Jump to content


TotalRL.com Shop Alert: Last Ordering Date for Free Pre-Xmas Delivery within UK: 2pm Thursday 18th December!!
Rugby League Yearbook 2014/15 The Forbidden Game League Express League Express Gift Card Rugby League World Rugby League World Gift Card
Buy Now £14.99 / Kindle Buy Now £14.99 / Kindle Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards



Photo
- - - - -

Rule changes for 2013 confirmed


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#21 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,831 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 03:53 PM

Agree, it will be interesting to see! Effectively you can have one risk free all or nothing play (if thats not a complete contradiction in terms!) Should see some exciting off the cuff rugby which could be very entertaining!

The only potential negative on this is that it is another change which appears to favour the attacking side, and we need to be careful about the balance.

#22 stevowarrior

stevowarrior
  • Coach
  • 7 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 04:01 PM

Does any body know if these rule changes are to be applied to International Rules, whether the NRL are adopting them this season, and if not why the hell are the RFL tinkering with rule changes during the WORLD CUP season?

#23 Sir Galahad

Sir Galahad
  • Players
  • 58 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 04:22 PM

I can't get my head around the in touch rule but I assume it will become clear once the season begins and a game is won or lost by what seems a complete misunderstanding of the rule by a player.

What I am very disappointed about is that they have not changed the charge down rule. If a kicking player has the ball charged down and then he/she or one of his team mates regains posession from the resultant ricochet the tackle count should not be re-set. I have always found this rule unfair as it does not encourage players to charge a kick. In fact I think it encourages players to target the player rather than the ball which I believe is far more dangerous as a kicking player is often not braced for collison (as is usually the case with ball in hand) because they are focusing on the ball.
Deus vult.

#24 Sir Galahad

Sir Galahad
  • Players
  • 58 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 04:23 PM

I know this is not strictly a rule change as per the game on the field but PLEASE can someone also change the ludicrous play-off system? The current format is bilge.
Deus vult.

#25 Just to be clear

Just to be clear
  • Coach
  • 330 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 06:32 PM

(Oh no they're not! See the amendment to this press release later in this thread - Webby)


Just to be clear, oh yes they have. The rule changes are the same in both, it is just the preamble that differs. They removed the reference to them be trialled during the pre-season friendlies, which is wise as that just causes confusion. These changes to rules and interpretations were always intended to be implemented and are separate to the experimental rules (on charge-downs etc.) that were trialled for possible implementation in future seasons As a result of removing that reference they also changed from past to present tense.

That was boring, but avoids anyone needing to read both posts or trying in vain to work out what rule change is being flip-flopped. Always best just to be clear.

On the dead in-goal rule issue, as has been stated this is just reversing last year's controversial change. This was the old rule:

Where the ball which has bounced or has been passed in the field of play or the in goal area comes into contact with a player in touch, touch in goal or over the dead ball line, the ball is deemed to have been made dead or taken into touch by that player. Where the ball is played at from a kick that has not bounced in the field of play by a player who has at least one foot on the touch-line or in touch then the ball is deemed to have been made dead or taken into touch by the kicking team.


A player is deemed to be in touch if any part of his body touches the touchline or anything outside of the playing field. Similarly, a player is deemed to be touch in-goal or dead in-goal if any part of his body touches the touch in-goal or dead-ball line or anything outside the field of play in those areas. If a player who is in touch, touch in-goal or dead in-goal touches a moving ball then the team who kicked the ball or knocked on are responsible for the ball going out of play. However, if the ball is stationary in the field of play and is then touched by a player who is in touch, touch in-goal or dead in-goal then that player is responsible for the ball going dead.



Last season if a ball was kicked into touch or beyond the dead-ball line then a defending player would had to let it hit the ground to be made dead before they could collect it to restart play, else the attacking side would have been given a scrum. Effectively the ball was always in play until it touched the ground or a another player, and in either case whoever last touched the ball was deemed responsible for making it dead.

The original rule is being reinstated where if a player is in touch and recovers the ball (or attempts to) they are essentially regarded as an extension of the ground and whomever touched the ball last before them is the one deemed responsible for making it dead.

#26 Blind side johnny

Blind side johnny
  • Coach
  • 9,753 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 07:07 PM

I don't like the advantage rule at all!


Nor do I.

If I interpret this correctly (please tell me if I have it wrong) so long as the non-offending team retain possession of the knocked-on ball then play will continue. Previously it was interpreted that the team must actually gain some advantage by making yardage past the point of the offence; this now appears to have disappeared. If that is the case then expect a stream of "accidental" knock-ons which place the defending team under further pressure.

Is this correct?
Believe what you see, don't see what you believe.


John Ray (1627 - 1705)

#27 Blind side johnny

Blind side johnny
  • Coach
  • 9,753 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 07:09 PM

I thought they were bringing a new rule in for the deliberate kicking of the ball dead? a restart from where kicked.


Yes, it's disappointing that it isn't also being introduced as I thought that could be a really positive development.
Believe what you see, don't see what you believe.


John Ray (1627 - 1705)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users