New rules nrl 2021

[unapologetic pedant]

6 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

So you expect World Cup ref's to officiate based on the laws of their home competition.  Now that would add a complexity to the whole tournament.

I hope (though don`t expect) "World Cup refs to officiate based on the laws"...  unambiguously set out in the RFL rulebook.

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

I hope (though don`t expect) "World Cup refs to officiate based on the laws"...  unambiguously set out in the RFL rulebook.

Not the international laws of the game?

[Hela Wigmen]

44 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

For those that don’t like two points for a field goal. I must admit, I am not sold on it yet either. However, from 40m out and for potential two points or the risk of giving away 7 tackles, expect it only to be used toward the end of each half.

And... it is a more difficult kick than a conversion, which is worth two.

Exactly. It’ll be executed as sparingly as the 20/40 has been in 2020. 

[unapologetic pedant]

16 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Not the international laws of the game?

I was making the point that there is no difference between the RFL rulebook and the NRL rulebook regarding the PTB laws.

If you`ve seen it written in "the international laws of the game" that no attempt be made to play the ball with the foot then I defer to you. I have never seen anything to that effect anywhere.

[Scotchy1]

36 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

In that scenario at the moment they would desperately try to score a try - keep the ball alive with hot-potato offloads, spread it wide, try a chip kick, high cross kick, etc

I`d rather see any of those plays than a team grinding out metres to set up a long-range field-goal attempt.

There is an argument that it makes that a more likely as the defence needs to cover another option. 

Im not against it. Its going to be a really rarely attempted and when it is it will add excitement. 

[PEANUT HEAD]

On 11/12/2020 at 00:25, usain bolt said:

2 point drop goal from 40+ metres out

Retaining scrums but not for ball in touch

6 again restart instead of penalty

Handover of ball for incorrect ptb 

Just a few of the new rule changes for the nrl 2021 season ahead 

The drop goal change is encouraging kicking rather than running, if I want too watch that I will go watch yawning.

[Dunbar]

6 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

I was making the point that there is no difference between the RFL rulebook and the NRL rulebook regarding the PTB laws.

Isn't an incorrect play the ball a penalty here and now a hand over in the NRL?

[Scubby]

48 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

In that scenario at the moment they would desperately try to score a try - keep the ball alive with hot-potato offloads, spread it wide, try a chip kick, high cross kick, etc

I`d rather see any of those plays than a team grinding out metres to set up a long-range field-goal attempt.

You are not going to do that before half time with 30 seconds to go. Also if you are losing by 2 points with one play left and you are 40-50 metres out it is still a long shot. However, it is an option. I am not 100% into this but it will only ever be a rare occurrence because if you are inside 40 you will push for the try of course.

[Liverpool Rover]

The 2 point drop goal seems to me as trying to create an exciting ending if there is a one point difference at the end of the game.

The 6 again for 10 metre offsides could encourage teams to just use quick dummy half scoots and one out rugby to try and win a quick PTB to catch the defence offside, get a tackle restart and do the same again to get another restart.

[unapologetic pedant]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

Isn't an incorrect play the ball a penalty here and now a hand over in the NRL?

If I`m recalling accurately, when the RFL announced their paper crackdown on incorrect PTBs this year, part of the announcement was that it would now be seen as a lost ball and a scrum called, rather than a penalty. If the refs had applied the law as the RFL said they were intending to, that would mean a handover in our post-Covid, no scrums games. 

However, the above is academic. I wasn`t being pedantic enough. I should have written that I hope an Aussie ref has the mettle to punish the illegal PTBs of English players by calling handovers, scrums, penalties or whatever it takes to stop them.

[unapologetic pedant]

2 hours ago, Scubby said:

You are not going to do that before half time with 30 seconds to go. Also if you are losing by 2 points with one play left and you are 40-50 metres out it is still a long shot. However, it is an option. I am not 100% into this but it will only ever be a rare occurrence because if you are inside 40 you will push for the try of course.

I read your 18-16 scenario as referring to the end of the game. If it refers to the end of either half, there`s not that much significance in being 2 points behind after 40 minutes.

Already teams sometimes go for 1-pointers on the last play of the first half if it takes them maybe 7 or 13 points clear.

On your last point, worth bearing in mind that the pass back from the ruck for a field-goal attempt could come from deep inside the 40.

[Dunbar]

56 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

I wasn`t being pedantic enough

I am not angry. Just disappointed.

