Rule Changes for 2024

[unapologetic pedant]

35 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Possibly the weirdest example of this is the crossing thing, where we force somebody to take a dive to avoid a penalty. It's a really bad look for the game imo.

I agree with this specific point about the "bad look", but it doesn't help the rest of your argument. Many occasions when a ball-carrier gives themselves up, there was no obstruction. Just that the player can't trust the ref not to call a penalty. Better to burn one play rather than risk turning the ball over.

We went exhaustively through this after the first Tonga test. It is not automatically illegal to run behind your own player. 

[phiggins]

59 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think there needs to be a bit of a mentality change tbh. We seem to have got ourselves a touch obsessed with the game being fast and anything that affects that is seen as something bad and needs to be removed from the game. I think we have got ourselves into a slightly sticky spot and we should be making sure we always look at the bigger picture and the match as a whole. 

We see penalties as such a negative on the game, and I'm not really sure they are. They are a part of the game as much as any other part of the game. I don't necessarily think a game with a lot of penalties is automatically a bad game, but that is something that is frowned upon. We've gone down the route of ignoring infringements (incorrect ptb's, holding down, flops, crossing, staying in the ruck etc) just because we are worried about the ref blowing their whistle. I'm not somebody who just thinks it's as easy as telling the ref to blow for everything, but there is an element of that. Instead we have just legalised offences. For me it has had a big impact on the game. I'm pleased to see them trying to rectify some of this now, but until we fix the culture and the obsession with no stoppages, we will just keep ending up back in that spot.

Possibly the weirdest example of this is the crossing thing, where we force somebody to take a dive to avoid a penalty. It's a really bad look for the game imo.

I think there are a number of cultural issues we have, that will always hinder attempts to improve the game. There are always calls for consistency from referees, so then specific rules are brought in to remove subjectivity. The ref follows them only to be told they should be able to use their common sense.

The worst one though, is the fact that players and coaches will always take the p###. Like a few years ago, when acting half backs would constantly throw the ball straight at a defender to force a penalty. Then when that was dealt with, players would then decide to just lie prone in the ruck. The game is being ruined by players being more bothered about winning ref's decisions than getting on with the game.

[Harry Stottle]

32 minutes ago, LeeF said:

I can already hear Barry & Terry exploding as someone is sent off 

 

 

This is the biggest contentious area for me in the game, there have been so many times that the cause of head contact lies with the player with the ball in hand and not the defender, too many times a tackle has been aimed at a legal area of the body and the arm is in motion and would have hit the intended target but the attacker has slipped, ducked or got knocked and put his head into the contact area not the other way about, last year there was an instance and you could clearly hear the ref saying to the defender "I realise it was not intentional and he slipped, but I have no option but to penalise you for head contact". How can a defender pull out of a tackle he is already in the motion of making and the defender puts his head there it is a physical impossibility.

Anyway they tried to do this same thing in Aus a couple of years ago, and the press, players, coaches and fans objected to it as to many players were being penalised and sin binned for doing nothing wrong, it soon went back to common sense, I for one hope that happens here.

And Barrie and Terry will be correct in exploding if games are spoiled by accidental head contact and players are sent off/to the bin.

Edited November 27, 2023 by Harry Stottle

[Dave T]

16 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

I agree with this specific point about the "bad look", but it doesn't help the rest of your argument. Many occasions when a ball-carrier gives themselves up, there was no obstruction. Just that the player can't trust the ref not to call a penalty. Better to burn one play rather than risk turning the ball over.

We went exhaustively through this after the first Tonga test. It is not automatically illegal to run behind your own player. 

The black and white is that we now ignore things we gave penalties for for years. For literally no other reason than we see penalties as such a negative part of the game. 

We still allow play on if there is no crossing, players go down when there has been crossing. You even see and hear the ref advising them to do this, which is bizarre. 

[Dave T]

17 minutes ago, phiggins said:

I think there are a number of cultural issues we have, that will always hinder attempts to improve the game. There are always calls for consistency from referees, so then specific rules are brought in to remove subjectivity. The ref follows them only to be told they should be able to use their common sense.

