The good and the bad of the NRL's rule changes

Tries are what we like to see but good defence results in a frustrated attack resorting to the bomb. In US football a field goal is the only scoring option on the last down so a punt is the only option if they're too far from goal. The bomb also encourages safe play for the first five tackles because the bomb is the best hope for scoring a try.

I'm surprised the one point field goal has not been utilised just to keep points ticking over or present a psychological advantage. You get a point and the ball back from the kick-off for another set of six. Given field goals were changed to one point due to overuse they may become popular again but that would make a good change from the ever present bomb. It's good value as you get two points and the ball back from the kick-off

Me too. :unhappy:

The two points for long range field goal will make sense up until a specialist develops and it becomes a fixture. Then there’ll be howls to change yet again. I’m always confused how the so called greatest game of all requires annual rules tinkering

I now refer to wingers as “wannabe Elite Fullbacks-show me the money”

But I sit here and go - does that team deserve it? It's entertainment over merit.

You make a very good point - one that I failed to consider when presenting my own somewhat emotive response to the constant annual changes made to our game. I’m living in the past, looking backwards to find the game of my youth and young adulthood. That game is gone and considering the cost of injuries, perhaps that’s not such a terrible thing. I will continue to dislike tackle restart penalties but that’s no matter. Teams defensive players will need to be squeaky clean in the ruck and in positioning themselves at ten metres from the play of the ball. Ha bit of a joke there. Having a quiet cynical chuckle

I personally don’t like the ruck infringement tackle restart penalty and I like the new six more AGAIN, and in all probability again, as they head towards the try line, wind in their hair, leaving defenders choking on their dust , EVEN LESS. It is not rugby league as I’ve known it for 50 years. A few tweaks have worked quite well in the past but the powers that be who OWN THE GAME are letting power go to their heads hmph! I enjoy a gritty defensive game as much as a beautifully designed, in sync attacking line that works as a unit and kicks in play to enhance scoring opportunities. I’m obviously crazy to not see the speeding up of our game to break neck speed, players milking penalties more than ever before, and sly behaviour n the ruck that goes unseen and un-punished, the referee not seeing all infringements in a game.- he or she is not a referee god or goodness who misses nothing because they can speed up and down the field and be in perfect position at all times to see all infringements and act accordingly? Referees are expected to be objective, policing rules equitably throughout each game, but tell me I’m wrong if I see the 10 metres rule not being policed fully or equitably throughout each game for many years. It’s not really possible is it? A referee is only human aren’t they? Not supermen? Th decision to award either of these tackle restart penalties can be quite subjective, and potentially inequitable when the attacking teams gets the roll on, which will happen more frequently with this additional tackle restart penalty, and is thus unfairly advantaged to the point of no return for the defenders, who get on the back foot and get stuck there,not being able to get back onside and into effective defensive positions. I don’t know that I’m explaining myself very clearly and maybe I’ve totally got the wrong end of the stick but it’s a personal thing. Two points for a 40+ metre field goal might seem just fine... who can do that? Not many. But you can bet that there will be one or two players from most teams who are judged accurate with the boot, practising 40+ metre field goals starting from... yesterday. It’s not unreasonable to expect a kicker to make the grade if he or she is well practised. Opportunities will arise when a two pointer can put the game just a little further out of reach. There are circumstances where it could be utilised just to keep points ticking over or present a psychological advantage, depending on the timing. It is certainly a possibility that it will go the way of the forty-twenty kick, which can give a team a fantastic advantage but is a rare bird on the rugby league field these days. Attempts are rarely successful. However, the two point field goal presents opportunities for actual POINTS from a few well-practised ‘experts’ How it is utilised by teams is yet to be seen, but I’m feeling a bit worried that such a field goal will be over-used to the detriment of the game. Tries are what we like to see and gritty defence that stifles an attacking team to the point of frustration and errors. I like that old saying ‘the best offence is defence’ but that old saying is going out of fashion very quickly, with regards to the new style rugby league. The best offence will be working out how to get as many tackle restarts as possible by fair means or foul. This is how I see it. If the powers that be want to speed up the game and make it more exciting, ( I thought it was already a great game before they started dicking around with it) why not give the modern scrum a fine footy funeral! Bury it or burn it because it’s just a rest for the puffers and blowers. There is no real contest there anymore. Let a real scrum be resurrected by all means, but saying a final goodbye to the pretend one would be more useful A hand over seems like it would work just fine. Im a reactionary old fogie who loved the game as it was played in the 60s and 70s - an even contest with powerful defence and creative and beautifully rehearsed offence is my want, but not what Santa will give me from his Santa sack! It seems a lump of coal is all this old timer deserves. I’m sad for the game but I’m sure it will survive these annual tweaks by the OWNERS (who owns the game by the way? I’m a bit confused about that) I rest my case. (inexpert opinion)

I think you are right.30 secs to go in a half 40m out why not . 30 secs to go at the end one or two behind , why not but really that's it I reckon .