[The Rocket]

16 hours ago, redjonn said:

2points for a drop goal... i don't like as it seems to me to move us away from a key principle that's the game is about tries...

From earliest days we have changed points awarded to drive focus on scoring tries. This may only seem one small step but maybe the focus on non predictability is to become more important than tries...

or we could take the same approach and deem some tries worthy of more points than others - say a movement that starts behind the 20 yard line gives you a 6 point try.... silly maybe but same logic.

That point on adding more unpredictability into the game being actually worth more than adding more tries now is an interesting one. Because so many of our tries these days are simply about getting into the attacking zone working the play one way then going to the open side creating the overlap and then the outside centre or winger scoring. Sometimes with a spectacular dive into the corner, but none the less just another backline spread try. For me they have become a little repetitive.

With regards your last paragraph, more points for long range scores have been introduced in basketball, netball and afl.  I would suggest if you genuinely want coaches to start thinking from scoring from long range then it will have to be correspondingly rewarded, I would say 6 points for any try that originates from a play the ball in your own half, a cheeky addition could be an automatic conversion from in-front. I think a guaranteed 8 point try may see coaches very quickly introducing plays that would be attempting to break the line in their own half and possibly leading to long range scores. At a minimum it would the game less predictable. We may even see the reintroduction of the long lost art of the chip kick or short grubber through the line.

[Cumbrian Mackem]

If it ain’t broke don’t fix it

[The Rocket]

20 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

I feel that territory is far too easily achieved. Drop the tackle set to 5 or perhaps bring back the 5m. 

I`ve heard a lot of people say that reducing the 5m will somehow make players more creative as they attempt to make ground. Yawnion has a 0 metre rule and all we often see from them is 2m yardage gains and kicking. Very little in the way of creative play, it is much easier to hoof it down field, I fear the same would happen in League.

I think the answer for League lies somewhere in getting the balance right between the number of Jason Tu`amololo`s and Johnathon Thurstons on the field at any given time. How we do that, maybe this trend of repeat sets for everything is the way they are going to redress this imbalance away from the larger players. They just won`t be able to keep up and may become a liability. We may even see the larger bullocking type player being used more strategically and less frequently through out the game.

[unapologetic pedant]

38 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

That point on adding more unpredictability into the game being actually worth more than adding more tries now is an interesting one. Because so many of our tries these days are simply about getting into the attacking zone working the play one way then going to the open side creating the overlap and then the outside centre or winger scoring. Sometimes with a spectacular dive into the corner, but none the less just another backline spread try. 

When I watch an NRL highlights package I now expect every try to begin with a PTB on or inside the 20m line. Rarely is it from further out.

In the past one of the superiorities of League over Union was that in League the tactics to gain territory from deep were often no different from those used to try to score further upfield. In Union repeated 1m pick-and-goes in your own half are only intended to gain ground. Likewise when one of the back 3 gather the ball in their own 22 and hoof it over the touchline.

But from anywhere on the field offloads or width can be both an attempt to gain ground and to score. Which it is depends on the outcome of the play not the motivation. In League there`s greater security of, and a limit on, possession. So no fear of getting caught with the ball or isolated, and no ability to keep the ball indefinitely or set up mauls. There ought to be far more incentive to use the ball from deep. That is until "complete your sets, get to your kick, build pressure" became the mantra, and exciting ball-players were reclassified by the NRL media as naive fools who don`t understand game management.

On a related matter, the following is not unknown in NRL highlights. -  A  long multiple-offload move is halted just short of the goal-line. The dummy-half dives over from a metre out. And the clip of the "try" on the "highlights" package begins as the try-scorer picks the ball up. The same can happen in the UK. Everywhere in the world it seems the primary qualification for employment in Rugby League TV coverage is to have no understanding of Rugby League.

[The Rocket]

30 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

When I watch an NRL highlights package I now expect every try to begin with a PTB on or inside the 20m line. Rarely is it from further out.

In the past one of the superiorities of League over Union was that in League the tactics to gain territory from deep were often no different from those used to try to score further upfield. In Union repeated 1m pick-and-goes in your own half are only intended to gain ground. Likewise when one of the back 3 gather the ball in their own 22 and hoof it over the touchline.

