NRL Rules Change 2024

[Damien]

I don't see the need for this, the risk/reward ratio is already fine as is. It really does feel like people just want to tinker to justify their roles:

The NRL has confirmed a change to Law and Interpretations ahead of the 2024 NRL Pre-Season and Premiership. 

The change is designed to incentivise more contests for the ball from set restarts.  

AMENDMENT FOR THE 2024 SEASON 

Contested Restarts 

If a team kicks the ball out on the full over the touch line, or the ball fails to travel at least 10 metres forward in an attempt to contest a restart from the goal-line, 20m line, or half-way line, play will now restart with a play-the-ball 10 metres out from the line of the kick and 10 metres in from touch, rather than with a penalty kick. The change will give more incentive for teams to attempt short kick-offs or drop-outs. 

https://www.nrl.com/news/2024/01/17/2024-laws-and-interpretations/

Edited January 17 by Damien

[Chrispmartha]

Told you all Rohan Smith was a visionary

[Dunbar]

If it ain't broke, fix it anyway. The Rugby League motto.

[The Rocket]

The NRL obviously think that fans enjoy watching the aerial contest for the ball, and I can understand this, given the attraction of the sight of the ball in flight, the delayed suspense of whether it will go the required 10 metres or not, the spectacular leaping contests for the ball and then of course the mad scramble when the ball hits the deck, which it often does. 

Then there`s the nice juxtaposition of a team which may have been defending their line furiously, and their fans expecting them to be continuing to do so , are now suddenly and unexpectedly charging up field with the ball in their possession.

[bobbruce]

Is that for both teams or will we get a situation where the defending team plays the ball early and gives away a penalty but the attacking team does it and gives away a PTB. 

[fighting irish]

3 hours ago, The Rocket said:

The NRL obviously think that fans enjoy watching the aerial contest for the ball, and I can understand this, given the attraction of the sight of the ball in flight, the delayed suspense of whether it will go the required 10 metres or not, the spectacular leaping contests for the ball and then of course the mad scramble when the ball hits the deck, which it often does. 

Then there`s the nice juxtaposition of a team which may have been defending their line furiously, and their fans expecting them to be continuing to do so , are now suddenly and unexpectedly charging up field with the ball in their possession.

Poetry. 

[unapologetic pedant]

4 hours ago, The Rocket said:

The NRL obviously think that fans enjoy watching the aerial contest for the ball, and I can understand this, given the attraction of the sight of the ball in flight, the delayed suspense of whether it will go the required 10 metres or not, the spectacular leaping contests for the ball and then of course the mad scramble when the ball hits the deck, which it often does. 

Whereupon the ref calls a knock-on or double knock-on. In the unlikely event the ref plays on, a touch judge calls a knock-on or double knock-on. In the even more unlikely event that all three officials want to play on, media experts are aghast because "there had to be a knock-on in there somewhere".

So we may see an increase in "spectacular leaping contests" and "mad scrambles", but they won't determine possession. That will fall to on-field officials, captain's challenges and the bunker scouring all available angles for little bobbles.

[unapologetic pedant]

2 hours ago, bobbruce said:

Is that for both teams or will we get a situation where the defending team plays the ball early and gives away a penalty but the attacking team does it and gives away a PTB. 

As I read it, this condition is unaffected. If either team touches the ball before it's travelled 10m, the outcome will still be a penalty. 

[unapologetic pedant]

6 hours ago, Damien said:

I don't see the need for this, the risk/reward ratio is already fine as is. It really does feel like people just want to tinker to justify their roles:

Contradictory signals. They appear to recognize a need for more variety. Then they go and add another way to restart the game with a staged painstaking PTB. Same muddled thinking as when they replaced a scrum with a PTB for when the ball crosses the touch-line. The latter, supposedly to speed the game up.

[phiggins]

I wonder if it is an attempt at reducing the impact of collisions drop outs and kick offs? Didn't we trial something to reduce the distance on kick offs, when the armpit height rule was trialled?

Edited January 17 by phiggins

[Damien]

12 minutes ago, phiggins said:

I wonder if it is an attempt at reducing the impact of collisions drop outs and kick offs? Didn't we trial something to reduce the distance on kick offs, when the armpit height rule was trialled?

There is zero mention of that having anything to do with it. If that was a factor I'm sure they would have said.

[The Rocket]

3 hours ago, fighting irish said:

Poetry. 

Not quite but I`ll take it Irish. Another two reasons that crossed my mind for explaining the NRL`s rule change on this, apart from adding the potential for more material for the highlights reel is that 1) if the defending team fails to regather, the attacking team are immediately back on the attack in the red-zone as they call it, instead of wasting 2 or 3 plays getting there, and 2) this also may be a subtle way of reducing that incidence we have with the long drop-out of where the 115kg behemoth charges back at full tilt at the smallest bloke he can aim up against, or the situation of the defender getting his head in the wrong position (and knocking himself senseless) trying to stop this speeding behemoth. Any opportunity to reduce head-knocks in the game would be welcomed by the NRL.

