Stupid NRL rules

[Browny]

Watching the Riaders v Parra game.

Ben Smith has a bullet pass bounce of his chest and goes into the ingoal where he grounds the ball with his hands. All the commentators were saying it shouldnt be a try as its an error but by the current rules its NOT a knock on.

My thinking is this: If you can ground the ball for a try with your torso you can also knock on with your torso.

Im getting sick of the NRL just ignoring calls for fixing up some of the stupid rules we have like playing on or passing after the call of held. They arent doing it to cheat but havent heard you, why instead of giving a penalty against them, stop play and make them go back to the mark and have a play the ball restart. There would be no advantage to the attacking team and they dont lose the ball due to confusion or a simultaneously event.

Your thoughts?

 

[Flutterby]

My thinking is this: If you can ground the ball for a try with your torso you can also knock on with your torso.

I agree a million %

 

[Aeetee]

i agree a million and 1 %

and i saw incident in question. Imagine if you practiced passing to the chest of a player. And knocking it forward on purpose.

 

[QUEENSLANDER]

Yup, thats the way it should be, unless its off your legs, any part of the body should count as a knock on imo, even the head.

Get rid of corner posts - this is my pet gripe
Differential penalties - only foul play gives the team a kick for touch, all others are just another set of 6.
If a player is held but passes the ball, or doesnt hear the held call and continues to run, just stop him and go back and play the ball. too much is put on the player hearing the ref, when in reality, sometimes thats hard

 

[Crazy Sam]

Double movement. If you can get it over then it's a try FFS. This is by far the worst longest standing rule ever.

Don't agree at all, the tackle has been made before the "second movement" so I don't see how you can allow play to continue.

 

[Foordy]

Yup, thats the way it should be, unless its off your legs, any part of the body should count as a knock on imo, even the head.

Get rid of corner posts - this is my pet gripe
Differential penalties - only foul play gives the team a kick for touch, all others are just another set of 6.
If a player is held but passes the ball, or doesnt hear the held call and continues to run, just stop him and go back and play the ball. too much is put on the player hearing the ref, when in reality, sometimes thats hard

Phil Gould is that you [icon_lol1.

 

[Anonymous person]

changed knock-on and knock-back in a tackle to simply 'dropped ball' and have a turnover. there are far too many dubious calls these days where someone clearly knocks it backwards but they blow a knock-on or it clearly goes forwards and they let it play on. remove all doubt - if you lose it in a tackle, its a handover.

 

[Coxy]

Warren Ryan has a very good column in the courier mail today where he talks about obstruction. The current rule is flawed in that they're worried about the depth a runner is behind the decoy. Ryan argues it should be about the "Width"...ie, after running behind a player, how soon do you straighten up?

If you run behind a player and straighten immediately, that's using the decoy to "hide" you from the defence.

If you just run behind a player and keep running sideways for a time before straightening, or passing to a player inside, there's no advantage gained so it shouldn't be a penalty.

I also hate:
- corner posts. Hoffman was so close to being denied a try on Friday night even though he grounded the ball inches inside the tryline. Keep the corner post there, use it as a guide for referees/touchies judging kicks in goal, but don't worry about it for whether a player is in or out.
- 40-20. I still hate it. It basically punishes a team for keeping their opposition in their own half. However, I'd be happy with it on anything but the last tackle. If you can't get out of trouble in 5 tackles you don't deserve the ball back from a kick into touch.
- Diving on the ball for a try. It's ugly. I think players should have to pick the ball up to have control and then force it. This bullshit of "separation" where a player has a friggin' fingernail on the ball and they give it a try is bullshit. In the case where an attacking player forces the ball in goal but does not have control, it should be a line drop out, so there is still some reward for a good grubber in goal your players chase through and dive on.
- Double movement. I don't really have a problem with the rule, but it's inconsistent. Anywhere else on the field if you lunge forward after being tackled they simply say "you shortened it" and play on. Either throw out the double movement rule, or penalise players who walk off the mark again.
- Markers square. It's ridiculous. The game is so fast these days that it's almost impossible to make a tackle (especially down low) and then get up, around the tackled player and line up perfectly in line. Especially since the tackled player tends to take a step left or right thus CHANGING the mark. IMO, it should simply be a requirement that the markers get to their feet and get in front of the mark before being involved in the play, but it doesn't have to happen before the play the ball. At the moment if you don't get to marker before the play the ball, you have to get back the 10m before you can make a tackle. It promotes dummyhalf running, and diving at the defence to get a quick PTB.

