Coaching enforced rule changes

[Dexter]

A few rule changes over the last 10 years or so have been forced by coaches who found loopholes in the rules and eventually all teams followed suit to the point the game was suffering as a spectacle.

Contesting the ball in the ruck changed after every side started to kick at the ball especially when they had a team pinned on their line.

Third man in raking the ball.

Sticking a foot on the sideline in goal and touching the ball whilst still moving achieved 20m restart.

There is probably a few others but those are the three which come to mind.

The next one I believe will be stopping the 3rd and 4th player in who don't contribute in any way to the tackle but get involved purely to slow things down.

This to me is the greatest blight on the game. Teams are getting so good at it and the refs don't have the onions to blow a penalty for deliberatley slowing the play the ball. As long as a defender arrives whilst the tackle is still in motion they're happy enough to let 4 players pile on each other.
IMO rugby league will quickly lose popularity if the NRL continue to let the game become a contest in who can hold down the best.

End of rant. (We should have a smilie stamping its feet.)

 

[spoonbled]

if these got changed, coaches would just find something else to practice and slow the ruck down and get away with it.

 

[Hamm.0]

Wrestling/ Grappling, however you spin it is by far the biggest problem in RL at the moment.

We went from touch football to Olympic wrestling in less than 10 years!

 

[Dexter]

Exactly right, and if Gallop doesn't get it fixed every side will become expert at it. Can you imagine the Storm playing the Storm? Boring as bat shit.

 

[The Brizz]

Just like the Sydney clubs slowly dying, this is all a case of reactive management from the NRL. Just because something isn't completely broken yet they refuse to fix it, the game is not as entertaining now as it was even a few seasons ago. The ruck is being bogged down and wrestling is a blight on the game. I would love the NRL to establish a "3 Man Max" to the tackle and "1 Man Max" when the player hits the ground.

 

[Coxy]

I'd just like them to enforce the rule book. As soon as held is called the tackler is to release the tackled player. That means instantly let go.

Unfortunately that led to the touch footy style in Super League, so we get back to square one.
Could take out the requirement to be square at marker. Just have to be in front and within a metre of the play the ball. That will help reduce dummyhalf running.

Also reduce the defensive line to 5 metres back. It'll be quicker play the balls and so defences will still be moving backwards a bit, so there's still an opportunity to get forward momentum.

I dunno, it's just boring as batshit at the moment in the ruck.

 

[Dexter]

Thats right Coxy, enforce the rule book. The refs have the rules already to fix the ruck they just lack the direction from above.

If the rule book was enforced from the start I would say the wrestle would not have developed. Things like getting to your feet, being square when you play the ball, touching the ball with your foot.

If i was a ref and teams piled 4 into a tackle then took too long to get off I would penalise, dominant or not.

Its the choice of the defending team how many players they have in a tackle but if a 3rd or 4th player hasn't contributed to the tackle then they are there for 1 reason only.

Its something the refs could easily put into practice but like I said not 1 of them has the onions to take the initiative.

 

[BroncoMatt]

I heard an interesting idea about multiple tackles.

However many people are in the tackle then have to stand in indian file at marker. So if 4 people are involved in a tackle, the 4 of them need to stand behind each other at marker. It would then give the team in a possesion plenty of holes in the defensive line to attack.

It's a bit out there, but it would certainly make teams think twice about getting numbers in tackles

 

[Hamm.0]

Matt, we would then have 2 on 1 tackles, resulting in massive mistackle counts!

For this to work, the interchange would need to be reduced. Too many energetic forwards ripping through 2man tackles late in the game!

 

[The Brizz]

Matt, we would then have 2 on 1 tackles, resulting in massive mistackle counts!

For this to work, the interchange would need to be reduced. Too many energetic forwards ripping through 2man tackles late in the game!

Great, make the game about attack and give the attacking side the advantage again! Defense doesn't get crowds through the doors tries do and we need crowds and entertaining football is the way to get them.

 

[Coxy]

LOL, I read the first sentence of your post MB and thought you were being sarcastic! I agree though, attack is what brings excitement.

Plus I think motivating teams to improve 1 on 1 an 2 on 1 defence will only result in BETTER tackling techniques, rather than wrestling techniques. I like the idea.

What's better than seeing a beautiful, ball and all tackle by 1 or 2 players? I much prefer that than seeing 3 or 4 players monster a bloke and lie all over him.

 

[The Brizz]

LOL, I read the first sentence of your post MB and thought you were being sarcastic! I agree though, attack is what brings excitement.

Plus I think motivating teams to improve 1 on 1 an 2 on 1 defence will only result in BETTER tackling techniques, rather than wrestling techniques. I like the idea.

What's better than seeing a beautiful, ball and all tackle by 1 or 2 players? I much prefer that than seeing 3 or 4 players monster a bloke and lie all over him.

Lol, I agree 100% I love watching a 30-24 match with a few errors but lots of flowing football than a 8-6 wrestling war any day. The amount defenders has to come down and as you said it will limit the effectiveness of the shoulder charge and increase the value of really good tackling techniques.