We all know rugby league is the greatest game of all, but let’s face it, there are some rules that really frustrate fans.
Rugby league officials have never been afraid to change the rules. In fact, many of these rule changes have helped to shape rugby league into the game we know and love. Rule changes such as defenders standing 10m back from the ruck, rather than 5m, a limited tackle count, and increasing the value of a try from three points to four are just some examples.
It would be hard to imagine our great game without these rules. In that spirit, here are a few rules that I believe are crying out to be changed.
1. The strip
The strip rule as it stands now is an absolute farce. If the ball comes loose in a tackle, the referee needs to decide if the attacking player simply lost the ball, or if the ball was helped free by the defender. Now if the ball was helped free, was this intentional, or was it just dislodged as part of the tackle?
If it was intentionally stripped out, was there more than one player in the tackle? Did a player drop off the tackle before the second defender arrived, or just after? Did the strip occur in the act of preventing a try?
If there was only one defender in the tackle and the ball was intentionally stripped, did the defender knock the ball on, or did it travel backwards?
What a shemozzle!
We could easily simplify this situation, and stop me from screaming at my TV every game, if we just allowed defenders to attack the ball, regardless of the number of players in the tackle. It is the attacking players responsibility to retain possession. If he carries the ball in such a manner that allows his opponent to take the ball off him, then I believe he doesn’t deserve to maintain possession.
And while we’re at it, let’s forget about which way the ball travels after it’s been stripped. If you can strip the ball from your opponent, you should be allowed the opportunity to gain possession. It seems odd to penalise a defender for removing the ball from the attacking player simply because it travelled forwards.
This gives the attacking team, who had the ball removed from their possession, a fresh set of six. Ridiculous! There’s no knock on from a charge down, so why should there be for a strip?
2. Penalties in attacking zone
This has become a major issue in rugby league, and to date very little has been done to combat it. The idea is simple, when you’re defending your own line, under pressure, you give away a penalty. The attacking team walks back to the 10m line, and you get to reset your defence. Repeat this a few times and you might even frustrate the attacking team into taking the easy two points. Giving away two points is better than six.
Obviously something needs to be done about this situation. What if when a team is defending their own line, any ruck infringement by the defending team results in a restart of the tackle count rather than a penalty. There is no stoppage of play, just the referee signaling that the tackle count has restarted.
This removes the incentive for the defending team to deliberately give away penalties. You can guarantee coaches will start drilling their players not to give away penalties when defending their own line (as opposed to encouraging it, as they do now).
3. Using the sin-bin for head-related infringements
The NRL themselves have admitted that the game needs to take concussion seriously. There is some evidence to suggest that multiple concussions can lead to serious health issues.
The NRL should be congratulated by the stance they have taken by mandating in game Head Injury Assessments (HIA). However, there isn’t much action taken when a player is ruled out of a game for failing an HIA as a result of foul play.
Sure, the offending player may face a suspension, but how does that help a team when their halfback has to sit on the bench for the rest of the match having suffered a concussion after a shoulder charge from an opposing prop.
I’d like to see the NRL introduce a mandatory sin bin for offences that could lead to a concussion. i.e. High tackles and shoulder charges.
If you hit a bloke high, you sit out for ten minutes. If you use your shoulder to knock a bloke senseless, you sit out for ten minutes. Pretty simple stuff.
I know we all love seeing the big hits and the watching the big boys collide. I don’t see this changing the fabric of the game. Player safety must come first.
It also means that any team that has a player rubbed out due to concussion as a result of foul play will get some sort of advantage within that game, by forcing their opponents to play a man down for ten minutes.
I’m sure the suggestions I’ve put forward are not perfect, and many will disagree. But I’m confident we all agree that these three areas deserve the attention of the rule makers, in order to make the greatest game of all even greater.
Jim calder
Guest
The stripping problem is caused because the rule was changed concerning contested ruck. Non contested rucks was a new rule introduced by super league. At the end of the war and the creation of the NRL this rule change was accepted into rugby league. Prior to that a good marker could strike at the ball and win the ball. The play the ball was a contest as it always should be. A ball could be played in any direction and playing the ball forward when markers weren't in place was possible. If the ruck rules returned to what they were there would be less incentive to strip. Automatically restarting a tackle count near the try line Denys the attacking team the choice of kicking for goal. I'm ok with it if the ref says penaly restart tackle count or take a shot but to simply restart the count isn't enough of a penalty. The play the balls are getting too sloppy and half the time the players foot doesn't make contact. Non contested rucks also create a situation where players don't get to their feet properly before putting ball on ground but put ball on ground as action to help them get to their feet. Voluntary tackles are another issue, the NRL guidebook doesnt even seem to understand what a voluntary tackle is!,,, and talks about completely different issue under voluntary tackle heading. You see it all the time with full backs taking the ball in goal then diving to the ground in the field of play. If opposition were smart they wouldn't lay a hand on them but unfortunately refs don't seem to enforce voluntary tackle rule any more. Some of the knock on interpretations are wrong. A fumble isn't a knock on unless the ball is propelled from the hands towards your goal. If it goes backwards or sideways it's not a knock on. Some refs just blow whistle at any fumble. I disagree with banning shoulder charge. Attacking players are allowed to shoulder charge as much as they like but defenders can't?... Also if your not moving forward how can it be a charge. Recently Sam Burgess was penalized for shoulder charge when he was standing still and merely turned so his shoulder took the impact. The absolutely worst part about rugby league today is how much head high contact is allowed. Simply you shouldn't be allowed to touch another players head and arms shouldn't be grappling over attacking players shoulders. It should be stamped out. If you hit above the nipple line it should be illegal.