 

[lynx000]

Re the last comment, I know the focus has been on getting fast play the balls, but I think they have gone too far the other way. St George were getting incredibly fast play the balls the other night, there should be some leeway to allow the tackled player a little bit more time, particularly close to the line.

 

[Coxy]

Re the last comment, I know the focus has been on getting fast play the balls, but I think they have gone too far the other way. St George were getting incredibly fast play the balls the other night, there should be some leeway to allow the tackled player a little bit more time, particularly close to the line.

Exactly, and IMO anywhere on the field. Plus they are so pedantic about their penalties for holding down/hand on ball etc and penalties kill you in the game today.

 

[Coxy]

Yep, hence my desire for the rule regarding markers getting onside be relaxed.

 

[Anonymous person]

another thing i wish theyd change is the 'shot clocks', ie the 40 seconds you get for a drop-out and the 90 seconds for a shot at goal. keep the timer by all means, but do NOT run the game-clock. as soon as the ball gets grounded in the in-goals, stop the clock and restart when they kick the drop-out. if they take more than 40 seconds to do so, penalty. same with goals - stop the clock as soon as the try is awarded or the captain signals theyll take a penalty shot, start the 90 second timer ON THE BIG SCREEN and restart the game clock as soon at the next kick off.

too much game time gets wasted by out of play things. i bet if you added it up it would probably be around 10 minutes or more every game.

 

[Meat77]

another thing i wish theyd change is the 'shot clocks', ie the 40 seconds you get for a drop-out and the 90 seconds for a shot at goal. keep the timer by all means, but do NOT run the game-clock. as soon as the ball gets grounded in the in-goals, stop the clock and restart when they kick the drop-out. if they take more than 40 seconds to do so, penalty. same with goals - stop the clock as soon as the try is awarded or the captain signals theyll take a penalty shot, start the 90 second timer ON THE BIG SCREEN and restart the game clock as soon at the next kick off.

too much game time gets wasted by out of play things. i bet if you added it up it would probably be around 10 minutes or more every game.

OK - this is scaring me that I am agreeing with you today but anyway...I have never really understood why the clock doesn't stop automatically anytime the ball is out of play or after a try or after a penalty. Why would it be a bad thing if the 80 minutes of game time was actually 80 minutes of action?

 

[Black Philip]

[quote="Anonymous person":195njael]another thing i wish theyd change is the 'shot clocks', ie the 40 seconds you get for a drop-out and the 90 seconds for a shot at goal. keep the timer by all means, but do NOT run the game-clock. as soon as the ball gets grounded in the in-goals, stop the clock and restart when they kick the drop-out. if they take more than 40 seconds to do so, penalty. same with goals - stop the clock as soon as the try is awarded or the captain signals theyll take a penalty shot, start the 90 second timer ON THE BIG SCREEN and restart the game clock as soon at the next kick off.

too much game time gets wasted by out of play things. i bet if you added it up it would probably be around 10 minutes or more every game.

OK - this is scaring me that I am agreeing with you today but anyway...I have never really understood why the clock doesn't stop automatically anytime the ball is out of play or after a try or after a penalty. Why would it be a bad thing if the 80 minutes of game time was actually 80 minutes of action?

A lot to do with TV. They worked it out a few years ago and apparantly it would add something like 25 minutes to the telecast, on a good day.[/quote:195njael]

Why is that a problem though? More air-time = more advertising = more money... right? [icon_confu

 

[Meat77]

Exactly - start the next game half an hour later or whatever to fit in with the scheduling. Does anyone really think its a great idea to waste 40-50 seconds every time the players jog to a scrum?

 

[Coxy]

Exactly - start the next game half an hour later or whatever to fit in with the scheduling. Does anyone really think its a great idea to waste 40-50 seconds every time the players jog to a scrum?

Or that it's not consistent. If one team rushes to pack the scrum then it's time off, but the rest of the game it's not.

 

[Professor47]

1) Marker rule - agreed. Marker penalties are absolute garbage at the moment.
2) Corner post - the most ridiculous rule that still stands
3) the 10m rule --> This is a bit of a doozy but I think the 10m rule has cause way too much dummy half running and there just isn't much reward for defense... I know 7/8m would be hard to police but I personally think it can be done... shorten the 10 I say
4) Dominant tackle --> Throw all those definitions out and I say refs use their own discretion. (If they are bloody capable). Let the D lie on the attacker for a bit more than today's interpretation.
5) Video ref --> Groundings for the ball ONLY please.

 

[lynx000]

I have to agree about time being taken off, as per AP's suggestion above