But from anywhere on the field offloads or width can be both an attempt to gain ground and to score. Which it is depends on the outcome of the play not the motivation. In League there`s greater security of, and a limit on, possession. So no fear of getting caught with the ball or isolated, and no ability to keep the ball indefinitely or set up mauls. There ought to be far more incentive to use the ball from deep. That is until "complete your sets, get to your kick, build pressure" became the mantra, and exciting ball-players were reclassified by the NRL media as naive fools who don`t understand game management.

I can only assume that coaches have learnt through bitter experience that any loss of the ball in field position that may result in your opponent being able to attack from the position described in your first paragraph, has lead to the adoption of the mantra that you like to quote. I agree the sweeping backline play is often just as an effective method for gaining metres as the one off run, problem is, there are more passes involved and therefore more scope for error. Even when posting above about the potential of an eight point try, there lurked in the back of my mind that would even this be enough to `motivate` coaches to overcome their fear of surrendering possession in unfavourable field position. Very likely not. We saw with Craig Bellamy this year that his team were prepared to chance their arm from within their own half, unfortunately this was by far the exception rather than the rule. You will probably argue that other coaches should be so bold. Me thinks that Bellamy may be the exception, other coaches may try something similar but it will be tentative and probably sporadic at best. Too much risk. Let`s get up to the 20 metre line then attack.

So how do we redress that risk aversion and encourage more expansive or even more intricate play in your own half, one small step would be as you have said is for refs to stop pulling up the play at anything that may remotely resemble a knock on. After that I am open to suggestion. But I seriously think that this will only change when the risk factor of losing the ball any where within 50 metres of your try line is reduced.

I like P. V`landy`s but I do not see where his `unpredictable` play is going to come from with these rule changes, this time I don`t think he has been bold enough.

 

 

[Dunbar]

1 hour ago, unapologetic pedant said:

When I watch an NRL highlights package I now expect every try to begin with a PTB on or inside the 20m line. Rarely is it from further out.

I really can't agree with this perception and here are a few facts to back up my view that NRL teams are perfectly capable of, and willing to, attack from distance.

Melbourne Storm have scored 15 tries this year which have started in their own half - three more than the second best Roosters. When refining the numbers to four-pointers which started beyond the opposition's 40-metre line it becomes 23 in total for the Storm.

So between them, the Storm and Roosters scored 27 tries that started from within their own half... never mind from more than 20 metres out.

The Storm scored 23 tries from further than 40 metres out and so the equivalent of over a try a round coming from over 40 metres from just one team and yet you say that a try from further than 20 metres out is a rarity?

As for individual players, St George Illawarra fullback Matt Dufty has scored 8 tries this year which started further than 40 metres away from the line with Ryan Papenhuyzen on 7 and Josh Addo-Carr with 6.

Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/once-boring-now-brilliant-why-the-storm-are-the-nrl-s-great-entertainers-20201022-p567lh.html

I suggest you re-view those highlights packages... I have just had a look at NRL.com and literally the first highlight video I looked at had well over half the tries starting beyond the opposition's 30 metre line

 

[unapologetic pedant]

8 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I really can't agree with this perception and here are a few facts to back up my view that NRL teams are perfectly capable of, and willing to, attack from distance.

I suggest you re-view those highlights packages... I have just had a look at NRL.com and literally the first highlight video I looked at had well over half the tries starting beyond the opposition's 30 metre line

 

All the figures you`ve adduced are in absolute terms. It will be the percentages that affect perception. For instance, the 27 Storm and Roosters tries from within their own half - what is that as a percentage of tries in the whole NRL season? And does that differ from previous eras?

I will do as you suggest. I watch at least a highlights package of literally every game. That amount can blur perception. Genuinely hope I`m mistaken.

[Dunbar]

50 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

All the figures you`ve adduced are in absolute terms. It will be the percentages that affect perception. For instance, the 27 Storm and Roosters tries from within their own half - what is that as a percentage of tries in the whole NRL season? And does that differ from previous eras?

I will do as you suggest. I watch at least a highlights package of literally every game. That amount can blur perception. Genuinely hope I`m mistaken.

I cannot find the figures for the 2020 season but for 2019 there is some analysis.  Again though, this is for tries from 40 metres or over rather than the 20 metres or over.

In 2019 12% of all tries were scored from over 40 metres out (this is when an attacking team played the ball from over 40 metres out - tries from intercepts etc. were not counted).  So that is 1 in 10 tries coming from a play starting 40 metres out or longer.

