I can see the interpretation changing week to week, there's no way it'll be black and white.
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).
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.How can something that was legal for 108 years suddenly be considered foul play.
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...
But there already was a rule... the dangerous tackle rule.Blame the RLPA. They are putting more pressure on the NRL to take player welfare more seriously.
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.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
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.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.
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.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.
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 lineI 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.
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).Has there been a new NRL rule that benefited the defence?
Man you’re Half the reason why I go on this site. Never changeWhen 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