NRL CEO Todd Greenberg and head of football Graham Annesley have announced some major rule changes ahead of the upcoming 2020 NRL season.
These changes include the introduction of the 20/40 kick, designed to operate in the same fashion as the 40/20 has for many years, the captain’s challenge, the ability for teams to choose to pack a scrum when the ball goes into touch either ten metres in from touch, 20 metres in from touch, or in the centre of the field.
There are also changes to the mutual infringement rule with regards to when the ball hits a referee or trainer, when previously the team with the attacking/territorial advantage was awarded the scrum feed, now the team that had the ball will have the chance to replay the previous play-the-ball.
Many of these changes have been introduced with the aim of improving the game as an attacking spectacle.
The changes to the scrum rule will hopefully encourage teams to use more set plays from scrums. We might see some teams who place more emphasis on wide-open side plays choose to pack scrums from ten metres in from touch all the time, while others will gravitate towards using short side plays, packing scrums more often 20 metres in from touch.
It will be intriguing to see what teams decide to do with the centre-field scrum. With attacking formations on either side of the scrum, it’s a great way to put the defence in two minds. It’s a great addition to the game and I’m excited to see how teams make use of it.
The jury is still out on the introduction of captain’s challenge. The brains trust at NRL HQ are yet to articulate exactly how it will be implemented. Making sure that captains aren’t able to use the challenge to interrupt play when it suits them – as well as other potential abuses of the rule – is paramount to ensuring its success as a concept.
The 20/40 kick is a fantastic innovation, too. While the kick itself won’t be too much of a factor – it will probably be seen less frequently than the 40/20, which already happens fairly infrequently – the threat of the kick will create some interesting mind games between playmakers and opposition wingers.
Wingers opting to drop back early to defend the possibility of a 20/40 will create more space for teams coming out of their own end. The flow-on effect of this could be that we see more attacking footy from teams coming out of their own end, and potentially more long-range tries.
This leaves us with the new mutual infringement rule. This is where the game’s administrators have missed the mark.
The issue with the new rule is that it treats a trainer interfering with play and a referee interfering with play as equal, when in fact it’s anything but.
If a referee interferes with the play through their necessary presence on the field at all times, I fully accept that the only fair thing to do is to go back and restart that particular play.
(Photo by Mark Kolbe/Getty Images)
Sometimes it may cost a team an attacking opportunity, for example if a team has numbers out wide but can’t get the ball there because it’s touched an official. The play would then be restarted, and the defence would likely have time to get itself in order and cover the gaps out wide.
It’s unfortunate when this happens. However, the officials have a job to do, and it’s inevitable that one may get in the way from time to time. Restarting the play is the best thing that can be done in a bad situation.
The trainer touching the ball, on the other hand, is completely different.
A trainer is not a neutral third party like a referee, nor is their presence on the field an absolute necessity. In fact, the only reason trainers are able to spend such a long time on the field during play is because those who run the game have allowed this issue to spiral out of control over many years, to the point where a trainer’s presence on the field while their team is in possession is now considered the norm.
If the newly introduced mutual infringement rule had been in place for this year’s grand final, the outcome still would have given the Roosters a massive advantage they shouldn’t have been entitled to.
Sure, instead of the whole extra set they actually received, they would have only received one extra play, giving Luke Keary another chance to get his kick away properly. But why does Keary deserve that chance? How is it fair to reward him with a second opportunity to kick when he stuffed up his first?
If a trainer interferes with the play by touching the ball, it should be at the very least an immediate handover to the other team, if not a penalty against the offending team.
The NRL was always going to change this rule after the debacle that was the 2019 grand final.
Unfortunately, the change they’ve come up with does nothing to ensure a fair outcome when a trainer interferes with the play, which given the present state of the game, is something that will inevitably happen again.
elvis
Roar Rookie
Does the captain's challenge extend to non decisions as well? Can a captain get a penalty everytime the markers are not square? What about players offside at the play the ball?
