Charge Down.

[The Rocket]

11 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

So Scott Prince was the player charging down the kick rather than the kicker. How would encouraging the defender to go at the ball not the man make the defender less likely to break his own leg? 

Sorry mate I am making a hash of this , no he was the kicker. This is the sort hash that happened last night when I originally posted this idea. I`ve been ruminating on this for a while and the `Death of the scrum` thread with its posts on the monotony of RL galvanized my thoughts about what we can do to add a little variation. However the response was non-existent and after 40 views and nil comments I turned the computer off and sat there feeling a little deflated. I tried to read but couldn`t concentrate so I switched back on to discover Wiltshire`s post about the confusion surrounding my suggestion, thankfully yourself and DavidM weighed in then and got the ball rolling in what I thought was a pretty positive response.

Roy Masters, you probably remember me referring to him, said what Rugby League needs is ` less technocrats and more mad scientists `. You can probably relate to that given your recent travails on ` Skeletal tracking of forward passes `.

[The Rocket]

11 hours ago, DavidM said:

We don’t have enough contests for the ball ,

And the scope for increasing that is limited if not zero, they are not going to bring back ` striking at the play the ball `. Therefore a little flexibility on this rule could bring back a sustained contest for the ball were both teams are scrambling to gather a charged down kick.

I am pretty sure it was either you or one of your mates, Dunbar et. al. who said that we have to listen to the ` casual viewer ` to see what they think are the deficiencies in RL, a common refrain was monotony i.e. 5 tackles and kick.

 

[unapologetic pedant]

31 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

Sorry mate I am making a hash of this , no he was the kicker. This is the sort hash that happened last night when I originally posted this idea. I`ve been ruminating on this for a while and the `Death of the scrum` thread with its posts on the monotony of RL galvanized my thoughts about what we can do to add a little variation. However the response was non-existent and after 40 views and nil comments I turned the computer off and sat there feeling a little deflated. I tried to read but couldn`t concentrate so I switched back on to discover Wiltshire`s post about the confusion surrounding my suggestion, thankfully yourself and DavidM weighed in then and got the ball rolling in what I thought was a pretty positive response.

Roy Masters, you probably remember me referring to him, said what Rugby League needs is ` less technocrats and more mad scientists `. You can probably relate to that given your recent travails on ` Skeletal tracking of forward passes `.

On Scott Prince. I remembered him but I looked him up in response to your mention and two facts leapt out. One, that he`d played 300 NRL games, and two that he was this year planning to come out of retirement. So the injuries couldn`t have been that horrendous.

On the substance of this thread, the key point to me is the exemption of the charge down from the knock-on rule. Why do we have that? Because we regard a charge down as merit-worthy, we therefore don`t want to punish it, we know it`s nigh impossible to charge down a kick without the ball going forward, so we make the exemption. We know if we don`t, that charge downs will disappear from the game.

All of the above applies equally to the back-to-one rule.

And it`s no more difficult for refs to implement. They only have to determine what constitutes a charge down, as they already have to, to exempt it from the knock-on rule.

[The Rocket]

19 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

On Scott Prince. I remembered him but I looked him up in response to your mention and two facts leapt out. One, that he`d played 300 NRL games, and two that he was this year planning to come out of retirement. So the injuries couldn`t have been that horrendous.

 

Scotty`s a true Prince among men/ Queensland Times.

https://www.qt.com.au/news/scottys-a-true-prince-among-men/2012752. 

I`m not making it up, as I said, it is still talked about as what can happen when the charge down goes wrong.

P.S. I have another radical idea to open up the game, wouldn`t change the structure of the game but may be a bridge too far.

[unapologetic pedant]

35 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

And the scope for increasing that is limited if not zero, they are not going to bring back ` striking at the play the ball `. Therefore a little flexibility on this rule could bring back a sustained contest for the ball were both teams are scrambling to gather a charged down kick.

I am pretty sure it was either you or one of your mates, Dunbar et. al. who said that we have to listen to the ` casual viewer ` to see what they think are the deficiencies in RL, a common refrain was monotony i.e. 5 tackles and kick.

