: Thu Mar 19, 2009 1:20 pm  

Jemaine Clement wrote:

What about clumsy tackles where there is no malice or agression?

even those, i think it would force players to always err on the side of caution when tackling around the head, a clumsy tackle is accidental and yes it has no malice but it is still avoidable,

i think what we would see rather than lots of players in the bin, is a change in tackle technique which would mean we just wouldnt see head high tackles anymore

the only dispensation i would give is when a player falls into it because that is just unfortunate and not really the fault of the tackler

: Thu Mar 19, 2009 1:21 pm  

Jemaine Clement wrote:

a full blown penalty would be indicated the same way as it is now, a back-to-one penalty would be indicated by three short blasts of the whistle and the existing back to one signal.

interference is an effective of slowing opponents down but it would still be penalised so I don't think the incentive to interfere would be that great. You're still costing your side another six tackles.

It isn't a "downgrading" of offences as such, more a way of speeding up the process of the spotting and awarding of a penalty for a common offence.

this is some of the best thinking ive read on here

this is the kind of good idea you get from a leading NRL coach who has a great knowledge of the game and thinks about how to improve it

some people have raised some valid critisisms but they are fairly minor

a kick for touch and a restart of the penalty count are way to draconian

: Thu Mar 19, 2009 1:22 pm  

I don't think it would be that confusing for spectators or players and I certainly don't think a stadium announcement would be required!

If back-to-one is called by the ref at the moment, it's pretty clear to most people what's happened. If you add three blasts of the whistle to this then I don't think there'd be much confusion.

: Thu Mar 19, 2009 1:23 pm  

Jemaine Clement wrote:

It isn't a "downgrading" of offences as such, more a way of speeding up the process of the spotting and awarding of a penalty for a common offence.

That's the main plus of the idea for me, keep it flowing.
Not only that but i reckon the 40m a team gains is too much sometimes for petty offences.

On a slightly different note how do you think it would affect scores? Because sometimes you can 'clear your line' with a penalty. Would the better teams benefit far too much from a rule change like this? or would it make no difference?

: Thu Mar 19, 2009 1:25 pm  

everyone used to love bill harrigan being the ref for origin.

why?

he let the game flow and would hardly blow penalties.

the problem with this is if players know this they will deliberately commit more offenses knowing the penalty will be small.

but clearly the goal of less penalties in a game is a good one.

another suggestion is to maybe have use of the sin bin if a player commits say 3 penalties, much like personal fouls in basketball

: Thu Mar 19, 2009 1:27 pm  

dally messenger wrote:

the referree can signal six to go for the minor penalties

But much of what you are classifying as "minor penalties" are actually very cynical offences, simply awarding another set of six would encourage more cynical play result in few line breaks and more conservative play.

: Thu Mar 19, 2009 1:27 pm  

Dico wrote:

That's the main plus of the idea for me, keep it flowing.
Not only that but i reckon the 40m a team gains is too much sometimes for petty offences.

On a slightly different note how do you think it would affect scores? Because sometimes you can 'clear your line' with a penalty. Would the better teams benefit far too much from a rule change like this? or would it make no difference?

the worst is when a team in defence has put a big effort and get to last tackle, and then for a very minor offence the attack gets a penalty and invariably a try as they are tired from all that tackling

: Thu Mar 19, 2009 1:28 pm  

Dico wrote:

That's the main plus of the idea for me, keep it flowing.
Not only that but i reckon the 40m a team gains is too much sometimes for petty offences.

On a slightly different note how do you think it would affect scores? Because sometimes you can 'clear your line' with a penalty. Would the better teams benefit far too much from a rule change like this? or would it make no difference?

That's an interesting point. On many occasions a penalty for offside, particularly for a team under pressure from an over ethusiastic defence possibly chasing the game, is a real "get out of jail" card for them.

Whilst there would be no real territorial advantage gained, there would be six more tackles given to the team with the ball for them to use. A lot would depend on whether the defence was fit enough to maintain the intensity in their defence for these extra six tackles.

The well drilled, defensively solid and fit sides would benefit from this rule but surely that's how it should be anyway?

: Thu Mar 19, 2009 1:28 pm  

my concern would be that most players tend to stop and look at the referee when he blows his whistle - usually to find out why the whistle has gone (because the players never commit fouls or break the rules you know )

so the ball carrier stops but the defenders push him back 10 yards - where do you play the ball from - where he was tackled or where he ends up? You'd end up having to stop the game anyway to play the ball in the right place.

Just can't it working myself

: Thu Mar 19, 2009 1:28 pm  

Thoth wrote:

But much of what you are classifying as "minor penalties" are actually very cynical offences, simply awarding another set of six would encourage more cynical play result in few line breaks and more conservative play.

as ive said above, repeated offenses and you can use a 5 minute sin bin