The worst one though, is the fact that players and coaches will always take the p###. Like a few years ago, when acting half backs would constantly throw the ball straight at a defender to force a penalty. Then when that was dealt with, players would then decide to just lie prone in the ruck. The game is being ruined by players being more bothered about winning ref's decisions than getting on with the game.

These things are always a fine balance, it's often 50:50 as to where the offence is. People got wound up by acting halves passing into a player, but I think this one came about because players were getting in the way,, slowing attacks down and it was ignored by the authorities. 

We've gone the same way now where we give benefit of the doubt to the tackler lay in the ruck. It's created a mess imo. 

[WN83]

44 minutes ago, LeeF said:

I can already hear Barry & Terry exploding as someone is sent off 

 

 

The thing that confuses me a bit with the changes is that defenders are usually the ones who get concussive head knocks and they'll now need to try and avoid accidental contact with an attackers head, so they're going to need to get lower but that is likely to put their own heads in more danger, as they'll be putting it in the firing line for elbows, hips and knees. It feels like we're trying to make the game 100% safe but it's literally impossible and I'm not sure this move does anything to make it safer and it actually could make it less so. 

[phiggins]

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

These things are always a fine balance, it's often 50:50 as to where the offence is. People got wound up by acting halves passing into a player, but I think this one came about because players were getting in the way,, slowing attacks down and it was ignored by the authorities. 

We've gone the same way now where we give benefit of the doubt to the tackler lay in the ruck. It's created a mess imo. 

That's what I mean though. The issue I referred to was when the dummy half woudn't even attempt to pass to a team mate. Would just throw it at an opponent and win a penalty. Now we're seeing defenders just lie in the ruck. If players just concentrated on getting on with the game rather than trying to sneak an advantage, in attack or defence, the game would be much better for it.

[unapologetic pedant]

2 hours ago, Dunbar said:

Making an effort to play the ball is entirely subjective and if there is a vocal negative response to early penalties the ref's will probably just become more and more lenient (consciously or subconsciously) on this effort until we penalise very little and drift back to where we are now.

Men's SL and NRLW are refereed to the same written criterion i.e. "genuine attempt". With palpably diverging outcomes. Refs occasionally let incorrect PTBs go in NRLW games. Doesn't lead to a general degeneration in standards.

Only logical explanation is cultural decay in English RL. I previously adduced the difficulties with supply teachers. Another related analogy from wider society is "policing by consent".

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, phiggins said:

That's what I mean though. The issue I referred to was when the dummy half woudn't even attempt to pass to a team mate. Would just throw it at an opponent and win a penalty. Now we're seeing defenders just lie in the ruck. If players just concentrated on getting on with the game rather than trying to sneak an advantage, in attack or defence, the game would be much better for it.

My issue with that specific one though is that attackers were winning the ruck and defenders were beibg allowed to interfere without refs punishing them, because penalties are bad. That isn't refs just choosing to ignore it, it's a conscious decision and it does impact the game. 

Ignoring offences usually leads us to poor outcomes imo. We've ignored a lot in the ruck for a few years now. It'll be interesting to see if they can pull it back. 

[unapologetic pedant]

21 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The black and white is that we now ignore things we gave penalties for for years. For literally no other reason than we see penalties as such a negative part of the game. 

I would say the exact opposite is true in relation to obstruction. Mainly due to the effects of Video Refs searching for possible offences. Thereby expanding the remit for obstruction penalties.  

24 minutes ago, Dave T said:

We still allow play on if there is no crossing, players go down when there has been crossing. You even see and hear the ref advising them to do this, which is bizarre. 

Players hit the deck when they think there might have been an obstruction. It's become too risky to play on.

We used to allow the ball-carrier to come back the other way when there was doubt. Now they have to stop entirely.

[Dave T]

25 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

I would say the exact opposite is true in relation to obstruction. Mainly due to the effects of Video Refs searching for possible offences. Thereby expanding the remit for obstruction penalties.  

