NRL rule changes approved

[Sports Prophet]

11 minutes ago, Pyjamarama said:

If your argument is correct, this annual rule tinkering method should be encouraged throughout all the other RL nations.

Every RL nation should be encouraged once a year to alter the rules solely to make the sport attractive to their own nation. The more sets of rules the better - what could possibly go wrong for a growing international sport? 

Why would we encourage that? You’re just being hysterical. If there are any other nations on this planet that can evidence making minor amendments to the rules and interpretations will increase the spectacle and viewership of the sport, I welcome them to act upon it.

If playing internationally is in the interest of that national governing body, then it’s up to them to understand that they will be competing to different rules and interpretations.

20 minutes ago, Pyjamarama said:

The annual NRL rule changes are so successful that they feel compelled to change them again every 12 months.

How disingenuous of you, it’s not like the NRL are changing the same rules every 12 months. They are different rules that are being amended for what is believed to be the improvement of the game.

22 minutes ago, Pyjamarama said:

Regardless of what other sports do, we need to consider what is best for our game. Each year our sport is being played in nations new to RL. So surely it is common sense to have a sensible unified global policy to play under one set of rules, and to retain some semblance of control on reviewing and implementing any rule changes for the benefit of the whole game & not just the NRL.

The NRL is far too advanced to be directed on how to govern the sport by a pitiful governing body like the IRL. Stop dreaming. If you believe these changes will have any great negative bearing on the growth and development of rugby league in new and fledgling communities then I think you need to reconsider the priorities of primary issues this sport faces internationally.

[RP London]

1 hour ago, Sports Prophet said:

This rule does nothing to promote or reward the team that is leading after 70 minutes. 

Successfully executed, it will fail to reward the team that deserves rewarding.

its not the rule's aim to do either of those things so the fact it does not matters little. If it was its aim to reward them then i would agree, it isnt so the above is irrelevant. 

[Sports Prophet]

2 hours ago, RP London said:

its not the rule's aim to do either of those things so the fact it does not matters little. If it was its aim to reward them then i would agree, it isnt so the above is irrelevant. 

No, exactly my point, it is a rule that favours and presents opportunity to the team losing late in the game. You won’t see any player attempt to take advantage of this opportunity unless they are on the losing side with 15 or less minutes to go.

That is the flaw in the rule.

[Dunbar]

As an experiment, I would like to see a game of Rugby League where tha actual laws of the game (all of them) are applied by the officials.

It would interesting to see what we would get.

[Pyjamarama]

6 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

If there are any other nations on this planet that can evidence making minor amendments to the rules and interpretations will increase the spectacle and viewership of the sport, I welcome them to act upon it.

I 100% totally agree!! 

But it's the process of how we examine & possibly change the rules that is the issue. If another nation has an idea to make the rules better for everyone then absolutely great - lets have a look at it. 

Just lets have a means/platform whereby this can be examined by the game as a whole. I really don't see what the problem with this is. It just seems (to me) to be the logical thing to do - but I accept you have a different opinion.

Anyway, I'm sure we both have the games best interests at heart. I'm going to sign off from this thread now before I get anymore hysterical & disingenuous.

[Bluebags1973]

8 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

Why would we encourage that? You’re just being hysterical. If there are any other nations on this planet that can evidence making minor amendments to the rules and interpretations will increase the spectacle and viewership of the sport, I welcome them to act upon it.

If playing internationally is in the interest of that national governing body, then it’s up to them to understand that they will be competing to different rules and interpretations.

How disingenuous of you, it’s not like the NRL are changing the same rules every 12 months. They are different rules that are being amended for what is believed to be the improvement of the game.

The NRL is far too advanced to be directed on how to govern the sport by a pitiful governing body like the IRL. Stop dreaming. If you believe these changes will have any great negative bearing on the growth and development of rugby league in new and fledgling communities then I think you need to reconsider the priorities of primary issues this sport faces internationally.

