Re: NRL trialling rule changes - any good? : Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:06 pm  

Number 2 was suggested by a fella on here a few years ago and was a brilliant idea in the way that he put it accross.

Re: NRL trialling rule changes - any good? : Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:23 pm  

I don't like rule 3 at all.

Reward a team for their defensive efforts in pinning down an opposition instead of offering the attackers an escape route.

Re: NRL trialling rule changes - any good? : Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:43 pm  

the wipe the tackle count is silly. for example you make a break the defensive team is trotting back as a tackler all you have to do is lay on the man for a min till all your players are back in position and all you have done is forfeited 5 tackles or even worse you are 18 points all and your in the last 2 mins of the game and the attacking team doesn't get a shot at two points to win the game?

Re: NRL trialling rule changes - any good? : Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:57 pm  

dubairl wrote:

the wipe the tackle count is silly. for example you make a break the defensive team is trotting back as a tackler all you have to do is lay on the man for a min till all your players are back in position and all you have done is forfeited 5 tackles or even worse you are 18 points all and your in the last 2 mins of the game and the attacking team doesn't get a shot at two points to win the game?

I'd assume the messing around/holding down rule is in general play, and would guess if this is attempted after a break, there would still be the option for a penalty and sin-bin?

As said, 1 is an awful idea, one player would be bad enough but two just makes it far too easy to score.

I quite like 2, it's always seemed a bit odd to me that a high shot that leads to a player being out for the entire game, or an elbow to the face, or the attempted breaking of a leg can all end up with the same result as a player hanging on that split second too long, or setting off from the defensive line half a second too early. I look forward to see how this rule works in practice.

Split on the third, though I think it would come into play even less than 40/20s, and would be much easier to prevent you'd think. Not sure the rule is worth bothering with, I don't expect a successful one in this trial match.

[Mild Rover]

Re: NRL trialling rule changes - any good? : Fri Dec 02, 2011 2:11 pm  

I don't especially like any of them. The powerplay one is just horrible.

Re: NRL trialling rule changes - any good? : Fri Dec 02, 2011 2:15 pm  

I like two and three but one is way beyond stupid!
When we change things the reason should be to attain improvement.
Two and three may well improve the game, with one the game just loses credibility.

Re: NRL trialling rule changes - any good? : Fri Dec 02, 2011 2:36 pm  

Reading the full rules, under the power play, I note that the first point is

- Each team will receive one (1) optional power play in each half of the match.

It would be great if the captains of the respective teams in the all stars game declined to take this optional power play in protest of some idiots trying to ruin our great game

[Bullseye]

Re: NRL trialling rule changes - any good? : Fri Dec 02, 2011 2:44 pm  

While I could cope with 2 and 3 I don't think they should be brought in.

1 is absolutely ludricrous.

Re: NRL trialling rule changes - any good? : Fri Dec 02, 2011 2:54 pm  

1. Laughable
2. Why stop here, why not just stop giving penalties all together, rules are there for a reason if you break the rules it should be a penalty!
3. imo the 40/20 rules already penalises good defence so why make it worse by giving the kicker more space to aim for and removing any skill from the kick. If they insist on these rules, I think they should be restricted to only the first 4 tackles to add a tactical element to the kick and not last tackle desperation!

Re: NRL trialling rule changes - any good? : Fri Dec 02, 2011 3:00 pm  

1 is a stupid gimmick that should be treated with the derision it deserves.

2 is workable, but we'd benefit much more from a more consistent application of the rules that already exist in that situation; enforce them properly rather than tinkering around the edges.

3 looks like an easy option escape from pressure, but I don't think it would be used very often in practice.

Overall, a rather pointless exercise in tinkering with the rules when what should really be the focus of attention is stopping the coaching culture that encourages players to ignore the spirit of the laws whilst staying within the letter.