20-40 kick: NRL coaches to consider trial for rule proposal

[TheDaBoss]

NRL coaches are set to consider whether to trial a proposed 20:40 rule at their
end-of-season meeting in Sydney on Thursday.
The idea of a 20:40 rule, which would enable the attacking team to win a scrum feed inside their
opponents' 40-metre zone by kicking the ball into touch from behind their own 20-metre line, was
raised at November’s competition committee meeting.
The rule would operate similar to the 40:20 kick, which was introduced in 1997 and enables a
team to win a scrum feed within 20 metres of the opposition's try line from a kick inside their
own 40-metre zone.
The ball must bounce in the field of play before going out and the scrum will be set in line with
where it passed over the sideline.
While a 40:20 is a great attacking ploy, a 20:40 kick would be a good way to relieve pressure for a
team battling to get out of its own end.

If adopted, the rule could help open the game up as wingers would potentially need to drop back
in anticipation of a kick, meaning there there would be fewer players in the defensive line at that
part of the field.
It could be an effective tactic from a scrum win inside a team’s own 20-metre zone as only seven
defenders are allowed to stand out of the scrum and it is unlikely any team could afford to have
its wingers and fullback behind the defensive line in case of a 20:40 kick.
Taking the punt from inside your own 20-metre zone would be risky for kickers but the rewards
could be high for a team trapped near their own line, particularly late in a match if a quick try
was needed.
Players are able to win a scrum feed from a 20-metre restart by putting the ball over the sideline,
as long as it lands in the field of play first, with Manly halfback Daly Cherry-Evans executing the
ploy in the 2013 grand final against Sydney Roosters.
Former North Queensland playmaker Johnathan Thurston is another to have successfully taken
advantage of the tactic from a 20-metre restart.
The introduction of a 20:40 rule would not require any new markings on the field as the lines are
the same as for a 40:20 kick.
It is understood any trial would take place outside of the NRL competition.

i don't mind it imo :slight_smile:

 

[IBleedBlack_amp_Oran]

NRL coaches are set to consider whether to trial a proposed 20:40 rule at their
end-of-season meeting in Sydney on Thursday.
The idea of a 20:40 rule, which would enable the attacking team to win a scrum feed inside their
opponents' 40-metre zone by kicking the ball into touch from behind their own 20-metre line, was
raised at November’s competition committee meeting.
The rule would operate similar to the 40:20 kick, which was introduced in 1997 and enables a
team to win a scrum feed within 20 metres of the opposition's try line from a kick inside their
own 40-metre zone.
The ball must bounce in the field of play before going out and the scrum will be set in line with
where it passed over the sideline.
While a 40:20 is a great attacking ploy, a 20:40 kick would be a good way to relieve pressure for a
team battling to get out of its own end.

If adopted, the rule could help open the game up as wingers would potentially need to drop back
in anticipation of a kick, meaning there there would be fewer players in the defensive line at that
part of the field.
It could be an effective tactic from a scrum win inside a team’s own 20-metre zone as only seven
defenders are allowed to stand out of the scrum and it is unlikely any team could afford to have
its wingers and fullback behind the defensive line in case of a 20:40 kick.
Taking the punt from inside your own 20-metre zone would be risky for kickers but the rewards
could be high for a team trapped near their own line, particularly late in a match if a quick try
was needed.
Players are able to win a scrum feed from a 20-metre restart by putting the ball over the sideline,
as long as it lands in the field of play first, with Manly halfback Daly Cherry-Evans executing the
ploy in the 2013 grand final against Sydney Roosters.
Former North Queensland playmaker Johnathan Thurston is another to have successfully taken
advantage of the tactic from a 20-metre restart.
The introduction of a 20:40 rule would not require any new markings on the field as the lines are
the same as for a 40:20 kick.
It is understood any trial would take place outside of the NRL competition.

i don't mind it imo :slight_smile:

I don't mind it. It's a good way to get out of your half if your on the wrong end of a horrible set of 6.