For the best teams in this regard (Roosters, Eels and Sea Eagles) the analysis shows that 19% of all tries scored started from 40 metres or further - so that is 1 in 5 tries.

Clearly there will be another set of tries originating from the 20-40 metre area but I think even 1 in 10 tries from outside the 40 shows that tries from outside the 20 metre line are hardly a 'rarity'.

NRL long-range tries: Roosters and Eels the scoring specialists - NRL 

Update

I have just found this analysis as well... Short-range struggles hamper Dragons and Cowboys - NRL

62% of tries scored in 2019 came from within the 20 and so 38% 'other'.  This means that just under 4 out of every 10 tries are scored from outside the 20 metre line of the opposition.

[BadlyOverdrawnBoy]

I think the 2 point DG might impact significantly on goal line dropouts. In a tight game, do you go long and give someone ample time to tee up a dg, or short and risk losing possession?

[redjonn]

5 hours ago, The Rocket said:

That point on adding more unpredictability into the game being actually worth more than adding more tries now is an interesting one. Because so many of our tries these days are simply about getting into the attacking zone working the play one way then going to the open side creating the overlap and then the outside centre or winger scoring. Sometimes with a spectacular dive into the corner, but none the less just another backline spread try. For me they have become a little repetitive.

With regards your last paragraph, more points for long range scores have been introduced in basketball, netball and afl.  I would suggest if you genuinely want coaches to start thinking from scoring from long range then it will have to be correspondingly rewarded, I would say 6 points for any try that originates from a play the ball in your own half, a cheeky addition could be an automatic conversion from in-front. I think a guaranteed 8 point try may see coaches very quickly introducing plays that would be attempting to break the line in their own half and possibly leading to long range scores. At a minimum it would the game less predictable. We may even see the reintroduction of the long lost art of the chip kick or short grubber through the line.

An interesting follow-up.

Must admit I hate those repetitive drives and then a high kick to the one or the other corner - always seems more about realising you are not able/good enough to create try scoring opportunities so as a last desperate throw of the dice just punt it into the air in hope.

Change the points maybe or alternative disallow any tries that result straight from a catch and try without being passed to another... chuckle

I guess the points seems that the administrators and many fans dislike the game enough to change the fundemental rules about what we thought we liked about the game.

One thing could be said by all this constant changing that's its not TGG... because we are constantly adapting to so call improve...

It almost has me thinking union has more unpredictable as the ball is being constantly recycled leading to more opportunity for error/knock-on's or the ref's inconsistent whistle for penalties... yep daft but that almost the way it looks to me with the rule changes.... we just think the game needs constantly improving or in other words we don't like the game...

Lets just start again with a blank piece of paper...

[unapologetic pedant]

1 hour ago, The Rocket said:

So how do we redress that risk aversion and encourage more expansive or even more intricate play in your own half, one small step would be as you have said is for refs to stop pulling up the play at anything that may remotely resemble a knock on. After that I am open to suggestion. But I seriously think that this will only change when the risk factor of losing the ball any where within 50 metres of your try line is reduced.

I like P. V`landy`s but I do not see where his `unpredictable` play is going to come from with these rule changes, this time I don`t think he has been bold enough.

I have hopes that if they keep extending VAR-style background reviewing it might prove the antidote to Aussie knock-on fever. Refs have developed a blow-the-whistle-and-call-something reflex to the sight of a loose ball. They should be more confident to play on if they know any clear breach can be picked up elsewhere. Again though commentators are an even bigger problem. They don`t see anything definitive but still we get "was that a little bobble?", and "there had to be a knock-on in there somewhere".

I argued on the charge down thread that greater unpredictability would result from removing the back to one rule. It would also indirectly impose more of a cost to a failure to make enough territory from deep, since the kick would be under more pressure. Currently a set begun on your own 20 is guaranteed to reach roughly halfway with 5 dummy-half runs. Then a big unchallenged kick and good chase will see the opposition begin their set on their 20. No need to do anything with the ball, just "complete" and wait for an error or a ref intervention.

If Pete V. desires unpredictability why not canvass opinions outside of the narrow cabal in Sydney known as the ARLC`s "innovation committee". Whom do they consult that fixes their view that fans want an ever faster game? After the introduction of 6-again Nrl.com was exuberant with phrases like "breakneck speed", and full of stats about increased ball-in-play time, or how many extra PTBs. Yet the TV ratings as the year wore on were disappointing at best.