I agree and I think 2 minutes may prove a little short but I guess they can adjust it

Yeah , good point and the time off without replacement may need to increase if the rule is being abused. I can't see a team faking an injury for a rest if they lost a player for 5 mins say. The only thing I do know with absolute certainty is there will be unintended consequences from the rule changes . It has always been thus.

What if it goes the other way? If we’re going to waste time and slow the game down AND lose a player for two minutes we might as well do it right Imagine if every player in that situation needs the medi cab to get to the sideline, then hops off and starts his two minutes Like soccer players who are writhing in agony and need the stretcher, then jump up and come back on at the next stoppage

Spot on with the second point jimmmy...

I can’t see the field goal from 40m+ being overly used - perhaps to even the score or increase a lead to 8 in the later stages of a game, or maybe a Hail Mary shot in the dying seconds of the first half.

yeah i dont get why they dont just give the option for the penalty if the team wants it? do they think that everyone will take the two points all the time?

On try reviews, if the referee believes a try has been scored, he will award it and the Bunker will review in the background…Can someone please tell me why the rules say that the on field referee will be the sole arbitrator? Oh that’s right we no longer play Rugby league and it is now a game called NRL whereby we have this book not the rules but the ” interpretations” Tackles will be next and it will be full on touch footy. As for the video system, it stinks. The ref should just make a decision and make sure the touch judges are doing their job properly.

I've often thought a team with a particularly good field goal kicker could try to gradually rack up points by taking a shot at the end of most sets (when in range, of course). I supposed that the main thing stopping this was risk/reward with only one point on offer, e.g a team gets about 40 sets in a game, completes 32, gets in range for maybe 16, and kicks 12 field goals? Not a great return when you're sacrificing try scoring opportunities. With two points on offer and only from 40m+ most teams will probably consider themselves not to be in a try scoring position on the final tackle so a possible 2 points becomes attractive. I don't mind the field goal being more than just a buffer/tiebreaker but I suppose we don't want that to be the major form of scoring either. One upside is that players rushing up on a kicker could leave space in behind them to be exploited and it could also lead to more long range tries on the final tackle. For the 6 again rule, I agree that there are situations where teams would prefer a penalty. Perhaps if an infringement occurs inside the attacking team's 40 on the first two tackles it should be a penalty. If a team infringes in their own 20, pay advantage until the end of the set and if they make an error before completion it goes back to the penalty. The bunker review after scoring, I think this is good but I don't see what the fuss is about with not allowing conversion kicks to be taken. Only one player impacts on the conversion so I don't see why it can't be reversed if the bunker decides that a try hasn't been scored. If the try has been scored, then the less time wasting occurs by allowing the player to take the kick as soon as they're ready.

I realize this topic im about to open is nothing do with the authors scripe with all due respect to him, but I think the biggest issue happening now especially in rugby around the world and that is diamenta issues arising from head knocks this to me will be the biggest challenge for league in the coming years if not months. With league being a very aggressive tackling contact sport I fear the game will eventually go down the road of rugby were any form of contact or grappling around the head will have severe consequences for the perpetrators, the game of league, rugby and possibly Aussie Rules will no doubt change for ever the game we have known as lawyers will be out getting ready to sharpen their knifes with huge lawsuits against the various codes admins also not forgetting the biggest issue of permanent injuries suffered during a footballers playing career.

And who were those 2 kickers? I saw Milford pot one before halftime just because, but I don't know if it was over 40.

I'm pretty indifferent to most these rules except: Play-the-ball restart replacing scrums when the ball or player is taken into touch. A good touch finder, and knowing when it is needed, is an important tool of a quality halfback. This shouldn't be eradicated from the game. I'm also in favour of the new bunker format. Also, didn't the 6 again for offside get introduced halfway through last season?