year!

Having a bigger target area allows for a bigger angle. If they're going to allow a 20/40s then why not 30/30s, 10/50s and 50/10s?

It does allow for a bigger angle, but not really in a significant way. And the angle itself isnt significant anyway. If a player kicks the ball from the behind the 20 and it goes out beyond the oppositions 20 its a 40/20 anyway.

Re: NRL trialling rule changes - any good? : Sun Dec 04, 2011 2:06 pm  

Wildmoose wrote:

Offending team would still be penalised. How does this encourage them to cheat?

Because you are reducing the penalty , the problem isn't with the rules , they are fine , it's the application of them that the Aussies have a problem with , they dont like to be penalised for cheating , they moan about refferee's applying the laws of the game to their superstar athlete's

Re: NRL trialling rule changes - any good? : Sun Dec 04, 2011 2:30 pm  

Starbug wrote:

Because you are reducing the penalty , the problem isn't with the rules , they are fine , it's the application of them that the Aussies have a problem with , they dont like to be penalised for cheating , they moan about refferee's applying the laws of the game to their superstar athlete's

Don't agree. I think this is an area that needs to be looked at. If we weren't prepared to change things up a bit to see what does / doesn't work we'd still be playing union.

Re: NRL trialling rule changes - any good? : Sun Dec 04, 2011 5:24 pm  

1. Power play? Silly gimmick. The game doesn't need it.

2. The idea of wiping down the tackle count for holding down does have an appeal. It would also mean the ball was in play for a higher percentage of the game and it might help discourage wrestling in the tackle. If your team's tackling style involves a lot of holding down, that might mean your team is defending a lot more than they would under the old rules

3. For all the extra time the ball would be in play for rule 2, that time could very likely be lost for this one. If I want to see the ball hoofed down field from behind the 20 yard line, I'll go watch RU thanks

Re: NRL trialling rule changes - any good? : Sun Dec 04, 2011 7:30 pm  

Roofaldo wrote:

1. Power play? Silly gimmick. The game doesn't need it.

2. The idea of wiping down the tackle count for holding down does have an appeal. It would also mean the ball was in play for a higher percentage of the game and it might help discourage wrestling in the tackle. If your team's tackling style involves a lot of holding down, that might mean your team is defending a lot more than they would under the old rules

3. For all the extra time the ball would be in play for rule 2, that time could very likely be lost for this one. If I want to see the ball hoofed down field from behind the 20 yard line, I'll go watch RU thanks

There is already a puishment for ileagal holding down , it's called a penalty

I am amazed that some on here are somehow looking at infringements that already exist as something new , and therefore needing a new puishment

You're all Nuts

Re: NRL trialling rule changes - any good? : Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:53 pm  

Wildmoose wrote:

No 2 has some potential imo. From a technical infringement I’d give the non offending side the choice of a) taking a tap & resetting the tackle count, or b) kicking for touch & continuing the tackle count. Early in the tackle count sides may opt to take the metres from a kick, late in the count they’d probably opt for another set.

I like that.

Re: NRL trialling rule changes - any good? : Sun Dec 04, 2011 11:02 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

If you had a tap penalty or wiping of the count for both holding down and offside, anytime anyone made a break you would simply hold them down until the ref wiped the count, then the team mate next to you can tackle the player from an offside position (because they can just hang around the ruck) wipe the count again, lay on, wipe the count. Meanwhile the defensive line organises itself and any advantage has been lost yeah you can give a penalty in that situation but we give a penalty for just one of those offences now. The point the wiping of the count rather than tap penalty would be to speed up the game and allow refs to be more consistent on judging those offences. We would lose that by allowing offside players to be punished with a wiping of the count.

They are different issues though. Holding down on the break is a professional foul IIRC (like last man in football) that gets you sin binned. You're also talking persistent offences, which again would result in being sin binned.

SmokeyTA wrote:

It does allow for a bigger angle, but not really in a significant way. And the angle itself isnt significant anyway. If a player kicks the ball from the behind the 20 and it goes out beyond the oppositions 20 its a 40/20 anyway.

The second part is fair point, but it's basically the fact that I don't believe it's a very good skill to reward being able to kick the ball 40m and bounce into touch. I think being able to kick the ball 40m and bounce into touch in a specific target area is the closest I'd go for.
Each to their own though. There's no right or wrong on this one. I think we all agree that the first one is a terrible gimmick though that goes against the principles of the game!

Re: NRL trialling rule changes - any good? : Sat Feb 04, 2012 1:16 pm  

6 again rule seemed to work pretty well. Made for a very quick game. Interesting to hear the commentators suggesting more interchanges may be needed to accommodate this (7 man benches & unlimited changes in this game).

Both sides scored tries against the powerplay & nobody attempted a 20-50, no real future for these.

Re: NRL trialling rule changes - any good? : Sat Feb 04, 2012 1:29 pm  

Watched the match this morning and thought the whole powerplay thing was stupid and a waste of time. It's something I would not want to see in our game. Whats wrong with keeping it 13 against 13?? It may be meant to create more try's, but whats the point if those try's are coming of the back of a weakened defence rather than good attacking play? Silly idea which is something youd expect to see in american football, not in rugby league.

the wiping of the tackle count for ruck offences kept the game going and was good in that aspect... but as a viewer I found it impossible to know what infringement had been made, and I bet the players didn't know themselves half the time. It will all be down to interpretation by the refs which imo is what could ruin it. today i felt the indigenous team got penalised in this way constantly yet the nrl team seemed to get away with similar things but got away with it. I'm insure If I'd want to see it become a permanent thing. especially the way the refs interpret things in super league I just don't think it would work.

the 20/40 thing is fine by me really, pretty impartial to that rule change.

Re: NRL trialling rule changes - any good? : Sat Feb 04, 2012 1:58 pm  

Robbo wrote:

Watched the match this morning and thought the whole powerplay thing was stupid and a waste of time. It's something I would not want to see in our game. Whats wrong with keeping it 13 against 13?? It may be meant to create more try's, but whats the point if those try's are coming of the back of a weakened defence rather than good attacking play? Silly idea which is something youd expect to see in american football, not in rugby league.

the wiping of the tackle count for ruck offences kept the game going and was good in that aspect... but as a viewer I found it impossible to know what infringement had been made, and I bet the players didn't know themselves half the time. It will all be down to interpretation by the refs which imo is what could ruin it. today i felt the indigenous team got penalised in this way constantly yet the nrl team seemed to get away with similar things but got away with it. I'm insure If I'd want to see it become a permanent thing. especially the way the refs interpret things in super league I just don't think it would work.

the 20/40 thing is fine by me really, pretty impartial to that rule change.

Haven't seen the game, but don't need to to argue about the powerplay gimmick. It's just not rugby league.

Wouldn't mind seeing the wiping of the tackle count in action to make a judgement on it because I think it may have some potential, and by the sound of it it has sped the game up. You bring up a good point though in people not knowing that an offence has occurred or what offence has occurred. Perhaps they'd need a certain signal or something to highlight during gameplay.