59 replies to this topic

[Old Frightful]

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

The clubs in both the Leeds v Wakey and Batley v Dewsbury Boxing Day friendlies have agreed to try them out....

...or was this another part of the humour that's flown over my head?

[thundergaz]

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.

No your right Tim I was reading 2 articles at the same time and got mixed up its me that's wrong not you.

[HappyDave]

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

See you in the New Year mate.

Dammit!

See you in the New Year mate.

[Marauder]

The clubs in both the Leeds v Wakey and Batley v Dewsbury Boxing Day friendlies have agreed to try them out....

...or was this another part of the humour that's flown over my head?

Not at all, I just can't see how just a couple of games can decided whether or not to introduce new laws.

[HappyDave]

I guess in a way at least its better than not trialing them at all and just forcing them on players without seeing if they work?...

I've only been 'playing' [for Wiltshire Rhinos' benefit ] Rugby for the past 3 years even though I'm getting old [32 soon], so apart from putting the odd push on with the current RL scrums, as I say I don't really get what is so skillful about competitive scrums in the Rugby codes. It just seems that RL scrums are really unstable when you get the players pushing in them.

Is this the skills you're talking about?

http://www.wired.com...=40&slideView=9

Stable scrums?

https://www.youtube....h?v=uKFyPRJnw0E

Edited by HappyDave, 26 December 2012 - 03:45 PM.

[Bostik Bailey]

Don't like the charge down one. Of course it is the other side playing at the ball,

[John Rhino]

My take on the new rules after today at headingley
Scrum rule, waste of time - it made no difference whatsoever. Wakey were a man down for most of the game and even then there was no difference at the Scrum.
Kick out rule. Good. I liked this, a team coming at you with six tackles from the 40 metre line will ensure teams don't kick for dead. It happened once in the game.
Charge down, too early to say. The only charge down flew straight into touch anyway.

[southstand loiner]

My take on the new rules after today at headingley
Scrum rule, waste of time - it made no difference whatsoever. Wakey were a man down for most of the game and even then there was no difference at the Scrum.
Kick out rule. Good. I liked this, a team coming at you with six tackles from the 40 metre line will ensure teams don't kick for dead. It happened once in the game.
Charge down, too early to say. The only charge down flew straight into touch anyway.

the scrum rule was disapointing as i was hoping the defending teams would put a bit of a push on in the scrum or the loose forward would be used for scrum base moves .
the 40 m rule was fine as it rewarded a team for defending well and forcing a long kick.
as for the charge down rule there were in fact 2 charge downs the one you refer to was in the second half and did indeed go into touch but there was one about halfway into the first half by the norh stand that was charged down on the 5th tackle and regatherd by wakey who then had to hand the ball over . i think its a good rule as it will give reward for a charge down which is often under valued

[guess who]

Have to agree the scrum change was a waste of time.
Both teams Keighley and Halifax. Both passed the ball through everyone's legs. So it came straight out the back of the scrum. The player putting it in ran to the back of the scrum and picked it up.

[southstand loiner]

Have to agree the scrum change was a waste of time.
Both teams Keighley and Halifax. Both passed the ball through everyone's legs. So it came straight out the back of the scrum. The player putting it in ran to the back of the scrum and picked it up.

i think it was meant to give the attacking team an extra man in the loose but until teams decide how to take advantage of it then we wont see much change.
i would favour worked moves such as extra man on the blind side which would either create a space there or force the defending team to push another man across creating a overlap on the open side for the attacking team which could be exploited by either quick hands or a good kick

[John Rhino]

as for the charge down rule there were in fact 2 charge downs the one you refer to was in the second half and did indeed go into touch but there was one about halfway into the first half by the norh stand that was charged down on the 5th tackle and regatherd by wakey who then had to hand the ball over . i think its a good rule as it will give reward for a charge down which is often under valued

Yeah, sorry, forgot about that one. Both of them were inconclusive as regards the new rule. Like i said needs a bit more time.

Merry Christmas!

[Ackydave]

Makes no soddin' difference really. The refs will follow the letter of the law (rules) for so long; at the expense of other rules; and then forget about 'em - only pulling up the odd infringement to show willing. Much the same as now - it just means there'll be a few more rules to remember and confuse everyone.

[Southstander13]

We had two charge downs yesterday as mentioned, but one of the things that I found interesting was that there was a slight discrepency in how the rule applies. The first one worked perfectly, Wakefield kicked it on 5th, charged down by Leeds, Wakey dived on the ball and were then tackled, turnover to Leeds.

The second one, Leeds kicked it, Wakefield charged it down but the ball bounced into touch so Leeds got the scrum. Whilst this is correct as Wakey deliberately played at the ball, it just seemed unfair that Leeds got the scrum. If a charge down doesnt restart the tackle count if the ball stays in the field, maybe it should be Wakefields scrum if they've charged it down and it went in touch.

For me, that rule is there to reward good defence and getting to the ball before its kicked. If a kicker cant get his kick away before being charged down then he didnt give himself enough space etc so in my view its a poor kick.

[southstand loiner]

We had two charge downs yesterday as mentioned, but one of the things that I found interesting was that there was a slight discrepency in how the rule applies. The first one worked perfectly, Wakefield kicked it on 5th, charged down by Leeds, Wakey dived on the ball and were then tackled, turnover to Leeds.

The second one, Leeds kicked it, Wakefield charged it down but the ball bounced into touch so Leeds got the scrum. Whilst this is correct as Wakey deliberately played at the ball, it just seemed unfair that Leeds got the scrum. If a charge down doesnt restart the tackle count if the ball stays in the field, maybe it should be Wakefields scrum if they've charged it down and it went in touch.

For me, that rule is there to reward good defence and getting to the ball before its kicked. If a kicker cant get his kick away before being charged down then he didnt give himself enough space etc so in my view its a poor kick.

you have a point but the ball went directly out of play without touching the field of play so i would suspect that would be in line with a kick going directly into touch which is ball back and scrum to the none offending team

[Northern Sol]

For me, that rule is there to reward good defence and getting to the ball before its kicked. If a kicker cant get his kick away before being charged down then he didnt give himself enough space etc so in my view its a poor kick.

Agreed. A law that benefits the defence makes a nice change.

[Marauder]

Makes no soddin' difference really. The refs will follow the letter of the law (rules) for so long; at the expense of other rules; and then forget about 'em - only pulling up the odd infringement to show willing. Much the same as now - it just means there'll be a few more rules to remember and confuse everyone.

I'll agree with you on this, many new rules just make a simple game more technical, but if they changed the PTB to simply rolling the ball between the legs (which is in fact what happens) we would be crying sacrilege.

[brooza]

Credit to the RFL though for trialling these rule changes and getting feedback, rather than just implement a hugely contraversial change, a la ARLC

[thundergaz]

These new laws that were trialled are they going to be included in our game for the upcoming season? Or 1 or 2 of the 3 rules?.

[Odsal Outlaw]

Had a charge down at Batley vs Dews as well. Personally think that ones a great rule and removes issue of a great effort on a charge down being nullified by tackle going to zero.

[Southstander13]

Had a charge down at Batley vs Dews as well. Personally think that ones a great rule and removes issue of a great effort on a charge down being nullified by tackle going to zero.

Have to agree, this one should stay. Ive often thought previously that there was almost no point in attempting a charge down as the most likely outcome is 6 more tackles to the team kicking. So this will reward good defence.

As this would likely increase the number of attempted charge downs, the RFL would need to make sure they clamp down on late challenges on the kicker. It should be a charge down of the ball and not a late tackle.