NRL announces rule changes

[hobbo1]

With every new rule it seems to be giving the guy in the middle more chance to influence the result. Okay Iguess from 1908 the ref has always been able to influence results, but it seems every year we are giving them more powers.

Absolutely agree. Being at LO yesterday I couldn't work out (and other around me couldn't either) why the ref awarded "6 more" at various times in the match. And, I thought it was worse in the NSW Cup game!!!

Where is the ref's accountability for those decisions? What level of analysis will there be to ensure they enforce that rule consistently for both sides, and more importantly IMO, of the times and relative field position of the sides when that decision is invoked?

Yet another V'Landys intervention on the rules of the game and I think it is rife for complaint and controversy as the season progresses. It's a big issue.

I hate the 6 again ..unless it’s us that’s receiving them which IMO is a rarity

 

[hobbo1]

With every new rule it seems to be giving the guy in the middle more chance to influence the result. Okay Iguess from 1908 the ref has always been able to influence results, but it seems every year we are giving them more powers.

Absolutely agree. Being at LO yesterday I couldn't work out (and other around me couldn't either) why the ref awarded "6 more" at various times in the match. And, I thought it was worse in the NSW Cup game!!!

Where is the ref's accountability for those decisions? What level of analysis will there be to ensure they enforce that rule consistently for both sides, and more importantly IMO, of the times and relative field position of the sides when that decision is invoked?

Yet another V'Landys intervention on the rules of the game and I think it is rife for complaint and controversy as the season progresses. It's a big issue.

I hate the 6 again ..unless it’s us that’s receiving them which IMO is a rarity

Others will see things in completely the opposite view to mine, but the seemingly autocratic style of V'landys on NRL rules and decision making has already altered the game in ways that, may not ultimately, be in the best interests of the game; certainly not in the traditons of the game.

What are his credentials for deciding what the fans and TV viewing public think makes for a better product or experience? Some dodgy reference to "feedback" from fans?? More like pressure from Nine and FOX to create something that has all the integrity and authenticity of reality TV!! (which is zero, IMO)

It's rugba league the TV program!!! All about ratings and "entertainment". Really???

NRL is played by elite athletes who, in almost every case, will build a better life for themselves for their current and future families due to the sacrifices and discipline they apply to their training and development.

It is a brutal sport, one that I and I'm sure Mr V'Landys, could never have survived or excelled at. He is a loose cannon that really needs to be reined in, and fast.

You like (and adjust the very foundations of the game) on the basis of feedback?

Well there's mine.

Agree
V’landys hasn't got a clue about the game ..he’s all about revenue raising

 

[Tiger5150]

It's ***rugba league the TV program***!!! All about ratings and "entertainment". Really???

NRL is played by elite athletes who, in almost every case, will build a better life for themselves for their current and future families due to the sacrifices and discipline they apply to their training and development.

Where does the money come from for those elite athletes to build a better life for their familes?

Im not a fan of the new rules btw,

 

[rustycage]

Our extensive depth in the forwards is being built to accommodate faster games brought about by rule changes. I think Madge is accepting the fact that the big guys are going to get more injuries and is building a very solid back up plan rather than going with a smaller more mobile pack he's keeping size and strength. If they fall, the next in line will step up.

 

[happy_tiger]

Our extensive depth in the forwards is being built to accommodate faster games brought about by rule changes. I think Madge is accepting the fact that the big guys are going to get more injuries and is building a very solid back up plan rather than going with a smaller more mobile pack he's keeping size and strength. If they fall, the next in line will step up.

Actually reckon some of the rule changes will slow the game down ...the kicking into touch rule definitely will ......teams looking at trying to control field position are going to kick for touch ....you'd be dumb not to

 

[Kiama Tiger]

I remember when he first started that I warned people that he would make some strange decisions. Don’t forget he wanted to move the Melbourne Cup to suit Sydney racing. As if that would happen. He has done some good things but I think he is getting too much power.

 

[twentyforty]

Our extensive depth in the forwards is being built to accommodate faster games brought about by rule changes. I think Madge is accepting the fact that the big guys are going to get more injuries and is building a very solid back up plan rather than going with a smaller more mobile pack he's keeping size and strength. If they fall, the next in line will step up.

