NRL 2023 Rule Amendments

[Organix]

I'm taking bets.

how many rounds before the bunker intervenes when a player has his hair brushed by an opponent and stays down ... even though the new "interpretation" says they are only allowed to intervene (for foul play) if it act is serious enough to be put on report.

p.s. hasn't that been the rule for years anyway? and if so, did Annesley accidently just admit that the bunker hasn't been following the rules for the last couple of years?

What about when a player lowers his chin into the opposition tackler's forearm, which incidentally is ccorrectly positioned for the tackle, but said tackler is known for his propensity for poor tackles? Will bunker get involved if ref misses chin to arm technique of ball runner?

 

[NSW stables]

10m compliance in general play​

Active defenders must have both feet in line or behind the referee when setting the 10-metre defensive line. Referees will have the option of awarding a full penalty for multiple 10m breaches without requiring the mandatory use of the sin bin. Referees can still use the sin bin if they consider breaches to be deliberate or cynical. The changes will give further clarity to officials and teams around what constitutes a breach of the rules.


^ Like that will ever stop Melbourne's legendary flying V defense.

What they really have to specify is when the defence can move. Penrith are tearing off the line when the ball hits the ground to be played (this is before it clears the ruck so technically offside) so they are already in the receivers face when he gets the ball. Other teams when the foot strikes it backwards. We dont do either because we have shit line speed.

 

[BroncsFan]

What they really have to specify is when the defence can move. Penrith are tearing off the line when the ball hits the ground to be played (this is before it clears the ruck so technically offside) so they are already in the receivers face when he gets the ball. Other teams when the foot strikes it backwards. We dont do either because we have shit line speed.

We have non-existent linespeed, but still get pinged for offside in yardage situations

 

[kman]

After watching the trial the ref's done a very poor job keeping players onside especially on the goal line and needs to be fixed.

 

[BroncsFan]

After watching the trial the ref's done a very poor job keeping players onside especially on the goal line and needs to be fixed.

What... no... this can't be true... I'm shook... it's their job to know and enforce the rules... how can this be

 

[LittleDavey]

What they really have to specify is when the defence can move. Penrith are tearing off the line when the ball hits the ground to be played (this is before it clears the ruck so technically offside) so they are already in the receivers face when he gets the ball. Other teams when the foot strikes it backwards. We dont do either because we have shit line speed.

So much this!! It might only be an extra second, but that's all it takes for the attack to be on the back foot. Every. Single. Play. It's not just the Panthers either, but they're certainly one of the best at it. It's blatant.

This is also another area where conscious or unconscious bias plays a part. For example, Penrith have the reputation for good line speed so they are likely to get the benefit of the doubt if they're up early. The Broncos are known for shit line speed, so if the Broncos are in their opponents' face they are likely to be called as offside. I don't even see how this can be controversial, the ref can only be looking in one direction at a time - they cannot possibly be watching the ruck as well as the 10m to either side of them. So there absolutely must be an element of subjectiveness in "inside the 10" calls where that bias will play a part. Leading to 6-agains etc etc etc.

 

[Sproj]

Remember, 'The better teams give away less penalties and receive more because they are better and inherently have the ball more.' - Annersley, 2022

 

[BroncsFan]

Remember, 'The better teams give away less penalties and receive more because they are better and inherently have the ball more.' - Annersley, 2022

"Just be better" - Vlando.... truly inspiring words to live by

 

[Sproj]

"Just be better" - Vlando.... truly inspiring words to live by

Unfortunately, this does not apply to the NRL CEO or chairman.

 

[BroncsFan]

Unfortunately, this does not apply to the NRL CEO or chairman.

Why be better when you're already the best

They've elevated the NRL to the pinnacle of sports administration, boasting impeccable impartiality and integrity.... truly inspiring

We should all be so happy to be involved in such a competition.... especially as qld'ers.... this is their world we've just been invited to participate in it

 

[LittleDavey]

Why be better when you're already the best

They've elevated the NRL to the pinnacle of sports administration, boasting impeccable impartiality and integrity.... truly inspiring

We should all be so happy to be involved in such a competition.... especially as qld'ers.... this is their world we've just been invited to participate in it

I know this is tongue in cheek, but.....

Mods can we please have a vomit reaction emoji?

 

[Morkel]

So much this!! It might only be an extra second, but that's all it takes for the attack to be on the back foot. Every. Single. Play. It's not just the Panthers either, but they're certainly one of the best at it. It's blatant.

