We love to hate rule changes, but in the competitive cauldron of world sport attracting viewership requires a certain willingness to adapt.
Here are three rule changes that would improve every single NRL game of 2015.
1. Get rid of stripping penalties
In situations where there is more than one defender, if the ball is deemed stripped it is given back to the tackled player for a play-the-ball to occur. One-on-one strips would still be allowed without punishment of the defender.
This simple change would make it easier for referees to make the call, because the punishment isn’t as harsh.
A penalty in the modern game is too much reward for the almost always divisive 50/50 call that is the current strip penalty.
2. Get rid of penalty kicks for touch
Who likes to see quick taps? Oh yeah, everyone. Bring them back.
The penalty kick is too much advantage. If you are kicking for touch, the opposition should get the scrum feed. Quick taps are the way to go.
It takes the emphasis off the referee, as six again is less likely to change the course of a game, but still provides a disincentive for committing illegal play.
3. One marker
One marker means we won’t see two forwards lying all over a tackled player. What we will see is more one and two-man tackles because no front rower wants to make a tackle and then retreat 10 metres.
This allows more offloads, tackle busts, dummy-half runs, speedy rucks and most of all less wrestling. It will tire the big guys out more quickly and let the little men run riot.
Extra credit – stop the referee guessing game that has been implemented. If they are sending it upstairs, they don’t know. Why put them under that sort of pressure?
Have three video refs upstairs and majority rules. Benefit of the doubt goes to the most likely scenario.
So what do you think? Are there any rules changes you would prefer to see in 2015 or is rugby league perfect just the way it is?
Jay C
Roar Guru
I don't think you could do it though. It borders into a scary territorry of not allowing the defensive team to do 'whatever it take' to stop the attack.
Knightblues
Roar Guru
It would make the game more exciting and more attacking
Sleiman Azizi
Roar Guru
I've often wondered about that.
Knightblues
Roar Guru
The best rule of all would be 2 men in a tackle only.
Casper
Guest
Maybe fix the stripping rule by where the player is holding the ball. If it's tucked into the body or up under the arm, penalty for a strip, but we've seen these ridiculous rulings when a guy has been holding it out at the end of his extended arm & when it's stripped or stolen, he gets a penalty. I know people will say it's another subjective decision, but almost all strips are currently subjective referee opinions. I'd like to see the old fashioned good low tackle around the ankles rewarded instead of always ending up as a penalty for the tackler hanging on too long. If you make a one on one covering tackle at hip height or below, you should be allowed to helicopter around & delay the play the ball by about 3-5 seconds. In most cases, the ball runner tries to jump up & gets a penalty which doesn't reward a great covering tackle. I'd also like to see those guys who roll to the side then getting up to play the ball to put the marker out of play being pinged for not playing it on the mark, make them go back & play it on the right spot or make it clear from the ref that the marker is not offside, that would stop it. Oh yeah, then add a rule that anything Michael Ennis does is a sin bin offence.
Muzz
Guest
I kind of agree with some of the above posts, Jay 1)Stripping the ball would become a way of slowing down the play and disrupting the attacking teams rhythm.This would allow more time for the team in D to set their line.A penalty and kick for touch is used as the deterrent. 2)Teams would give away more penalties on tackles 1 and 2 for the same reasons i have listed above.Again, the kick for touch is the deterrent.The new rule, where the attacking team gets an extra tackle after the ball was tactically kicked dead was introduced to counter this type of negative play. 3) Would open up a whole new can of worms.Teams would be pinned for off-side on countless occasions as this gives the dummy- half a huge advantage and incentive to burn the marker.As it stands, scooting from dummy half, is more an art form.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
Disagree with you on the strips. We had this in the game for 80 years and it was up to the player to make sure he kept it. Just another innovation that the coaches thought up. Look at today's game and all the problems. Most have come because the coaches have been involved in the rule changes, either suggesting them or supporting them.
Epiquin
Roar Guru
Thanks Jay C. I thought of that as well, I suppose if it's only a tackle count restart it can kill the teams momentum to have scoop up the ball and play again. It allows the defensive line to reset.
The Barry
Guest
The tricky thing is that a rule change has unintended consequences. They tried to speed the game up, which led to boring dummy half running. From that was born the wrestle. It's coaches that are the crafty ones. I agree with the dominant one on one tackle. How to make it work is the hard part. I don't think it would be a good look having a player standing there waiting for the defender to get up and get to marker. I'm sure coaches would find a way to exploit that pretty quickly. Eg one on one tackler staying down injured.
Jay C
Roar Guru
You are 100 percent right about the corner post. Brilliant rule change. If I could have just one I think it might be forcing players to stand up straight away once the tackle is completed. I would love to watch a game with the 1 marker rule just to see how it worked though...
