Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

HappyDave

New 'Experimental Laws' to be trialled by the RFL

61 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :D and pinched for elsewhere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

See you in the New Year mate.

Dammit! :lol:

See you in the New Year mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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? :huh:

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.