 

[Geo]

it's like talking to yourself..

don't like why should you get relief if the defending team has you trapped through rock solid defence…oh Wests Tigers..

 

[Nelson]

it's like talking to yourself..

don't like why should you get relief if the defending team has you trapped through rock solid defence…oh Wests Tigers..

Because it opens the game up and makes it more entertaining…While I like the territorial arm wrestle and appreciate solid defence it's probably not the most enjoyable part of the game for a lot of people, particularly casual watchers. A more entertaining product would help grow the game - see Twenty20 cricket.

 

[TheDaBoss]

it's like talking to yourself..

don't like why should you get relief if the defending team has you trapped through rock solid defence…oh Wests Tigers..

"defence"= ball possession :unamused:

 

[barra]

The game has become so defensive oriented… I like this suggestion.

 

[jirskyr]

I don't rate the proposition because there's too much territory to aim for.

Arguably, any team under the pump that goes for a 20/40, would find it difficult to get such a kick away, under pressure.

However the key to the 40/20 is that you are shooting for a space 20m wide - undercook it and nothing happens, overcook it and it's a 7-tackle restart. And IMO that's the rule they should be looking at, removing the 7-tackle penalty for short kicks that don't quite pay off (make all kicks within 20m of the try line not count under the 7-tackle rule, because it was introduced to stop long kicks being put dead, not to penalise tactical short kicks).

But for a 20/40, it's a 40m sideline you are aiming for, not a 20m sideline and in that case it benefits ugly long kicks - the longer the better, assuming the FB is more up to the line.

I understand the theory but then why not make every 40m sideline finder a restart? Why just 40/20 and 20/40, what about 30/30? What about 10/50?

I personally think the 40/20 is a bit of a pointless rule anyway. And I agree with Geo, why give a team an out if they are being dominated in defence? Why allow someone with a long boot to gamble to undo a great kick followed by a strong set in defence?

 

[Geo]

it's like talking to yourself..

don't like why should you get relief if the defending team has you trapped through rock solid defence…oh Wests Tigers..

Because it opens the game up and makes it more entertaining…While I like the territorial arm wrestle and appreciate solid defence it's probably not the most enjoyable part of the game for a lot of people, particularly casual watchers. A more entertaining product would help grow the game - see Twenty20 cricket.

Yeah..nah..

 

[jadtiger]

I don't rate the proposition because there's too much territory to aim for.

Arguably, any team under the pump that goes for a 20/40, would find it difficult to get such a kick away, under pressure.

However the key to the 40/20 is that you are shooting for a space 20m wide - undercook it and nothing happens, overcook it and it's a 7-tackle restart. And IMO that's the rule they should be looking at, removing the 7-tackle penalty for short kicks that don't quite pay off (make all kicks within 20m of the try line not count under the 7-tackle rule, because it was introduced to stop long kicks being put dead, not to penalise tactical short kicks).

But for a 20/40, it's a 40m sideline you are aiming for, not a 20m sideline and in that case it benefits ugly long kicks - the longer the better, assuming the FB is more up to the line.

I understand the theory but then why not make every 40m sideline finder a restart? Why just 40/20 and 20/40, what about 30/30? What about 10/50?

I personally think the 40/20 is a bit of a pointless rule anyway. And I agree with Geo, why give a team an out if they are being dominated in defence? Why allow someone with a long boot to gamble to undo a great kick followed by a strong set in defence?

Good point

 

[Nelson]

I don't rate the proposition because there's too much territory to aim for.

Arguably, any team under the pump that goes for a 20/40, would find it difficult to get such a kick away, under pressure.

However the key to the 40/20 is that you are shooting for a space 20m wide - undercook it and nothing happens, overcook it and it's a 7-tackle restart. And IMO that's the rule they should be looking at, removing the 7-tackle penalty for short kicks that don't quite pay off (make all kicks within 20m of the try line not count under the 7-tackle rule, because it was introduced to stop long kicks being put dead, not to penalise tactical short kicks).