I get your point. However, rule changes should go through the international world governing body. That said, Australia, and England for that matter by virtue of running the only two professional leagues and having top-line players from many other nations playing in their competitions (e.g. Tonga), SHOULD exert considerable influence on the decision-making of the IRL, but at least this way there is a unified global process where other nations - at least in theory - can voice their opinion on rule changes. In the 1980’s and early 1990’s under Ken Arthurson’s watch, rule changes almost always went through the International Board.

[Bluebags1973]

2 hours ago, Pyjamarama said:

I 100% totally agree!! 

But it's the process of how we examine & possibly change the rules that is the issue. If another nation has an idea to make the rules better for everyone then absolutely great - lets have a look at it. 

Just lets have a means/platform whereby this can be examined by the game as a whole. I really don't see what the problem with this is. It just seems (to me) to be the logical thing to do - but I accept you have a different opinion.

Anyway, I'm sure we both have the games best interests at heart. I'm going to sign off from this thread now before I get anymore hysterical & disingenuous.

Exactly! It doesn’t mean that Australia still does not wield considerable influence. So they should, but the process is wrong. A coherent global process on rule changes (or no changes at all, preferably) at least makes us look like a global international sport. The current NRL unilateral process does not portray Rugby League as a global international sport.

[RP London]

18 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

No, exactly my point, it is a rule that favours and presents opportunity to the team losing late in the game. You won’t see any player attempt to take advantage of this opportunity unless they are on the losing side with 15 or less minutes to go.

That is the flaw in the rule.

How can it be exactly your point when my answer said that your statement was irrelevant? if it was exactly your point then your point was to be irrelevant.. which is bizarre?!?

it is only a flaw in the rule dependent on the reason for the rule being in place in the first instance. If the rule is in place to help the teams have a chance of getting out of their 20 then there is no flaw in the rule and in fact it is potentially perfect.

the rule may be wrong in your opinion but it is only flawed if you can put it up against the criteria for which it is intended and be able to have some proof for it.. if we dont know why it was implemented then we cannot say if it is flawed or not. You are saying it is flawed on your own criteria of what you would like to see happen in the game not on what the rule makers have decided they would like to see and hence the rule they have made. 

 

[aj1908]

the ARLC is losing the plot with all these rule changes.  the game is becoming harder to referee and there are too many penalties.  they need to simplify the rules.  the captains challenge will be rorted to delay the game when a team needs a rest.  they need to go back to one referee and get rid of the bunker.  the constant flow of penalties is ruining the game

[Sports Prophet]

1 hour ago, RP London said:

How can it be exactly your point when my answer said that your statement was irrelevant? if it was exactly your point then your point was to be irrelevant.. which is bizarre?!?

it is only a flaw in the rule dependent on the reason for the rule being in place in the first instance. If the rule is in place to help the teams have a chance of getting out of their 20 then there is no flaw in the rule and in fact it is potentially perfect.

the rule may be wrong in your opinion but it is only flawed if you can put it up against the criteria for which it is intended and be able to have some proof for it.. if we dont know why it was implemented then we cannot say if it is flawed or not. You are saying it is flawed on your own criteria of what you would like to see happen in the game not on what the rule makers have decided they would like to see and hence the rule they have made. 

 

Funny you say that, I know exactly why the rule has been implemented and in practical terms it is a rule that is doomed to only ever be taken advantage of by a team that is both losing and desperate. It’s an equaliser and equaliser’s should have no place in the 80 minutes on the pitch.

Quote me. You will only see a 20/40 attempted by a team that is losing in the final 15 minutes of a match.

Its ok. You think the rule will be good. I don’t. I’ll finish my piece there.

[fighting irish]

This point might have been made earlier so i'm sorry if that's the case (I've not read the whole thread) but it will introduce more variety, and some novelty into the game and could act as a pressure relief mechanism for a team under the cosh in their own twenty, although attempting it early in the count, is a high risk strategy. It might also force the wingers to stay back (out of the defensive line) in case of a kick, which would make running out of defense with ball in hand less onerous. It could be good, I'm eager to see how it plays out.

[RP London]

11 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

Funny you say that, I know exactly why the rule has been implemented and in practical terms it is a rule that is doomed to only ever be taken advantage of by a team that is both losing and desperate. It’s an equaliser and equaliser’s should have no place in the 80 minutes on the pitch.

