By Steve Kaless
December 28th 2009 @ 12:53am
Related coverage
A double try or just double trouble?
Jeff Lima in action during the NRL, Round 19, Parramatta Eels v Melbourne Storm match at Parramatta Stadium in Sydney on Monday July 20, 2009. Eels won 18-16. AAP Image/Action Photographics, Robb Cox
A bright vision for the future or a nightmare wanting to be avoided at all costs? That is the question over the “Double Try” innovation which awaits rugby league at the inaugural NRL and Indigenous All-Stars match on the Gold Coast in February.
You’d be forgiven for thinking that someone has either been watching way too much NFL or has been trying too hard to justify a business trip to Hawaii, given the changes which will be used at the match in an effort to increase the game’s entertainment, and dare I say, novelty value.
The biggest innovation is the use of the “Double Try”. After each try, teams will have the choice of going for a conversion or having another tackle with which to score a further four points.
Your extra tackle will start on the 20 metre line in the centre of the field.
Wayne Bennett believes it could become part of the game within five years, but I’m not so sure.
Personally, I quite like conversions. It’s a skill and adds something to the game. It is also not like rugby league has a problem with too many shots at goal.
Conversely, rugby league may well have a problem of too many tries scored by kicks and this is what I can see the “Double Try” becoming. With the opposition defensive line set, I can see most sides just bombing it towards a wing.
The number of referees will double with two refereeing teams of two being used during the match.
It seems only five minutes ago we were all perfectly happy bagging out one referee and now we suddenly have four to choose from.
The coaches will also enter the limelight with coaches Bennett and Neil Henry having their quarter and three quarter time team speeches aired to the general public.
That should be genuinely interesting, but I wonder if they may have preferred a more animated coach than ‘Hollywood’ Bennett to boost the ratings.
Video referees will also explain their rulings to the commentators. Good luck if the panel includes Phil Gould.
Thankfully, sanity was restored before they took up Wendell Sailor’s offer to wear a microphone during the match.
I have got nothing against Wendell, but the last thing we need is to give sledging a bigger profile so every moron/comedian who trots onto a field thinks people want to hear their efforts to replicate Big Dell’s efforts.
Still the match, which is the brainchild of Gold Coast CEO Michael Searle, looks to be a great way to get the season off to a flying start.
I’m already looking forward to it, I might just have to adjust the volume.
Get Australia's best NRL opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(55)
M1tch said | December 28th 2009 @ 6:28am | Report comment
I like the idea, its good to see new rules being floated around and a chance for us (RL fans) to see them tested. The AFL has had their pre season comp to try new rules so its good for us to do something similar.
Down by 8 points with 20 seconds to go and you are still a chance to win the game..sounds good to me.
TammyS said | December 28th 2009 @ 6:38am | Report comment
Im not 100% sure but I believe with the double try rule, kicks are not allowed.
Not a fan of all the other changes.
I wish they’d just fix some of the stuff we already have in our game instead of introducing new things, eg. the scrums, either introduce a rule that makes it more competitive or get rid of them all together. I would’ve preferred to see that trialled in the game
Master Blaster said | December 28th 2009 @ 6:47am | Report comment
Dumb idea.
Can’t wait for the first time that a try takes forever to be sorted by the video referee, then the team goes for the 2nd try “conversion” option, scores what looks like a try, but it goes again to the video referee!
Back to back video referee decisions???
That scenario should have killed this stupid double-try idea before anyone left the meeting room.
Dogs Of War said | December 28th 2009 @ 7:05am | Report comment
This is what the Toyota Cup is for. Trial it in the lower grades, and get an idea of it’s worth. I am sure if their is value in it, it will be introduced.
Mick from Giralang said | December 28th 2009 @ 8:00am | Report comment
Apparently no kick is allowed on the double try play…it will make it rather easy to defend against, you’d think.
Dogs Of War said | December 28th 2009 @ 8:16am | Report comment
Set plays will again come to the fore. Remember some of the classic’s from the 80’s?
Mick from Giralang said | December 28th 2009 @ 9:00am | Report comment
Hope they bring back the ball-up-the-jumper trick.
katzilla said | December 28th 2009 @ 8:41am | Report comment
I don’t like it.
Theres already too much fluffing around after a try is scored.