[The Rocket]

2 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Whereupon the ref calls a knock-on or double knock-on. In the unlikely event the ref plays on, a touch judge calls a knock-on or double knock-on. In the even more unlikely event that all three officials want to play on, media experts are aghast because "there had to be a knock-on in there somewhere".

So we may see an increase in "spectacular leaping contests" and "mad scrambles", but they won't determine possession. That will fall to on-field officials, captain's challenges and the bunker scouring all available angles for little bobbles.

Have faith my friend, we have already seen recently the NRL`s most welcomed and important explicit recognition that the game needs less interference from officials with their rejection of forward pass technology, stating they didn`t want the "flow" to quote Abdo, interrupted.

The NRL recognize that fan`s don`t want games being continually stopped by over-zealous officials and I`m assuming the pressure will be on to adopt a similar mentality around the officiating of knock-ons. Implicitly it would be the next logical step.

 

2 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Contradictory signals. They appear to recognize a need for more variety. Then they go and add another way to restart the game with a staged painstaking PTB. Same muddled thinking as when they replaced a scrum with a PTB for when the ball crosses the touch-line. The latter, supposedly to speed the game up.

Pray tell what you would have them do, some sort of variety act (and not a contested scrum) before the play resumes.

As usual the lack of creativity that beleaguers League comes to the fore. The resumption and proliferation of the short restart has been a welcome act of creativity in itself, I think we are yet to see the full repercussions of its adoption and the opportunities it will create elsewhere as teams get better and better at it. Think how the 40/20 has now forced defending teams to keep the wingers back late in the tackle count allowing for opportunities for overlap plays for teams bold enough to try it. It`s called variety and it`s wonderful and there ain`t enough of it.

[DI Keith Fowler]

3 hours ago, phiggins said:

I wonder if it is an attempt at reducing the impact of collisions drop outs and kick offs? Didn't we trial something to reduce the distance on kick offs, when the armpit height rule was trialled?

My immediate thought as well. Ought to reduce the number of 20m x 20m sprint collisions.

3 hours ago, Damien said:

There is zero mention of that having anything to do with it. If that was a factor I'm sure they would have said.

It's a gimme. They can play it as an entertainment move whilst simultaneously using it as evidence of measures taken (in any future litigation) without people moaning "the game's gone". 

[Damien]

9 minutes ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

My immediate thought as well. Ought to reduce the number of 20m x 20m sprint collisions.

It's a gimme. They can play it as an entertainment move whilst simultaneously using it as evidence of measures taken (in any future litigation) without people moaning "the game's gone". 

The NRL have been quite clear in why this change had been made,  if you want to ignore that then its up to you.This change is very much in keeping with all the other gimmicky changes it has made in recent years.

Edited January 17 by Damien

[DI Keith Fowler]

4 minutes ago, Damien said:

The NRL have been quite clear in why this change had been made,  if you want to ignore that then its up to you.This change is very much in keeping with all the other gimmicky changes it has made in recent years.

It is sometimes the case that a few things are at play.

[sam4731]

Aww only 1 new rule this year? Can we not implement a new rule that we must have at least 5 new rules per year and each of those 5 new rules must change at least 3 different elements of the game.

After all that, let's only give the refs 12 weeks to learn the new rules and have a go at them when they get it wrong.

[unapologetic pedant]

error

Edited January 17 by unapologetic pedant

[Dunbar]

The only rule we need is to ensure the laws are called laws and not rules.

It matters.  I don't know why it matters, but it does.

[unapologetic pedant]

1 hour ago, The Rocket said:

The NRL recognize that fan`s don`t want games being continually stopped by over-zealous officials and I`m assuming the pressure will be on to adopt a similar mentality around the officiating of knock-ons. Implicitly it would be the next logical step.

I'll believe it when I see it. The general pressure from fans and media is for more calls. Same people who complain about too many stoppages.

2 hours ago, The Rocket said:

Pray tell what you would have them do, some sort of variety act (and not a contested scrum) before the play resumes.

Perfectly happy resuming with a penalty. At least that's a deviation from the norm. There is something about a tackle 1 slow-motion PTB against a fully-set defence that makes my heart sink. Arranging a PTB as though it were a set-piece is in any case a glaring anomaly.

2 hours ago, The Rocket said:

As usual the lack of creativity that beleaguers League comes to the fore. The resumption and proliferation of the short restart has been a welcome act of creativity in itself

Just shows what slaves to prevailing convention most of our coaches are.