Andrew
Guest
Haven't they also brought in a rule that you can't tackle an attacking player in the air during the kick contest as well? We can see the problem here right? This means defending wingers won't stand on the ground, they will have to contest the ball. This means watching countless painful slow motion replays of kick contests to see who got a finger nail to the ball and did they knock it on. And you can double the frequency you are used to with the captains challenge for non try scoring contests as well as the bunker reviews of tries.
Andrew
Guest
Canberra wouldn't have been able to challenge the 6 again ruling because there is no stoppage in play. What is Croker going to do? run out of his position as the Roosters shift the ball? As for the rule around the trainer interference changing things in the Grand Final - well then the Roosters would have used their captains challenge to show Kearys legs (as a kicker) were taken out to counter that. Sounds like the game is getting even more confusing. The NFL have a coaches challenge. It doesn't always help the game. Case in point this weekend just gone. The Patriots use a challenge to question the location of a tackle and it wasn't reversed - which could be argued was a wrong call. Then they used a challenge to prove a player fumbled the ball - they were correct but this meant they had used all their challenges. Moments later the officials incorrectly ruled a Patriots player out when he scored and the Patriots couldn't challenge it as they had used their two challenges to correct incorrect calls. It cost them the game. Captains challenge solves nothing. Officials on the field will still make mistakes and as we have seen, and video officials in rugby league don't always get it right either. So you can have a reasonable challenge, but you still won't get the right outcome.
Jewboy
Guest
I would like to see the captain's challenge also be allowed to be used on a forward pass ....only when it involves a try being scored as a result of it.
Nat
Roar Guru
Correct me if I'm wrong but if the Bunker did get to review that play, he would have to give Wighton his 6 again. Provided the review sees no infringement from the kick, the first law that is broken is Cummins' changing his decision. Therefore, when Wighton maintains possession and goes to ground, that should be the start of the set.
The Donald
Roar Rookie
I like the idea of a "Captains Challenge" - as long as it's properly implemented. As a spectator of 50 years I know when my Team has had a "questionable decision" go against them - and I also know when the Referee has cost us by making an absolute "howler". And I'm sure on-field Captains are even more acutely of the "difference" between the two scenarios. Add to that the fact each Captain only gets the one challenge - and I'm sure they'll think carefully before challenging. As for the rule change re:Trainers interfering with the play - the new rule doesn't go nearly far enough. If the Ball hits a Trainer -the Team he represents should cop a Penalty back on their 20 metre line - PLUS the offending Trainers Club should be whacked with a substantial Fine. This might stop Trainers like Alan Langer at the Broncos - who currently spends more time on the field than most of his Players. And finally - the new Rules do nothing to alleviate Fan disgust over "the most disgraceful decision I've seen by a Referee in any Game" - let alone a Grand Final. It's irrelevant whether the correct decision was made in the end - the fact is that under the Rules of the Game - Cummins had no right to change his decision "mid play". Since the Grand Final I've met a lot of angry & disillusioned Fans - and none of them even follow the Raiders. It seems to me this Administration has lost all credibility with Fans - and should be replaced forthwith.
rden
Roar Rookie
Boys! We stuffed up that set play big time! Quick! ... kick the ball at the ref! ... a falcon get's us a replay!
Daniel Szabo
Roar Guru
Absolutely Paul. I think a penalty is sufficient. Maybe a fine or points lost like Edward Kelly suggested above if multiple offences occur, but I feel that's incredibly unlikely. To my knowledge, the 2019 grand final is the first time this has actually happened in all the years of trainers abusing the right to be on the field. So I don't think it's likely to occur again anytime soon, although with the way the rules are it's certainly a possibility.