Actually reckon some of the rule changes will slow the game down ...the kicking into touch rule definitely will ......teams looking at trying to control field position are going to kick for touch ....you'd be dumb not to

They’re shifting control of momentum from players, who may choose to stroll to a scrum following the touch kick, to the ball boy to see how fast he can get a second ball to the opposition.
When we were asked about certain traditional rules, many of us would have questioned the purpose and value of the scrum? Little did we know that when push came to shove they would try to phase out the scrum.
First they stopped the raking then the loose arms, then they put a clock on it! Horry shet! Now they’re phasing in the 4 man ruck in it’s place!
It’s a sad day for all hookers , not just Benny and Robbie. ?

 

[supercoach]

Giving more and more discretionary powers to the likes of Sutton and Cummins is a giant leg up for the top clubs. They ride the top weight most weeks and any doubt goes one way.
I hate the six again, I like scrums for set plays and I am not a fan of rugby sevens style football.
Said it before Peter V will do anything if their is a buck in it, he is not worried about who wins and how they win

 

[Tiger_Fanatic3]

Fox League 2021 season showcase
The 2021 NRL Telstra premiership is just one week away.

Host Yvonne Sampson will be joined by the biggest names in rugby league to preview all 16 clubs, livestreamed on NRL.com and Fox League
Tune in:
https://www.nrl.com/news/2021/03/02/fox-league-2021-season-showcase/

 

[jirskyr]

I remember when he first started that I warned people that he would make some strange decisions. Don’t forget he wanted to move the Melbourne Cup to suit Sydney racing. As if that would happen. He has done some good things but I think he is getting too much power.

That was a joke, as if Melbourne was going to shift the Cup date. PVL excels in stirring his rivals, esp those based in Melbourne.

 

[barra]

A lot of negativity about the changes... think I'll wait until a few rounds are played.

 

[jirskyr]

Our extensive depth in the forwards is being built to accommodate faster games brought about by rule changes. I think Madge is accepting the fact that the big guys are going to get more injuries and is building a very solid back up plan rather than going with a smaller more mobile pack he's keeping size and strength. If they fall, the next in line will step up.

Actually reckon some of the rule changes will slow the game down ...the kicking into touch rule definitely will ......teams looking at trying to control field position are going to kick for touch ....you'd be dumb not to

I don't think speed change is clear cut on touch-finders?

Modern-day touch-finders are used for field position and clock control. They give their own side a rest, but at the exchange of the opponents getting a rest to. Touch-finders may also nullify notable kick-returning fullbacks and wingers. But touch-finders also give up the ability to swarm the defenders and put no pressure on the opposing forwards to hurry back on-side.

I expect kicking sides will still want to keep the ball in play if they have momentum, and that's no difference from the old rule. The new rule will instead mean if they do find touch, they will have a set (non-staggered) defensive line and a PTB will occur a little faster than a scrum. But in doing so, they permit the opposition to get their forwards back for early-tackle carries.

It may incentivise defenders a little more for letting more kicks go into touch, but that has basically always been the case if it was a tactically strong kick. Defenders would prefer a scrum restart for sure, but I'm guessing it's a small tactical difference to a PTB.

I think ultimately it gives a little more emphasis on the kicker having sufficient control to execute the kick that the situation calls for.

 

[Kiama Tiger]

Maybe your right jirskyr but I have known him for forty years and never heard him tell a joke

 

[JC99]

Our extensive depth in the forwards is being built to accommodate faster games brought about by rule changes. I think Madge is accepting the fact that the big guys are going to get more injuries and is building a very solid back up plan rather than going with a smaller more mobile pack he's keeping size and strength. If they fall, the next in line will step up.

Actually reckon some of the rule changes will slow the game down ...the kicking into touch rule definitely will ......teams looking at trying to control field position are going to kick for touch ....you'd be dumb not to

I don't think speed change is clear cut on touch-finders?

Modern-day touch-finders are used for field position and clock control. They give their own side a rest, but at the exchange of the opponents getting a rest to. Touch-finders may also nullify notable kick-returning fullbacks and wingers. But touch-finders also give up the ability to swarm the defenders and put no pressure on the opposing forwards to hurry back on-side.