 

The phrase "scrambling to gather a charged down kick", triggered alarm bells.

The OCD style of refereeing that`s developed over the past couple of decades has lead to a player dropping on a loose ball being called a knock-on. The ref thinks he might have seen a possibility of a hint of a suspicion of a "little bobble". When you drop down on an oval-shaped ball it`s bound to move a bit. What`s that got to do with clearly losing control of the ball and projecting it in a forward direction?

You see it all the time in lower-grade games. The ball goes to ground, opposition player drops on it, should be play-on zero tackle, but no, we`ll call a double knock-on and have a scrum. It`s pure paranoia. The officials just feel it`s safer to stop the game and draw a line. They`re terrified of playing on.

This is relevant because if the back-to-one rule were changed I can see players successfully charging down a kick, then getting busted for a knock-on when they drop on the loose ball. Because there might have been a "little bobble" and we can`t have "little bobbles".

[unapologetic pedant]

4 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

Scotty`s a true Prince among men/ Queensland Times.

https://www.qt.com.au/news/scottys-a-true-prince-among-men/2012752. 

I`m not making it up, as I said, it is still talked about as what can happen when the charge down goes wrong.

P.S. I have another radical idea to open up the game, wouldn`t change the structure of the game but may be a bridge too far.

I`m not on tenterhooks.

[The Rocket]

3 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

This is relevant because if the back-to-one rule were changed I can see players successfully charging down a kick, then getting busted for a knock-on when they drop on the loose ball. Because there might have been a "little bobble" and we can`t have "little bobbles".

Yes it would defeat the purpose of the rule change, however just like V`landy`s six again I still think it be worth experimenting with.

[dkw]

So I`ll try and sum up the last few pages, let me get this right, Scott Prince once tried a kick that was charged down, resulting in a tidal shift that sunk Atlantis, Crops died, the great god Rah had his revenge etc...now The Rocket doesnt want us to ever have to go through that again and wants charge downs banned?

[Barry Badrinath]

7 hours ago, The Rocket said:

Scotty`s a true Prince among men/ Queensland Times.

https://www.qt.com.au/news/scottys-a-true-prince-among-men/2012752. 

I`m not making it up, as I said, it is still talked about as what can happen when the charge down goes wrong.

P.S. I have another radical idea to open up the game, wouldn`t change the structure of the game but may be a bridge too far.

I dont remember this particular incident, but are we talking 

Option A

Brandon costin attacking sean long's non kicking leg.

 

or option B

Jason Hooper being a twunt just running as hard as possible shoulder charging kickers recklessly?

 

granted, as i type that i realise that neither of those are charge downs in essence, so 

 

option c

 

other

[unapologetic pedant]

7 hours ago, The Rocket said:

Scotty`s a true Prince among men/ Queensland Times.

https://www.qt.com.au/news/scottys-a-true-prince-among-men/2012752. 

I`m not making it up, as I said, it is still talked about as what can happen when the charge down goes wrong.

P.S. I have another radical idea to open up the game, wouldn`t change the structure of the game but may be a bridge too far.

I`m getting "page not found" on this link.

Are we to now regard the "Scott Prince incident" as previously portrayed as a red herring? Without seeing it there appears good reason to think it was a late tackle on a kicker rather than a "charge down gone wrong". As such it`s a further argument in favour of changing the rule to encourage defenders to go at the ball not the kicker.

BTW, when you`re down at the saleyards do you ever bid against yourself, mon ami?

[unapologetic pedant]

1 hour ago, dkw said:

So I`ll try and sum up the last few pages, let me get this right, Scott Prince once tried a kick that was charged down, resulting in a tidal shift that sunk Atlantis, Crops died, the great god Rah had his revenge etc...now The Rocket doesnt want us to ever have to go through that again and wants charge downs banned?

I think everything here is right apart from the conclusion.

You must have used the a priori method. When sitting on his tractor, The Rocket prefers a posteriori reasoning. 

[The Rocket]

3 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

I`m getting "page not found" on this link.

