New NRL Rules

[Hopie]

Seeing as though stupid rules tend to get exported, sharing something that came across my twitter feed.

I want less set restarts not more, I don't think we really need larger benches to make subs more tactical, and the change to the kickoff rules sounds completely dumb.

[Dunbar]

A couple of points based on what I have read.

The six-player interchange benches. Once four players have been used, the remaining two become inactive unless head injury rules allow for the activation of an 18th man

And on the set restarts, to clarify, it is in the 20 meter zone of the ball carrying team where the penalty option is given, not when they are in the attacking 20. At the moment, it is a penalty inside the 40 metres.

All of this os speculative at the moment and based on a leaked email.

Edited December 30, 2025 by Dunbar

[arcticchris]

23 minutes ago, Hopie said:

Seeing as though stupid rules tend to get exported, sharing something that came across my twitter feed.

I want less set restarts not more, I don't think we really need larger benches to make subs more tactical, and the change to the kickoff rules sounds completely dumb.

The set restart rule is one of the best innovations of recent years for me in terms of speeding up the game and the flow.

 

I would not be opposed to an extension of the 18th player concussion sub to allow 2 players to be named for that purpose so that you can cover both forwards and backs more easily. That would be a fairer way without extending the benches which only benefits the clubs with greater depth.

[Leyther_Matt]

Ridiculous that they’re empowered to potentially make such significant changes.

Hopefully the optional kick off nonsense gets nowhere near the voting stage.

On set restarts, attacking 20m area doesn’t read right to me? The penalties are a lifeline for teams who are struggling to get away from their own line, but surely that would read as defensive 20m area given it would be in their own half?

[Damien]

I just think that yet again these are changes for changes sake. I dont like the kick off change at all and think it'll be confusing to the floating viewer. It just feels really gimmicky to me.

[sam4731]

It's a good job that referee's are never criticised for the mistakes they make given how many times their job changes.

[FearNothing]

I think the only change to kickoffs I'd bring in is that the scoring team then kicks-off, I've always thought it was a bit backward that the scoring team then immediately gets to field the kickoff.

[Just Browny]

That 'set restart' change wouldn't speed up the game. It would just make it a no-brainer to give one away early in the set, especially if you've turned the ball over and your defensive line isn't set.

[Toby Chopra]

10 hours ago, Damien said:

I just think that yet again these are changes for changes sake. I dont like the kick off change at all and think it'll be confusing to the floating viewer. It just feels really gimmicky to me.

I like the principle of guaranteeing the next possession to the team that's just conceded - basically the American football rule - as that's better for the balance of the game. How to do it is another question. 

[Dave T]

Im not allergic to giving some thought how we restart the game after scores. I think giving a choice has some merit and can be a decent tactical play based on the flow of the game. But in practice it could be a bit clunky, and not sure how it would look and work.

One thing Im not a fan of in the current game is the short kick off and drop out. I find it a bit RU-esque and I think they are scrappy. Im not always bothered about this 'contest for possession' that appears to be craved at every opportunity. Id prefer to see a minimum 20m from a kick or drop out tbh.

I despise set restarts. 

[Damien]

12 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

I like the principle of guaranteeing the next possession to the team that's just conceded - basically the American football rule - as that's better for the balance of the game. How to do it is another question. 

We've seen it and tried that though and it didn't work at all.

[Dave T]

6 minutes ago, Damien said:

We've seen it and tried that though and it didn't work at all.

The problem with just flipping who gets the ball is that it has the same effect just for the other team. In principle it can just kill off the momentum for a comeback for example.

I like the idea of a choice, but like I say, not sure how practical that is.

[The Blues Ox]

I'm trying to think of a situation where the conceding team would decide not to receive the ball. If they are going down that route they may as well just change the rule again.

Sub rule just a pointless change along with the 6 tackle set for dropping a ball in the act of scoring. I remember when the rule was brought in over here how you could strip the ball with 2 in the tackle if the attacker was attempting to score, one of my players said to me "Well aren't they trying to score every time?". Hard to answer that.

Set restarts I get the change with a penalty in the attacking 20 but I don't think it will have the affect that some think it will have. It will be good in close games with teams having the option of going for 2 but its also easier to defend your line at the top level of the game so the better teams could use certain situations to give away the penalty to set their defence. They would also regret removing the penalty from inside the defending 40m as again better teams will take advantage of this to set their defence.

[Toby Chopra]

54 minutes ago, Damien said:

We've seen it and tried that though and it didn't work at all.