I expect kicking sides will still want to keep the ball in play if they have momentum, and that's no difference from the old rule. The new rule will instead mean if they do find touch, they will have a set (non-staggered) defensive line and a PTB will occur a little faster than a scrum. But in doing so, they permit the opposition to get their forwards back for early-tackle carries.

It may incentivise defenders a little more for letting more kicks go into touch, but that has basically always been the case if it was a tactically strong kick. Defenders would prefer a scrum restart for sure, but I'm guessing it's a small tactical difference to a PTB.

I think ultimately it gives a little more emphasis on the kicker having sufficient control to execute the kick that the situation calls for.

I would argue it's the other way around. With the new changes to scrums allowing teams to move them to the middle of the field it creates overlaps and attacking opportunities. Instead of that we now have a simple play the ball where you can get your entire line set, which suits the defending team.

PVL thinks doing this will create more speed and attack to the game but I think it's doing the opposite. The new scrum rules made them a lot more exciting and banishing them doesn't make sense to me.

 

[twentyforty]

Our extensive depth in the forwards is being built to accommodate faster games brought about by rule changes. I think Madge is accepting the fact that the big guys are going to get more injuries and is building a very solid back up plan rather than going with a smaller more mobile pack he's keeping size and strength. If they fall, the next in line will step up.

Actually reckon some of the rule changes will slow the game down ...the kicking into touch rule definitely will ......teams looking at trying to control field position are going to kick for touch ....you'd be dumb not to

I don't think speed change is clear cut on touch-finders?

Modern-day touch-finders are used for field position and clock control. They give their own side a rest, but at the exchange of the opponents getting a rest to. Touch-finders may also nullify notable kick-returning fullbacks and wingers. But touch-finders also give up the ability to swarm the defenders and put no pressure on the opposing forwards to hurry back on-side.

I expect kicking sides will still want to keep the ball in play if they have momentum, and that's no difference from the old rule. The new rule will instead mean if they do find touch, they will have a set (non-staggered) defensive line and a PTB will occur a little faster than a scrum. But in doing so, they permit the opposition to get their forwards back for early-tackle carries.

It may incentivise defenders a little more for letting more kicks go into touch, but that has basically always been the case if it was a tactically strong kick. Defenders would prefer a scrum restart for sure, but I'm guessing it's a small tactical difference to a PTB.

I think ultimately it gives a little more emphasis on the kicker having sufficient control to execute the kick that the situation calls for.

I would argue it's the other way around. With the new changes to scrums allowing teams to move them to the middle of the field it creates overlaps and attacking opportunities. Instead of that we now have a simple play the ball where you can get your entire line set, which suits the defending team.

PVL thinks doing this will create more speed and attack to the game but I think it's doing the opposite. The new scrum rules made them a lot more exciting and banishing them doesn't make sense to me.

The scrum always favoured the attacking side once we stopped getting wins against the feed because it took 6 defenders out of the line, but the speed at which players can get out now is negating that advantage. We haven’t seen coaches with an effective answer in the last 10 years. So why do we need scrums? Unless there is some ambiguity about possession.

 

[JC99]

Our extensive depth in the forwards is being built to accommodate faster games brought about by rule changes. I think Madge is accepting the fact that the big guys are going to get more injuries and is building a very solid back up plan rather than going with a smaller more mobile pack he's keeping size and strength. If they fall, the next in line will step up.

Actually reckon some of the rule changes will slow the game down ...the kicking into touch rule definitely will ......teams looking at trying to control field position are going to kick for touch ....you'd be dumb not to

I don't think speed change is clear cut on touch-finders?

Modern-day touch-finders are used for field position and clock control. They give their own side a rest, but at the exchange of the opponents getting a rest to. Touch-finders may also nullify notable kick-returning fullbacks and wingers. But touch-finders also give up the ability to swarm the defenders and put no pressure on the opposing forwards to hurry back on-side.

I expect kicking sides will still want to keep the ball in play if they have momentum, and that's no difference from the old rule. The new rule will instead mean if they do find touch, they will have a set (non-staggered) defensive line and a PTB will occur a little faster than a scrum. But in doing so, they permit the opposition to get their forwards back for early-tackle carries.

It may incentivise defenders a little more for letting more kicks go into touch, but that has basically always been the case if it was a tactically strong kick. Defenders would prefer a scrum restart for sure, but I'm guessing it's a small tactical difference to a PTB.