Are we to now regard the "Scott Prince incident" as previously portrayed as a red herring? Without seeing it there appears good reason to think it was a late tackle on a kicker rather than a "charge down gone wrong". As such it`s a further argument in favour of changing the rule to encourage defenders to go at the ball not the kicker.

BTW, when you`re down at the saleyards do you ever bid against yourself, mon ami?

https://www.qt.com.au/news/scottys-a-true-prince-among-men/2012752

I am pretty sure that the incident involved Prince`s kicking leg making contact with a player diving at the ball. In the process of the follow through. Resulting in a very ugly compound fracture. You know, like dangling lower leg at weird angle.

As I said previously I thought that this suggested rule change would be very difficult to have implemented here because of that incident. I am not bringing it up to shoot my own suggestion down.

However if another League took the initiative and implemented it, showing that it could be a success then it may be adopted here. 

Would your League have adopted 40/20, 7 tackle restart, six again, corner post rule, 20m tap for taking kick on full in goal, if the NRL hadn`t. Or do you just follow us? 

I`d be very interested to know what innovative rule changes have been adopted in the NH. It`s easy to mock but a bit unmanly and I can`t bring myself to play silly games. It`s a bit degrading.

 

[unapologetic pedant]

3 hours ago, The Rocket said:

https://www.qt.com.au/news/scottys-a-true-prince-among-men/2012752

I am pretty sure that the incident involved Prince`s kicking leg making contact with a player diving at the ball. In the process of the follow through. Resulting in a very ugly compound fracture. You know, like dangling lower leg at weird angle.

As I said previously I thought that this suggested rule change would be very difficult to have implemented here because of that incident. I am not bringing it up to shoot my own suggestion down.

However if another League took the initiative and implemented it, showing that it could be a success then it may be adopted here. 

Would your League have adopted 40/20, 7 tackle restart, six again, corner post rule, 20m tap for taking kick on full in goal, if the NRL hadn`t. Or do you just follow us? 

I`d be very interested to know what innovative rule changes have been adopted in the NH. It`s easy to mock but a bit unmanly and I can`t bring myself to play silly games. It`s a bit degrading.

 

I`m sure players can be easily coached to time the attempted charge down so that they only make contact with the ball. If they go to the kick at source, before the boot has barely touched the ball, that`s not much different from going at the man. They manage it routinely in RU.

Ultra-pedantic point. I don`t say 7-tackle set. To me, it`s "zero tackle restart".

We changed from 5 to 10m offside line first, you followed a little later. This is a dubious claim to innovation for me since I`ve always had doubts about its wisdom. In fact, I have sore misgivings - bit of talcum powder and they`re fine. (that`s adapted from "Carry on Camping").

We also introduced limited possession before you. And there is the small matter of the Northern Union decreeing in 1906 that "the tackled player shall henceforward be permitted to regain his feet to play the ball". Without which none of this discourse would be possible.

These last three "innovative changes" dwarf in consequence everything cited by your good self.

[The Rocket]

9 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

I`m sure players can be easily coached to time the attempted charge down so that they only make contact with the ball. If they go to the kick at source, before the boot has barely touched the ball, that`s not much different from going at the man. They manage it routinely in RU.

Ultra-pedantic point. I don`t say 7-tackle set. To me, it`s "zero tackle restart".

We changed from 5 to 10m offside line first, you followed a little later. This is a dubious claim to innovation for me since I`ve always had doubts about its wisdom. In fact, I have sore misgivings - bit of talcum powder and they`re fine. (that`s adapted from "Carry on Camping").

We also introduced limited possession before you. And there is the small matter of the Northern Union decreeing in 1906 that "the tackled player shall henceforward be permitted to regain his feet to play the ball". Without which none of this discourse would be possible.

These last three "innovative changes" dwarf in consequence everything cited by your good self.

I never questioned once the brilliance of the men who turned the Rugby Union `ruck` into the Rugby League `play-the-ball`. An incredible piece of lateral thinking.

