Rule Changes

[Charmamba]

I don't understand how someone can play for the junior kiwi's and later go on and play for Australia.. Pathetic that the NRL allow it and a terrible show of respect from the kids who do it.

If you pull on the NZ jersey as a junior you should wear that thing with pride as an adult as well.

 

[Mister Wright]

I don't understand how someone can play for the junior kiwi's and later go on and play for Australia.. Pathetic that the NRL allow it and a terrible show of respect from the kids who do it.

If you pull on the NZ jersey as a junior you should wear that thing with pride as an adult as well.

Goes the other way aswell. Unless I'm under the wrong impression, but I thought both Hoffman and Beale had played Junior Kangaroos before playing for the Kiwis.

 

[GCBRONCO]

Beale did in 2010 I believe, not sure about Hoffman though(neither qualify for SOO anyway now), eitherway both fall into the same grey area where the game needed to address and this really doesn't make Tamou's situation more right for him to play for NSW and Australia then any other situation if it was reversed, the only difference is for some it seems its ok for NSW to do so, hell breaks lose if its Queensland.

 

[fredie]

Sonny bill and benji marshal play under 19 origin for the blues

 

[Foordy]

Sonny bill and benji marshal play under 19 origin for the blues

although if Marshall was eligible for origin it would be QLD...

 

[Browny]

Fredie do you have a point? Or just back trolling after your hiatus?

 

[fredie]

Benji played under 19 origin for blues. so how can he play origin for QLD after that ?

 

[Big Pete]

No he didn't.

He played Australian Schoolboys in 2003 but didn't represent either state in Origin. If he was to, it'd be Queensland since he represented Keebra Park.

 

[Anonymous person]

http://www.news.com.au/top-stories/...obstruction-rule/story-e6frfkp9-1226555554182

"It's really not that complicated - run behind a teammate and you'll be penalised for obstruction.
Referees boss Daniel Anderson has restored sanity and tradition to the game's most maddening rule, which was rife with varied interpretation last season."

this bit i dont understand completely though:

"Notwithstanding how much distance separates the ball-carrier from decoys or blockers, teams will now be penalised should any attacker run behind a teammate. The same consequences will apply to sweep players who receive the ball on the inside - rather than directly behind or outside - a decoy runner."

so if you run behind a teammate, even if youre 10m behind them, its a penalty? what about the fullback on kick returns? also, wtf is that last sentence saying? are inside runners now illegal if there is a decoy runner anywhere near them?

 

[Coxy]

http://www.news.com.au/top-stories/...obstruction-rule/story-e6frfkp9-1226555554182

"It's really not that complicated - run behind a teammate and you'll be penalised for obstruction.
Referees boss Daniel Anderson has restored sanity and tradition to the game's most maddening rule, which was rife with varied interpretation last season."

this bit i dont understand completely though:

"Notwithstanding how much distance separates the ball-carrier from decoys or blockers, teams will now be penalised should any attacker run behind a teammate. The same consequences will apply to sweep players who receive the ball on the inside - rather than directly behind or outside - a decoy runner."

so if you run behind a teammate, even if youre 10m behind them, its a penalty? what about the fullback on kick returns? also, wtf is that last sentence saying? are inside runners now illegal if there is a decoy runner anywhere near them?

That article is just so much bullshit I don't know where to start. For one thing, the only references to Obstruction in the rule book before a few years ago was "a player must not obstruct a player not in possession of the ball". That's both in terms of defenders interfering with support players, and decoy/support runners interfering with defenders.

There was no reference to running behind a teammate, or sweep moves, or scissor moves etc before they started overcomplicating things this decade.

Just look back at this video that Gus and Vossy (very adamantly against the so-called shepherd from Hodges) showed on Boots n All. By their definition, nearly every single move would result in a penalty because a decoy ended up in front of the ball runner, or the ball runner intentionally ran behind teammates.


The whole issue is such a joke.

 

[Nashy]

He's obviously trying to stop the amount of blatant sheppards we've been seeing in the game of late. And anyone who says it hasn't been happening is blind. Something needed to be done, and now it has been done.

What exactly they have done I have no fucking idea! :laugh:

 

[Coxy]

He's obviously trying to stop the amount of blatant sheppards we've been seeing in the game of late. And anyone who says it hasn't been happening is blind. Something needed to be done, and now it has been done.

What exactly they have done I have no ****ing idea! :laugh:

Looks like they've made it a black and white rule that realistically is not black and white at all and we'll still have gobsmackingly bad obstruction calls/non calls.

Trivia: the word shepherd does not appear in the rule book and never has

 

[Anonymous person]

Looks like they've made it a black and white rule that realistically is not black and white at all and we'll still have gobsmackingly bad obstruction calls/non calls.

Trivia: the word shepherd does not appear in the rule book and never has

refs guidelines? :p

 

[Coxy]

refs guidelines? :p

Quite possibly, meaning it's an interpretation of the rules by a particular rugby league body, not a rule in itself.

 

[Big Pete]

New obstruction rule - if a decoy makes contact with the opposition, it's a penalty.

Other changes...

* THE potential for a player to be sent off for a shoulder charge with head high contact;

* REFEREES making a decision on every potential try before asking a video referee to review the decision;

* SEPARATION during a conventional put down will always result in a no try decision unless the player regains control, instead of simply needing downward pressure at the moment it hits the turf.

 

[Nashy]

New obstruction rule - if a decoy makes contact with the opposition, it's a penalty.

Other changes...

* THE potential for a player to be sent off for a shoulder charge with head high contact;

* REFEREES making a decision on every potential try before asking a video referee to review the decision;

* SEPARATION during a conventional put down will always result in a no try decision unless the player regains control, instead of simply needing downward pressure at the moment it hits the turf.

- What's stopping the other team members just touching the decoy running to force a penalty?

- That just shows they want it gone. Good rule.

- How does that work "Yo Bill. That's a try, what do you think". Does this mean that they will review even the ones the refs would usually make?

- So no more finger trys? What does this mean exactly? It's not really going into detail. No more torso trys too I hope?

 

[Browny]

Sounds like no more bullshit forearm hairs touching the ball try.

The decoy runner making the contact happen ie causing a collision by running into a defender or not running through the line. My take is if the defender makes/initiates the contact via bad defensive read it should be fine. Lets see how that goes with Refs and common sense

 

[Big Pete]

That's the question Nashy, hopefully it isn't as silly as it currently sounds.

From my understanding, the new video referee system will work a bit like the cricket referral system where the ref. makes a decision and the video referee has to find prove that contradicts the original verdict. It sounds better in theory but I can still see issues with it.

The grounding rules are stricter...but not as strict as they should be. I don't think it rules out torso or any other tries. Just, if you lose the ball, you can just have a finger tip on it, you actually need a fair grasp on it. Of course, if it's a grubber or something else, you could still ground it with the slightest of contacts with your pinky if you're that fortunate.

So really, the new rules are pretty meh overall. A bit reactionary if anything.