[The Rocket]

8 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

I have hopes that if they keep extending VAR-style background reviewing it might prove the antidote to Aussie knock-on fever. Refs have developed a blow-the-whistle-and-call-something reflex to the sight of a loose ball. They should be more confident to play on if they know any clear breach can be picked up elsewhere. Again though commentators are an even bigger problem. They don`t see anything definitive but still we get "was that a little bobble?", and "there had to be a knock-on in there somewhere".

It`s basically what I argued in the CC thread, it`s not being used what it was meant for, and is being used rather to `clean up` after referees who have become more `whistle happy` because they have nothing to lose. Either they get proven right or if they are wrong the offending team gets a replay. More often teams aren`t confident enough to challenge so the ref gets his way and is made to look justified.

As far as commentators, their job is to look for controversy and is unlikely to change.

23 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

I argued on the charge down thread that greater unpredictability would result from removing the back to one rule. It would also indirectly impose more of a cost to a failure to make enough territory from deep, since the kick would be under more pressure. Currently a set begun on your own 20 is guaranteed to reach roughly halfway with 5 dummy-half runs. Then a big unchallenged kick and good chase will see the opposition begin their set on their 20. No need to do anything with the ball, just "complete" and wait for an error or a ref intervention.

My whole purpose of the Charge Down thread was to introduce unpredictability, you very cleverly I thought backed up that argument with a legal/ technical point of the contradictions in the `knock-on` law and it`s implications for the change in the charge down rule.

 

32 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

If Pete V. desires unpredictability why not canvass opinions outside of the narrow cabal in Sydney known as the ARLC`s "innovation committee". Whom do they consult that fixes their view that fans want an ever faster game? After the introduction of 6-again Nrl.com was exuberant with phrases like "breakneck speed", and full of stats about increased ball-in-play time, or how many extra PTBs. Yet the TV ratings as the year wore on were disappointing at best.

Any committee with Wayne `Junior` Pearce in charge is a worry, apparently he loves taking his shirt off in nightclubs, hopefully he is just a figure head, there are some pretty good brains on that panel.

V`landy`s fixation with `unpredictability` in his statement suggests it is an issue but they are either hoping the coaches will fix it for them or they really don`t know what to do or aren`t yet bold enough to make radical change to address it.

Dunbar`s statistics on long range tries are interesting, certainly surprising, but confirm to me why people do Ph.D.`s. Often it is necessary to dig even further into statistics, were those tries scored in a relatively few games against weaker opposition, one try shown came from a bomb just outside the forty metre mark, how many of those are there. As you said the perception is that a lot of tries come from close range. Complicated.

I am willing to concede that perhaps my view is distorted by the repeated dummy half running before the ball was swung wide leading to a try like the one shown on the video, may make one feel like one hasn`t viewed what we consider a `break-out` try.

Wait until next year before we pass judgement on the ratings, for the first time in several years League out rated afl  in 2018 and 2019, next year will be a better yardstick.

[unapologetic pedant]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

Clearly there will be another set of tries originating from the 20-40 metre area but I think even 1 in 10 tries from outside the 40 shows that tries from outside the 20 metre line are hardly a 'rarity'.

Update

I have just found this analysis as well... Short-range struggles hamper Dragons and Cowboys - NRL

62% of tries scored in 2019 came from within the 20 and so 38% 'other'.  This means that just under 4 out of every 10 tries are scored from outside the 20 metre line of the opposition.

Firstly, I won`t bother editing "rarely" with "not that often" or "not often enough for my liking", but I accept the point.

All stats can obscure as well as illuminate. I`d expand the point I made in the stricture about highlights packages, that a short-range try shown only from the PTB reveals nothing about how the attacking position was gained.  A short-range try with a long-range play earlier in the set is just as satisfying to watch, and just as indicative of a willingness to use the ball from deep.

When watching a full game my impression (there may be stats to contradict it) is that attacking field position derives too frequently from the calls of officials that either turn the ball over or award extra possession. This now accentuated by set restarts. The game would improve across the 80 minutes if good field position resulted overwhelmingly from good play.

There`s an intriguing juxtaposition in the above article of the Dragons having "equal-most attacking PTBs, yet still 14th worst for short-range tries". The conclusion the writer draws is that their "forward pack is getting them within range, but the strike players aren`t cashing in". Could also represent the difference between a hard yards pack and a pack with more skilful ball players.