Boz
Guest
Fair enough Jay. I think all rule changes need to be carefully considered before anything happens in future. The best change in recent years has been taking the corner post out of play when looking at tries being scored. It has improved the game as a spectacle, and removed the possibility of the farcical scenario of a corner post leaning way into the in goal, contacting a player, which would then mean he was in touch. If I could only change one rule for next season it would be a toss up between the stripping rule and the interchange. I would love to see the game go back to 6 straight replacements. Once you come off, that's it. For Extra time I would allow two more interchanges though.
Jay C
Roar Guru
1. The problem with allowing strips is you would pretty much end second phase play, because the ball would be tucked that tightly under the arm. I too am a fan of ball security, but I am also a fan of offloading. 2. I think that just swings the advantage back to being penalised early in the set, but I'm not opposed to it. 3. You will have an extra man in the defensive line but he will be a lot more tired. My biggest issue with the way the game is played is the wrestle and the one out hitups. Maybe they could start paying players by the number of successful passes they make per game.
Boz
Guest
1. Get rid of stripping penalties. I would rather they allow stripping no matter how many in the tackle. Players often have no ball security these days and often in the process of trying to stop an offload, the defender attacks the ball, and if it comes out, penalty. It's unfair. Crowds like uncertainty, and having the chance your team can get the ball back on any tackle, definitely reduced the predictability of today's football. 2. Get rid of penalty kicks for touch. I wouldn't get rid of them, but I would modify the rule to say that if you kick for touch, then the tackle count continues, you don't get a full set of six again. If you take the quick tap, you get the tackle count restarted. It helps balance out the unfairness between being penalised on the first tackle of a set, or the last tackle. 3. One Marker. Teams can already go with one marker if they like. What you'll see though is a lot more dummy half running. You also want to try and take away more players from the defensive line, not give them an extra one. I would prefer that the marker can strike for the ball again - would automatically ensure correct play the ball technique from the attackers. I also think they should crack down a lot more on guys walking off the mark to play the ball. Some of them pinch 2 metres.
Jay C
Roar Guru
Not bad Epi. Something definitely has to be done to sure up the current rule there. It needs to be as close to black and white as possible. I would worry it might encourage players to just drop the ball every time a fingernail brushes it.
Epiquin
Roar Guru
What about if you make a rule that when there is more than one in the tackle, the defender is not allowed to touch the ball with their hands? It would make it a bit more black and white. It would also make it harder for defenders to wrap up the ball so we would see a lot more off loads, which leads to exciting play. Furthermore, any instance where the defender has been deemed to touch the ball with his hands will only result in a tackle count restart. With this rule, we would probably only see it enforced when the ball comes free so there wouldn't be penalties blown every 5 seconds.
Fairy fairfax
Roar Rookie
How about not adjudicating on a strip at all? Lets call a ball not in possession a Free Ball and is up for grabs. If the attacking team recovers, the tackle count remains unaffected. If the defending team recovers, they begin their Six. Refs must, sorry MUST, blow a penalty for holding/wrestling. No explanation, no reasoning, no nothing. just a quick whistle blast and a ten metre walk. Players know when a tackle is completed but still wait for the Held call then give one more movement, hence the evolution of the Crusher to the Seatbelt. Keep coaches away from the rule making process, they are in it for their personal professional advantage and care very little about fairness or equity. I also believe that it would be in the interest of the game to revisit offences. The Yanks have a beauty - "Unnecessary Roughness". A beautiful blanket charge that could mean anything, but would give late hitters an automatic (and by that I mean a non-discretionary) ten minutes in the bin. The Vidiot ref could be engaged for that, that way he might be of some use in taking the heat of the Real Referee instead of vice versa. Theres lots more too, I'll bet. I've got some but article is not the forum.
Jay C
Roar Guru
It is ridiculous that they allow the tackled player to march 5 metres up the field to play the ball. Just don't allow the holding down. The referees control exactly how much holding down there is. But you are right, it could result in more holding. Damn you wrestling. You are a crafty mistress. I would like to see a reward of dominant tackle called for one on one tackles.
Statler and Waldorf
Roar Guru
ahhh, I forgot about that
The Barry
Guest
Playing one marker worked a treat for Chris Anderson at the roosters. Ended his NRL career.
The Barry
Guest
Around super league time they sped up the play the balls a ridiculous amount and it was terrible with 5 dummy half runs and forwards diving at the feet of their opponents. I don't think it would necessarily result in one on one tackles. It might have the opposite effect of more holding down to allow time for the extra defender to get back. I think if there's a rule with markers that needs to be changed is that if the tackled player walks off the mark the markers don't have to be square.