Was always taught that `limited tackle` was brought in to tame the 11 premiership winning Dragons side of the 50`s & 60`s. Is it possible that the idea was floated here and perhaps taken to you for approval and initial implementation. In an era where we may have `doffed our cap ` to you a little more. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Don`t see much Union, but they do a lot of it in afl and don`t seem to break too many legs. Maybe a simple rule like the charge downee not being able to leave their feet , i.e. no diving ,would help prevent that collision between 110kg behemoth and tibia and fibula.

As an aside, down field kicks are usually of a much lower trajectory than bombs, therefore anyone attempting to make a charge down on a down field kick would not need to be as close to the kicker to block it. However there is still the issues of bombs.

14 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Are we to now regard the "Scott Prince incident" as previously portrayed as a red herring?

I am confounded by this. My interpretation of a ` red herring ` is a false trail or something placed to mislead. Please explain what convoluted thinking went into this accusation. Anyway, enjoy the rest of your day.

[unapologetic pedant]

3 hours ago, The Rocket said:

I never questioned once the brilliance of the men who turned the Rugby Union `ruck` into the Rugby League `play-the-ball`. An incredible piece of lateral thinking.

Was always taught that `limited tackle` was brought in to tame the 11 premiership winning Dragons side of the 50`s & 60`s. Is it possible that the idea was floated here and perhaps taken to you for approval and initial implementation. In an era where we may have `doffed our cap ` to you a little more. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Don`t see much Union, but they do a lot of it in afl and don`t seem to break too many legs. Maybe a simple rule like the charge downee not being able to leave their feet , i.e. no diving ,would help prevent that collision between 110kg behemoth and tibia and fibula.

As an aside, down field kicks are usually of a much lower trajectory than bombs, therefore anyone attempting to make a charge down on a down field kick would not need to be as close to the kicker to block it. However there is still the issues of bombs.

I am confounded by this. My interpretation of a ` red herring ` is a false trail or something placed to mislead. Please explain what convoluted thinking went into this accusation. Anyway, enjoy the rest of your day.

My understanding is that the RFL proposed limited tackles under the influence of Gridiron, hence the original 4-tackle (4 downs) rule. And that the timeline was that we implemented it in 1966, you followed in 1967. Although you were first to extend to 6 tackles. Whether limited possession had a direct bearing on ending the Dragons` long run of premiership success, or was just coincidence, is open to question. All good things come to an end.

The benefit of changing the charge down rule is that when defenders are free to make the attempt, without the risk of a set restart, kickers will have to adjust, and we have a more equal and interesting contest. Unlike now where defenders have to try and apply kick pressure while avoiding giving the impression of having played at the ball.

I`m giving you an AFL "behind" for the Scott Prince red herring.

[The Rocket]

On 04/08/2020 at 22:38, DavidM said:

What about the definition of playing at the ball from a kick ? Is moving towards the ball , turning your back playing at the ball . Jumping up and turning your back...Like many calls it can be subjective 

 

On 04/08/2020 at 22:43, Sports Prophet said:

That’s getting tricky. I would say it has to be a deliberate play with the hands within an approx 1m radius of the kicker. There will be plenty of circumstances to consider, but again, I agree they could be thrashed out to ensure this rule could be amended successfully.

Think a blanket coverage of those mentioned above as charge downs would work best. If we start getting into distances it would start to get too difficult to administer. Therefore they are all charge downs and no six again.

An area that concerns me more is down the other end of the field. Is blocking a grubber kick into the in- goal with your leg considered a charge down. And if that is technically a charge down doesn`t that then mean you could block it with your hand or arm. I don`t think the Rugby Leave loving public would tolerate this change. The scenario of team attacking the try-line, grubber kick goes in and is blocked and six-again only tends to ramp up the tension.

The only way I can see to avoid this conflict is to have the rule only apply in your opponents half of the field. That is, the new rule would only applies to teams coming out of their own end. The defending team could almost block the kick in any matter and not concede six-again. This could act as an incentive for teams to get out of their own half before kicking or alternatively giving the defending team extra motivation to keep a team pinned in their half before they have a chance to kick. Once a team has crossed the half way line with the ball then the old rules apply.