I reckon they should make it 2 points for a try scored within 2 passes of a kick made within the 20 (So that if one of those lame tries from a cross field kick are scored they then can only get 2 points, worthwhile for some but not thrashed like some teams do)
2010 is the year of the dog
Dogs Of War said | December 28th 2009 @ 8:44am | Report comment
Thing is, that first game where a team is behind by 8 points, scores a try, and then elects to go for the 4 pointer and gets it to send the game into extra time will make it something awesome. It’s not like this will be used every time, just when teams need to catch up fast, and want to chance their arm.
rob said | December 28th 2009 @ 10:35am | Report comment
correct me if i’m wrong, but initially putting the ball down over the line, or a try, didn’t give you any points. it gave you an opportunity to “try” to kick a goal.
there seems to be some irony in now giving the option of not to have a “try” at kicking a goal.
if they did look at NFL for this rule, then maybe they could have used their scoring system a little more. a touchdown is worth 6 points. a normal conversion (a kick after the touchdown) is worth 1. you then have the “two point conversion” where they have to score a touchdown off 1 play to get the 2 points. if you’re going to try something mad, then maybe trying it with this scoring system would be best.
how about making tries scored under the posts worth 6 points and tries scored out wide less? or just blanket wide increase the points from a try to say 5 like rugby. then make then push in scrums.
Col the Bear said | December 28th 2009 @ 10:47am | Report comment
it just seems that NFL rules are slowly creeping into the game of RL each year with new rules being tried and coming in each year..when in the past the biggest change was going to 6 tacklles rule in the 60s and 3 points to 4 point tries in the 80s. 5 metre to 10 metre rule, place the ball in the second row for scrums instead of the tunnel..(where’s the contest in that).now it seems there is a rule change every year for the sake of change..
video refs.. 2 refs.etc etc. next will be you won’t have to ground the ball over the line as long as you cross it for a touchdown, sorry tri…
who knows with the NRL asking NFL for advice on the future, and with Gallop hosting the CEO of the NFL this seasons end.. maybe it is becoming a way of the future..and now with NFL on free to air, a lot more youth are able to watch it and get involved..ie (North West Predators)
the story last week in the North Shore times of a Norths SG Ball player,off to US samoa with 50 other aussie gridiron players to play against other gridiron teams there in a tournament maybe just a start of crosscoding..the AFL do it in the NFL..maybe the RL are looking at this also ..
Mushi said | December 29th 2009 @ 9:51am | Report comment
I think the video ref was in before the NFL, and even if not it is far more commonly used in the NRL with the NFL’s system more akin to tennis or cricket.
But it was funny to hear the red zone used for the first time in the NRL
Dogs Of War said | December 29th 2009 @ 10:11am | Report comment
No, it was taken from the NFL, but they got rid of the Video Ref for a brief period (5 years) due to some crap calls, then realised it was worse without video, but refined the rules so that it wasn’t used as much (Coach’s challenge).
Mushi said | December 29th 2009 @ 1:54pm | Report comment
If it was “taken” why is it so different?
Not disputing that’s the case more a question
Dogs Of War said | December 29th 2009 @ 2:02pm | Report comment
Like any rules or addition to games, you modify the idea so it suits the sport.
It wasn’t that long ago that many areas of the game where subject to video review, but the NRL had to stop that and make it only apply to tries.
We can’t go back to a game with a video review, and even the NFL knew that their game was better for it being in the game, though they had to remove it before the realisation came that sometimes you can only miss what you have had. People had forgotten how many stupid calls ref’s can make without the aid of the video to assist them.
Mushi said | December 30th 2009 @ 7:46am | Report comment
Agree, state of origin used to be the killer for me growing up, it felt like just about every game had an important 50/50 call and in close games that was the difference between winning and losing.
Rodney McDonell said | December 28th 2009 @ 10:48am | Report comment
*sigh* if your going to write an article, know what your writing about.
As the rule stipulates, you can not score in the double try period by kicking. That is, you can’t just bomb it to the wing, chip it and regather or thread it through for a fast outside back.
netrug said | December 28th 2009 @ 10:48am | Report comment
This method of scoring is already used in American football where instead of kicking for the extra point, an extra play may be used to score another touchdown to receive two points.
It is one of the original moves that is a hangover from the early days of Rugby which has remained in gridiron but removed from Rugby. It was called “running in”. As no points were awarded for scoring a try (which only means you get a try at goal), by running the ball in meant you could score closer to the posts and so make for an easier conversion attempt.
League must be trying to get back to the roots of the game, or as previously, just adapting something from America.
Master Blaster said | December 28th 2009 @ 1:15pm | Report comment
This is amazing!
