NRL introduce sweeping changes for 2020 season

[weststigers]

We now have 40/20 and a 20/40, but I assume no 30/30?

I've always found these touch-finder rules to be sort of pointless, because a 40/20 usually comes from an attacking team with great momentum, such that the kicker has sufficient time to stride to his mark and place the kick without defensive pressure. Why do you need to reward a team that gets a good kick away from almost halfway?

20/40 seems a bit pointless to me, I don't think many teams will go for it, same as they rarely attempt touch-finders from the 20m restart. If you hit tackle 4 or 5 inside your 20, of course you might as well go for the sideline, but the chances of succeeding would be horrendously low given how little ground you've made.

If you still have tackles up your sleeve, 99% of the time you will carry the ball over the 20m.

I don't mind the scrum rule. NRL clearly wants to limit numbers of stoppages including scrums, but why not invite attacking teams to be more adventurous as a set play, if you get to place the scrum? Most of the time teams go across and back at scrums, because defensively scrums are a single consideration of a short blind and fixed width open side.

A centre-field scrum would be intriguing. Tim Sheens would love the opportunity!

What they really need to do is remove 7-tackle sets from dead-ball kicks within 20 or 30m. Same with errors in the in-goal by the attacking side. It should only be for long-distance kicks that go dead.

A bit like the new AirAsia restaurant serving aeroplane food on the ground...they have given us something that nobody was asking for...

Challenge system I don't mind...

They really need to look at the knock-on interpretation....it seems every time the ball hits the ground it's called forward...compare to rugby where it seems more fair around knock-ons.

 

[Geo]

Gebus ..what will Alfie do..

 

[jirskyr]

@weststigers said in [NRL introduces]
A bit like the new AirAsia restaurant serving aeroplane food on the ground...they have given us something that nobody was asking for.

Well two things.

Firstly you dont know what "people want". Pretty certain nobody on this forum would have asked more than 10 or 20 flesh n blood people what rule changes they'd like. Even this forum of a few thousand active users is just a fraction of Tigers supporters, let alone all NRL supporters.

Secondly, pretty sure the rules committee acts upon instruction from the NRL, ARLC and clubs / state boards, not fan feedback. They might take fan surveys into account but thiis all generated by management and the clubs, i.e. the official stakeholders of the NRL.

 

[jirskyr]

@weststigers said in [NRL introduces]
A bit like the new AirAsia restaurant serving aeroplane food on the ground...they have given us something that nobody was asking for.

Well two things.

Firstly you dont know what "people want". Pretty certain nobody on this forum would have asked more than 10 or 20 flesh n blood people what rule changes they'd like. Even this forum of a few thousand active users is just a fraction of Tigers supporters, let alone all NRL supporters.

Actually I just read the SMH article and V'landys references that the NRL surveyed 20K fans. So they do have significant data to inform decision-making.

 

[Tiger_Steve]

Here’s the seven rule changes I believe were needed:
1. Fix the ruck
2. Fix the ruck
3. Fix the ruck
4. Fix the ruck
5. Fix the ruck
6. Fix the ruck
7. Fix the ruck

 

[weststigers]

@weststigers said in [NRL introduces]
A bit like the new AirAsia restaurant serving aeroplane food on the ground...they have given us something that nobody was asking for.

Well two things.

Firstly you dont know what "people want". Pretty certain nobody on this forum would have asked more than 10 or 20 flesh n blood people what rule changes they'd like. Even this forum of a few thousand active users is just a fraction of Tigers supporters, let alone all NRL supporters.


Actually I just read the SMH article and V'landys references that the NRL surveyed 20K fans. So they do have significant data to inform decision-making.

I suppose you'd need the survey itself to make your assertions...got a copy?

 

[jirskyr]

@weststigers said in [NRL introduces]
A bit like the new AirAsia restaurant serving aeroplane food on the ground...they have given us something that nobody was asking for.

Well two things.

Firstly you dont know what "people want". Pretty certain nobody on this forum would have asked more than 10 or 20 flesh n blood people what rule changes they'd like. Even this forum of a few thousand active users is just a fraction of Tigers supporters, let alone all NRL supporters.


Actually I just read the SMH article and V'landys references that the NRL surveyed 20K fans. So they do have significant data to inform decision-making.

I suppose you'd need the survey itself to make your assertions...got a copy?

Nope

 

[weststigers]

@weststigers said in [NRL introduces]
A bit like the new AirAsia restaurant serving aeroplane food on the ground...they have given us something that nobody was asking for.