Could work.

[unapologetic pedant]

3 hours ago, The Rocket said:

 

Think a blanket coverage of those mentioned above as charge downs would work best. If we start getting into distances it would start to get too difficult to administer. Therefore they are all charge downs and no six again.

An area that concerns me more is down the other end of the field. Is blocking a grubber kick into the in- goal with your leg considered a charge down. And if that is technically a charge down doesn`t that then mean you could block it with your hand or arm. I don`t think the Rugby Leave loving public would tolerate this change. The scenario of team attacking the try-line, grubber kick goes in and is blocked and six-again only tends to ramp up the tension.

The only way I can see to avoid this conflict is to have the rule only apply in your opponents half of the field. That is, the new rule would only applies to teams coming out of their own end. The defending team could almost block the kick in any matter and not concede six-again. This could act as an incentive for teams to get out of their own half before kicking or alternatively giving the defending team extra motivation to keep a team pinned in their half before they have a chance to kick. Once a team has crossed the half way line with the ball then the old rules apply.

Could work.

I keep mentioning that the crux of this in terms of implementation is the exemption that is there for a charge down from the knock-on rule.

The refs already have to determine what constitutes a charge down to distinguish it from a knock-on. All we do is extend that distinction to set restarts. I can`t be bothered looking through the rulebook for the definition of a charge down, but it includes things like outstretched arms, proximity to the kicker, moving towards the kicker.

Blocking a kick with any part of the body is not a charge down. No other rule change would be necessary.

[The Rocket]

8 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

I keep mentioning that the crux of this in terms of implementation is the exemption that is there for a charge down from the knock-on rule.

The refs already have to determine what constitutes a charge down to distinguish it from a knock-on. All we do is extend that distinction to set restarts. I can`t be bothered looking through the rulebook for the definition of a charge down, but it includes things like outstretched arms, proximity to the kicker, moving towards the kicker.

Blocking a kick with any part of the body is not a charge down. No other rule change would be necessary.

I think your initial point is significant and when looked at from the point that in no other part of the game can a player deliberately knock the ball forward and not be called a knock on. Which shows that the original rule makers either considered this a significant achievement worth rewarding or a poor kick deserving punishment. You could almost consider this as `precedent ` as in the legal sense for allowing further law changes which we are trying to formulate.

So, in your post you are saying that the ref will make a case by case judgement on the spot and call either `charge down` or `knock on `.

But say the play is ten metres out and on the attack, grubber goes through ,leg gets stuck out and rebounds into attacking teams hands, is that a legitimate charge down attempt? the player has deliberately blocked the ball with his leg, he would say no six again, that was a charge down. It would be a charge down  at the other end of the field if he ran at the kicker jumped in the air and the ball rebounded off his legs.

If the same rule doesn`t apply all over the field it won`t work.

Or you are saying your grubber kick wasn`t good enough ,didn`t thread the needle, therefore no six again , play on. Might be hard to sell.

If you get a chance read ` Yakstorms` post in the `Private Equity` thread, I would be interested to hear your opinion. Bedtime.

 

[unapologetic pedant]

3 hours ago, The Rocket said:

I think your initial point is significant and when looked at from the point that in no other part of the game can a player deliberately knock the ball forward and not be called a knock on. Which shows that the original rule makers either considered this a significant achievement worth rewarding or a poor kick deserving punishment. You could almost consider this as `precedent ` as in the legal sense for allowing further law changes which we are trying to formulate.

So, in your post you are saying that the ref will make a case by case judgement on the spot and call either `charge down` or `knock on `.

But say the play is ten metres out and on the attack, grubber goes through ,leg gets stuck out and rebounds into attacking teams hands, is that a legitimate charge down attempt? the player has deliberately blocked the ball with his leg, he would say no six again, that was a charge down. It would be a charge down  at the other end of the field if he ran at the kicker jumped in the air and the ball rebounded off his legs.

If the same rule doesn`t apply all over the field it won`t work.

Or you are saying your grubber kick wasn`t good enough ,didn`t thread the needle, therefore no six again , play on. Might be hard to sell.

