Stupid NRL rules

[Coxy]

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.

Honestly, I think if they relaxed the marker rule a bit, something like what I've suggested, then the impact of dummyhalf running will be reduced, teams will find it harder to get on a roll without using the football, and the dominant/surrender tackle nonsense will be less of an issue because players won't need to be trying to put wrestling holds on so much.

 

[Charmamba]

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.

Honestly, I think if they relaxed the marker rule a bit, something like what I've suggested, then the impact of dummyhalf running will be reduced, teams will find it harder to get on a roll without using the football, and the dominant/surrender tackle nonsense will be less of an issue because players won't need to be trying to put wrestling holds on so much.

+1 I have never thought about the marker rule but now you have brought it up and convince me that it should be changed and would be for the better.

 

[Coxy]

Seems corner posts is being acted on.
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... -s7ob.html

The rule makers have finally taken a step ahead of the rule benders, with the NRL/ARL preparing to legislate the corner post out of the field of play. The corner post is now deemed to be part of the sideline but the increasing athleticism of players, together with the traditional ingenuity of coaches, has thrown up a new challenge. How long before a defensive winger/fullback, confronted by an almost certain try in the corner, bends the rubber post to make contact with the ball carrier, thereby rendering him in touch?

Officials are also concerned a corner post could be used to make contact with a ball rolling into the dead-ball area, guaranteeing possession to the defending team at a 20 metre tap, rather than kicking it dead, or forcing it and surrendering possession via a line drop out.

There are no restrictions on the height of corner posts, so they could become long rubber snakes, biting attackers and sending them into touch.

Today's rectangular rubberised corner posts are already guilty of leaning if too high, having replaced the old rolled cardboard ones. The modern posts bear sponsor logos, meaning they will never be banished - and nor should they, considering they act as guides for tactical kickers.

However, they will be rendered extinct in the sense they will be declared outside the field of play and not considered by video referees or touch judges when adjudicating whether a player has avoided touch when scoring a try.

 

[lynx000]

Good one, about time this was done. Now to work on the rest of the issues.

 

[Anonymous person]

scrapping of the dominant/surrender tackles definitely should be next on the list IMO. it should be any tackle, regardless of a big hit or a player diving at the defenders legs, lasts for say 3 seconds in duration and thats it. no more, no less based on what the tackle LOOKED like.

 

[Dexter]

There are some stupid rules, here is one I would love to see happen.

If a player is tackled and there is no marker or dummy half the ball is deemed to be in play and he can pick it up and play on.
It could only happen from a long break I suppose but I wonder how many players or coaches are aware of the rule.
It could come in real handy some time.

 

[Anonymous person]

[quote="Crazy Sam":33wq1608][quote="The Rock":33wq1608]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.[/quote:33wq1608]

But the "second movement" can be defined by someone making a tackle and then propelling their arm forward. Obviously the tackle wasn't effective enough if the player is still able to successfully reach out and plant the ball down over the line.[/quote:33wq1608]
so a classic round the waist tackle that pulls someone up 30cm short of the tryline isnt an effective enough tackle?

 

[chazta]

scrapping of the dominant/surrender tackles definitely should be next on the list IMO. it should be any tackle, regardless of a big hit or a player diving at the defenders legs, lasts for say 3 seconds in duration and thats it. no more, no less based on what the tackle LOOKED like.

so for any tackle the tackler has 3 seconds on the ground before he has to get up? i think that if the attacker has been able to get into a good position for a quick play the ball considering the amount of wrestling that goes on now in the tackle they should be allowed to do so

 

[gUt]

I think walking off the mark should be taken more seriously. The only time I would allow it is when the tackled player needs to get around a defender lying on the ground. In all other instances it should be played as close to the mark as possible. I hate seeing the tackled player take 1 step to the left or right and two steps forward.

"He shortened it" is the call from the ref, meaning the defending team is now 8 metres away from the play the ball. Big deal. They are still 10 metres from where the tackle happened and now both their markers are offside.