Michael Keeffe
Roar Guru
The strip rule would make a difference but a lot of the penalties are actually taking place after the tackle has been completed and while the play the ball has been happening. I've seen a lot of players lately with shocking ball security get strip penalties because they couldn't hold onto the ball while playing it. The amount of play the balls now that have the players at 45 degrees when they play it or they just roll the ball back without even pretending to use their foot are ridiculous. The whole ruck area needs an overhaul. Your suggestion would help, but even more would need to be done to clean it up. It's like the ref's have just given up on this area and when a ball comes loose they just guess whether its a penalty or a knock on.
Michael Keeffe
Roar Guru
The strip rule would make a difference but a lot of the penalties are actually taking place after the tackle has been completed and while the play the ball has been happening. I've seen a lot of players lately with shocking ball security get strip penalties because they couldn't hold onto the ball while playing it. The amount of play the balls now that have the players at 45 degrees when they play it or they just roll the ball back without even pretending to use their foot are ridiculous. The whole ruck area needs an overhaul. Your suggestion would help, but even more would need to be done to clean it up. It's like the ref's have just given up on this area and when a ball comes loose they just guess whether its a penalty or a knock on.
CRITTA
Guest
Agree. How about like gridiron if you get over the line that's it. This would eradicate the need for the refs to call try or no try and go to bunker. No need to ground the ball, just get over the line and this will remove so many variables.
Magnus M. Østergaard
Roar Guru
So it was a problem.
Ian
Guest
This one I agree with. Double movement is a stupid rule. Get tackled 1 cm short of the line, can't move. Get tackled in goal and held up, you seemingly have 10-20 seconds to wrestle the ball to the ground. I think if you're close enough to get the ball to ground in goal good on you. That said, I'd tighten up the time allowed to do it - maybe 5 seconds.
mushi
Guest
Jsut to play devils advocate on the Strip ammendment. Why as the defending team wouldn't you try and rip it out to slow the play of the ball?
mushi
Guest
I thought the pre 91 rules was it had to be a one on one tackle? Hence the langer SOO strip in 1990 being a penalty?
Cadfael
Roar Guru
On the clock, they used to do that. Though this was more to stop the pitch invasions of the 70s and early 80s. I would like to see the referee stop the clock when a scrum, penalty or drop out is called. We see players wandering around and not taking the kick or packing the scrum waiting for the clock to wind down. Compare this to the other game where an advantage can see play go on for 2 - 3 minutes, They at least play the game out.
andrew
Guest
Agree on no 7 tackle set off the drop out - although in golden point it kind of increases the chances of a result. In general though I am for it. The game is becoming a bomb/kick-a-thon as it is so anything to deicentive tries from kicks is a win for me. If people wanted to do away with the 7 tackle re-start set my thoughts would be to consider shortening the in-goal
catcat
Roar Rookie
Some good ideas on this thread - i) multiple defensive penalties on your line- 10min in the bin is a good idea but I worry refs would not use it. Alternatively player can sit out the rest of the set on the sideline or until points scored. ii) 7 tackle set only to apply to long range kicks....yes, love to see more grubbers and I think a lot of halves don't kick them now as a result of the 7 tackle set iii) don't restart the tackle count on charge downs- if its charged down its a bad kick, so no advantage should be given iv) the strip/dropped ball...that's in the too hard basket for me...solve one problem, create another...
Justin Kearney
Guest
To stop two men wrapping up one player and wrenching his arms while a third ripped the ball off him. It was an uneven and ugly contest. Not always but certainly in latter years before the rule change.
Geoff evans
Guest
Totally agree with all you said.It annoys me when 90%of players just roll the ball back or step over it even after last year the refs boss said that players had to play the ball with the foot or would be penalized, but this only happened for about 5 rounds and then forgotten by refs. The scrum sare a joke and 2ndrowers and the lock don't even bother to pack into the scrums at all.
Magnus M. Østergaard
Roar Guru
If it wasnt a problem why was the rule brought in?
Chuznut
Guest
The main tweaks to the rules that I'd like to see would be - The 7 tackle rule (if a player kicks the ball dead) should only apply if the ball was kicked from behind the 20m line. I don't think it's fair to punish a team who has gone for a genuine attacking kick, close to the tryline. It should just be a 20m tap, with 6 tackles. If they kick it dead from outside the 20m line, the 7 tackle rule would be in effect. I'd also like to see the clock stopped in the last 5 minute, any time that the whistle blows for anything (knock ons, out of bounds, tries, etc). If the game was close, it'd give the losing team a bit more of a chance to make a comeback, and it'd stop the team that was ahead from trying to use up the clock by kicking the ball out, or anything like that.
Chuznut
Guest
Agreed, although I do like the idea of there being no knock on rule during a strip.
LMM
Guest
Any player who executes a one on one tackle around the waist or lower should be automatically allowed to get to marker before the ball is played. The game is rightfully worried about concussion, yet the type of tackling that prevents tackles around the head are punished by the current rules. Also, if players had to stand, place the ball and roll it back with their foot (which is the rule) then there would be less focus on slowing down the ruck, which is essentially what rugby league is has become all about. Rugby league has become a game of constant cheating and play acting, and its because simple rules of the game are not enforced correctly.
Moonshot
Guest
The stripping rule was bought in by News Ltd to make the game less predictable. Its now an enigmna designed to even games up by giving it to the trailing team. Its a farce.
Moonshot
Guest
"World" Series named after a newspaper in 1903??
Taree Raider
Guest
Give the Ref's control of the ruck. Instead of having a 'dominant' or 'surrender' tackle called by the Ref. Let the Ref decide when a tackle is complete. They then call TACKLED, count to three, 1,2,3. If the ruck is not clear for the tackled player to get up & play the ball a penalty should be awarded. This would stop all the grapples, tangles or whatever Melbourne come up with next. It would give the Ref control. The fans would know what is going on & would make the ruck consistent.