I struggle to see any other sport in the world that alters the rules of their game as frequently as rugby league does.
The benefit of the doubt for the NRL this year is COVID-19. Although it nearly derailed the 2020 season, it has essentially given the NRL some leeway to trial new rules during an already-commenced season.
But recent history of the constant rule-changing in the NRL has created rugby league’s own version of Newton’s laws of motion, which describe the relationship between a body (the laws of the NRL) and the forces acting upon it (the ARL Commission), and its motion (NRL players and coaches) in response to those forces.
The NRL’s third law comes into effect yearly.
This is when the NRL alters certain rules of the game to benefit it for one purpose, but consequently diminishes the product somehow in another way.
For example, in 2014 the NRL introduced the seven-tackle set where any time the ball went dead behind the goal-line from the attacking team, the defensive team received a seven-tackle set from their 20-metre line. The purpose of introducing such a rule was to mitigate the opposition kicking the ball dead in favour of keeping the ball in play more often, speeding the game up.
The result of such a rule change? Well, although it served its purpose in stopping players kicking the ball dead on purpose, this removed a tactic for the kicker that would effectively limit the opposition fullback possessing the ball, which also meant less opportunity for fullbacks to return the ball with space against a broken defensive line.
It was otherwise known as the Billy Slater rule. Teams did not want the superstar fullback carrying the ball back with time on his side to calculate his attack, so they preferred to kick it dead.
(Photo by Mark Metcalfe/Getty Images)
The old restart rules were to tap from the 20-metre line with a six-tackle set, providing an advantage to the opposition anyway, but getting an extra tackle for kicking it out served as a major deterrent.
The major flaws in this rule change? A seven-tackle set could also occur when any error by the attacking team was committed in the opposition’s in-goal area, and kicking the ball dead from any position of the field.
Why should the attacking team be disadvantaged if they make a handling error in the opposition’s in-goal when attempting to score a try? Why does a grubber kick going dead from five metres out result in a disadvantage to the team that kicked the ball?
The NRL took action and made a change to a rule and did not foresee the implications of the reaction – fewer tries from kicks, and teams settling on the sixth tackle in ample attacking position rather than chancing their hand. The rule should have been if the ball was kicked dead from outside the 30-metre line then it should reward the defensive team with seven tackles.
This brings me to the revitalised 2020 NRL season scheduled for May 28.
The Peter V’Landys-run ARLC made a significant rule change to the laws of the NRL two weeks out from the restart of the temporarily-paused season, where instead of a penalty stoppage for ruck infringements, the now-single referee will signal a fresh set of six.
Referees will still retain the power to issue a full penalty and also sin-bin players for repeated ruck infringements.
The ARLC says this new rule will significantly limit stoppages in the game and eradicate wrestling, ultimately allowing a free-flowing game. The force has taken action.
(Photo by Matt King/Getty Images)
What has not been highlighted yet, and will not until the season is underway, is the reaction from the players from the new laws that have been thrust upon them.
Since when does a kick for touch after receiving a penalty not benefit the team that received the penalty? Imagine being on your own ten-metre line, first tackle, you receive a penalty for a ruck infringement. Instead of kicking the ball 30 metres down the field and starting a fresh set of six, under the new laws you need to start it from where the infringement occurred.
You might think it is making the defending team work harder because they have to face another fresh set without a break. But the attacking team equally has to work as hard in order to make up those metres they could have received through a kick for touch.
What if the ruck infringement occurs 20 metres out from the opposition’s goal-line? The new rule doesn’t give the option for attacking teams to take a penalty goal for an extra two points unless a referee blows the whistle for a full penalty.
So when is it the right time for a referee to issue a full penalty? I don’t know. Let’s just hope the referees do. All I know is that this abrupt rule change tinkers with the fabric of the game once again, and sets up yet another grey area in a game already riddled by grey areas.
Players and coaches adapt to such changes, and historically they flout them and test the waters as much as they can to do nothing else but benefit their team. These are the motions responding to the force.
Admittedly there have been various rugby league laws altered throughout their history that have shaped the game into the great product it is today.
Arguably the best rule change in recent years was to remove the corner post as a means to signal a player was out, allowing for some of the greatest tries to ever be scored by our modern-day wingers.
But fans are reluctant to change and the NRL seems to always test them with how frequent and reactive they are. I hope these recent changes are for the best.
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
The bomb is always the kick on the last and inevitable? True apart from the grubber, the low kick in the air and running it on the last. Funny how a screaming mark is the highlight of AFL but when someone does it in league it's boring and requires no talent?
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
The inevitable bomb is always the kick on the sixth tackle near the line. This is what rugby fans rightly point out is the tedious, repetitious and boring thing about League. If they can't score in five they take the option to bomb, a lucky dip they don't deserve and it is common because it pays off. A field goal is all they deserve and bombs should be punched dead by a defender so that they would become a thing of the past. The bomb is common because it is easy and a reward for failure which is why it is popular. Rugby League the game that gives those with no talent the option to bash, barge and bomb.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
I'd rather see teams penalised for their infringements rather than ignoring them in the hope of having a small penalty count. One is important and the other is not.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
I'd rather see teams penalised if they cheat regardless of the penalty count.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
I'll try again, Changing tries to 4 points devalued the penalty and meant less goals for all teams and more tries against weaker defences that would not have deterred the attacking team to kick. Teams with a strong defence are the ones that benefit from this as the opposing coaches, like Paul MacGregor, always want to go for tries as they want more points. The strong teams are the ones that can go on infringing and get away with it because they can stop tries and not be penalised. It should be about playing to the rules with infringers penalised rather than wanting to see more tries. The play before the tries is why we watch even when the tries don't come off.
