2010 Rule Changes, Ideas to fix the game
- Thread starter Charmamba
- Start date
Anonymous person
Banned User
- Dec 16, 2008
- 4,635
- 932
wtf?!
lol seriously guys, its not hard to understand. yes, im aware that it NEVER happens (getting called for voluntary tackle) but im just saying they may as well scrap the rule partly because it never happens, and partly because it really makes no sense to even have the rule in the first place.
here is as easy an explanation as you can possibly get:
1. player A gets the ball.
2. player A dives to the ground at the feet of an opponent, doing a 'voluntary tackle'.
3. player A then 'plays' the ball between his legs, but no tackle was actually made.
this would usually be where a penalty would be given for a voluntary tackle. im just saying why bother even penalising it? the player didnt knock on or anything, so why cant he just roll the ball back through his legs? his teams not getting an advantage, because since no tackle was made the defenders dont need to go back 10 metres. its just play on, as if Player A knocked the ball backwards, since essentially thats all hes doing.
seriously, are you guys STILL not getting this?
you wouldnt penalise a player for getting the ball turning around and throwing it 20 metres backwards, would you? no. so i dont see why you need to penalise a player for getting the ball and rolling it backwards between his legs? he can still get tackled while doing so, and the defenders could jump on the ball while hes rolling it, so again, im not seeing how somehow this constitutes them 'getting an advantage'?
lol seriously guys, its not hard to understand. yes, im aware that it NEVER happens (getting called for voluntary tackle) but im just saying they may as well scrap the rule partly because it never happens, and partly because it really makes no sense to even have the rule in the first place.
here is as easy an explanation as you can possibly get:
1. player A gets the ball.
2. player A dives to the ground at the feet of an opponent, doing a 'voluntary tackle'.
3. player A then 'plays' the ball between his legs, but no tackle was actually made.
this would usually be where a penalty would be given for a voluntary tackle. im just saying why bother even penalising it? the player didnt knock on or anything, so why cant he just roll the ball back through his legs? his teams not getting an advantage, because since no tackle was made the defenders dont need to go back 10 metres. its just play on, as if Player A knocked the ball backwards, since essentially thats all hes doing.
seriously, are you guys STILL not getting this?
you wouldnt penalise a player for getting the ball turning around and throwing it 20 metres backwards, would you? no. so i dont see why you need to penalise a player for getting the ball and rolling it backwards between his legs? he can still get tackled while doing so, and the defenders could jump on the ball while hes rolling it, so again, im not seeing how somehow this constitutes them 'getting an advantage'?
Anonymous person
Banned User
- Dec 16, 2008
- 4,635
- 932
from reading the posts its clear that thats not where people are getting dumbfounded, aside from you.
im just saying why even bother having a rule for something that never happens, and if it did happen there really is no reason why it should be a penalty because its not giving them an advantage and theyre not doing anything outside of every other rule of the game.
geez, im sorry for even mentioning it lol. its a change that i think they should make just so it literally removes ALL doubt about voluntary tackles. how many times do you see someone dive out of their in-goals, and get up to play the ball while a defender just stands there with a hand on him appealing to the ref for a penalty? i see it at least once every weekend. this would just completely remove any doubt in the defenders mind over the question of 'should i leave him and hope the referee makes a call and i get a penalty, or should i tackle him?'. its just making the game easier to not only police, but for the players to play.
then again, since its taken people on here 10+ posts to get their head around the fact that its just play on, like the player just knocked it back, maybe me thinking it would make it easier for footy players to know what to do is a stretch?
im just saying why even bother having a rule for something that never happens, and if it did happen there really is no reason why it should be a penalty because its not giving them an advantage and theyre not doing anything outside of every other rule of the game.
geez, im sorry for even mentioning it lol. its a change that i think they should make just so it literally removes ALL doubt about voluntary tackles. how many times do you see someone dive out of their in-goals, and get up to play the ball while a defender just stands there with a hand on him appealing to the ref for a penalty? i see it at least once every weekend. this would just completely remove any doubt in the defenders mind over the question of 'should i leave him and hope the referee makes a call and i get a penalty, or should i tackle him?'. its just making the game easier to not only police, but for the players to play.
then again, since its taken people on here 10+ posts to get their head around the fact that its just play on, like the player just knocked it back, maybe me thinking it would make it easier for footy players to know what to do is a stretch?
Anonymous person
Banned User
- Dec 16, 2008
- 4,635
- 932
its not a knock on if it comes backwards from your hands, which is how i would roll the ball backwards.
some people say theres nothing wrong with the obstruction rule now, does that mean there isnt?
some people say theres nothing wrong with the obstruction rule now, does that mean there isnt?
Professor47
NRL Player
- Mar 5, 2008
- 1,632
- 81
Some good points AB but I have to agree with the others on the V tackle. Players will start playing the ball so fast with barely a hand on them and d half runners will jump out to catch markers and players offside coming out from your own 10m. No good.
Also, no go for the 'challenge' rule - this has been discussed before... it will just delay the game waaaaaaay too much. Some people have said maybe only one 'challenge' allowed per game. But this becomes more of a tactic rather than anything else. (eg halting a teams momentum etc etc) I dont think RL needs a 'challenge' rule.
I do agree to some extent about the ball knocked loose from a tackle. Years ago it was 9/10 knock on! Some of the knock backs the refs have been calling recently baffle me. However to make that a black and white turnover or penalty is just going to stop offloads and if anything we want more in the game right now.