Quote me. You will only see a 20/40 attempted by a team that is losing in the final 15 minutes of a match.

Its ok. You think the rule will be good. I don’t. I’ll finish my piece there.

excellent.. that is good news.. enlighten us with evidence then please.. 

It may well be doomed to be used like that, but if that is its purpose then it is perfectly designed.

you dont like it.. that is fine and I dont really care.. but you are saying it is flawed so for that to be the case we need to know its purpose.. so go on enlighten us with fact not speculation. If you cannot do this then fine, just dont call it flawed and say you dont like it.. 

BTW I never said i liked it, dont put words in my mouth... i have no opinion either way on it at the moment, my issue is with your use of language saying it is flawed when there is no basis for judgement and that it actually may be perfect for its intended purpose and therefore an unfair call on your part towards the powers making the rules. (i have no issue calling people out but lets make it fair)

[aj1908]

9 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

This point might have been made earlier so i'm sorry if that's the case (I've not read the whole thread) but it will introduce more variety, and some novelty into the game and could act as a pressure relief mechanism for a team under the cosh in their own twenty, although attempting it early in the count, is a high risk strategy. It might also force the wingers to stay back (out of the defensive line) in case of a kick, which would make running out of defense with ball in hand less onerous. It could be good, I'm eager to see how it plays out.

they need to be thinking how to promote more running and passing not kicking.

tactical kicking is kind of boring 

[John Rhino]

On 09/12/2019 at 22:28, Sports Prophet said:

Maybe, but this isn’t a usual circumstance is it. This is a national governing body with over 100 staff that between itself and it’s members, turn over hundreds of millions of dollars and the other is Nigel and a couple of staff with fortunately no influence over how the NRL is directed.

I agree, I'm not denying reality. I'm just saying if we want to be recognised as a grown up sport then it shouldn't be like this. (But I suspect the NRL, who have the power to change it for the good of the game, don't want to) 

[Sports Prophet]

1 hour ago, RP London said:

excellent.. that is good news.. enlighten us with evidence then please.. 

It may well be doomed to be used like that, but if that is its purpose then it is perfectly designed.

you dont like it.. that is fine and I dont really care.. but you are saying it is flawed so for that to be the case we need to know its purpose.. so go on enlighten us with fact not speculation. If you cannot do this then fine, just dont call it flawed and say you dont like it.. 

BTW I never said i liked it, dont put words in my mouth... i have no opinion either way on it at the moment, my issue is with your use of language saying it is flawed when there is no basis for judgement and that it actually may be perfect for its intended purpose and therefore an unfair call on your part towards the powers making the rules. (i have no issue calling people out but lets make it fair)

ok, I’ll bite...

the theory of this rule is based on history that when a team is in possession coming out of their own defensive 20, they are predominantly taking one up or two off the ruck plays in a bid to gain territory with limited risk of turning over possession in a dangerous position.

a 20/40 opportunity adds a new dimension for the team in possession to gain a significant territorial advantage and retain possession.

the theory is that when your opponent has this opportunity, that your team support the fullback defending these opportunities by dropping one, or both wingers to cover the sidelines. As such, this will leave the defensive line another one or two defenders short than they otherwise would have been and in turn opening up an alternate opportunity that the team in possession will have a numerical advantage against the defensive line.

In essence, it becomes a double edged sword, damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation.

Although I’m sure you and most people on this forum knew all that already, but seeing as you asked.

[hunsletgreenandgold]

16 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

ok, I’ll bite...

the theory of this rule is based on history that when a team is in possession coming out of their own defensive 20, they are predominantly taking one up or two off the ruck plays in a bid to gain territory with limited risk of turning over possession in a dangerous position.

a 20/40 opportunity adds a new dimension for the team in possession to gain a significant territorial advantage and retain possession.

the theory is that when your opponent has this opportunity, that your team support the fullback defending these opportunities by dropping one, or both wingers to cover the sidelines. As such, this will leave the defensive line another one or two defenders short than they otherwise would have been and in turn opening up an alternate opportunity that the team in possession will have a numerical advantage against the defensive line.