I’ve been watching both rugby codes since the early 1990s and never seen this “running in” you speak of! So players run across the goal line with the ball and then try to get closer to the posts and ground the ball there? Wow!
Remarkable stuff there netrug (not!).
netrug said | December 29th 2009 @ 4:15pm | Report comment
Running in was removed from the game in the late 1800s.
Therefore Master Blaster, I suggest you look at the history of Rugby scoring throughout the ages. American football continued with the running in but changed the reason.
Another one is the field goal. It is different from a drop goal. The field goal was if the ball was loose on the ground, then you scored if you kicked it over the cross bar. This was removed as a scoring option in 1904 but the drop goal remained
Master Blaster said | December 29th 2009 @ 4:59pm | Report comment
You still had to touch the ball down on the ground to be awarded a try in rugby.
As for soccer goals in rugby, that is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.
Show us all some linked sources.
netrug said | December 29th 2009 @ 6:52pm | Report comment
Of course you have to ground the ball for a try, and you had to when running the ball in.
Where were soccer goals mentinoned. Maybe I should have said over the cross bar and between the uprights. In years gone by there were goals (conversions), penalty goals, field goals, drop goals and goals from marks, all using Rugby posts but different values at different times. Goals were worth a point originally and up to seven but the try value did not count, field goals and drop goals were worth four points and penalty goals, three. Field goals were eliminated in 1904, goals from a matk in thw 1980s and the drop goal reduced to three in 1946. Also in the 1980s the try was five points and the conversion worth two.
Running in is mentioned in “Tom Browne’s Schooldays” and all values cf scoring methods can be seen by reading the Rugby Law books issued from 1845 onwards.
Shayxin said | December 28th 2009 @ 10:55am | Report comment
Yes the double try will not be allowed from a kick, at least that’s what I read. I think it’s a great idea and could add an X-factor if a team is down by 6 points in the last minute or two. One thing I’m wondering is: does the clock run when the attempt is being made? In that case, it would be impossible to have a go at the double try after the full-time whistle. And if the defending team intercepts, can they run the length of the field or does that simply end the play and they go back to the halfway line for the kickoff? I think playing on might be a great idea – it will save a minute or so that is taken in going back to set up for the kickoff.
Rob v2.0 said | December 28th 2009 @ 10:59am | Report comment
Do you get a third chance if you score the second try?…then a fourth,fifth etc
rugbyfuture said | December 28th 2009 @ 11:11am | Report comment
just give the players pads and call it rugby-gridiron
jus de couchon said | December 28th 2009 @ 11:11am | Report comment
Reinventing League in the name of entertainment has proved to be its downfall.
Mick from Giralang said | December 28th 2009 @ 2:20pm | Report comment
Fellow leaguies, can we please make a pact to ignore this bloke?
M1tch said | December 28th 2009 @ 2:55pm | Report comment
already done
Col the Bear said | December 28th 2009 @ 11:23am | Report comment
the funniest thing I saw the other day was an NFL game I think the Patriots were playing, a melee’(as the AFL say) started, and one guy was going hell for leather into the opponents head..I think he was hurting his hand more then the opponents head..
Mushi said | December 29th 2009 @ 9:54am | Report comment
Unless he was slapping the helmet – which is like putting your head inside a ringing curch bell
turfwars said | December 28th 2009 @ 3:36pm | Report comment
The game at Skilled Park will be like a gridiron game.
That is the refs will be wired up to tell everyone why the penalty has been called .-just like NFL the coaches wired up with head phones like the NFL. we have two refs two side line judges and three in the replay box . all just like NFL now we have flying wedges, players able to score second trys by jumping over the line of attack- just like NFL
unlimited change overs, no feeding the scrum or contesting the scrum-why have it?
4 quarters of play -just like NFL. gatorade big cans onto the field during breaks -just like NFL
I bet they even mark out the field to some degree just like NFL.
players today wear boots that were originally made for NFL players on artificial turf-blade boots now they have silky non sweat jerseys -just like NFL
why not put them in helmets and call the game grid league
M1tch said | December 28th 2009 @ 5:47pm | Report comment
People hearing the refs is actually a good thing,
the 4 quarters is for the heat factor
Sam said | December 29th 2009 @ 5:48pm | Report comment
I’ll bet money the four quarters is so they can have an ad break for tv. That’ll be their main motivation for it.