The corner post rule seems the most obvious one. It pains me that RL demand tradition in some areas and neglect that aspect in others. This is one they cannot seem to let go. Quite baffling to be honest with you. They just dont make sense any more. Get rid of them.
Also, no go for the 'challenge' rule - this has been discussed before... it will just delay the game waaaaaaay too much. Some people have said maybe only one 'challenge' allowed per game. But this becomes more of a tactic rather than anything else. (eg halting a teams momentum etc etc) I dont think RL needs a 'challenge' rule.
I do agree to some extent about the ball knocked loose from a tackle. Years ago it was 9/10 knock on! Some of the knock backs the refs have been calling recently baffle me. However to make that a black and white turnover or penalty is just going to stop offloads and if anything we want more in the game right now.
The corner post rule seems the most obvious one. It pains me that RL demand tradition in some areas and neglect that aspect in others. This is one they cannot seem to let go. Quite baffling to be honest with you. They just dont make sense any more. Get rid of them.
Anonymous person
Banned User
- Dec 16, 2008
- 4,635
- 932
lockyer47 said:
like ive explained numerous times, that wont work because it wont be called a tackle and as such the defenders dont need to retreat 10m.
im NOT saying that what is currently a voluntary tackle will be treated like a normal tackle - im saying that its not counted as a tackle and not penalised, its just play on. if you want to jump at my feet and get up and play the ball, ill just tackle you when youre going to put the ball down and chances are youll lose control and its a turnover.
I'm not totally against a challenge, but it should only be available to tries not ruled by the video referee. So if a referee just awards a try, the defensive team can challenge it and ask for a review.
Conversely if the referee rules no try, the attacking team can ask for a review.
Then it just goes to the video referee for examination under the same premise it always does.
With the video referee, I think the only adjustments should be"
- They should get 1 look from each available angle to start with.
- Replays should all be in normal speed, with the ability to freeze to review offside only.
- Video referee can then ask for one or two angles to be repeated in normal speed
- to disallow a try the video referee must be 100% sure it's no try, ie, clear evidence a foot is out, ball was lost, ball was held up or obstruction occurred
- to allow a try the video referee must see the ball on the ground in the in goal with the attacking player's hand/s on it.
- If neither of the above is true, Refs call
Sounds like a lot of steps, but you think about it, there'd be probably 4-6 angles available depending on who's covering the game and what type it is. In fast motion each replay should take 5 seconds max. 1 or 2 additional replays, another 5 seconds each. All up you're looking at about 1 minute to make a decision.
That's acceptable IMO.
If after the replays have been shown, if the video referee saw the ball planted, and can't be certain it's no try, then it's a try. NO benefit of the doubt. Everytime I saw that it was basically like saying "I'll give it, but I don't think it's really a try" which is bullshit.
Conversely if the referee rules no try, the attacking team can ask for a review.
Then it just goes to the video referee for examination under the same premise it always does.
With the video referee, I think the only adjustments should be"
- They should get 1 look from each available angle to start with.
- Replays should all be in normal speed, with the ability to freeze to review offside only.
- Video referee can then ask for one or two angles to be repeated in normal speed
- to disallow a try the video referee must be 100% sure it's no try, ie, clear evidence a foot is out, ball was lost, ball was held up or obstruction occurred
- to allow a try the video referee must see the ball on the ground in the in goal with the attacking player's hand/s on it.
- If neither of the above is true, Refs call
Sounds like a lot of steps, but you think about it, there'd be probably 4-6 angles available depending on who's covering the game and what type it is. In fast motion each replay should take 5 seconds max. 1 or 2 additional replays, another 5 seconds each. All up you're looking at about 1 minute to make a decision.
That's acceptable IMO.
If after the replays have been shown, if the video referee saw the ball planted, and can't be certain it's no try, then it's a try. NO benefit of the doubt. Everytime I saw that it was basically like saying "I'll give it, but I don't think it's really a try" which is bullshit.
Anonymous person
Banned User
- Dec 16, 2008
- 4,635
- 932
to quote myself from a few posts ago:
"geez, im sorry for even mentioning it lol. its a change that i think they should make just so it literally removes ALL doubt about voluntary tackles. how many times do you see someone dive out of their in-goals, and get up to play the ball while a defender just stands there with a hand on him appealing to the ref for a penalty? i see it at least once every weekend. this would just completely remove any doubt in the defenders mind over the question of 'should i leave him and hope the referee makes a call and i get a penalty, or should i tackle him?'. its just making the game easier to not only police, but for the players to play."
"geez, im sorry for even mentioning it lol. its a change that i think they should make just so it literally removes ALL doubt about voluntary tackles. how many times do you see someone dive out of their in-goals, and get up to play the ball while a defender just stands there with a hand on him appealing to the ref for a penalty? i see it at least once every weekend. this would just completely remove any doubt in the defenders mind over the question of 'should i leave him and hope the referee makes a call and i get a penalty, or should i tackle him?'. its just making the game easier to not only police, but for the players to play."
Anonymous person
Banned User
- Dec 16, 2008
- 4,635
- 932
because youre not getting tackled. it will count as a tackle when youre tackled.
does a knock-back count as a tackle? no? so why would rolling it back?
does a knock-back count as a tackle? no? so why would rolling it back?