Players hit the deck when they think there might have been an obstruction. It's become too risky to play on.

We used to allow the ball-carrier to come back the other way when there was doubt. Now they have to stop entirely.

Tbh, they are two different things. Pure old fashioned crossing is what I refer to, not decoy obstruction. I agree of the increase in that area, but I think thats a result of tactical changes. I have more sympathy there as I think they are tough. 

[LeeF]

1 hour ago, WN83 said:

The thing that confuses me a bit with the changes is that defenders are usually the ones who get concussive head knocks and they'll now need to try and avoid accidental contact with an attackers head, so they're going to need to get lower but that is likely to put their own heads in more danger, as they'll be putting it in the firing line for elbows, hips and knees. It feels like we're trying to make the game 100% safe but it's literally impossible and I'm not sure this move does anything to make it safer and it actually could make it less so. 

I understand what you are saying but there are a fair few attackers who get concussive head knocks and we are talking about tackling below the shoulders not below the waist. 

The vast majority of head contact by a defender on an attacker could be avoided which is what they are trying to do. The aim isn’t 100% safe but more safe than what it is now. 

[LeeF]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

This is the biggest contentious area for me in the game, there have been so many times that the cause of head contact lies with the player with the ball in hand and not the defender, too many times a tackle has been aimed at a legal area of the body and the arm is in motion and would have hit the intended target but the attacker has slipped, ducked or got knocked and put his head into the contact area not the other way about, last year there was an instance and you could clearly hear the ref saying to the defender "I realise it was not intentional and he slipped, but I have no option but to penalise you for head contact". How can a defender pull out of a tackle he is already in the motion of making and the defender puts his head there it is a physical impossibility.

Anyway they tried to do this same thing in Aus a couple of years ago, and the press, players, coaches and fans objected to it as to many players were being penalised and sin binned for doing nothing wrong, it soon went back to common sense, I for one hope that happens here.

And Barrie and Terry will be correct in exploding if games are spoiled by accidental head contact and players are sent off/to the bin.

If you read the article accidental contact is covered off as is the attacker causing the illegal contact. Not every penalty will result in a card and correctly so but players & coaches are going to have to improve their tackling techniques and not whinge all the time. 

[DemonUK]

10 v 10 anyone? 

[Wakefield Ram]

May be elsewhere in this thread but hopefully the law regarding infield coaching will be enforced. 

[bobbruce]

9 hours ago, LeeF said:

The defending team will have less time to set if the other tackle interpretations are enforced. No late man in or hands on the ball with reduce time to get back the 10m and set.

 

I don’t dispute that just that slowing down the attacking ptb wont necessarily reduce collisions. Obviously if you clamp down on what defenders can do and speed the ptb up that probably will reduce collision speeds. 

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, LeeF said:

If you read the article accidental contact is covered off as is the attacker causing the illegal contact. Not every penalty will result in a card and correctly so but players & coaches are going to have to improve their tackling techniques and not whinge all the time. 

Do they whinge all the time? Thats a bit OTT Lee, player's usually know when they have commited a bad tackle and don’t say much if anything, but you can see the incredulous look on their faces when they are blown up and pinged for a foul when they have done nothing wrong.

[Wakefield Ram]

5 hours ago, LeeF said:

If you read the article accidental contact is covered off as is the attacker causing the illegal contact. Not every penalty will result in a card and correctly so but players & coaches are going to have to improve their tackling techniques and not whinge all the time. 

Anything that reduces players suffering brain injuries - because that's what they are - is the only logical way forward. For those who object, would you be happy for your son/daughter to be hit round the head on a regular basis knowing this could cause brain damage? Clamping down on head contact isn't "spoiling the game", head contact is threatening the future health of the players. 

It's rare there's an NRL game now where at least one player doesn't go off for an HIA.

 

[StandOffHalf]

On 24/11/2023 at 09:20, Wiltshire Warrior Dragon said:

Just on a point of interest, George, the law does not require the ball to be placed on the ground; it may be dropped to the ground in front of the foot and heeled backwards, as was routine when I first started watching TGG in the 1960s.  However, try doing that in the modern game without a knock on for lost possession being given!

