Long kick offs penalised in 2025

weststigers said:
A variation I could deal with...just...is if they rewarded the team kicking off with a tackle rather than penalising them an extra one.

I.e. same rule, but if it stays within 20m, the defending team deducts a tackle from the opposition set meaning 5 tackles instead of 6. If it goes beyond 20m the attacking team just gets the normal 6 tackles. Incentive rather than penalty.

All things said, I wish they hadn't changed anything.
Click to expand...
Now they’ll be video replaying kick offs to see which blade of grass the ball landed on inside or outside the 20 just like the tennis! More things to hold up the game, goody!
 
innsaneink said:
No it's not a penalty as we know it in the game... I said penalised as in the extra tackle.
I don't know how teams will deal with this but if you think the first set of the game is quick and. Receivers making ground imagine 7 tackles from the outset.
Receivers will be in an attacking position on the first set of the game regardless if its a short or long kick off
Click to expand...
I think the first set is too quick for the recieving team (team kicked off to).
That was more my point. Currently in the game the defending team is pretty much on the front foot from the kick off (of the match). They have the chance to really stick it to the receivers, it takes an extremely decent kick from a halfback to get the balance back otherwise the team that kicked off is just about in the attack zone by the end of their first set.
Different story after a try; I can see how this can impact on making it more differcult to change momentum for a team already behind on the scoreboard and or physically in the contest.

For us though this is fantastic.
We don’t have to rely on a strong kicking game from our halves (questionable) plus Luai and Api both have very handy short or high kicking skills.
 
weststigerman said:
Another stupid rule change. We need less 7 tackle sets not more.

Does my head in every time when a player knocks the ball over the line it's a 7 tackle set to the opposition but if it's a metre before the line it's a 6 tackle set 10m out. No logic at all.
Click to expand...
I’ve said before that it inhibits a halfbacks short kicking game, I think we should be encouraging it.
Not a fan of this new rule either, sumo suits and participation awards next?
 
innsaneink said:
No it's not a penalty as we know it in the game... I said penalised as in the extra tackle.
I don't know how teams will deal with this but if you think the first set of the game is quick and. Receivers making ground imagine 7 tackles from the outset.
Receivers will be in an attacking position on the first set of the game regardless if its a short or long kick off
Click to expand...
It's terribly in favour of the receiving team. Imagine you try to save the extra tackle and the ball creeps over the 20m and now you've copped 7 tackles starting from 30 out.

I reckon most teams will just boot it as far as possible and cop the extra tackle.
 
weststigers said:
It's terribly in favour of the receiving team. Imagine you try to save the extra tackle and the ball creeps over the 20m and now you've copped 7 tackles starting from 30 out.

I reckon most teams will just boot it as far as possible and cop the extra tackle.
Click to expand...
Thats exactly what i would be doing. Give up the extra tackle to show your intent and make a physical statement 10 metres out.
 
Bullshit rule, they dropped back special teams NFL
By 20 yards. The first kick off & the 1st hit up means
a lot to die-hards. Missing a trick here it seems smh
 
weststigers said:
Thinking about this, it's just such a bad rule. You've just copped a try or multiple tries and then you need to either defend 7 tackles or give them 6 tackles 30m out...either way you are probably looking at each kick off set finishing within your half and your opposition in attacking field position.

It's going to be very difficult to stop momentum.
Click to expand...
Only way for it to work in my mind is a throwback to the Super League days where the team that scores is the one to kick off.
 
Ridiculous idea,i often wonder if there is functioning brain cell in the people who make the decisions at the NRL.
 
Telltails said:
CTE now the subject of TV shows featuring NRL teams and players. The impact of collision is not going to go away. Bigger stronger faster means higher impact the NRL have to look like they showing a duty of care.
Click to expand...
Yeah it's a tough one. Very easy to say "what a dumb rule change, what pansies" but NRL does need to keep one eye on the horizon to cut off potential court cases.

Case-in-point - the NFL has had some 4,500 ex players bring court cases related to CTE and concussion. Just imagine the costs of trying to fight or settle all those claims.
 
Kelce68 said:
All of this bullshit could be solved with an ironclad waiver system.

If people can work on oil rigs, mine kilometres underground or hang from 40m trees with a chainsaw dangling from their waist and their industries not face crippling legal action, they can run the ball back an extra 15/20m.

Ridiculous.

Playing Rugby League is a choice. It is a high-risk, high-reward career.

This smacks to be me of Abdo and his soft, saffa, progressive nonsense.

Weak, lily-livered cat.
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly.

Almost every player when questioned says they know what they signed up for, and accept the risk. If you don't, that's fine. Much safer careers.
 
depending on game tactics,a good way to exploit it would be to kick end over end and get a good high bounce out of the ball every 5 meters,and have 2 of your fastest on it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Staff online

Members online

Total: 598 (members: 26, guests: 572)
Back
Top