I think ultimately it gives a little more emphasis on the kicker having sufficient control to execute the kick that the situation calls for.

I would argue it's the other way around. With the new changes to scrums allowing teams to move them to the middle of the field it creates overlaps and attacking opportunities. Instead of that we now have a simple play the ball where you can get your entire line set, which suits the defending team.

PVL thinks doing this will create more speed and attack to the game but I think it's doing the opposite. The new scrum rules made them a lot more exciting and banishing them doesn't make sense to me.


The scrum always favoured the attacking side once we stopped getting wins against the feed because it took 6 defenders out of the line, but the speed at which players can get out now is negating that advantage. We haven’t seen coaches with an effective answer in the last 10 years. So why do we need scrums? Unless there is some ambiguity about possession.

Like I said the rule changes allowing the movement of scrums changed things... I don't know he exact stats but it looked like there was more tries off scrums than ever and coaches actually planning moves off the scrum for the first time in forever. Refs started getting stricter on teams breaking early and it's not a differential penalty but a normal penalty now as well.

Sure, the ball is 'in play' more with the play the ball rule, but if PVL wants excitement then a scrum is a lot more exciting than a simple play the ball and give it to a prop. It also favours defending teams more than before which doesn't help when we've already got teams dominating other teams more with the new rules

 

[Geo]

NRL cracks down on ‘tactical’ breaches as it tweaks six again – again
Adam Pengilly
By Adam Pengilly
May 5, 2021 — 3.59pm
Save
Share
Normal text sizeLarger text sizeVery large text size
0
Leave a comment

NRL teams that deliberately infringe in the ruck early in the tackle count will risk being penalised and having players sent to the sin bin as the code tweaks its use of the controversial six-again rule.

As coaches continue to instruct their players to concede six-agains to allow their defensive line to get set, the NRL has given its strongest indication it won’t tolerate the tactic.

The code issued a strong statement on Wednesday railing against the “tactical breaches”, with Champion Data claiming more than 60 per cent of six-again calls have been made on the first and second tackles this season.

More than 33 per cent were on the first play alone as players surrendered an extra tackle to allow their defence to get organised.

“On-field officials will consider appropriate use of a penalty and sin bin, if it’s considered necessary under the circumstances, to ensure a higher level of compliance, including for repeat infringements or deliberate infringements early in the set,” the NRL said in a statement.

“This does not need to be the same player on consecutive occasions. The team receives a general warning and the next player that infringes in the ensuing period could be sin binned. When the six again was introduced it allowed for penalties and sin binning for repeated offences.”

The six again rule was introduced to reduce the impact of refereeing on NRL games but has actually empowered the whistleblowers further.
The six again rule was introduced to reduce the impact of refereeing on NRL games but has actually empowered the whistleblowers further.CREDIT:GETTY, NRL PHOTOS

**In the face of criticism from commentators and fans about the awarding of six-agains with little in-game explanation, the NRL will now highlight the nature of each breach – whether it be a ruck infringement or offside – on big screens and over the public address system.**

**It is also working with broadcasters to ensure the reasons for each six-again call is communicated to viewers, who have been left confused about referee calls given the rapid nature of play in the modern era.**

The NRL has also urged match officials to have “minimal tolerance” for avoidable contact with the head or neck in the strongest hint yet the game will be littered with more send offs and sin binnings.

NRL head of football Graham Annesley issued an impassioned plea only last week for players to reduce the amount of contact with the head or neck in the face of escalating match review committee charges this year.

“While incidental or minor contact will continue to be penalised and potentially placed on report, on-field officials and the NRL bunker have been encouraged to use the sin bin or send-off mechanisms for contact deemed careless or reckless and involving a significant degree of force around the head and neck,” the NRL said.

Only last week Annesley said Dragons winger Jordan Pereira should have been sent off for a high shot that concussed Roosters star James Tedesco and ruled him out of the rest of the Anzac Day clash.

Pereira, who was sent to the sin bin, received a three-week ban for the tackle.

@hobbo1 bout bloody time...

 

[Rugba]

Finally .. they shouldn’t have even need to highlight it.. they were deliberate penalties and should have treated it as such , especially when they introduced the rule they said they reserved the right to issue penalties

Anyway .. round 9 new competition begins, will be interesting how all teams adapt