NRL rule changes approved

[Man of Kent]

Fascinating set of changes for 2020. A touch gimmicky, perhaps, so will be interesting to see the impact.

https://www.nrl.com/news/2019/12/06/nrl-announces-rule-changes-for-scrums-trainers-2040-kick-endorses-challenge-system/

Good to see a clampdown on water-carriers/former international half-back coaches is coming.

 

[gingerjon]

When the NRL makes these changes do they then apply to all RL played in Australia?

[Yakstorm]

58 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

When the NRL makes these changes do they then apply to all RL played in Australia?

No, generally only the Premiership. Sometimes they will be extended to the NSW & Queensland Cups, but most competitions play International rules.

[Lowdesert]

All good for the game, imo, apart from the challenge bit.  Just stop this altogether.  If we’re trying to find the perfect way to allow engagement between players and officials we will wait a long time.

Does the shot clock still apply regarding the scrums being formed on the far side of the field after the 5 seconds decision time ?  I can see players strolling across, tying boots, being injured etc, if it doesn’t.

[Pyjamarama]

It looks like the NRL has again made a unilateral decision to alter some rules of the sport without consulting the rest of the RL playing nations or even the IRL.

I accept that it's good practice to periodically review the laws of the game, but with the game continuing to grow internationally - & no longer restricted to just England, France, Australia, NZ, & PNG, surely this should now be undertaken by the IRL. The NRL should obviously have an input, but so should all other IRL full members. 

The problem with individual nations introducing their own rule changes is that it brings confusion to the rest of the RL nations as to which set of rules they now follow. It also sets a precedent for any of the 40 odd RL nations to do the same if they so wish - which (at least in theory) could lead to one change too many for some nations possibly resulting in a third code of rugby.  

I feel that the time has come whereby one of the rules of IRL membership should be to agree not to unilaterally make rule changes, and also agree that the IRL (with input from all full members) is the sole body responsible for making any rule changes.

[Chrispmartha]

Not a fan of that challenge rule

[Man of Kent]

Find the scrum rule the most intriguing. 

I imagine the team with head & feed would want a central scrum in its own half but a 10m one in good ball. 

Should lead to more scrum base tries if clubs see the opportunity

[Damien]

It wouldn't be a new RL season without a few gimmicky rule changes.

Good news about limiting the time of trainers on the field but not much detail to go on.

[Wile E Cayote]

I don't really understand why rules need to be changed all the time. The skill is already taken from the game and everything seems to be about speeding the game up.

All the best elements of the game are gone as it is and now it's going to become kick tennis. The middle of the park will become baron land as another 40/20/20/40 sales over no man's land.

Then we will have loads of excitement in the red zones as another big screen tells us whether a try is a try or not a try. If I wanted to watch the ruddy game on the television when I am at the ground, I would have saved myself a few quid and watched it on television at home.

The mind boggles.

[DavidM]

Get message carriers out of it , don’t need anyone on who isn’t treating an injured player - end of . Not a fan of the challenge at all unless it’s replacing the bunker system . There’s already to much reliance on the bunker we don’t need it infecting general play . 

[Lowdesert]

7 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

Find the scrum rule the most intriguing. 

I imagine the team with head & feed would want a central scrum in its own half but a 10m one in good ball. 

Should lead to more scrum base tries if clubs see the opportunity

I think that would depend on many things.  It is intriguing if nothing else though.

[Lowdesert]

1 hour ago, DavidM said:

Get message carriers out of it , don’t need anyone on who isn’t treating an injured player - end of . Not a fan of the challenge at all unless it’s replacing the bunker system . There’s already to much reliance on the bunker we don’t need it infecting general play . 

And it’s not been cheap either.  I think there’s been more controversy with the Bunker than without.

[DavidM]

12 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

And it’s not been cheap either.  I think there’s been more controversy with the Bunker than without.

Yep just the three million dollars . I’d be more in favour of a limited captains challenge similar to  cricket , but just adding another layer in this mythical search for the perfect error free game is another step toward officiating by remote control , over analysis and totally changing the nature of the sport . Or the tip of it anyway from what everyone else watches 

[snapski]

I dislike the 20/40 rule immensely. It negates what could be a very strong defensive set, and also adds more unwarranted kicking into the game.  Be turning it into that other code.

[Clogiron]

Does the Captain's challenge apply to Cameron Smith? or does he adjudicate on his own challenge like he does at present?

[ghost crayfish]

4 hours ago, Lowdesert said:

And it’s not been cheap either.  I think there’s been more controversy with the Bunker than without.

But all this 'controversy' really just coincides with the launch of the NRL channel, and the proliferation of panel shows that has come with it. They need stuff to talk about, so every little thing is amped up. That's become the culture among all commentators and that obviously flows on to fans. Every little decision is broken down. Most of the time, the commentators can't even agree - but what used to just be accepted as a 50/50 call is now this big farcical controversy all the time. It's embarrassing.

[Big Picture]

1 hour ago, snapski said:

I dislike the 20/40 rule immensely. It negates what could be a very strong defensive set, and also adds more unwarranted kicking into the game.  Be turning it into that other code.

