Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 400 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, 38 years of history from Open Rugby to the present day.
Click here for the digital edition to read online via smartphone, tablet and desktop devices including iPhone, iPad, Android & Kindle HD.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 400
/ View a Gallery of all 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 400
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Rule changes for Boxing Day


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#21 Gary Coyle

Gary Coyle
  • Coach
  • 7,076 posts

Posted 23 December 2012 - 08:17 PM

I tend to agree with Gary - why tinker at all. If we just want to make the game more exciting, why not make the game eleven a side and drop the the second row, that would open up some room, and isn't any more contrived than allowing a numerically skewed scrum attack. I'm not a rugby coach, but if I were GM, I would be making plans to take Aizue out of the attacking scrum and putting him in the line - so JK will probably take out a prop to mark him, and the whole shebang could become a pantomime - appropriate for christmas I suppose. :o

Funny you should say that, Halifax used to take Brendan Hill out of the scrum and put him on the wing, ball was won in a contested scrum and whipped out to Hill who was already up to speed, from 50 metres out there was no stopping him.

#22 landy13

landy13
  • Coach
  • 203 posts

Posted 24 December 2012 - 09:30 AM

2) If the ball is kicked dead from inside the kickers half of the field, the tap is taken on the 40 metre line not the 20.
Will this mean more shepherding the ball over the dead ball line if it looks as if it may go dead or not?


Glad they are trialing this tbh, really frustrating to see a team being let off the hook as they struggle to get out of their own half for them just to hoof it as far as they can to get it dead so they can set up and defend the opposition coming off their 20m

Can see the fans getting frustrated though as the ref will now have to be back on the half way line before the tap can be taken on the 40m line (and the usual frustration if quick taps are allowed to happen sometimes, and others get pulled back to tap again)
www.matchdayphotography.com

#23 fredm

fredm
  • Coach
  • 1,479 posts

Posted 24 December 2012 - 10:45 AM

In todays League Express the Rochdale coach talks about welcoming the new rule changes which ARE coming into effect this season and refers to one regarding the markers not having to go back 10 yards (which he says will be difficult for the refs to police) and the new interpretation regarding knock ons.

These are obviously different from the ones which are being TRIALLED by us - so has anybody heard about them? What are they? Shouldn't they be publicised?

#24 Blind side johnny

Blind side johnny
  • Coach
  • 9,033 posts

Posted 24 December 2012 - 11:40 AM

In todays League Express the Rochdale coach talks about welcoming the new rule changes which ARE coming into effect this season and refers to one regarding the markers not having to go back 10 yards (which he says will be difficult for the refs to police) and the new interpretation regarding knock ons.

These are obviously different from the ones which are being TRIALLED by us - so has anybody heard about them? What are they? Shouldn't they be publicised?


This is news to me also Fred. "Interpretation" on knock-ons will be interesting to say the least but I always thought markers didn't need to go back 10m, by definition. It promises to be a more confusing start to the season than usual!
Believe what you see, don't see what you believe.


John Ray (1627 - 1705)

#25 grumpyoldram

grumpyoldram
  • Coach
  • 2,592 posts

Posted 24 December 2012 - 12:39 PM

This is news to me also Fred. "Interpretation" on knock-ons will be interesting to say the least but I always thought markers didn't need to go back 10m, by definition. It promises to be a more confusing start to the season than usual!


LEAVE WELL ALONE. While I'm on here - merry christmas and a happy new year to all dogs fans (except BD obviously).

#26 bazbulldog

bazbulldog
  • Coach
  • 158 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 02:32 PM

the one rule i would like to see enforced is playing the ball with the foot,at present the rule says the player must make an attempt to play the ball with the foot but the player is the only one who knows whether he has actually tried to play the ball with his foot or not and more often it is not,most players just wave their foot in the general direction of the ball with no intention of touching it with their foot,if refs penalised this like they used to it would soon make players play the ball properly.

#27 Blind side johnny

Blind side johnny
  • Coach
  • 9,033 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 03:44 PM

the one rule i would like to see enforced is playing the ball with the foot,at present the rule says the player must make an attempt to play the ball with the foot but the player is the only one who knows whether he has actually tried to play the ball with his foot or not and more often it is not,most players just wave their foot in the general direction of the ball with no intention of touching it with their foot,if refs penalised this like they used to it would soon make players play the ball properly.


I believe it now says "attempt to play the ball with the foot" which refs find acceptable, sometimes to the frustration of the fans.
Believe what you see, don't see what you believe.


John Ray (1627 - 1705)

#28 grumpyoldram

grumpyoldram
  • Coach
  • 2,592 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 04:54 PM

the one rule i would like to see enforced is playing the ball with the foot,at present the rule says the player must make an attempt to play the ball with the foot but the player is the only one who knows whether he has actually tried to play the ball with his foot or not and more often it is not,most players just wave their foot in the general direction of the ball with no intention of touching it with their foot,if refs penalised this like they used to it would soon make players play the ball properly.