Here's the wording:

"Regain feet (b) The tackled player shall without delay regain his feet where they were tackled, lift the ball clear of the ground, face the opponent’s goal line and drop or place the ball on the ground in front of their foremost foot."

As you can see, the rule does say that a player must regain their feet where they were tackled.  Moving off the mark, both forwards and sideways, has become routinely accepted in recent times, it seems to me.  This unfairly disadvantages the defending team, one of whose markers may effectively be taken out of the play because they are actually standing in the correct position, while the PTB takes place behind or to the side of them!

I broadly welcome the proposed amendments, but, as ever, it occurs to me that if we just followed the laws as written - all the laws, that is - then these annual revisions or reviews might not be necessary!

 

 

I'm a young 'un who only started watching in 2000, but I'm interested in what exactly ''drop'' means in this context. Does it mean that the ball can be placed and the hand removed, or does it actually allow for a drop to the ground from the hand and then a heeling backwards?

I wish laws were applied as written in the Laws of the Game!

[StandOffHalf]

On 24/11/2023 at 13:03, Chris22 said:

The 18th man change is an excellent one. I'm one of the few not persuaded by the new six again law. Having a different law for different areas of the pitch seems to complicate matters for no reason. You could argue that awarding a six again near an opponents try line deprives the chance of the attacking team kicking at goal when they may wish to do so. I'd be in favour of getting rid altogether.

I'd be in favour of an optional penalty, like in union. They can take the points or go down the line.

It would favour the attacking team to have the choice whether to kick or continue play.

Edited November 27, 2023 by StandOffHalf

[StandOffHalf]

On 24/11/2023 at 13:38, Dunbar said:

The RFL Laws Committee that made these recommendations were:

Chair – Dr Dave Rotheram (RFL Chief On-Field Officer);

Robert Hicks (RFL Chief Regulatory Officer);

Dave Elliott (RFL Match Officials Senior Coach);

Laura Fairbank (RFL Head of Medical);

June Fairhurst (Sky Sports – media representative);

Prof Ben Jones (RFL Strategic Lead for Performance, Science and Research);

Rhodri Jones (RL Commercial Managing Director);

Andrea Murray (National Education Manager);

Mike Ford (Oldham – League One representative);

Paul Cullen (Match Review Panel);

Tony Sutton (RFL Chief Executive)

Now, I don't particularly have anything to say against any of these individuals and as a collective.  And I also think the current recommendations are inherently sensible (although, I do worry about the implementation as I have stated) but what is missing here is a voice of the fans - I think we should petition the RFL for a fan representative to be part of these decisions.

And players - I think there should be one or two current or recently retired players on such a Laws Committee.

[StandOffHalf]

On 24/11/2023 at 15:25, Ragingbull said:

The wording of point number 3  implies that a try saving ankle tap  is now illegal given its contact below the knee?

 

It is one one of the indicators that a ref should consider in an incident of possible reckless endangerment.

Ankle taps are fine.

[StandOffHalf]

I think I like all these measures. I hope they are persisted with and produce a better spectacle around the ruck and the PTB.

[LeeF]

10 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

Anything that reduces players suffering brain injuries - because that's what they are - is the only logical way forward. For those who object, would you be happy for your son/daughter to be hit round the head on a regular basis knowing this could cause brain damage? Clamping down on head contact isn't "spoiling the game", head contact is threatening the future health of the players. 

It's rare there's an NRL game now where at least one player doesn't go off for an HIA.

 

You’ll find no complaints from me. Coaches and players need to adjust

[LeeF]

13 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Do they whinge all the time? Thats a bit OTT Lee, player's usually know when they have commited a bad tackle and don’t say much if anything, but you can see the incredulous look on their faces when they are blown up and pinged for a foul when they have done nothing wrong.

Yes they do and it’s not OTT. Just go back to the last clampdown and the ones before that. The whinging was turned up to 11