If you get a chance read ` Yakstorms` post in the `Private Equity` thread, I would be interested to hear your opinion. Bedtime.

 

For my pains, I have now checked the NRL and RFL rulebooks for the definition of a charge down. Both simply state "A charge down is permissible and is not a knock-on". Not very satisfactory. I`ve seen something more explicit somewhere. The major criterion must be how close the defender is to the kick. Maybe also whether the arms are raised. I suppose you know it when you see it.

The ref does now "make a case by case judgement" and always has. Nothing new. Only change will be that the ref having deemed a charge down, it would neither be ruled a knock-on nor restart the tackle count.

The first example in your third paragraph, I have never seen deemed a charge down. That would not change. Nothing to do with it.

A play in the Dragons/Roosters game is worth referring to. There was an attempted charge down of a Luke keary field-goal shot. Unsuccessful, touched in flight, went dead, resulting in a line drop-out. This would continue when the back-to-one rule was changed. Just as a charge down rebounding over the sideline would result in the feed to the kicking team. Not restarting the tackle count after a charge down is only relevant when the ball remains in play. It`s still tackle 6, if the kicking team regather.

"Private Equity" will have to wait. Not quite bedtime, but it feels like it.

 

 

[unapologetic pedant]

Having briefly revived another moribund thread yesterday, thought I`d have another go at this one. Particularly if The Rocket is on a roll, contacting higher authorities with ideas to improve the game.

Since this question was raised I`ve got ever more dispirited watching players trying to apply kick pressure, whilst taking every care to avoid giving any impression of playing at the ball, lest their team get punished with a repeat set.

Saw a game on livestream last week where a player successfully charged down a kick, but the opposition regathered, back to one on the tackle count, and they scored a decisive try on their tenth consecutive play. So effectively, the player lost the game through a well-executed piece of good play. Not by accident, but by the design of the rule. There`s something morally wrong in that.

Also, after the charge down and back to one call, the player looked across at the sideline. Presumably being told off and warned never to repeat it. It`s soul-destroying to see a player make the effort to produce a big play, pull it off, then because of this stupid iniquitous rule, be made to feel they`ve committed a grievous error.

The announcement of the NRL`s latest trial rules were accompanied with the customary rhetoric about making the game more exciting for fans. Surely it`s axiomatic that charge downs produce excitement, so why keep a rule which makes them a rarity? 

[The Rocket]

5 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Having briefly revived another moribund thread yesterday, thought I`d have another go at this one. Particularly if The Rocket is on a roll, contacting higher authorities with ideas to improve the game.

Since this question was raised I`ve got ever more dispirited watching players trying to apply kick pressure, whilst taking every care to avoid giving any impression of playing at the ball, lest their team get punished with a repeat set.

Saw a game on livestream last week where a player successfully charged down a kick, but the opposition regathered, back to one on the tackle count, and they scored a decisive try on their tenth consecutive play. So effectively, the player lost the game through a well-executed piece of good play. Not by accident, but by the design of the rule. There`s something morally wrong in that.

Also, after the charge down and back to one call, the player looked across at the sideline. Presumably being told off and warned never to repeat it. It`s soul-destroying to see a player make the effort to produce a big play, pull it off, then because of this stupid iniquitous rule, be made to feel they`ve committed a grievous error.

The announcement of the NRL`s latest trial rules were accompanied with the customary rhetoric about making the game more exciting for fans. Surely it`s axiomatic that charge downs produce excitement, so why keep a rule which makes them a rarity? 

Since we floated this idea all those posts ago, I have been watching the game with what we proposed in mind. 

The conclusion I came to was that though the idea has merit the added impetus the recent rule changes have created have diminished the necessity for this particular change. Maybe in the future when the excitement created by the new six-again has receded.

I did manage to find a more satisfactory definition for the `Charge Down `.;

` Blocking the path of the ball with hands, arm or body as it rises from an opponents kick.` RFL Rules and Regulations. Glossary of Terms.