But for a 20/40, it's a 40m sideline you are aiming for, not a 20m sideline and in that case it benefits ugly long kicks - the longer the better, assuming the FB is more up to the line.

I understand the theory but then why not make every 40m sideline finder a restart? Why just 40/20 and 20/40, what about 30/30? What about 10/50?

I personally think the 40/20 is a bit of a pointless rule anyway. And I agree with Geo, why give a team an out if they are being dominated in defence? Why allow someone with a long boot to gamble to undo a great kick followed by a strong set in defence?

On the first point: have you ever seen anybody overcook a 40:20 attempt and send it dead in goal? I haven't.

The reason for restricting it to 20:40 and not 30:30 etc. is so that there is certainty and the kicker has to make sure they are behind the 20\. If they allowed a 30:30 as well as a 20:40 then if the kicker overstepped they'd just have to hope it went a really long way and made it inside the 30.

While it does happen from time to time it's not that often that teams are so dominated that they make < 20 metres in a full set, so for the kicking team they're running the risk of giving away field position by kicking from inside the 20.

 

[tsjonathan]

how about the NRL look at stopping the clock when the ball is out of play for once? The greatest anomaly in the NRL is why the clock doesn't stop when the ball is out of play with no added time at the end of a match. NRL where the game is played for about 73 minutes.

 

[Chicken_Faced_Killa]

I like it. Would be difficult to pull off and is a risky move when under the pump. Imagine trying to gain momentum and kicking out on the full to put your own team under pressure. This play could change the game either way. You miss and big penalty, you get it and you’re back on the attack

 

[TCL]

Im not sure about this rule might open up the game or could end up bogging it down.

If you want to open up the game make it that the defending team has to have 2 players 30 m back from the play of the ball in the opposition half.

or leave the game as it is and reduce the interchange.

 

[gallagher]

I think it has merits and should to be trialled but jirskyr makes some good points. It would probably be attempted less than 40/20's anyway.

But, I do wish the coaches didnt have a say in the rules. Use former coaches but not the guys with a vested interest in a club.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

Contracts are a complete farce. But yeah, let’s ignore that, and bring in stupid new on field rules. Way to go NRL 👍

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Why penalise the defending team if they pin the attacking side in their 20?

It'd be almost impossible late in the tackle count as the wingers drop back and they'd be set for the kick.

 

[Tiger_Steve]

Contracts are a complete farce. But yeah, let’s ignore that, and bring in stupid new on field rules. Way to go NRL 👍

Well despite our recent bickering, I agree with you 100%. Why do we need to change rules every year? The game has survived for over 100 years because it is a simple game. Stop complicating it!! Piss off the video referee, get rid of extra time then LEAVE THE GAME ALONE!

 

[GNR4LIFE]

Why penalise the defending team if they pin the attacking side in their 20?

It'd be almost impossible late in the tackle count as the wingers drop back and they'd be set for the kick.

I’m not sure it’s to penalise the defending side. Maybe more likely to entice sides kicking early in the tackle count when the wingers haven’t dropped back. Kind of like the 20m restart that’s technically an optional restart.

 

[joelw2002]

I don't agree with this rule, so a team gets a repeat set or something and defends really well and manages to keep the opposition within their 20 meter line. But the attacking team can just get out of it with a 20/40\. Don't agree with this.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Why penalise the defending team if they pin the attacking side in their 20?

It'd be almost impossible late in the tackle count as the wingers drop back and they'd be set for the kick.

I’m not sure it’s to penalise the defending side. Maybe more likely to entice sides kicking early in the tackle count when the wingers haven’t dropped back. Kind of like the 20m restart that’s technically an optional restart.

Pin a team inside their own 20 for the first three tackles of a set and they can hoof one out with 40m of sideline (big target,) a decent reward for bugger all risk and all due to the ineffectiveness of your forwards. Why should you get an out?