In essence, it becomes a double edged sword, damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation.

Although I’m sure you and most people on this forum knew all that already, but seeing as you asked.

So you think it's 'flawed' because teams won't drop players out of the defensive line to cover the 20/40 option? That's a very risky move surely? And if they do drop players back, regardless of whether a team coming out of their 20 decide to use it or not, it is working as designed as it changes the defensive picture they face. 

[aj1908]

18 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

ok, I’ll bite...

the theory of this rule is based on history that when a team is in possession coming out of their own defensive 20, they are predominantly taking one up or two off the ruck plays in a bid to gain territory with limited risk of turning over possession in a dangerous position.

a 20/40 opportunity adds a new dimension for the team in possession to gain a significant territorial advantage and retain possession.

the theory is that when your opponent has this opportunity, that your team support the fullback defending these opportunities by dropping one, or both wingers to cover the sidelines. As such, this will leave the defensive line another one or two defenders short than they otherwise would have been and in turn opening up an alternate opportunity that the team in possession will have a numerical advantage against the defensive line.

In essence, it becomes a double edged sword, damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation.

Although I’m sure you and most people on this forum knew all that already, but seeing as you asked.

i kind of agree with this.  surely they could come up wth better way for the attack to not look for a kick than thinking the wingers would drop back leaving a smaller defensive line with more gaps

[Sports Prophet]

16 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

So you think it's 'flawed' because teams won't drop players out of the defensive line to cover the 20/40 option? That's a very risky move surely? And if they do drop players back, regardless of whether a team coming out of their 20 decide to use it or not, it is working as designed as it changes the defensive picture they face. 

Not exactly. I do not doubt that this rule will result in a player or two dropping back.

it’s almost an absolute certainty for a team in possession to make it beyond the 30m line by the fifth tackle.

So whilst there is almost certainty to position your team into a favourable 40/20 opportunity, for the first 65 minutes, teams will take the safety first opportunity of maximising the tackle count and gaining territory with a kick from either just short of the 40m line or beyond it.

The 20/40 opportunity will only ever be attempted by a team that is behind on the scoreboard and due to the time on the clock, are within close proximity of losing the match. It will never be attempted by a team that is leading the game.

That leads to my opinion why I think the rule is flawed. Any opportunities that the sport creates with rule changes should be equitable. This is not. This is a rule that will only be taken advantage of by teams that are losing.

[hunsletgreenandgold]

11 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

Not exactly. I do not doubt that this rule will result in a player or two dropping back.

it’s almost an absolute certainty for a team in possession to make it beyond the 30m line by the fifth tackle.

So whilst there is almost certainty to position your team into a favourable 40/20 opportunity, for the first 65 minutes, teams will take the safety first opportunity of maximising the tackle count and gaining territory with a kick from either just short of the 40m line or beyond it.

The 20/40 opportunity will only ever be attempted by a team that is behind on the scoreboard and due to the time on the clock, are within close proximity of losing the match. It will never be attempted by a team that is leading the game.

That leads to my opinion why I think the rule is flawed. Any opportunities that the sport creates with rule changes should be equitable. This is not. This is a rule that will only be taken advantage of by teams that are losing.

I agree we'll only ever likely see this used when teams are playing a particularly deep exit set and whilst I don't expect it to be used anymore than the 40\20, I don't think it'll be less either. As you rightly point out, actual attempts may only come late on in games but the required adjustment by the defending team will be throughout the game you would imagine? Regarding it only been used by the losing team - you could apply that to pretty much every high risk play. 

[Sports Prophet]

9 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

As you rightly point out, actual attempts may only come late on in games but the required adjustment by the defending team will be throughout the game you would imagine? Regarding it only been used by the losing team - you could apply that to pretty much every high risk play. 

I do imagine that the adjustment will be throughout the game, yes, just not acted upon by the team in possession, if at all, until late in the game.

You’re right, high risk plays are predominantly taken by teams either on the brink of losing (otherwise teams that are blowing their opponents away). Cut out passes, chip and chase, flick passes, blind side runs etc are not enacted upon because there is a rule to favour a team taking that option though.