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
You can only score from a field goal on tackle six? No thanks.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
Yes not many watch Union but it is played by many all over the world. Back to League, are teams kicking less on the sixth tackle? I still see heaps of bombs, which should be discouraged with rule changes, as they are a subgroup of kicks where tries might be scored from. I would allow a bomb to be punched dead by a defender and make a field goal the only 6th tackle scoring option.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
I’ve replied to this but I called the bomb a stew pid thing so the moder8er program removed it. I should remember to copy before sending. It will appear in a few hours I expect.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
Yes better value than penalties because they were devalued and it made giving away a penalty a good tactic, encouraging cheating. It only produces more tries against the weaker defences but good defensive teams can make it a part of their armoury. Union is irrelevant here so all you've got is Touch Footy Syndrome saying I’d rather see more tries in a game then a penalty-a-thon. You see more penalties this way but you see less goals from teams who fail to score tries and only more tries against weaker defences. The bomb is another stupid thing which helps poor attacking teams.
Daniel John
Roar Pro
It has become an essential rule change for the reasons that you describe. The game made that rule change to promote scoring more tries; better value than penalties. They probably also wanted to separate themselves just that little bit more from rugby union by making such a change - when in-turn union down the track began rewarding teams an extra competition point for scoring 4+ tries a game to promote try-scoring football. I'd rather see more tries in a game then a penalty-a-thon..
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
Why has a 4 point try become essential to the modern game? It was changed to encourage teams to go for the try rather than kick for goal when given a penalty. This devalues the penalty as a good defence can give away penalties and know they won' t be converted. Only a simpleton would rate a game by counting the tries but that's what Arthurson and Quayle thought we wanted.
Daniel John
Roar Pro
That'll definitely speed the game up hahaha
Duncan Smith
Roar Guru
We need to go from the six tackle rule to a two tackle rule. One settler then a bomb. It will speed the game up. Also cut games to 20 minutes.
Larry1950
Guest
Duncan & Matth, I played a few seasons of juniors under that rule where a scrum (competitive as well) was packed if the dummy half got caught with the ball, it hardly ever happened because I think I started under a 3 yard ruck rule so the defence was right there anyway. I was a hooker & don't recall running but John Lang was in my junior years & he'd have the odd run, maybe you needed talent as well as love of the game. Just tweak this change to include a hand over if the dummy half gets caught, that negates the current ludicrous situation of wingers running from dummy half. You know what Tallis says, wingers are guys who hang around with footballers.
In brief
Guest
I literally can’t watch league anymore it has been so bastardised.
Muzz
Guest
Daniel son, All sports evolve. It's not a bad thing.
DJM
Roar Rookie
It’s interesting. In the first couple of years I watched League back in the dim dark ages (early 60s) they had a rule that it was a scrum if the dummy half got tackled with the ball. I was shocked when they changed it - I didn’t realise that it had only been in for 2 years.
DJM
Roar Rookie
No, the kick the ball dead rule should have been that if the ball is kicked dead from outside the 20 you restart from where the ball was kicked. That would have solved the problem without adding a seventh tackle. As players have got bigger,I’d also like them to consider making the field a little bigger by the sideline being ‘in’ I.e. to be out your whole foot or the whole ball had to be outside the line. (And yes, I would apply a maximum width for lines.)
Daniel John
Roar Pro
Paul, you make some excellent points there. I am very hopeful that these changes are for the better and I wouldn’t want anything less than that for the game. And you are 100% on the money with the stakeholders in the game, particularly the media - never have I seen such bagging of a game like the NRL media does (i.e. Daily Telegraph and SMH to a degree). This sport has paved a way for their career and they bag it daily.
Paul
Roar Guru
"But fans are reluctant to change and the NRL seems to always test them with how frequent and reactive they are." I don't think fans are reluctant to change. In the modern era, things in daily life are changing far more quickly than in previous decades and rugby league in this country is simply following suit. The issue that fans have IMO, is whether the change, what ever it is, improves the game. In any change, there are going to be a range of "stakeholders", including commentators, the media, refs, players, coaches and of course us. Imagine how hard it is to satisfy ALL of these groups and as soon as the change does not, at least one of these factions is going to be baying for the rule to be changed. There are two other aspects that don't help rules changes. The first is the proliferation of avenues for anyone and everyone to express and opinion and of course, most consider themselves experts, so their opinion is going to be 100% correct. The second is an increasing lack of tolerance. Naysayers often fail to give a rule change a chance before bagging it outright. A perfect example is the attack on the "6 again" rule from Politis and Robinson, presumably because it didn't fit with some Roosters narrative. As others have said, our game has evolved mightily in the past 11 decades and that IMO is a good thing. Rules need to be given a chance before deciding if they're worth keeping. I for one applaud the NRL for making these changes and am happy to show some tolerance to see whether they enhance the game. If they don't lets change them.