This is also another area where conscious or unconscious bias plays a part. For example, Penrith have the reputation for good line speed so they are likely to get the benefit of the doubt if they're up early. The Broncos are known for shit line speed, so if the Broncos are in their opponents' face they are likely to be called as offside. I don't even see how this can be controversial, the ref can only be looking in one direction at a time - they cannot possibly be watching the ruck as well as the 10m to either side of them. So there absolutely must be an element of subjectiveness in "inside the 10" calls where that bias will play a part. Leading to 6-agains etc etc etc.

Oh yeah, "going back to one ref, because Covid is making us have cutbacks even though zero refs were actually cut". Leaving one ref on the field and therefore in a situation where they MUST defer to the video ref because they see everything.

How very convenient, should I add that to the "totally not the NRL making it easy to manipulate games with zero scrutiny" list @McHunt?

 

[McHunt]

Oh yeah, "going back to one ref, because Covid is making us have cutbacks even though zero refs were actually cut". Leaving one ref on the field and therefore in a situation where they MUST defer to the video ref because they see everything.

How very convenient, should I add that to the "totally not the NRL making it easy to manipulate games with zero scrutiny" list @McHunt?

I don't know. I'm not the one making pissy excuses for my team. If we lose, it's our fault.

 

[Morkel]

I don't know. I'm not the one making pissy excuses for my team. If we lose, it's our fault.

Tigers say Hi.

 

[McHunt]

Tigers say Hi.

You're basing the credibility of your insane conspiracy theory on the outcome of one game that's been post-mortemed beyond bowel tolerance?

 

[Morkel]

You're basing the credibility of your insane conspiracy theory on the outcome of one game that's been post-mortemed beyond bowel tolerance?

You're basing the credibility of the organisation on:

* The people who were happy to overlook confirmed financial fraud because the integrity of the competition is less important than keeping some star players in the game (who happened to be cheating for years).

* Same with the club, who were not only complicit, but instigators. But they need a team in Melbourne for marketing reasons, so all good?

* Somehow found that the Sharks were perfectly compliant in 2016, despite having been found to have been paying players outside the salary cap between 2015 - 2017. So they were still paying players outside the cap in 2016, however it was an amount that would put them over the cap. Which is completely logical - they paid players outside the cap, despite the fact that had they paid them through legit means they would still have been under the cap anyway...

* When the refs allowed a seemingly illegal captains challenge, resulting in a game-changing penalty, the NRL doubled-down and came up with a semi-coherent excuse as to why the challenge was allowed, using rulings and terminology that few people had heard of. It was further compounded by the fact that, had the video ref checked properly, they would have found a Cowboys player off-side from the kick off so even if the challenge was allowed, it should have been denied then and there.

Does this sound like an administration that is credible? Or does it sound like a bunch of self-interested fuckwits who care more about covering their own arses, than they do about running a fair and balanced competition where all the teams have equal opportunity and the best team wins?

 

[Sproj]

* Somehow found that the Sharks were perfectly compliant in 2016, despite having been found to have been paying players outside the salary cap between 2015 - 2017. So they were still paying players outside the cap in 2016, however it was an amount that would put them over the cap. Which is completely logical - they paid players outside the cap, despite the fact that had they paid them through legit means they would still have been under the cap anyway...

 

[McHunt]

You're basing the credibility of the organisation on:

* The people who were happy to overlook confirmed financial fraud because the integrity of the competition is less important than keeping some star players in the game (who happened to be cheating for years).

* Same with the club, who were not only complicit, but instigators. But they need a team in Melbourne for marketing reasons, so all good?

* Somehow found that the Sharks were perfectly compliant in 2016, despite having been found to have been paying players outside the salary cap between 2015 - 2017. So they were still paying players outside the cap in 2016, however it was an amount that would put them over the cap. Which is completely logical - they paid players outside the cap, despite the fact that had they paid them through legit means they would still have been under the cap anyway...

* When the refs allowed a seemingly illegal captains challenge, resulting in a game-changing penalty, the NRL doubled-down and came up with a semi-coherent excuse as to why the challenge was allowed, using rulings and terminology that few people had heard of. It was further compounded by the fact that, had the video ref checked properly, they would have found a Cowboys player off-side from the kick off so even if the challenge was allowed, it should have been denied then and there.

Does this sound like an administration that is credible? Or does it sound like a bunch of self-interested fuckwits who care more about covering their own arses, than they do about running a fair and balanced competition where all the teams have equal opportunity and the best team wins?

I couldn't give a flying **** about any of this.

As far as I'm concerned once the final whistle has blown, the game is over and the referee's decision - whether mistaken or not - is final. That's the agreement between clubs, players and administration.

I prefer to enjoy the spectacle for what it is. Making out the adminstration are gangsters conspiring against our club is too cunty and tiny minded for me to waste my time entertaining.