 

[Anonymous person]

scrapping of the dominant/surrender tackles definitely should be next on the list IMO. it should be any tackle, regardless of a big hit or a player diving at the defenders legs, lasts for say 3 seconds in duration and thats it. no more, no less based on what the tackle LOOKED like.

so for any tackle the tackler has 3 seconds on the ground before he has to get up? i think that if the attacker has been able to get into a good position for a quick play the ball considering the amount of wrestling that goes on now in the tackle they should be allowed to do so

no, for any tackle where the referee tells the players when to release or its going to be a penalty. this is when the dominant/submission call makes the difference in how long a player gets held down. all im saying is it should be the same regardless of the tackle.

im NOT saying that EVERY SINGLE TACKLE should take the MAXIMUM amount of time of being held on the ground, and dont even suggest thats even remotely what i said. use your brain.

 

[Coxy]

There are some stupid rules, here is one I would love to see happen.

If a player is tackled and there is no marker or dummy half the ball is deemed to be in play and he can pick it up and play on.
It could only happen from a long break I suppose but I wonder how many players or coaches are aware of the rule.
It could come in real handy some time.

Are you saying he can play it back to himself?

 

[Coxy]

for any tackle where the referee tells the players when to release or its going to be a penalty. this is when the dominant/submission call makes the difference in how long a player gets held down. all im saying is it should be the same regardless of the tackle.

im NOT saying that EVERY SINGLE TACKLE should take the MAXIMUM amount of time of being held on the ground, and dont even suggest thats even remotely what i said. use your brain.

scrapping of the dominant/surrender tackles definitely should be next on the list IMO. it should be any tackle, regardless of a big hit or a player diving at the defenders legs, lasts for say 3 seconds in duration and thats it. no more, no less based on what the tackle LOOKED like.

No more, no less? That implies you think every tackle should be a set length "say 3 seconds" [icon_wink

 

[Anonymous person]

yeah, the call by the referees for movement should be constant at say 3 seconds. obviously if the defenders are off before then the ref doesnt say 'get back on him, youve still got 1 second left' lol.

maybe i should have explicitly specified that i was talking about the Referees call of movement instead of assuming people would be able to understand common sense [icon_lol1.

 

[Coxy]

yeah, the call by the referees for movement should be constant at say 3 seconds. obviously if the defenders are off before then the ref doesnt say 'get back on him, youve still got 1 second left' lol.

maybe i should have explicitly specified that i was talking about the Referees call of movement instead of assuming people would be able to understand common sense [icon_lol1.

It's BHQ! :P

BTW, I agree. It's similar to the oztag rule about slow play the balls. The ref will put the count on and if he gets to 3 it's a changeover (admittedly the onus is on the man playing the ball, not the defenders).

But I agree. Ref calls held. Waits a couple of seconds. Calls movement. If no movement, penalty. Simple.

 

[Professor47]

^
yup... its all about discretion.

Nothing Shites me more in RL atm than bloody pedantic marker and holding down penalties ESPECIALLY when it brings clubs out of trouble.
I'm telling you now - atm there is hardly any reward for good defense.

 

[chazta]

scrapping of the dominant/surrender tackles definitely should be next on the list IMO. it should be any tackle, regardless of a big hit or a player diving at the defenders legs, lasts for say 3 seconds in duration and thats it. no more, no less based on what the tackle LOOKED like.

this made me think you were talking about any tackle made in the game not the referee's calls

 

[chazta]

scrapping of the dominant/surrender tackles definitely should be next on the list IMO. it should be any tackle, regardless of a big hit or a player diving at the defenders legs, lasts for say 3 seconds in duration and thats it. no more, no less based on what the tackle LOOKED like.

this made me think you were talking about any tackle made in the game not the referee's calls i read it wrong thinking you were saying the attackers legs

 

[Dexter]

There are some stupid rules, here is one I would love to see happen.

If a player is tackled and there is no marker or dummy half the ball is deemed to be in play and he can pick it up and play on.
It could only happen from a long break I suppose but I wonder how many players or coaches are aware of the rule.
It could come in real handy some time.

Are you saying he can play it back to himself?

Yes, according to the rule or at least the way I read it. Here is the rule from the 2010 edition Section 11 THe Tackle and play the ball

No marker

10.(f) If no marker takes up a position opposite the tackled
player, and no acting halfback is present, the ball is
deemed to be “clear” immediately it is heeled by the
tackled player, who may immediately regain possession
and play on.

http://www.australianrugbyleague.com.au ... 202010.pdf