Daniel Szabo
Roar Guru
Well if Croker had challenged that call in the grand final it would've gone the Roosters' way because Cummins was actually correct in the end. What was incorrect and incredibly unfair was the process, Cummins calling 6 again, then Wighton thinking he had a whole set up his sleeve and deciding to take the tackle when he could've easily got an offload away only for a handover to be called. But I take your point. Captain's challenge in cricket doesn't fix everything because teams can use them up stupidly and not have any left when a howler occurs. It's not a solution to the game's problems, and is likely to just create more.
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
Maybe the play goes on until there is a break in play. While play continues the bunker can make a ruling, is a possibility they can look at. I don't believe a captain would waste a challenge very often to interrupt momentum as they could pay dearly by not being able to challenge any more.
Mango Jack
Roar Guru
Don't like the captain's challenge. It will end up being used like a timeout in American sports, which I hate, because it's just a way of teams stopping momentum by halting play rather than working their way back into the game.
Adam
Roar Guru
At least we knew who to yell at!
Nat
Roar Guru
I tend to agree, there should be a differentiation between the two. While both are very rare events if they are taking the opportunity to look at the rule the two events should be weighted differently. I'm far more concerned with the vagaries around the Captains Challenge. This one has the potential to be a good initiative or the worst in a long time. We have bunker technology for in-goal decisions so this, I assume, is for everything between the goal lines. As demonstrated in Cricket, a finite number of challenges doesn't take away howler if the captain has exhausted his allocation and it is the back end of the game that you would need it most. Example: in the GF, and Cummins rules #sixagain. According to the rules, Cummins cannot change his decision in that manner. Crocker challenges, it's upheld and Canberra get the ball back. What if Crocker has used his challenges prior to that moment? Does the game become any less controversial? Does the number of challenges an admission as to how many times the refs can expect to be wrong? How long is each challenge going to take? Can't challenge forward passes? I get the need to be right so I hope they can find a way to implement this initiative that doesn't take away from the game itself.
Paul
Roar Guru
As another post mentioned Daniel, I really like the AFL stance. If a trainer interferes, the other team gets a free kick. In the case of the NRL, it should be an either/or, IMO - keep them off the field unless a player's injured as you suggest, or allow them on but penalise if they interfere with play.
Daniel Szabo
Roar Guru
Yeah I wouldn't be opposed to fines or loss of points depending on the circumstances. It's ludicrous to award the team with the ball with a replay when it's inevitably going to be their trainer who interferes given trainers aren't allowed on when their team is defending. So poorly thought through.
Daniel Szabo
Roar Guru
I think they're asking for trouble by introducing this captain's challenge. It works in cricket and NFL because there is a break after every play. That's not the case in the NRL. They really need to figure this out so that there are minimal opportunities for captains to use their challenge as a way to interrupt the momentum of the other team. The fact that they have committed to it before figuring out the logistics tells us all we need to know about this administration.
Daniel Szabo
Roar Guru
That's correct Paul, although they haven't yet specified those changes. I'm skeptical that they will have any real impact given that it's taken a huge mistake in a grand final to even get the powers that be to look at it when the fans have been calling for change for years. That said, it still doesn't mean a trainer interfering with play should be considered the same as a referee interfering with play. I'm all for those that run the game minimising the involvement of trainers. In fact, I think trainers should only be allowed on during play when a player is injured in back-play. However, this should have no bearing on what the outcome is if a trainer interferes with the play.
Paul
Roar Guru
Daniel, I thought part of the change involving mutual infringement & trianers, was the NRL looking at how often or when trainers being on the field and issuing some clear instructions about this before the season started? In other words, they want the same as the rest of us - trainers on the field as little as possible, which would them make this change quite okay IMO. I still can't see any reason for the scrum change. I know you've talked it up, but the NRL is fixing a problem that didn't exist. Scrums are set midfield now, if for example, a player knocks on, yet how often do we see anything more than some lumbering second rower taking the first pass from the half back when they win the scrum?
Sam
Guest
The AFL award a free kick to the opposition if a runner gets involved in the play. The NRL should rethink their current stance.
Superspud
Roar Rookie
Cos we never had any problems when there was only 1 ref.