[unapologetic pedant]

5 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

As I read it, this condition is unaffected. If either team touches the ball before it's travelled 10m, the outcome will still be a penalty. 

Message to @fighting irish

What is puzzling about the post above?

[fighting irish]

1 hour ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Message to @fighting irish

What is puzzling about the post above?

Well on second reading nothing at all. It wasn't that I misunderstood your post but that I didn't properly grasp the rule change in the first place. I didn't mean to imply your post was erroneous just confessing my own confusion about what the NRL were proposing. 

[unapologetic pedant]

3 hours ago, fighting irish said:

Well on second reading nothing at all. It wasn't that I misunderstood your post but that I didn't properly grasp the rule change in the first place. I didn't mean to imply your post was erroneous just confessing my own confusion about what the NRL were proposing. 

No problem. You provide an opportunity to restate a point I've sometimes made on threads with an international flavour.

Namely, it's a challenge for those of us steeped in RL to keep up with the minutiae of our rulebook. So heaven help officials and players in developing countries where English is a second language. Imagine having to digest the rule tweak in the OP and translate it into Greek, Serbian, Dutch, etc.

[Damien]

If there has been a 41% increase in short dropouts since 2021 then this change is simply not needed. The contest and variation is already there. A change that needs caveats and increased referees discretion just adds needless complication:

The NRL’s latest rule change – aimed at reviving a contest for the ball that many previous shifts have eliminated – will come with a short restart caveat aimed at stopping cynical coaches from exploiting it.

Wednesday’s announcement that short kick-offs and dropouts will no longer result in a penalty if they go wrong is the 20th rule change or amendment in the past five years.

With the NRL tracking a 44 per cent increase in short dropouts being attempted since 2021, the new rule will see a play-the-ball, not a penalty, awarded if a team sends the ball out on the full or into touch without travelling the required 10 metres.

Head of football Graham Annesley points to the game’s desire for more contested ball – typically by the game’s aerial specialists – given there are now few instances in scrums or rucks where a team can challenge for the ball.

Cynics point to the potential for the change to reduce forced dropout attempts (why bother when the defending team now faces less risk for a short restart), or negative tactics, like drilling a ball straight over the sideline.

“But we always try to think through the unintended consequences of new rules,” Annesley said.

“So the new rule will only apply to kicks where it’s intended to have a contest for the ball.

“It doesn’t allow for teams to kick [a kick-off] over the dead ball on the full, or into touch on the full, 20 or 30 metres out from the goal line just to concede a play-the-ball rather than a penalty. It has to be a kick that is capable of being contested.

“And we all know what that looks like - from short kick-offs or dropouts - chasers are immediately out there to contest for the ball.

“Some people will say that puts more discretion in the hands of the referees, but every decision comes with discretion.”

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/the-warning-about-the-nrl-s-latest-rule-change-the-20th-tweak-in-five-years-20240118-p5ey5m.html

 

[gingerjon]

32 minutes ago, Damien said:

If there has been a 41% increase in short dropouts since 2021 then this change is simply not needed. The contest and variation is already there. A change that needs caveats and increased referees discretion just adds needless complication:

The NRL’s latest rule change – aimed at reviving a contest for the ball that many previous shifts have eliminated – will come with a short restart caveat aimed at stopping cynical coaches from exploiting it.

Wednesday’s announcement that short kick-offs and dropouts will no longer result in a penalty if they go wrong is the 20th rule change or amendment in the past five years.

With the NRL tracking a 44 per cent increase in short dropouts being attempted since 2021, the new rule will see a play-the-ball, not a penalty, awarded if a team sends the ball out on the full or into touch without travelling the required 10 metres.

Head of football Graham Annesley points to the game’s desire for more contested ball – typically by the game’s aerial specialists – given there are now few instances in scrums or rucks where a team can challenge for the ball.

Cynics point to the potential for the change to reduce forced dropout attempts (why bother when the defending team now faces less risk for a short restart), or negative tactics, like drilling a ball straight over the sideline.

“But we always try to think through the unintended consequences of new rules,” Annesley said.

“So the new rule will only apply to kicks where it’s intended to have a contest for the ball.

“It doesn’t allow for teams to kick [a kick-off] over the dead ball on the full, or into touch on the full, 20 or 30 metres out from the goal line just to concede a play-the-ball rather than a penalty. It has to be a kick that is capable of being contested.

“And we all know what that looks like - from short kick-offs or dropouts - chasers are immediately out there to contest for the ball.

“Some people will say that puts more discretion in the hands of the referees, but every decision comes with discretion.”

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/the-warning-about-the-nrl-s-latest-rule-change-the-20th-tweak-in-five-years-20240118-p5ey5m.html

 

That reads so badly.