Rule changes you'd like to see

[Alec]

I don't know about actual rules, but I do want to see a captain's challenge (Cricket and Tennis style) and just being able to overturn bad decisions, since you can usually tell mere seconds afterwards watching the replays.

I guess the latter kinda makes the former unnecessary though.

 

[Coxy]

Would be nice but it won't happen, its an absolute joke what it has become, at times you don't even have a genuine hooker in there. Personally I would rather just see them play the ball in those instances rather then the current mess it is.

If you want mess, look at Rugby's so called "real scrums". They constantly collapse. At one stage in the yawn fest against Argentina they packed 5 scrums on the same patch of grass over the space of 5 minutes.

"Real" scrums are ugly.

I'm fine with what we have as a cheap way to hand over the ball. I wouldn't be against scrapping them altogether for a handover though.

 

[Big Pete]

I actually like the NYC captain's challenge system. You can't use it to overturn discretionary calls (holding down too long etc.) but everything else is fair game. I'm sure other Broncos fans may not be too thrilled with it after the Tigers final but I definitely think it's something that should be looked into.

I'd scrap golden point altogether. It's invention was a typical NSWRL overreaction to a result that didn't go their way and as a result we had a half-baked concept. If we must have sudden death over-time then I'd scrap the half-time break in the middle. Usually it prevents teams from achieving a result.

Fine with scrums the way they are. As Coxy said, there is nothing more boring than authentic scrum play.

 

[BroncsNBundy]

A Scrum is supposed to be a contest. Both teams having a chance to win the ball. I think very applibable in some of those
dodgy strips that are given as knock ons

 

[Coxy]

Nup. We don't need a contest for possession.

 

[Morkel]

A Scrum is supposed to be a contest. Both teams having a chance to win the ball. I think very applibable in some of those
dodgy strips that are given as knock ons

But that doesn't penalise the team who just dropped the ball. Or threw the ball over the sideline. Or threw the forward pass. Or kicked out. Why should they get the opportunity to get the ball back after fucking up?

 

[Anonymous person]

scrums shouldnt be a contest, and ive been one of the 'well we dont need them if theyre not a contest' thinkers in the past, but scrum-base moves are awesome to watch and provide another dynamic that just isnt there at any other time in a game, and for that they need to stay.

 

[Huge]

Yes, I'd like to see the scrum as a contest ! My solution to the feeding problem is elegant in its simplicity, have the second ref feed the scrum. If he is unsatisfied with one or the other side he awards a penalty ! In afl they are involved in the bounce,throw etc so a ref involved is not a problem. The only exception is the forty twenty with the successful team simply given possession when the line is set. Perhaps that could be modified to be play on when the successful team is ready, to stop the defence dawdling up field. Either way they still get a reward for the 40/20.

 

[Coxy]

Yes, I'd like to see the scrum as a contest ! My solution to the feeding problem is elegant in its simplicity, have the second ref feed the scrum. If he is unsatisfied with one or the other side he awards a penalty ! In afl they are involved in the bounce,throw etc so a ref involved is not a problem. The only exception is the forty twenty with the successful team simply given possession when the line is set. Perhaps that could be modified to be play on when the successful team is ready, to stop the defence dawdling up field. Either way they still get a reward for the 40/20.

But no punishment for losing the ball, throwing a forward pass etc.

The only remotely valid reason to have a contest for possession is for kicking into touch (Except 40/20).

 

[Anonymous person]

but why should a team who knocks-on get a chance to get the ball back? they made a mistake, they should lose possession.

 

[Porthoz]

Agreed Coxy. Giving both teams an even chance to contest the ball in a scrum, is essentially rewarding the team that messed up. Not a fan!

 

[KingWebcke]

I still remember a time in rugby league when the scrums were partially contested; it was unbelievably scrappy and messy. I can't believe people would want to go back to that.

 

[subsbligh]

Agreed Coxy. Giving both teams an even chance to contest the ball in a scrum, is essentially rewarding the team that messed up. Not a fan!

Rugby -> evolved -> Rugby League

Rugby has contested scrums and contested lineouts for knock ons and the ball going into touch. Always has. Dunno why RL scrapped it - or was it one day the halfback started feeding the ball through the second row and that was it.

Rugby League is one of the only team sports where the defence can't contest/compete for the ball (except for the very limited and high risk situation of 1 on 1 strip). Think AFL, soccer, hockey, basketball, rugby, netball (to a degree I suppose).

Hence it is about ball control, possession and territory. Use your guaranteed 6 possessions effectively, wait for a mistake from the opposition.

Perhaps more competition for the ball -> less boring football.

 

[KingWebcke]

Dunno why RL scrapped it - or was it one day the halfback started feeding the ball through the second row and that was it.

scrums were still regularly contested in rugby league in the 1980s. if you were alive then to watch, you'd perfectly understand why rugby league got rid of them; they were shambolic.

they were unbelievably messy, took 3 times as long to complete and despite what people claim, they didn't really add to the spectacle.

Allowing players to feed into the second row was a good innovation, just like the decision to stop markers striking at the ball with their feet during the play-the-ball. it reduces the competition for the ball but makes the game far more enjoyable to watch

 

[Alec]

I see scrums as an opportunity to try some Union style set plays...when in the opposition half. Otherwise they are worthless.
A captain should be able to call for one after a knock-on or just decide to play the ball from the spot.

 

[Broncoman]

I would drop the extra-time rule for regular season games and keep it exclusive to Finals and Origin games as it's not necessary for the home and away season. If the game ends in a draw both teams get the 1 point which awards both teams on their effort.

 

[KingWebcke]

another reason to get rid of extra time is that teams who win in golden point still get the same 2 points as a team that won in regulation. I find that a bit unfair because golden point is really just a way of saying 'hey, neither of you were actually good enough to win, so we're going to give you a second chance at earning the 2 points'.

 

[Huge]

All valid points but can I say, I was alive to see the scrums contested and yes they were messy then but, if the second ref feeds the scrum they would be a great deal less scrappy. Rugby union has the ref set the packs and although they are more complicated they regularly set them without a problem. The league scrum is way less complicated and with the ref setting them he gets what he wants. No team would risk a penalty if the ref had dominant control. He could for example award the non offending team ( the team that packs correctly and is not trying it on) a twenty metre gain in ground and uncontested possession.

if the half back is removed from the feeding both packs would bind solidly. It is just a thought.