Dogs Of War said | December 29th 2009 @ 5:58pm | Report comment
The NRL always has during the first 4 weeks or so of the comp, a break at the 20min/60min marks if the heat warrants it (Queensland teams usually). It’s only for 1 minute, that all said, I think the game has to go to quarters just to allow decent advertising opportunities to be built in to the telecast. 2 minute break wouldn’t be that bad would it?
Ken said | December 30th 2009 @ 10:25am | Report comment
Without looking it up I think it’s very rare in the NRL proper (even in the early rounds), happens plenty in trial matches though due to heat.
I’ve seen a few people complain that this is the TV companies intruding on the game and before you know it there’ll be breaks in the NRL but I think it’s a bit of a beat up. We’ve seen this plenty of times before in trial matches without any suggestion it would become standard for the serious stuff. That said, if it is suggested it should be shot down with force – as a fan who acknowledges that money makes the world go round I don’t mind if they plaster every spare space with advertising, if someone (Coke maybe) wants to pay them to play on red grass… I can even take the constant betting spruiking. Stopping the game for an ad break though is a step too far, the ebb and flow of the game is already sometimes dented by interminably slow video decisions, to schedule further interuptions would be detrimental.
Karlos said | January 3rd 2010 @ 7:48am | Report comment
And Union just keeps copying League. Read posts above concerning “running in”and realise that NFL came from Rugby as did League and this is a return to the roots of the game. So long as no kicking is allowed in trying to get the 2nd try, then I am all for it, but I do not think it would be used very often except as an option near the end of tight games. In think quarters might be for the heat (stupid) and of course the ground is marked like NFL, or rather the NFL is marked like Union. Flying wedges went out years ago.
It is called evolution and all codes look to each other for improvements. I think that is one of the dumbest posts I have ever read.
Col the Bear said | December 28th 2009 @ 3:41pm | Report comment
well the game is run by an american company isn’t it..
Mick from Giralang said | December 28th 2009 @ 5:14pm | Report comment
I think during the Superleague competition they had the refs kitted out like gridiron refs and might even have had the fields marked in a similar fashion.
Springs said | December 28th 2009 @ 6:16pm | Report comment
No point in the double try whatsoever. If a team is 8 points ahead and has held the other team out for 79 minutes then they deserve to win the game. That is of course unless the team has used the double try to get in front in the first place. The scoring system we have right now is perfect as it is. Four points for a try in any circumstance, if the attacking team scores a length of the field try then a reward for them, if they score from dummy half it penalises the soft defence. Tries from kicks are usually scored in the corner. The 4 points is a reward for the attacking team being in a position to attack, and the conversion attempt is from the sideline.
No need for the double try, I would hate to see a try from dummy half and the succesful ‘conversion’ attempt end up destroying a 6 or 7 point advantage. Makes the field goal useless. Anyway without kicking I see about a 5% success rate for double try conversions.
M1tch said | December 28th 2009 @ 7:31pm | Report comment
No kicking allows more passing and set plays, fans get annoyed at amount of tries scored from kicks..ask Roosters fans
Springs said | December 28th 2009 @ 9:42pm | Report comment
Tries from kicks have already gone down in number since teams started using blocking tactics. Without kicking though the double try will have 13 on 13 and a fully set defensive line, I cannot see any set plays working as the scrambling defence will be able to contain any overlaps or 1 on 1s
Crosscoder said | December 29th 2009 @ 5:47am | Report comment
The less tries scored by kicks ,the better IMO.Give it a go in the All Stars match,and if it turns out to be a disater dice it.OIt is not rocket science.
They tried 2 refs in the under 20s ,and in the main it has turned out to be a winner(though not perfect).
I would still like to try an additional 2 tackle running option (ie 8 tackles)>Kicking is permitted on any tackle up to 6,but if you choose the running option no kicking allowed on tackle 7 and 8.
It is still a basic 6 tackle game,but you have the OPTION for further 2 runs and thereby additional attacking options.You reduce greatly the predictability ofthe kick on the 6th tackle ,for the lottery try by bombing,and confuse to blazes the defence.
You know it makes sense..
Brian said | December 29th 2009 @ 10:36am | Report comment
I don’t mind the double try idea but what happens if the defending team concedes a penalisable offence i.e offside at the tap off, head high, gouging, Don McKinnon urination etc etc.
If I were the defending team I would be trying my darndest to strip the ball out therefore ending the attacking play. If the attackers were to receive a penalty do they get to go for goal (even though they just spurned the opportunity after the first try) or do they just get another tap restart. Could get ugly if the defending teams motivation is to stop the play repeatedly.
