Rule changes you'd like to see

[Morkel]

Rugby -> evolved -> Rugby League

Rugby has contested scrums and contested lineouts for knock ons and the ball going into touch. Always has. Dunno why RL scrapped it - or was it one day the halfback started feeding the ball through the second row and that was it.

Rugby League is one of the only team sports where the defence can't contest/compete for the ball (except for the very limited and high risk situation of 1 on 1 strip). Think AFL, soccer, hockey, basketball, rugby, netball (to a degree I suppose).

Hence it is about ball control, possession and territory. Use your guaranteed 6 possessions effectively, wait for a mistake from the opposition.

Perhaps more competition for the ball -> less boring football.

But Union doesn't have a limited tackle count, that's why they make just about every situation a contest. If you're good enough, you can have 50 posessions in a row. In league, you only have 6. You shouldn't be able to balls up and then be given a 50/50 chance at another 6.

 

[Anonymous person]

any rule that makes rugby league more like rugby union should not even be considered.

its already becoming more like it with the increasing number of penalties and the importance of those penalties, getting to the point where players are actually playing to get penalties rather than to try and score/break the line.

 

[gordjw]

Yes, I'd like to see the scrum as a contest ! My solution to the feeding problem is elegant in its simplicity, have the second ref feed the scrum. If he is unsatisfied with one or the other side he awards a penalty ! In afl they are involved in the bounce,throw etc so a ref involved is not a problem. The only exception is the forty twenty with the successful team simply given possession when the line is set. Perhaps that could be modified to be play on when the successful team is ready, to stop the defence dawdling up field. Either way they still get a reward for the 40/20.

I like the simplicity here!

 

[gordjw]

Let's revive this zombie!

Not sure it's something I'd actually like to see, but throwing it out there for fun.

To reward "consistency" over the season, use difference in ladder points as a handicap in finals games. For example, 5th vs 8th in Week 1, 5th was six premiership points above 8th after round 26. Therefore, 5th starts the match on 6 points.

Problems I can already see:
- Rounds 1-26 draws aren't consistent, some teams get a harder draw
- Might get very difficult for lower placed teams to progress
- Don't know if I'd use this in a GF

 

[Morkel]

Let's revive this zombie!

Not sure it's something I'd actually like to see, but throwing it out there for fun.

To reward "consistency" over the season, use difference in ladder points as a handicap in finals games. For example, 5th vs 8th in Week 1, 5th was six premiership points above 8th after round 26. Therefore, 5th starts the match on 6 points.

Problems I can already see:
- Rounds 1-26 draws aren't consistent, some teams get a harder draw
- Might get very difficult for lower placed teams to progress
- Don't know if I'd use this in a GF

Also it's already rewarded with a home final.

 

[Brent81]

Interchange reduced to 8, with a view to lower to 6 in 3 or 4 years. With the reduced interchange there can be unlimited injury replacements, but only if a player cannot return to the field. If an injured player is replaced and then returns to the field it counts as 2 interchanges. If all replacements have been used cannot return to field.

Any kick that goes over the deadball line that is kicked from outside the 40m line is returned at the 30m line.

Actually guys, I like the union rule. If you kick the ball dead, then the ball is brought back to where you kicked it from. That would prevent teams just booting it dead from the half way in the hope that they can reset the defensive line.

I'd also get rid of 40/20s. If a team can't make their 40 metre line that's a poor attacking set, you shouldn't be rewarded for that. Indeed, I'd even go so far as to say that if you kick the ball out (whether over the side line or dead) from behind your own 20 metre line, the other team should get possession from where you kicked it. Consequently, the team that has had a poor set not only doesn't get an advantage, it is effectively penalised.

If the defending team makes a mistake in goal it shouldn't be a line drop out, it should be a 10 metre scrum.

Finally, the obstruction rule. If an attacking player interfers with a defender getting to the ball carrier (the onus is on the attacker to get out of the way) including by being a faux support runner on a break, no try.

 

[BroncosAlways]

All I want to see is the NRL bring in a trade system.

 

[Morkel]

Finally, the obstruction rule. If an attacking player interfers with a defender getting to the ball carrier (the onus is on the attacker to get out of the way) including by being a faux support runner on a break, no try.

I'm sorry, I can't agree with this one. They actually cracked down on obstructions at the start of the year, but players from teams like Manly just purposely got knocked over the moment an attacking threat looked dangerous.

The rule should simply be whoever initiates the contact should be penalised. If a runner's line puts him in the path of a defender and obstructs him, it's a penalty to the defending team. In contrast, if a decoy runner is aiming for a gap but the defence changes their line and hits him, then it's a penalty to the attacking team.

 

[Brent81]

I'm sorry, I can't agree with this one. They actually cracked down on obstructions at the start of the year, but players from teams like Manly just purposely got knocked over the moment an attacking threat looked dangerous.

The rule should simply be whoever initiates the contact should be penalised. If a runner's line puts him in the path of a defender and obstructs him, it's a penalty to the defending team. In contrast, if a decoy runner is aiming for a gap but the defence changes their line and hits him, then it's a penalty to the attacking team.

It's the faux support runner which I can't stand.

The bloke who runs next to his own runner (who has made a break) to ensure that a chasing defender can't tackle him (the support runner has no intention of ever getting the ball).

 

[Bull Shark]

here's some

NRL changes rules to cut time-wasting, says Todd Greenberg

 

[Kimlo]

here's some

NRL changes rules to cut time-wasting, says Todd Greenberg

I'm very happy with all those changes. I can't wait for the season to kick off. Good job, Greenburger.

 

[Porthoz]

I'm very happy with all those changes. I can't wait for the season to kick off. Good job, Greenburger.

That sounds like a vegan thing...

But yeah, I like those proposals, especially getting rid of the ridiculous scrums.

 

[Fozz]

I'm looking forward to seeing less of the usual culprits jawing off at the ref at every opportunity.

 

[Morkel]

I'm looking forward to seeing less of the usual culprits jawing off at the ref at every opportunity.

I would have liked this to happen in conjunction with a limited number of captains challenges though. Legit grievances have no way of being challenged, which is just going to end up with us all hating the refs even more than we do.

 

[Fozz]

I would have liked this to happen in conjunction with a limited number of captains challenges though. Legit grievances have no way of being challenged, which is just going to end up with us all hating the refs even more than we do.

I've never seen a ref even consider reversing a decision after a whinge from the players. They will still be able to talk to the ref during breaks in play, just not scrums or penalties.

 

[Morkel]

I've never seen a ref even consider reversing a decision after a whinge from the players. They will still be able to talk to the ref during breaks in play, just not scrums or penalties.

Fair point, but with a challenge system the captain can bring up an issue, and the ref then has to consider it. They can't just wave them away.

 

[Broncoman]

I like those new changes a faster game with less interruptions makes for a better and more entertaining game. A rule change I would like to see is the clock stopping every time there is a break in play meaning we would get a full 80 minutes of game-time.

 

[Big Pete]

The only rule change I dislike is beginning the 20m restart from tackle 0. Teams already receive a huge bonus by basically being able to tap the ball as quickly as possible - starting it from zero just extends it and makes it more broken than it already is.

Everything else is fantastic and I like the way the game is heading.