2010 Rule Changes, Ideas to fix the game

[Anonymous person]

but how is that going to help them? the defenders can still tackle them while theyre doing it, and tackle the dummy half guy as soon as he touches the ball.

im not saying that the game should change so everyone voluntarily gets tackled - just that in the VERY odd occasion that a voluntary tackle would be ruled, which to be honest ive never seen one, it should be let go as they didnt break any of the real rules determining what you can and cant do with the ball in hand.

 

[Coxy]

It almost never happens, but when it does, it should be penalised.

What I do think needs to change is the penalty if you aren't sure if you're tackled and you run again. Should simply be brought back to play the ball.

 

[Anonymous person]

why should it be penalised though? its not a knock on, its not a forward pass, its not offside, its not stopping the defenders from tackling you.......i honestly dont see why theres a need to penalise it?

 

[Nashy]

Because they're pussies. That's why. Gotta toughen them up.

 

[Coxy]

why should it be penalised though? its not a knock on, its not a forward pass, its not offside, its not stopping the defenders from tackling you.......i honestly dont see why theres a need to penalise it?

Because they'll then get tackled as they "play the ball" when not entitled, and start a bitch fight.

 

[Charmamba]

3. Scrums - eliminate them. there is literally no reason to have them. if a team knocks on, why should they be given the opportunity (however slim) to get the ball back from the scrum? they shouldnt. and in this day and age, the halfback just throws the ball through a single leg thats stuck out the side of the scrum - whats the point of that? get rid of them all together.

6. Appeal system for contentious decisions. Coaches/teams can challenge decisions of Try or No Try. if their challenge is successful, the decision is overturned. if unsuccessful, the decision stands and they lose an interchange. when a team challenges a decision, a separate review board of 3 judges looks at the call and makes a decision. the referee and video referee give their opinions on the decision to this panel as to why they ruled the way they did. the panel would NOT be referees, but people that understand the game and not just the rule book.

7. Knock-ons/loose ball - far too often these days referees are blurring the lines between what is a knock-on and what is a knock-back. if a player loses the ball in a tackle, more often than not they just say it was a knock-on, when it clearly goes back lots of the time. to stop this, ANY ball that comes loose in a tackle is a 'loose ball', and is a turnover. if the ball was raked its a penalty, if not its a turnover.

10. 'Review committee' watching the entire time - the review committee (who rule on challenged decisions) should be able to rule on knock-ons and forward passes at any time. if all 3 of them agree there was a BLATANT knock-on/forward pass, they relay to the referee who halts the game. line-balls are given the benefit of the doubt to the attacking team.

11. Voluntary tackle - scrap it. seriously, why is this rule in the game? if a player gets the ball, runs up, stops and rolls the ball between his legs to a 'dummy half' positioned player without anyone even touching them, what rule did they break? they didnt knock-on, they didnt do a forward pass, theres no offside. The defense can tackle them at any time, or jump on the ball when they play it, but it should not be penalised.

13. Goal posts - adopt posts of the grid-iron nature, with the single pole holding them up being behind the dead ball line, extending over the goals to where the crossbar and uprights are.

3. Scrums must stay, i love the plays that some clubs pull of from the scrum. they dont do it all the time but when they do it generally looks pretty awesome.

6. I dont want a 80minute game to last 3hrs like the NFL. If the Nrl becomes slow like the NFl people will switch off.

7. Nope id much rather have the ref screw up a few drop balls then to have a player flip the ball out the back only to have to hand it over. NO player will risk an offload if that rule was in. Boring

10. See 6. I would hate the game to be slowed down that much. bugger it gimme a bad call over a 10minute delay.

11. As Coxy said. touch footy. We would start having 100 point games way to often.

13. i love seeing the old kicks into the post ect. let the NFL keep their post to their game.

 

[Coxy]

There's a lot of criticism of the video referee, but IMO that stems from inadequacies in the game's rules.

eg, the grounding rule...separation...torso. Blech. As AP suggested, to ground the ball you should have to have control of it in your hands. That means you can't simply dive on a ball on the ground. You would have to pick it up and then ground it. If it's bouncing, you have to catch it and plant it, not just push your hands down on top of it.

That'd make 90% of grubber try decisions piss easy to make for the video referee. You wouldn't be looking for separation. You would be looking for control. It'd probably cut 4-5 tries a week from the game, but so what? I find it very uninteresting seeing stacks on a loose ball and hope it's a try.

Only people who should be able to just dive on the ball to ground it are the defence.

I think obstruction can be cleared up too by requiring there be, in the opinion of the referees, some intent to obstruct the defence. If a decoy runner goes through and never had a chance to get the ball (ie, they were in front of the ball player) and then stands in the defensive line, that's intent to obstruct.

If they run through genuinely looking for and having a chance to receive the ball and then make reasonable effort to get out of the way, or are tackled on suspicion, play on.

 

[Anonymous person]

why should it be penalised though? its not a knock on, its not a forward pass, its not offside, its not stopping the defenders from tackling you.......i honestly dont see why theres a need to penalise it?

