NRL General Discussion Thread

[tommy]

There will be penalty tries or sinbins every week because of this rule.

 

[Cult]

And surely Boyd is out of the question for the wing. He doesn’t leave the ground and falls over most of the time when he catches the ball.

Key words here

 

[Morkel]

There will be penalty tries or sinbins every week because of this rule.

This. Attacking wingers won't even need to catch the ball. That'll just need to get a finger on it, deliberately get "fouled" by a defender even if they are genuinely competing, and get a free 6 points.

It's like those who set the rules are oblivious to how coaches will take advantage of them.

 

[Super Freak]

I thought they brought in the 7 tackle set to stop teams from kicking all the time for tries.

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.

 

[Super Freak]

The 20/40 rule.

I didn't like it when it was first brought up as a possible rule change and I still don't like it. Why should a team that's not good enough to get out of their 20 be potentially rewarded? Why should teams that are good enough to keep their opposition in their 20 be punished?

Stupid rule.

The stupidest rule though is the one where attacking players can no longer be tackled mid-air. I know the NRL are being forced by the RLPA to take player welfare more seriously but come the **** on. Common sense does not prevail here and now teams are going to exploit it.

 

[ivanhungryjak]

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?

 

[Unbreakable]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[tommy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.