There was a charge down on the weekend, I haven`t seen one for ages. After the player did it he almost knocked it on but didn`t, but the funny thing was all the opposition players stood around looking at the ref waiting for him to pull the play up. Before the REF seemingly a bit taken aback himself waved `play on`.

Pedant there are great ideas on these threads, but if we don`t try and promote those ideas what is the point. It`s all a bit pointless and I hate being pointless especially with something I feel passionate about, Rugby League.

 

[arcticchris]

On 05/08/2020 at 10:42, The Rocket said:

https://www.qt.com.au/news/scottys-a-true-prince-among-men/2012752

I am pretty sure that the incident involved Prince`s kicking leg making contact with a player diving at the ball. In the process of the follow through. Resulting in a very ugly compound fracture. You know, like dangling lower leg at weird angle.

As I said previously I thought that this suggested rule change would be very difficult to have implemented here because of that incident. I am not bringing it up to shoot my own suggestion down.

However if another League took the initiative and implemented it, showing that it could be a success then it may be adopted here. 

Would your League have adopted 40/20, 7 tackle restart, six again, corner post rule, 20m tap for taking kick on full in goal, if the NRL hadn`t. Or do you just follow us? 

I`d be very interested to know what innovative rule changes have been adopted in the NH. It`s easy to mock but a bit unmanly and I can`t bring myself to play silly games. It`s a bit degrading.

 

Fairly sure the one on one strip was a NH rule first.

[Futtocks]

42 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Having briefly revived another moribund thread yesterday, thought I`d have another go at this one. Particularly if The Rocket is on a roll, contacting higher authorities with ideas to improve the game.

Since this question was raised I`ve got ever more dispirited watching players trying to apply kick pressure, whilst taking every care to avoid giving any impression of playing at the ball, lest their team get punished with a repeat set.

Saw a game on livestream last week where a player successfully charged down a kick, but the opposition regathered, back to one on the tackle count, and they scored a decisive try on their tenth consecutive play. So effectively, the player lost the game through a well-executed piece of good play. Not by accident, but by the design of the rule. There`s something morally wrong in that.

Also, after the charge down and back to one call, the player looked across at the sideline. Presumably being told off and warned never to repeat it. It`s soul-destroying to see a player make the effort to produce a big play, pull it off, then because of this stupid iniquitous rule, be made to feel they`ve committed a grievous error.

The announcement of the NRL`s latest trial rules were accompanied with the customary rhetoric about making the game more exciting for fans. Surely it`s axiomatic that charge downs produce excitement, so why keep a rule which makes them a rarity? 

If it had been well-executed, the other side would not have regathered the ball. A well-executed charge-down should end with a change of possession. In this case, the player got it only half-right and paid the price.

[Damien]

I'm not sure why we must always look to tweak the game and perfectly good rules that have caused no issue for decades. Many of the issues in the game come from the unintended knock on effects of previous rule changes or a completely ignoring existing rules to speed up and simplify the game.

[The Rocket]

3 hours ago, Damien said:

I'm not sure why we must always look to tweak the game and perfectly good rules that have caused no issue for decades. Many of the issues in the game come from the unintended knock on effects of previous rule changes or a completely ignoring existing rules to speed up and simplify the game.

Having been watching the game since this idea was floated with this change in mind, it confirmed to me that were it introduced there would be a veritable tsunami of charge down attempts. If teams knew they were not going to concede 6-again from a successful charge down but failed attempt to regather they really have nothing to lose by blocking the kick. And if they did regather even better.

Given this `tsunami` my main concern at the time was always protecting the kicker to avoid situations like what happened to Scott Prince.

But getting back to your point of knock on effects, given there was no six again for blocking the kick, even if you don`t regather, why wouldn`t teams attempt to block every kick. This may have far reaching implications. A classic case where a rule change should be trialed first.

But that is not to say that the `consequences` might not make the game a bit more interesting.

For me it was always about adding that element of a rapid change in direction in play that other sports have and that we only get with the occasional one on one strip, intercept or maybe where a team drops the ball and the other team picks up the ball and counter attacks. Too often League is 5 tackles and kick. Over and over.