Sam said | December 29th 2009 @ 6:16pm | Report comment
I think that most of these things are gimmicks they are implementing to drum up some publicity for the match. If they were serious about rule changes they would trial them in more than one match. Also, I wanna know what would happen to the quick-tap if every penalty decision needs to be explained by the ref? They don’t have that problem in the NFL.
I’d also like to hear Roarers opinions and ideas on the following: In several comments above a lot of people complained that there is too much kicking close to the try-line. I must say it’s something in rugby league I don’t like that much; it seems most of the time teams are in the opposition 20 m with one tackle left they either kick a bomb or a grubber and hope for the best. I’d like to see more running tries with players running into space or breaking tackles. I think they could try two things to fix this:
1) Bring back the mark within 20 m of your try-line. They do this in rugby union to try and reduce kicking close to the try-line and it seems to work.
2) Because bringing back the mark would probably just mean teams kick grubbers instead of bombs, what about if you field the ball behind your own try-line and place it down you get your full 6 tackles from the 20 m line? If you carry it back over the try-line it’s a turnover like it is now.
Any other ideas/suggestions? I’d like the NRL to actually try and fix things people have a problem with! Rather than this other stuff no one have ever complained about!
Dogs Of War said | December 29th 2009 @ 6:26pm | Report comment
I think the only suggestion that could work to reduce kicking is to have 2 extra tackles available if you don’t. If in those two tackles you do kick, then it’s an instant handover of possession (From the 10m line if inside the 10). Crosscoder is spot on with this idea. Would be great to see it trialed in the U20’s.
I don’t like the mark (though we do sort of have that already for catches in the ingoal). And really hate the field the ball and place it down behind you own tryline, as that takes grubbers out, and makes it impossible to force a repeat set.
MyGeneration said | December 30th 2009 @ 8:10am | Report comment
I like Crosscoder’s idea as well, although I think 1 extra tackle is enough. Not sure I’m TOO worried about the prevalence of kicking currently. I think there is a lot of variety in the types of kicks and no need to go too far with removing kicking as an option. Also, do we want to give the refs something else to think about?
Mick from Giralang said | December 30th 2009 @ 8:43am | Report comment
Agree MG. The spectacle of blokes like Folau plucking a concise bomb out of the air has added an extra dimension to the game.
adrien2166 said | December 30th 2009 @ 3:26am | Report comment
well …kicking game is not too bad i think. Some great tries were scored by little kicks under the defensive line or on the wing, just remember the amazing try gasnier scored in anzac test 2008, and more recently a similar try was scored by australia in four nation final against england. These kind of try are unique.
Mick from Giralang said | December 30th 2009 @ 7:55am | Report comment
Is it just the bomb that’s banned on this play, or all types of kicking?
Dogs Of War said | December 30th 2009 @ 8:15am | Report comment
Interesting really, I could see that kicks that are short of the try line should probably still be allowed so as to provide some element of unpredictability (stops everybody rushing up from the line). It’s only a one off anyhow, if it was introduced into the Toyota Cup then I would hope they think through how it is used a little more.
Mushi said | December 31st 2009 @ 10:18am | Report comment
this looks as well thoughtout as one of those ideas form the american marketing guys in the CBA ads
Master Blaster said | December 31st 2009 @ 10:23am | Report comment
rrrrrrrrrrrrrr rugby league!!!
Oh yeah!
Crosscoder said | December 31st 2009 @ 11:37am | Report comment
Is that a Steeden in your pocket or are you just excited to smell the linament?
dragonjem said | January 4th 2010 @ 1:46pm | Report comment
Geez Mr. Kaless, could you be anymore negative about anything in the All Stars game? Are you sure you are looking forward to the game? Cos it really doesn’t sound like it! It is first and foremost an EXHIBITION game, so why not try out different things to make it more appealing then it already is? And they are not saying that it’s no longer going to have conversions…it’s an OPTION Mr. Kaless, so it’s not like the great kickers of the game are going to be forgotten about. I’m so sick of everyone’s damn negativity about this game!!! it’s an awesome idea and it’s going to be around for a LONG time so you might as well get used to it. I thrive on enthusiasm and that’s what this game brings. Go Dragons.
RJ said | January 5th 2010 @ 6:39am | Report comment
Another move designed to squeeze in more ads for tv, nothing more and nothing less.