Four rule changes for rugby league

I would get rid of the kick for touch for penalties involving ruck infringements. For example if players are lying all over the player in the ruck and its taking an age...the ref simply restarts the tackle count on the run (like when an opposition player touches the ball). I reckon this would cut down the wrestle quick smart because the opposition could conceivably be facing 12 or more tackles straight without a break.

I think you're on the right track with getting players to actually play the ball properly. If they don't, then they have to play it again. One of the biggest "whinges" in the NRL these days is penalties in the play the ball. Mainly because we see so many terrible play the balls (players walking off the mark, putting the ball on the other side of a tackler and playing it into him, not using their foot, stepping to the side to play it, playing it on the ground), but, only about 1 in 50 will actually draw a penalty. If they simply made the player stop, get the ball back, move on to the mark and play it properly this would discourage the super quick (sloppy) play the ball. It would definitely have major teething problems though, as the first few weeks of the year would probably see play being called to a halt every second play the ball, but, hopefully (and this may be a pipe dream) the players would actually "come around" to playing the ball properly all the time (even as I type this, I don't believe it, but anyway...) I also think the NRL could consider changing the rule around penalties when teams are defending inside their 20. If a defending team commits a penalty inside their own 20, the attacking team can have a shot at penalty. Irrespective of whether they convert it, the defending team then has to drop the ball out from under the posts. So, the attacking team could get 2, 4, 6 or however many points and still retain possession inside their opponents half (assuming a short drop out doesn't get recovered by the defending team). The NRL tried to enforce a "multiple penalties inside the 20 will lead to a sin-bin" this year, but, for me, it didn't work. 1, because there was no consistency from the refs, and 2, attacking teams quite often just took the 2 points on offer (and this tended to "reset the penalty clock"). There are plenty of options with regard to rule changes, but for me, getting the play the ball actually right should be objective number one. Reducing penalties in the defensive 20 (just to get a set line) should also be looked at...

#Bearden You made this comment "Football doesn’t give you another option if you aren’t good enough to score a goal, while AFL allows points for missing, which is embarrassing." It's a glib reference to 2 other sports - however - you gloss over an important area - scoring, it's function and it's risk/reward mechanism. Look at basketball as an example. 3 pointers, 2 pointers and 1 pt free throws. There are 'qualitative' aspects. The 3 pointer in particular. It's not just about quantity. It creates strategic opportunities and also makes it easier to avoid a draw in regular time. Soccer has a binary system - 1 point for everything. Irrespective of own goal, header, kick, penalty kick, deflection. It's purely 'quantitative'. It doesn't serve the function of making draws less likely. This is a short coming for tournament play - where a team in the WC might play consecutive extra time periods and meet a team in the final who hasn't. The AFL system of 'behinds' evolved in the late 1800s. The 'kick off' posts already existed to the side of each goal post. The concept of a 'ruge' in football wasn't new. Something to do when the ball goes 'behind' the goal. But Aust Football had no 'end zone'. It's about goal kicking and not 'running in/touching down'. This is where we get to a scoring system with a function. The 'behind' is NOT an embarrassing 'point for missing'. It fills the vital roll of reducing the number of drawn games (tick). It also encourages more speculative shots on goal - ironically - as, a miss (like out on the full) still rewards the defenders with possession - however, you get a point as the 'reward'. It really isn't that big a reward!! So - when talking scoring systems/methods - I advise you to dig a little deeper than the cliché. By the way - you could well argue in Aust Footy that behinds should only come into it if goals are level (a 'count back' mechanism). I'd like to see something along those lines in soccer. In Rugby League - the kicking game has been greatly eroded since the heady days of Rugby in the formative days of the RFU in the mid/late 1800s where by you ONLY scored points for kicking a goal. Rugby League in particular has completely changed the scoring focus - such that, as in the name, that the game now most rewards with points for achieving something that previously only gave you the opportunity to 'TRY' for goal. And you think a 'point for missing' is embarrassing!!

If there was any change, i would still get rid of golden point. There is nothing wrong with a draw. In finals, they can play extra time. If it is still a draw, have a replay...I am sure the NRL would love the extra cash.

"Dropping the ball over the line shouldn’t give the defending 20 metres AND seven tackles. It’s ridiculous and not what the rule was intended to address." Amen to that, worst rule in the game. Why penalise teams for attacking play?

The one rule I would change is the try off the kick....no conversion allowed... you've had your kick....a team can score a try off a well placed grubber and it's undefendable...at least if you dive over from dummy half ... that is defendable.... rabbits nearly beat storm the other week yet two tries came off bombs while most storm tries we're great tries...it would encourage you to throw the ball around especially if you behind by 6.

How about 4 points for a win 3 for a win in golden point 2 for a draw 1 for a golden point loss 0 for a loss Or bonus points for winning by 13+

It’s not unfair and neither is golden point. Both teams have the same opportunity. If teams are evenly matched after 120 minutes of soccer or 90 minutes of footy then whatever method of deciding the game will have some fortune involved and there will be one team that is “unlucky”.

Personally I would like to see the 4 points for a try changed to 5 for all of them. It bugs me to no end that 2 penalty goals are the same as a try (obviously unconverted but point remains the same). Changing penalty goals to 1 pt would make the intentional penalty goal too appealing so at least the 5 point would still favour attacking teams.

I don’t mind that one. It’s better than it is now where the attacking team loses a player and the defending team has a player on report.

Yeah I did miss that mate. I still don’t think in today’s risk adverse game, teams will start throwing the ball around in their own half to try and get bonus point tries. Plus I think the aim of the game is to get the ball over the line. Sometimes it will be individual brilliance or a sensational ball play, sometimes it will be a forward crashing over under the posts or a winger bending around the corner post. Sometimes from 80 metres sometimes from two. Sometimes 20 passes, the next off a kick...do we start ranking them all? The Kikau try looked good but who says it’s more aesthetically pleasing than the way Townsend held his pass up for Fifita, Fifita poked his nose through the line and did a one handed offload back to Townsend for the Sharks try? I don’t think so. One was a lovely bit of sleight of hand, one was a big unit bashing through the line. Okay the Panthers get five points for the Kikau try, should they only get three points for the try Cleary scored off a kick only because Holmes had a brain snap. That wasn’t good looking. Maybe only three points as well for the try Yeo scored from two metres out.

That never happened. Stripping the ball was barely a thing, hence the bemusement when out of the blue, it was banned.

5 pointers - wouldn't really do much. Chucking the ball around in your own half is a recipe for disaster, only occasionally would it be viable. Field goals - they're fine. The alternative would mostly be the hit-and-hope bomb. Seven tackle - again little effect either way. Forcing an offside - one of those rules that they never think "Can the refs actually implement this properly?" before pulling the trigger... e.g. tackling in mid air, where they often can't distinguish between a contest and a tackle.

As a start, I would simplify the knock on rule. If the ball is dropped then possession should go to the other team irrespective of the ball's trajectory. In the future, a computer chip should be placed in the ball to determine if a pass was flat or backward.