Well two things.

Firstly you dont know what "people want". Pretty certain nobody on this forum would have asked more than 10 or 20 flesh n blood people what rule changes they'd like. Even this forum of a few thousand active users is just a fraction of Tigers supporters, let alone all NRL supporters.


Actually I just read the SMH article and V'landys references that the NRL surveyed 20K fans. So they do have significant data to inform decision-making.

I suppose you'd need the survey itself to make your assertions...got a copy?

Nope

Didn't think so :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

 

[Tigerdave]

so, why do survey's asking fans about what changes when you don't bother listening to them? A big one was golden point and still nothing

 

[happy_tiger]

Interesting changes. We’ll have to wait and see how they are used and abused. I like banning being tackled in the air regardless if it is on an defending or attacking player. The scrum change is meh. Not sure what is to be gained or if the advantage will be too great. I can see this turning into a bit of a circus. Limiting time trainers are on the field, good. Not sure about the mutual infringement rule. Kinda hate how they allow the replay of the play the ball already, I think this will irritate me further.

20/40 gonna be a massive gamble.....

idk how much its gonna be used

I’m not sure I understand the use of 20/40, I’ll have to see it in action.

If a club was prepared to buy a quality rugby union fullback they might have a field day ......kicking duels here we come

Seriously though , especially if you backed your defence .....your kicker puts a kick down the fullbacks throat with the emphasis on one line kick chase , you could have a 40 metre scrum play centre a side from the black dot of half way ......

 

[happy_tiger]

The scrum idea isn't the worst idea ...bring the Sheenius back

 

[innsaneink]

Rewarding leg tackles would be positive

 

[Needaname]

What’s to stop a skilled fullback with a kicking game. Eg hayne in his day from putting a 20/40 kick in as the kick chase has already crossed over halfway including the opposing fullback leading the chase (think when d Boyd would do this). A complete reverse of field possession from potentially a smart deep kick by the half.
And a lot like union in a way.

 

[Tiger5150]

Guys I think we are missing the most important rule change. No tackling the attacking player in the air?

We have the smallest wingers in the comp, bombs away!

I have no idea how that is even defendable

 

[jirskyr]

Rewarding leg tackles would be positive

I agree, it doesn't make sense to me that front-on body tackles only can be rewarded as dominant, but beautiful legs tackles have no ref assistance.

Thinking about policing it, however, would be a bit complicated. Even if you let a legs tackler hold on for longer, i.e. dominant legs, the attacker can still get to his feet as or more quickly as the tackler can get up and back to marker. You'd either need to make some allowance for 2 markers whilst the legs tackler held on, or allow a flop, because the flop would permit the legs tackle to be enforced as dominant.

Perhaps the NRL could permit flops on 1-1 legs tackles (perhaps all 1-1 tackles, because frankly they do tend to allow flops on dominant tackles anyway, i.e. 2nd defender pushes on the back of the first), but not gang tackles.

Or, perhaps more dangerous to police, allow some kind of leg pull on the way up for a dominant legs tackle.

 

[jirskyr]

Guys I think we are missing the most important rule change. No tackling the attacking player in the air?

We have the smallest wingers in the comp, bombs away!

I have no idea how that is even defendable

I suppose don't contest the kicks and instead let the player land on his feet, with 2 players ready to tackle him.

Although it's going to be a bloodbath if players start learning to catch and tip, so imagine you catch the footy with no intention of landing on your feet, instead tipping over to plant the ball. It would appear, technically by the rule and as you note, it would be undefendable because the ball would come down before the player stops being "in the air".

Daniel Toupou's contract value just went up a few 000s.

 

[innsaneink]

Yeah... Policing classic legs tackles would be difficult... Maybe reducing to 10m defense line back to 5??
Drastic I know and could get messy

 

[WT2K]

Pat Richards would've loved a crack at the 20/40

 

[Tim Sheens]

What they really need to do is remove 7-tackle sets from dead-ball kicks within 20 or 30m. Same with errors in the in-goal by the attacking side. It should only be for long-distance kicks that go dead.

Agreed, but rather than giving the extra tackle for kicks outside that zone, for mine play would restart at the 30m line.

Actually like the 20/40 idea, hoping that it will force extra space outside compressed defensive lines.

 

[gallagher]

The 20/40 should be attempted on every occasion. You have a 40m sideline target where there is only 20m target from the 20m line to the tryline on 40/20.
As long as you don't kick out on the full there really isn't a deterrent.