NRL General Discussion Thread - 2020

Unbreakable

International Rep
Staff
15,842
12,746
🌏
This is going to be dog turd bad. What is the defender supposed to do in a situation like this? Wait until he touches down and then try and hold him up?
I can see the interpretation changing week to week, there's no way it'll be black and white.

I might put some money on Daniel Tupou for leading try scorer next season, nobody can contest him for bombs, and now nobody can attempt to tackle him when he inevitably catches the bombs. He could score 40 tries next season.
 

BroncsFan

NRL Player
2,791
2,546
This is going to be dog turd bad. What is the defender supposed to do in a situation like this? Wait until he touches down and then try and hold him up?
I think the annoying thing is that of the rules being brought in this has been almost immediately identified as an issue by almost every fan.... so how the hell did it get through the competition committee so easily (probably coaches realising the simplicity of exploiting the rule instantly).

I think in that super league example the penalty try may have been misinterpreted... my understanding of an 8 point try is foul play in the act of scoring, such as hitting the player after they've scored or leading with the legs whilst they're scoring, but the key being that the player has already scored.

Being tackled in the air by its nature cannot be an act of foul play in the act of scoring because you are on the ground as part of grounding the ball.

The other thing is has tackling in the air been identified as foul play, like a dangerous tackle, swinging arm, etc.??

How can something that was legal for 108 years suddenly be considered foul play.

I think one thing that super league example shows is that a cross field kick can very quickly be turned into a penalty try with a kick under the sticks rather than a conversion from the sideline... will there be situations where a player gets tackled in the air but grounds the ball and has to take the conversion from the sideline, whilst other players get touched, fumble the ball and get a penalty try under the sticks.

All in all I think the NRL has created a significant amount of problems for themselves with this rule change that no one really had an issue with... especially considering that there was already a rule where the defender couldn't place the attacker in a dangerous position. That rule was already putting onus on the player to tackle them in the air safely.
 

Super Freak

International Captain
Staff
25,935
13,282
Brisbane
How can something that was legal for 108 years suddenly be considered foul play.
Blame the RLPA. They are putting more pressure on the NRL to take player welfare more seriously. And now we get this result. One of the stupidest rule changes in the history of the game.
 

Culhwch

QCup Player
992
1,006
This is going to be dog turd bad. What is the defender supposed to do in a situation like this? Wait until he touches down and then try and hold him up?
Maybe contest the ball? I get your point, though, adding the penalty is ridiculous in that situation. I'd rather the rule remained as putting a player in a dangerous position, and then nonsense like that is avoided...
 

BroncsFan

NRL Player
2,791
2,546
Blame the RLPA. They are putting more pressure on the NRL to take player welfare more seriously.
But there already was a rule... the dangerous tackle rule.

The NRL could've just come out and said we are expanding the dangerous tackle rule for contact in the air... I'm not sure how the rule is currently worded and if it is entirely related to the attacker going beyond the horizontal, but they could expand it to include accidentally taking a players legs out or any contact from the defender that endangers the player in the air (purposefully or accidentally) will be penalised... they don't even need to define what endangers means just indicate it as endangers based on the officials interpretation.

Under this kind of interpretation the onus is entirely on the defender to make sure the contest for the ball remains safe, but at least they can catch the attacker before thy land and take them over the sideline
 
Last edited:

Tom

State of Origin Rep
7,936
7,468
I think the annoying thing is that of the rules being brought in this has been almost immediately identified as an issue by almost every fan.... so how the hell did it get through the competition committee so easily
This. It's actually mind-boggling.
 

Morkel

International Captain
Staff
21,156
17,500
But there already was a rule... the dangerous tackle rule.

The NRL could've just come out and said we are expanding the dangerous tackle rule for contact in the air... I'm not sure how the rule is currently worded and if it is entirely related to the attacker going beyond the horizontal, but they could expand it to include accidentally taking a players legs out or any contact from the defender that endangers the player in the air (purposefully or accidentally) will be penalised... they don't even need to define what endangers means just indicate it as endangers based on the officials interpretation.

Under this kind of interpretation the onus is entirely on the defender to make sure the contest for the ball remains safe, but at least they can catch the attacker before thy land and take them over the sideline
Yep. The rule of a defender not allowing to be tackled mid-air was to prevent tacklers taking their legs out. It could easily be amended / expanded to mean that as long as the tacklers contests for the ball and then, if tackling them, cradles them safely to avoid it becoming dangerous, could then be used on either side of the ball.

Still, even with that rule, I can foresee players deliberately doing an Inglis and purposefully diving for the ground and kicking their legs back to milk the penalty.
 