That's interesting. Where was it trialled and how did it play out?

[Big Picture]

1 hour ago, Toby Chopra said:

I like the principle of guaranteeing the next possession to the team that's just conceded - basically the American football rule - as that's better for the balance of the game. How to do it is another question. 

It wasn't better for the balance of the game when it was used at the start of SL, if anything it made the balance of the game worse.

[Shaggy]

13 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

That's interesting. Where was it trialled and how did it play out?

It was in an obscure competition called Super League in the late 90s.

[Damien]

20 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

That's interesting. Where was it trialled and how did it play out?

It wasn't just a trial, we did it for a full season back in 1996. It had the opposite effect of what was intended and saw the losing/receiving team lose the ball deep in their half and worse off than if they had just kicked off. It was quickly reversed back after a season. It was done in the Australian SL competition too the year after and abandoned in Australia as well when the competitions merged again.

Edited December 31, 2025 by Damien

[Dunbar]

My personal view is that the scoring team kicking off will accentuate a dominant performance, not balance it out.

If one side is on top, what would the opposition want, possession in their own 20 and and exit set to try and escape, or the chance to get down field and secure a bit of field position. 

Receiving a kick off just puts you on the back foot for field position. Ok for the dominant team, a never ending exit set challenge for the weaker team.

It would soon be reversed if implemented - but the choice of kick off or receiving would be an interesting extra dimension. 

[Bostik Bailey]

35 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

That's interesting. Where was it trialled and how did it play out?

What happen was that you got more blow out scores. The scoring team kicked deep and rushed for a strong set and the better defences would keep the opposition to within their 20-40m area, resulting in a downtown kick which the team that had just score got on their 30-40m, and they continued to build pressure.

in principle it seamed ok but in practice the results were completely the opposite of what it intended to stop.

 

[Griff]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

We've seen it and tried that though and it didn't work at all.

Well, not really.

NFL kick-off isn't from halfway.  If we kicked off from, say the 20m line, the first ptb wouldn't be in such a disadvantageous position territorially.

[jacksy]

36 minutes ago, Damien said:

It wasn't just a trial, we did it for a full season back in 1996. It had the opposite effect of what was intended and saw the losing/receiving team lose the ball deep in their half and worse off than if they had just kicked off. It was quickly reversed back after a season. It was done in the Australian SL competition too the year after and abandoned in Australia as well when the competitions merged again.

My memory aint what it used to be but I believe you are right. Wasn't it a disaster for the defending team.

[Damien]

24 minutes ago, Griff said:

Well, not really.

NFL kick-off isn't from halfway.  If we kicked off from, say the 20m line, the first ptb wouldn't be in such a disadvantageous position territorially.

This isn't what the proposal is and I've not heard anyone say that kick offs should take place from the 20m line. Tony's point was about guaranteeing possession, if he was on about this he'd have said so.

[Toby Chopra]

Interesting background everyone, thanks. It's true the NFL kickoff is strongly manufactured now to produce the desired result, rather than just being a rugby/soccer style halfway restart, and sounds like league would probably need to do something similar to avoid unintended consequences. At which point it probably does become excess-tinkering.

[Grimmy]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

My personal view is that the scoring team kicking off will accentuate a dominant performance, not balance it out.

If one side is on top, what would the opposition want, possession in their own 20 and and exit set to try and escape, or the chance to get down field and secure a bit of field position. 

Receiving a kick off just puts you on the back foot for field position. Ok for the dominant team, a never ending exit set challenge for the weaker team.

It would soon be reversed if implemented - but the choice of kick off or receiving would be an interesting extra dimension. 

Depends how bad a battering it is. You're guaranteeing at least one minute per try where the dominant team likely won't score, so that should in theory keep scorelines down a bit. 

I think it will make it more exciting in drop goal situations. A team kicking a 1 pointer with a minute left can currently stick it up the jumper, under this rule they would be defending a set against a team who needs to score. 

I wonder whether we will see teams deliberately not score in certain situations? E.g. Winning by 1 it may be better not to score on the wing late in the game so you're giving them the ball on the 1m instead of kicking off to them. 

I can't imagine the conceding team ever choosing to kick off. Surely they will always opt to receive. 

Edited December 31, 2025 by Grimmy

[sam4731]

Are we married to the idea of kicking the ball as a way of starting the game/after a score? I've not got any other ideas but I'm just putting it out there. Have we become too accustomed to doing things in a certain way just through tradition?