The kick debate...again

[Coxy]

A few comments in the Broncos Talk forum about Peter Wallace needing to perfect his cross field kicking, and a couple of people lamenting "boring" cross field bomb tries.

So, what would you do, rules wise? Would you do anything at all? It's perfectly valid to say leave it as is.

My thoughts:

1. For kicks, for a try to be scored the ball must be picked up before the try line, and then planted. This takes away the dive and score. The only exception is point 4 below.

2. If a ball is marked on the full in goal by an attacker and forced, it's a try.

3. If a ball is marked on the full in goal by a defender and forced, it's a 20 metre restart.

4. If a ball is kicked in goal, not caught cleanly, and forced cleanly (downward pressure applied) by a defender, or knocked on in goal by attacker, a 20 metre drop out results.

5. If a ball is kicked in goal, not caught cleanly, and forced cleanly (downward pressure applied) by an attacker, or knocked on in goal by defender; or a ball is tapped dead or touch in goal by a defender, a line drop out results.

6. If a ball rolls dead in goal or touch in goal, 20 metre restart as is the case now.

The only situations that change from the current rules:
- any ball in goal grounded by defence with no knock on - 20 metre drop out instead of line drop out. 20 metres gain, but kicking team still gets the ball back. If you knock on etc, still a drop out.
- any ball in goal grounded by attack with no knock on but not caught on the full - line drop out. Not a try, but you get the ball back.

All other situations are the same.

NOTE: this is NOT a joke thread. I'm serious on this one, want people's ideas and discussion.

 

[Emma]

I like the idea of a 20 metre restart if the defending side defuses the kick, regardless of whether it's on the full or not. But it's a bit of a catch 22 for me as well - I enjoy seeing sides get repeat sets from goal line dropouts and keep the pressure on and that will be drastically reduced if that rule was to be used.

 

[Coxy]

I like the idea of a 20 metre restart if the defending side defuses the kick, regardless of whether it's on the full or not. But it's a bit of a catch 22 for me as well - I enjoy seeing sides get repeat sets from goal line dropouts and keep the pressure on and that will be drastically reduced if that rule was to be used.

Agreed, which is why I was more looking at a 20 metre drop out, rather than a 20 metre tap in that situation. The attacking team gets the ball back, but they have an extra 20m to work back.

They can still work back and apply pressure, but it's not as easy and not as much territory dominance.

 

[Emma]

Yeah, that's probably not a bad idea actually.

 

[lyn]

Good idea but i say leave it.

 

[Jeba]

Those rules would just complicate things way too much. Leave the rules as they are.

 

[Hamm.0]

I don't understand all this talk on kicks being boring. You all know my theory that it was a conspiracy started by the Channel 9 media circus. It seems to me, only since SoO with the massive QLD outside backs; all of a sudden bombs into the in-goal are boring.

Why has this just become a problem now? eusa_think IMO leave the rules as they are.

The Storm pwn the aerial game, and surprise to Sydney....it isn't because of Inglis and Falou!!!! [icon_ee [icon_ee

The reason the Storm are so good, is they have a marking coach. If the rest of the NRL got off their arses (much like the delayed time it took them all to get wrestling coaches) and got some AFL marking coaches on board, bombs would become redundant.

Also, why aren't defender's hitting balls out? If they kept hitting the ball dead everytime a kick came their way, they would fustrate the attack inot trying something different.

 

[Dexter]

The NRL are trialing the 20m tap restart for kicks defused ingoal in some U 20 games this week ( teams that can't make the semis) I beleive as well as an 11 man a side game this week in the Sharks U 20 game.

 

[Bucking Beads]

Whats the go with the 11 a side game it sounds ridiculous to me. May as well play 15 a side and have line outs in a trial.

 

[Fozz]

Yeah, league's beauty lies in the simplicity. Make it too complicated and the commentators will spend the whole game explaining what happened.

I don't see any difference between a forward barging over or a bomb being caught by a winger. The really exciting tries occur outside of kicking range anyway.

 

[Dexter]

Whats the go with the 11 a side game it sounds ridiculous to me. May as well play 15 a side and have line outs in a trial.

Its a proposal Ricky Stuart put the NRL to increase attacking play and possibly reduce kicking.
The wok Warren Ryan has been pushing this idea for a few years now as well.

Stuart himself says he's not sure how it will be but the only way to see is to do it.

It's a bit radical but at least they are trying things.





http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,865 ... 14,00.html

 

[Black Philip]

There is no problem with the way the rules are now. If we changed the rules every time a new style of play came in the game would be in a terrible state.

 

[Jeba]

Yeah, league's beauty lies in the simplicity. Make it too complicated and the commentators will spend the whole game explaining what happened.

Exactly. How ridiculous does this sound? "The referee is going upstairs to check if Israel Folau carried the ball over the line".

 

[Jeba]

Rabs: In Origin 3, Queensland down by 2, 10 seconds to go, it's going to take something special from Queensland. Thurston has the ball he goes high in the air it's coming down to Folau, TRY TRY TRY FOR FOLAU, no wait we are checking with the video ref
Gus: Well we are going upstairs because this ball has nearly hit the ground at the same time as Folau has gotten a hand to it. So we need to check whether or not Folau carried the ball across the try line or else it won't be a try. Also he needs to determine if the ball has bounced before Folau got his hand to it because if that's the case it's a 20metre restart, but if he got it on the full it will be a try. Now if the ball has bounced and been grounded by Brett Stewart we will have a line drop out at the 20m line and if Folau got to it on the bounce we will have a line drop out. Hang on wasn't that supposed to be a 20m restart?? No no no no no.......


MAJOR ANTI-CLIMAX. Leave kicking the way it is.

 

[Hamm.0]

MAJOR ANTI-CLIMAX.

Where have I heard that before? eusa_think

 

[Coxy]

Fair enough. Though basically I don't think 4 points should come down to luck, and that's what happens when a ball is bobbling around.

Make it simpler, if the defence gets a touch on a kick in goal but doesn't a) catch it or b) get into the field of play, it's a line drop out. But it can't be a try. Has to be a clean take/pickup/grounding.

Thus good kicks in goal get rewarded. No harder to check with the video ref than currently.

 

[Je$ter]

Leave it as is. There are already too many grey areas in the rulebook and too many subjective rules. Any kind of differentiation between kicks scored from tries vs. kicks scored through the hands will just add more confusion.

 

[Coxy]

i agree. I'm saying if the defence gets a hand on a loose ball in goal it's a line drop out, not a try, regardless of whether the ball was kicked or carried. Unless an attacker knocked on first.

The only situation it rules out is the lottery where the ball is kicked into a pack in goal and it's a dog's breakfast and a thousand replays before a decision is made. If defence touches the ball, grounding is then irrelevant. Only decision is whether the attack knocked on or committed a penalty, otherwise drop out.

I'd love to get my hands on some video referee footage this year and see how much faster my rules would make the decision. I reckon it'd be heaps quicker.