Agreed, just like the 40/20 rule before it.

[Sports Prophet]

13 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

Find the scrum rule the most intriguing. 

I imagine the team with head & feed would want a central scrum in its own half but a 10m one in good ball. 

Should lead to more scrum base tries if clubs see the opportunity

What about setting a scrum in the middle when you are only 20m from the opponents goal line, stacking one side with all your backline bar Josh Ado Carr who is on the other side, all to himself with space and speed in a likely 1 on 1...

[Sports Prophet]

14 hours ago, Pyjamarama said:

It looks like the NRL has again made a unilateral decision to alter some rules of the sport without consulting the rest of the RL playing nations or even the IRL.

I accept that it's good practice to periodically review the laws of the game, but with the game continuing to grow internationally - & no longer restricted to just England, France, Australia, NZ, & PNG, surely this should now be undertaken by the IRL. The NRL should obviously have an input, but so should all other IRL full members. 

The problem with individual nations introducing their own rule changes is that it brings confusion to the rest of the RL nations as to which set of rules they now follow. It also sets a precedent for any of the 40 odd RL nations to do the same if they so wish - which (at least in theory) could lead to one change too many for some nations possibly resulting in a third code of rugby.  

I feel that the time has come whereby one of the rules of IRL membership should be to agree not to unilaterally make rule changes, and also agree that the IRL (with input from all full members) is the sole body responsible for making any rule changes.

You may be right in perfect world theory, but, your suggestion is unfortunately fanciful.

The NRL cannot rely on the IRL to improve the sport as a spectacle to the fans. In fact, the NRL would be negligent to rely on the IRL (with employees you can count with one hand) to make any decisions in the interest of the sport’s success in Australia, let alone have the IRL dictate and enforce changes.

The IRL can’t enforce the NRL to do anything. That’s just a simple power balance matter.

At least the decisions were made in consultation with the sport’s stakeholders. Over 20,000 fans answered the NRLs poll. I answered it. I answered it last year. It was about 50 questions long. I don’t remember the IRL running a similar poll asking for input from fans on how the game can be improved. In turn, I am so far, very satisfied with the NRL making their own changes to laws and interpretations.

[Man of Kent]

51 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

What about setting a scrum in the middle when you are only 20m from the opponents goal line, stacking one side with all your backline bar Josh Ado Carr who is on the other side, all to himself with space and speed in a likely 1 on 1...

Excellent, I hadn’t thought of that. 

I think this could be a really good change that’ll lead to more variety and tries if teams can be bothered to work on moves in training. Let’s hope they do!

[Sports Prophet]

Wrong post

[TheReaper]

The challenge is very similar to CFL, which seems to now be working well after a few tweaks. It'll be interesting to see how coached use it in rugby.

[jim_57]

20/40 - Will hardly ever be attempted, a but gimmicky but overall not fussed.

No Tackling in the air at all - Will be a disaster, tall wingers will have an absolute field day and it will become the go to tactic for every team moreso than it already is. It will also result in some farcial sinbinnings and even penalty trys when the defending players tries to compete for the ball but makes contact with the attacking player.

Challenge - Not bad but needs to have set guidelines on when it can be used. 

Scenario: Team A makes a break downfield with their player tackled 5 metres short of the try line. Team B defense is absolutely shot. Team A goes to play the ball for a simplw shift to score BUT Team B captain challenges saying he saw the Team A player knock-on. Play is reset and defensive line is reset.

[ojx]

17 hours ago, Pyjamarama said:

It looks like the NRL has again made a unilateral decision to alter some rules of the sport without consulting the rest of the RL playing nations or even the IRL.

I accept that it's good practice to periodically review the laws of the game, but with the game continuing to grow internationally - & no longer restricted to just England, France, Australia, NZ, & PNG, surely this should now be undertaken by the IRL. The NRL should obviously have an input, but so should all other IRL full members. 

The problem with individual nations introducing their own rule changes is that it brings confusion to the rest of the RL nations as to which set of rules they now follow. It also sets a precedent for any of the 40 odd RL nations to do the same if they so wish - which (at least in theory) could lead to one change too many for some nations possibly resulting in a third code of rugby.  

I feel that the time has come whereby one of the rules of IRL membership should be to agree not to unilaterally make rule changes, and also agree that the IRL (with input from all full members) is the sole body responsible for making any rule changes.

Why would a massive commercial enterprise, be beholden to a rag-tag organization with three employees? That would be like the NFL being guided by the International Federation of American Football (IFAF). It doesn't make any sense. Australia is a competitive dynamic sports market. The NRL need to be agile enough to make these decisions. 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

1 hour ago, jim_57 said:

No Tackling in the air at all - Will be a disaster, tall wingers will have an absolute field day and it will become the go to tactic for every team moreso than it already is. It will also result in some farcial sinbinnings and even penalty trys when the defending players tries to compete for the ball but makes contact with the attacking player.

You do realise this is already a rule internationally?