BroncsFan

NRL Player
2,791
2,546
Yep. The rule of a defender not allowing to be tackled mid-air was to prevent tacklers taking their legs out. It could easily be amended / expanded to mean that as long as the tacklers contests for the ball and then, if tackling them, cradles them safely to avoid it becoming dangerous, could then be used on either side of the ball.

Still, even with that rule, I can foresee players deliberately doing an Inglis and purposefully diving for the ground and kicking their legs back to milk the penalty.
Definite risk of that, but it would take some balls from the player to want to put themselves in that position after leaping that high in the air.

I would also be happy to live with that compared to what we're going to have with teams getting penalties for being touched.

I can already see issues where the defending winger attempts to catch the ball while staying on the ground only to have the opposing winger just jumping from way back with no chance of catching it and the defusal attempt being interpreted as tackling in the air... it's going to be absolute chaos and a non stop kick-athon inside the 20m.

Teams may even become more conservative inside the 20m to make sure they get to that 50/50 chance at the end of the set
 

Art Vandelay

QCup Player
866
751
It was because teams used to deliberately kick the ball dead to limit the impact a fullback can have and to waste time.

This was a tactic mainly used against the likes of Slater, Bowen, Stewart but mainly Slater due to how damaging he could be on a kick return. So they brought in this stupid rule that punishes teams for tactical kicking.

I could live with the rule if it was only for general play kicks that went dead, but it's for every kick and that's just fucking stupid.
That tactic was used in a tiny percentage of games, mostly by cellar dwellers playing against Melbourne. It wasn't a good tactic for teams that were already well matched and it's just another example of the NRL making the game worse by trying to fix imaginary problems.
 

Morkel

International Captain
Staff
21,156
17,500
I like the 20/40 rule. If they're not going to drop to 12 players, the game needs something to break up the defensive lines, this serves as a way to do it.
 

Huge

State of Origin Rep
7,741
4,655
Ipswich
I'd make it that the attacking player must still be in the field of play with possession. That is, not in the in goal area. It's still a crap rule change, I mean how many attacking players have ever been injured? Maybe change the new rule to ensure the attacking player is back on the ground( one foot, hand, contact any part of the body) in the field of play. There has to be something to prevent this being the play every time. 2 point try, no goal kick? Something!
 

BroncsFan

NRL Player
2,791
2,546
I like the 20/40 rule. If they're not going to drop to 12 players, the game needs something to break up the defensive lines, this serves as a way to do it.
I think a 30/30 might've added a bit more tactical consideration to the game compared to a 20/40.. teams are somewhat happy to kick around their 30m mark in order to get the opposition turned around and coming out deep in their own end, so having both the 30m mark and 20m mark in play from the kicking team requires the defence to put more players back to defend rather than being in the line

I don't think teams are as happy to be kicking inside their own 20m unless they're chasing points or it was a really poor set of six, so I can't really see teams trying to take advantage of it except for the DCE's of the world who really back their kicking.

Around the 30m mark is where teams are happy to be a bit more expansive so having the wingers pushed back for the kick any time a team gets beyond the 20m mark (40/20 & 30/30 both in play) I could see as being a bigger point of difference if they were truly trying to implement changes to tactics of the game.
 
Last edited:

Big Pete

International Captain
25,944
10,418
Brisbane
Has there been a new NRL rule that benefited the defence?
For the past twelve years they've been trying to come up with a concrete rule for obstructions. Otherwise the last major change was the introduction of surrender and dominant tackles which I believe came in the early 2000s. Of course the interpretation of the ruck has favoured the defence for quite some time, to the point where they bring in rules just to use them when they need to make the game closer (eg. the 'peel' tackle).
 

Huge

State of Origin Rep
7,741
4,655
Ipswich
The only thing possible I suppose, go for it nba or afl style, just punch or block the ball/hands. Doesn't matter which way it goes. They should tweak the rule to include a 'no knockon' clause for the defenders. If they punch the ball out, knock it forward, any direction no foul, play on if they can gain possession. Only knockon applies to the offense.
 

Tom

State of Origin Rep
7,936
7,468
I wonder if the rule that prevents players from purposefully propelling a ball forward will be used against defenders. Would take the fisting option off the table.
 

something

QCup Player
266
348
When are they going to introduce multi ball where there’s three balls in play at once and a clown rides around on a unicycle for as long as possible and the game reverts to one ball when he falls off? It’s the only logical way to play
Man you’re Half the reason why I go on this site. Never change
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create free account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Login or Register

Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Register now

Twitter

Top