The fans want more footy: Rugby league needs an advantage rule

Offside penalties should have a quick tap option at least no matter what state the defenders line is in.

This article has one glaring absurdity, that is that the GF is between the Tigers and the Auckland Losers. Everything else I agree with.

I absolutely love the idea! In practice what would happen is the teams full of big cement trucks would be negated. The smaller players would start to run riot as speed would become premium. It would also stop professional foulers like Melbourne stopping the play to re group. No doubt the number of penalties would reduce greatly, just like now with the crackdown. Personally the jury is out for me on the crackdown. I feel the number of interesting games this year has reduced and my feeling of excitement waiting for the games is beginning to wane.It may be a teething period but I'm thinking not. Teams are physically structured for the "old rules" and this running back to get onside is affecting games.Plus, maybe 10 metres back for both sides is creating a theoretical 20 m gap which is leading to more simple hit ups to gain ground. Weekend just gone I felt just the wests tigers/newcastle and maybe storm/bronco were interesting games , with the rest being average at best and the roosters/bulldogs a total snoozefest. Excitement levels are down.

I've checked the wording on penalty tries before and the nonsense you hear when one is awarded is wrong. Being absolutely certain that a try would have been scored is a myth. It says if in the opinion of the ref a try would have been scored. No try is a certainty , a player can drop the ball or anything can happen.

The point is if you play advantage then you get the chance to score a highly probable try and if that fails you get a difficult shot to win the game. Kenny Edwards is rewarded by stopping a try and forcing his opponents to take a difficult penalty shot. 50 % chance of being kicked at best , even Thurston missed.

So it’s just an advantage penalty-a-thon until numbers/fatigue take their toll and a team crashes through non existent defence to score? May as well just give teams 4pts and stop wasting the 30 seconds it would take for this to inevitably occur. I understand what you’re saying about advantage in the game generally but the fact is we do already have advantage in place. Refs can and do let play go on past an infringement for a “short period” and if the advantage doesn’t lead to meaningful progress then the game is halted and brought back for the pen. I don’t know that it needs changing. Our game doesn’t flow like AFL or soccer so trying to implement a similar advantage system has its drawbacks.

It never mentioned rugby union which was my point.

Maybe change the wording to Pprobably would have been scored if not for the foul".

I agree with you on the advantage but why use AFL? Rugby union has always had an advantage rule and it works well. No blowing the whist6le to show an advantage, just an outstretched arm and that is it. But then again, league has always preferred to use AFL as a base for changes and not union.

That is why I said if there is a professional foul, play should be stopped and the player sin binned, play should not continue because you'll open Pandora's box if that was to happen. A penalty try should only be awarded if there is without absolute doubt the player with the ball was not impeded illegally, would've scored. Penalty tries are mentioned usually when there is a professional foul committed coupled with total certainty a try would have been scored. How can that take place in a scenario where only 1 person if he were to interfere illegally does that whilst 8 of his other team mates who are within their rights to prevent the try are denied that opportunity (if he hadn't interfered) if you just blew a penalty try? There is no certainty the try would have been scored so why give it? Use the sin bin, not the penalty try

How do we allow a defence to legally stop a try ? Make the penalty harsh enough to stop the cynical foul from being worthwhile , the one person who isn't in his rights just has to keep out of it, very simple. When was the last time somebody threw a punch in the NRL? The players don't believe the risk is worthwhile and it has been eliminated. The same would happen if penalty tries were used a lot more often , they would end up like the punch and become almost extinct.

if the player who would have been sin binned has another go then award a penalty try. Disagree with that. In many cases the defense would still have the possibility of legally preventing the try, just because one person who was not in his rights to do something went ahead and did it, the ref should blatantly award a penalty try. Each case will need to be independently scrutinized to have some fairness

ok, well it is a great idea. also, if a team gets an advantage, they should also be subject to losing that advantage after some time in play. because rugby league has a limited number of tackles in each set, it would be interesting to see how that would work on the paddock. and if an attacking player is found to be the infringer, does the ref throw his arm out toward the defending team and I wonder what that would look like in an actual game. it's probably something that would work well for the team with possession

Players committing professional fouls to prevent a try are doing so usually because the risk of a sin bin or penalty is deemed by them to be worth the risk. It has become accepted practice and typically the commentators will say he had no choice because the opponents were almost certain to score. Best way to largely eliminate this is to use the existing and I believe misunderstood penalty try law. If the ref thinks that the illegal play prevented a try then award a try. It only needs to be the refs opinion that a try would have been scored. The defender thinks a try was likely so why not agree with him and award one? If they don't do that I'd prefer they play on and give the attack a chance to score on the next tackle with a shattered defence and if the player who would have been sin binned has another go then award a penalty try. Most of the thuggery in the game has been eliminated because of harsh penalties. Professional fouls to prevent a likely try can be largely eliminated by using the existing penalty try law. An example where the ref would not have awarded a penalty try but should have is the 2013 GF where Michael Jennings scored a miracle try from a grubber. If someone impeded Jennings he would have prevented what we now know was a try but no ref would have given that as a try . Why not? , it will stop future impeding of chases so we won't have to make educated guesses on the outcome.

Players committing professional fouls to prevent a try are doing so usually because the risk of a sin bin or penalty is deemed by them to be worth the risk. It has become accepted practice and typically the commentators will say he had no choice because the opponents were almost certain to score. Best way to largely eliminate this is to use the existing and I believe misunderstood penalty try law. If the ref thinks that the illegal play prevented a try then award a try. It only needs to be the refs opinion that a try would have been scored. The defender thinks a try was likely so why not agree with him and award one? If they don't do that I'd prefer they play on and give the attack a chance to score on the next tackle with a shattered defence and if the player who would have been sin binned has another go then award a penalty try. Most of the thuggery in the game has been eliminated because of harsh penalties. Professional fouls to prevent a likely try can be largely eliminated by using the existing penalty try law.