Because they'll then get tackled as they "play the ball" when not entitled, and start a bitch fight.

when was the last time you saw a voluntary tackle penalised though? honest question, as i can never remember a single one.

thats all im saying - in the 1 out of every 10 billion tackles or so that could be deemed a voluntary tackle, just let it play on. guy jumps on his stomach and goes to play the ball without you laying a finger on him? just tackle the cr@p out of him! no need for a penalty.

 

[Coxy]

[quote="Anonymous person":2xbk9hud]why should it be penalised though? its not a knock on, its not a forward pass, its not offside, its not stopping the defenders from tackling you.......i honestly dont see why theres a need to penalise it?

Because they'll then get tackled as they "play the ball" when not entitled, and start a bitch fight.

when was the last time you saw a voluntary tackle penalised though? honest question, as i can never remember a single one.

thats all im saying - in the 1 out of every 10 billion tackles or so that could be deemed a voluntary tackle, just let it play on. guy jumps on his stomach and goes to play the ball without you laying a finger on him? just tackle the cr@p out of him! no need for a penalty.[/quote:2xbk9hud]

And that's what happens. And if they don't tackle him the ref says "play on play on", guy on ground starts to move, and defender tackles him.

No big deal.

I don't see the need to change it.

 

[Nashy]

If they get rid of it, will people abuse it? Probably.

 

[Anonymous person]

6. I dont want a 80minute game to last 3hrs like the NFL. If the Nrl becomes slow like the NFl people will switch off.

7. Nope id much rather have the ref screw up a few drop balls then to have a player flip the ball out the back only to have to hand it over. NO player will risk an offload if that rule was in. Boring

10. See 6. I would hate the game to be slowed down that much. bugger it gimme a bad call over a 10minute delay.

11. As Coxy said. touch footy. We would start having 100 point games way to often.

13. i love seeing the old kicks into the post ect. let the NFL keep their post to their game.

they wouldnt last 3 hours, it might add a few minutes to the length of a match - but that extra few minutes means we get the right decisions, which could affect the outcome of the game. lord knows QLD wouldve won the opening game of the 2000 origin series if this were the case. who knows how the series wouldve turned out then? same with the 2002 series - anyone with half a brain could see lockyer scored that try which wouldve won us the series instead of getting a draw, but the video ref didnt have that half a brain.

if a player intentionally passes the ball thats fine. its when they get hit and just drop it, or what youd call a 'loose carry' that its a turnover. very clear and obvious distinction, easy to police.

as for 10, it wouldnt slow down the game at all any more than if the referee was actually doing his job.

11 would in no way make it like touch footy. read the previous posts if you need further clarification.

 

[Anonymous person]

If they get rid of it, will people abuse it? Probably.

how - and why - would you abuse something that disadvantages you?

 

[Nashy]

Slows the game down. Means the other team won't get a dominant tackle (or do they in this case), and means that the fans won't get to see the game played as it should be.

 

[Coxy]

It doesn't disadvantage you if you dive on the ground after fielding a kick close to your line and jump up and play it without a hand being laid on you. It's a quick play the ball which gives you a great advantage.

 

[Anonymous person]

It doesn't disadvantage you if you dive on the ground after fielding a kick close to your line and jump up and play it without a hand being laid on you. It's a quick play the ball which gives you a great advantage.

but it is a disadvantage because you can be picked up/tackled while youre on the ground? im not saying to change the way a tackle is called or anything!

how is jumping on the ground, getting up, and rolling the ball between your legs to a guy behind you WHILE defenders can be tackling you NOT a disadvantage? when the guy picked it up, from what would be dummy half, the ONSIDE defenders would literally be right in front of him. since it was not a tackle, they dont have to go back 10m.

you guys are seriously reading far too much into it. there is literally NO way that it could even remotely possibly be used to get an advantage.

in your example coxy, the guy who dives on the ball has 2 options - get up and run it, or get up and play it. if he gets up and runs it, he makes metres. if he gets up and plays the ball he gets crash tackled while trying to do so and possibly loses possession and the opposition jumps on the loose ball and scores. again, no way it is an advantage to the attacking team.

just to reiterate, cause nashy seems to have taken the wrong thing from what im saying - if you just get up and play the ball without anyone touching you, it is NOT counted as a tackle and the defenders DONT have to go back 10m. its just play on, as if you caught the ball, accidentally knocked it back, and someone else picked it up.

 

[Charmamba]

they dont have to go back the 10? you can just roll the ball when you feel like?


Union?

 

[Anonymous person]

they dont have to go back the 10? you can just roll the ball when you feel like?


Union?

its not a tackle, so why would they go back 10m?

seriously, how are you guys getting so confused with this [icon_lol1. . a voluntary tackle is one where no defender makes contact. if theres no contact, its not a tackle, so noone has to go back 10m. im just saying that theres no reason for it to be a penalty since theres no knock-on, no forward pass, no obstruction etc. just let it be play on.

 

[Coxy]

I don't get it because it never happens, so why make an issue of it? The voluntary tackle gets called if the player is not held and lies motionless or stands still. Nothing to do with playing the ball.