Playing the ball after the tackle is a complete lottery. Not playing the ball properly seems to have developed from SL's "turn a blind eye if it speeds up the game" attitude. Personally I think we might just as well dispense with the rule and allow players to just shunt it back - at least then we wouldn't have the situation arising where one ref's incorrect play the ball is anothers intereference, with the penalty going to either side at the whim of the man in the middle. Would also scrap the "standing square at the marker rule" - I don't like a rule designed to earn a side a cheap penalty. I doubt there would be much need for rule change if the existing ones were applied correctly and consistently.

#29 Blind side johnny

Blind side johnny
  • Coach
  • 9,033 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 08:39 PM

Playing the ball after the tackle is a complete lottery. Not playing the ball properly seems to have developed from SL's "turn a blind eye if it speeds up the game" attitude. Personally I think we might just as well dispense with the rule and allow players to just shunt it back - at least then we wouldn't have the situation arising where one ref's incorrect play the ball is anothers intereference, with the penalty going to either side at the whim of the man in the middle. Would also scrap the "standing square at the marker rule" - I don't like a rule designed to earn a side a cheap penalty. I doubt there would be much need for rule change if the existing ones were applied correctly and consistently.


I disagree with your latter suggestion GOR - it would simply result in two markers standing either side of the PTB removing any opportunity for a dummy half scamper.


Which famous RL coach said "If a player isn't cheating, he's not trying hard enough"?

Jack Gibson maybe?
Believe what you see, don't see what you believe.


John Ray (1627 - 1705)

#30 Dog Faced Gremlin

Dog Faced Gremlin
  • Coach
  • 497 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 09:01 PM

I think it's about time they brought back the, "standing square at the play of the ball" rule. It appears that if the second marker is at least touching the marker then ha can stand pretty much where he wants.
For when the one great scorer comes to mark against your name he writes not if you won or lost but how you played the game.

#31 grumpyoldram

grumpyoldram
  • Coach
  • 2,592 posts

Posted 29 December 2012 - 09:41 AM

I disagree with your latter suggestion GOR - it would simply result in two markers standing either side of the PTB removing any opportunity for a dummy half scamper.


Which famous RL coach said "If a player isn't cheating, he's not trying hard enough"?

Jack Gibson maybe?


And of course, if we were deprived of the dummy half scamper, the SL players would have to think of something else to do with their first five tackles, and that would never do. ;)

#32 Blind side johnny

Blind side johnny
  • Coach
  • 9,033 posts

Posted 29 December 2012 - 10:39 AM

And of course, if we were deprived of the dummy half scamper, the SL players would have to think of something else to do with their first five tackles, and that would never do. ;)


Ha, that's easy! Bring back the rule that penalises the dummy half if he's tackled in possession of the football.

Next!!


;)
Believe what you see, don't see what you believe.


John Ray (1627 - 1705)

#33 grumpyoldram

grumpyoldram
  • Coach
  • 2,592 posts

Posted 29 December 2012 - 12:00 PM

Ha, that's easy! Bring back the rule that penalises the dummy half if he's tackled in possession of the football.

Next!!


;)


Where the hell did you get that one from ? :o :)

#34 legin

legin
  • Players
  • 81 posts

Posted 29 December 2012 - 12:47 PM

BSJ
It was not penalty but scrum head and feed to defending side

#35 Blind side johnny

Blind side johnny
  • Coach
  • 9,033 posts

Posted 29 December 2012 - 02:28 PM

BSJ
It was not penalty but scrum head and feed to defending side


To be penalised is not the same as conceding a penalty.

HTH






B)
Believe what you see, don't see what you believe.


John Ray (1627 - 1705)

#36 Blind side johnny

Blind side johnny
  • Coach
  • 9,033 posts

Posted 29 December 2012 - 02:29 PM

Where the hell did you get that one from ? :o :)


The days of unlimited tackles GOR, to ensure that the team in possession passed at least once after the PTB rather than just running with the ball up the jumper from dummy half.
Believe what you see, don't see what you believe.


John Ray (1627 - 1705)

#37 Robthegardener.

Robthegardener.
  • Coach
  • 1,416 posts

Posted 29 December 2012 - 08:34 PM

So players dont take up the sport knowing theres a likelyhood of injury, i know no one myself included wants to see anyone seriously injured and if this means a slight change in rules etc, etc then so be it but lets not pretend we have a scrum, we either have competitive scrums or we dont have scrums at all, currently it spoils the game.


GOOD SHOUT!!Can you get a a job at the RFL please..
Posted ImageVelcome to ze forum...You must obay ze rules




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users