[RP London]

1 hour ago, Sports Prophet said:

ok, I’ll bite...

the theory of this rule is based on history that when a team is in possession coming out of their own defensive 20, they are predominantly taking one up or two off the ruck plays in a bid to gain territory with limited risk of turning over possession in a dangerous position.

a 20/40 opportunity adds a new dimension for the team in possession to gain a significant territorial advantage and retain possession.

the theory is that when your opponent has this opportunity, that your team support the fullback defending these opportunities by dropping one, or both wingers to cover the sidelines. As such, this will leave the defensive line another one or two defenders short than they otherwise would have been and in turn opening up an alternate opportunity that the team in possession will have a numerical advantage against the defensive line.

In essence, it becomes a double edged sword, damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation.

Although I’m sure you and most people on this forum knew all that already, but seeing as you asked.

so no then you dont have any evidence that what you have suggested as the reason for it coming in is actually it.. you are just sumizing. 

I do understand all the above and i can see how this rule may do that... but i do not know that that is why it was brought in and as such you/I cannot say it is flawed.. we could perhaps say it is a bad rule or that we cannot see how it will help but to be flawed it must fail its purpose, to do that we must know what its purpose is.. 

I am not making any judgment on whether it is a good or bad rule until we see it in action properly, I cannot make a judgment on whether it is flawed or not until its actual reason for existing is known (and the above is not doing that as you are guessing with no evidence.. but thanks for trying).

[RP London]

1 hour ago, Sports Prophet said:

Not exactly. I do not doubt that this rule will result in a player or two dropping back.

it’s almost an absolute certainty for a team in possession to make it beyond the 30m line by the fifth tackle.

So whilst there is almost certainty to position your team into a favourable 40/20 opportunity, for the first 65 minutes, teams will take the safety first opportunity of maximising the tackle count and gaining territory with a kick from either just short of the 40m line or beyond it.

The 20/40 opportunity will only ever be attempted by a team that is behind on the scoreboard and due to the time on the clock, are within close proximity of losing the match. It will never be attempted by a team that is leading the game.

That leads to my opinion why I think the rule is flawed. Any opportunities that the sport creates with rule changes should be equitable. This is not. This is a rule that will only be taken advantage of by teams that are losing.

What if the bit in bold is the exact reason for it being brought in? an attempt to give said desperate team an opportunity to have one last tilt at getting back into the match.. that would mean that the law is not flawed as it does exactly what it needs to do.. 

I also agree with your last paragraph which leads to a question about whether the thought process of making the rules is sound or not but it does not make the rule itself flawed as the rule itself should be only judged against the criteria for which the rule was brought in.. 

a bad rule? maybe

a bad reason to bring the rule in? maybe (though we dont know whether this is why it was brought in.. its just guesswork on your part unless you have proof that this is the reason, you know like a quote etc)

a flawed rule? it is a relative judgement against the reason for its existence, if the reasoning is to potentially help a team losing towards the end it seems sound.. but without knowing the actual reason for its existence you cannot make that judgement. you can of course think it is wrong, but to say it is flawed is to miss the point.

 

[fighting irish]

4 hours ago, aj1908 said:

they need to be thinking how to promote more running and passing not kicking.

tactical kicking is kind of boring 

I prefer running to kicking too, but I do like a bit of colour rather than endless monotone

[fighting irish]

2 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

I do imagine that the adjustment will be throughout the game, yes, just not acted upon by the team in possession, if at all, until late in the game.

You’re right, high risk plays are predominantly taken by teams either on the brink of losing (otherwise teams that are blowing their opponents away). Cut out passes, chip and chase, flick passes, blind side runs etc are not enacted upon because there is a rule to favour a team taking that option though.

I'm not so sure that it will only be used late in the game, or that only the losing team will be tempted to try it. Really good field kickers will see it as a way of gaining 40 metres (and keeping possession, without hammering their own forwards) but, of course, they'll have to be confident they can pull it off. One of the ways of tempting players to try the unexpected is to offer a significant reward, for success. 

[Sports Prophet]

Time will tell @fighting irish. BTW, is that name a reference to Aberavon?