59 replies to this topic

[Padge]

The point Happy Dave makes stands in regards to deterring 40/20's as the ball going dead on the wrong side of the corner flag would now be a 40m restart i.e. if you get the 40/20 wrong by kicking it too strongly your back to the 40m.


My opinion is that I still like the new rule as I am not a 40/20 fan in any case as I think it erodes the attritional nature of the game.

How many 40/20 attempts have you seen actually do this, the usual thing is the fall short not the other way around.

[RS]

Well if they fall short the rule won't change so its not an issue

[Padge]

Well if they fall short the rule won't change so its not an issue

And the occasions they get it wrong by kicking behind the corner flag are so few its not an issue. Also kicking out on the full I would guess happens more than accidently kicking it dead, and that results in being taken back to the 40, that doesn't deter attempts at the 40/20.

Edited by Padge, 25 December 2012 - 09:57 AM.

[Mushy]

I like the charge down rule and I am intrigued to see how the other two go.

The charge down rule will also improve player safety as defenders will go for the ball rather than half arsed charges into the kicker's legs.

Anything that breaks up play at scrums would be interesting but part of me would still like to see trials of more pushing and hooking for the ball to see if this could work better than the scrums in the 1980s.

But how we can end up writing our own rules is still behind me. Worldwide laws is a job for the RLIF without a shadow of doubt.

[HappyDave]

Okay, I guess I can be won over by trial laws 2 and 3 but the 'scrimmage' nonsense certainly won't.

I wish the RLIF was like the ICC and IRB to oversee the Laws of the game, however I'm avoiding saying FIFA due to all the corruption and dodgy goings on in that organisation.

Maybe one day we will get an International Law overseer, the IRLF (International Rugby League Federation?), with real power, however the ARL, ARLC, Aussies Players Associatand NRL will fight it to the bitter end.

Edited by HappyDave, 25 December 2012 - 12:52 PM.

[philipw]

From what I read, it's not a 'scrimmage' type of set up, more that the attacking team only packs down with five and the loose forward slots into the three quarter line as an extra man, hopefully giving teams license to attack the extra space

[thundergaz]

The rules are a bit weird I think. The charge down rule is silly because I think charging down a kick is hard and it's an art if its pulled off so punishing teams for charging a kick down is wrong IMO. I guess no one will attempt them anymore. The scrums rule could lead to a lot more try's which is good I suppose but it will benefit the best attacking teams I.e Wigan and wire etc. also they may be more one sided games with this rule. The 40/20 rule will make teams go for more 40/20s which will help the attacking team under pressure which IMO is the only rule that would probably work as I think it will help the so called poorer teams and hopefully make the games closer.

[HappyDave]

As has been said they don't need the extra space. I play both codes. As a RU Centre and a RL Second Row. In RL it is possible to break fast from the scrum, however in RU the Forwards seem to take a eternity at the lowest levels and so leave their Backs in the sh*t.

I once didn't break out of the scrum fast enough from the 2nd Row and let a Try in as they were only about 20 metres out, so beat myself up about it but it happen... Giving the attacking team an extra attacker is really unfair on the defending team.

Gaz, I think you may have misunderstood the 'over the dead-ball line' and charge down Laws? As they'd both give the defending team the advantage, as if they charge down the kick the tackle count remains the same, so they don't need to worry about the tackle count getting wiped, and if a 40/20 attempt goes out in their 20 having been kicked outside their opponents' 40 they will get the tap on their 40.

Edited by HappyDave, 25 December 2012 - 01:11 PM.

[Marauder]

From what I read, it's not a 'scrimmage' type of set up, more that the attacking team only packs down with five and the loose forward slots into the three quarter line as an extra man, hopefully giving teams license to attack the extra space

The scrum rule could find some of the old scrummaging sklls & contested scrums finding themselves back in the game again as the defending teams will obviously go to disrupt the attacking scrum.

[HappyDave]

What I've seen of RL competitive scrums they look even worse that RU scrums. I don't really 'get' when people talk about the skill involved other than getting their bodies into a strong position.

[Matt J]

To many teams kick the ball deliberately dead from there own half of the field to set there defence and get up the right end of the field. I like the change to that rule as theres no skill in that at all same with the charge down if you cant get a kick away cleanly you dont deserve six more tackles in possession

How many teams deliberately score more points than the other side? this should be done away with too, otherwise we'll end up with losing teams.

[tonyXIII]

Maybe one day we will get an International Law overseer, the IRLF (International Rugby League Federation?), with real power, however the ARL, ARLC, Aussies Players Associatand NRL will fight it to the bitter end.

My sentiments exactly. However, the IRLF has no money and, therefore, no clout. The moneybags at club level (sic) in both the NRL and SLE control the game in their respective hemispheres and there is no sign of a convergence in opinion. Sad but true.

[Lounge Room Lizard]

Same old problem great sport run by poor administrators both in the UK, Australia and Internationally.RL will continue to be a joke regarding the rules, eligibility and structure of games whilst we have the RLIF that is just a name with no power as others have mentioned. ANY trials or rule changes should be done via the RLIF and done to see if it helps all the game not just the top/Pro end. We have so many diiferent interpretations its hard to teach new people the rules when the NRL, SL, Internationals and amateurs have many diiferent versions. Its very frustrating.

The rules are interesting but I would get my team to push for the ball if defending a couple of times as 5 v 6 in the scrum will see teams pushed of the ball. I am not sure it will actually benefit the team putting the ball in that much. And I can see a few scrum collapses. The kicking trial is another one which I am interested in as many weaker teams have deliberately kicked a ball dead so that they can reorganize and slow the game down and force the opponents to start on the 20. I feel the rule trial is benefitting the better teams again. I would rather see a rule change that benefits a weaker team-i.e the team just scored must kick the ball and not receive it for example.

[Marauder]

What I've seen of RL competitive scrums they look even worse that RU scrums. I don't really 'get' when people talk about the skill involved other than getting their bodies into a strong position.

Did you ever play when the scrums where competitive? It may have looked a mess but a lot of work and skill went on.

[Wiltshire Rhino]

I play both codes.

I've seen you "play" and I'd say your statement is open to debate! ;-)

See you in the New Year mate.

[Old Frightful]

Seeing as this game's taking place at Headingley, is there any chance of reintroducing the old rule where you had to pass the ball backwards?

(runs for cover...)

[amh]

Seeing as this game's taking place at Headingley, is there any chance of reintroducing the old rule where you had to pass the ball backwards?

(runs for cover...)

Love it and pinched for elsewhere

[Odsal Outlaw]

I don't think there is anything wrong with trailing new rules in friendlies, in the same way the NRL do in pre-season, however the directive should come from RLIF and not be decided locally.

[tim2]

The rules are a bit weird I think. The charge down rule is silly because I think charging down a kick is hard and it's an art if its pulled off so punishing teams for charging a kick down is wrong IMO. I guess no one will attempt them anymore.

Am I missing something? Isn't the new rule encouraging charge downs? Currently, the tackle count restarts so the attacking team gets 6 more, but after the rule it wont.

There was once a Q+A with Stuart Cummings on this forum where I suggested the rule about taking the ball downfield after kicking dead (like RU does). He told me that teams didn't deliberately do this so there was no need to change.

[Marauder]

Seeing as this game's taking place at Headingley, is there any chance of reintroducing the old rule where you had to pass the ball backwards?

(runs for cover...)

Are these new rules only going to be trailed in one match?

Edited by Marauder, 26 December 2012 - 09:44 AM.