Rule changes in and of themselves are not a bad thing.
They are what turned a class war within rugby union into the game of rugby league we know and love today. From upping the tackle count to six, to more recent innovations like six-again and the stop watch, we should never be afraid of innovating to make the game more appealing.
In kicking up a fuss and giving us league fanatics something to talk about during the three-month hibernation, it has succeeded in generating headlines and interest during the dark season (side note: for any curious Australian onlookers, look into Super League’s selection process for the 2021 12th side for a world of backroom politics and boardroom shenanigans that not even I could touch).
But for what? These latest changes are simply confusing, unnecessary and contradictory in their aims. There was some conversion of 2020’s temporary laws to be permanent, but the one that really irks me is the long-distance field-goal classification. There is no point, let alone two from 40 metres out (sorry, couldn’t resist).
Adam Reynolds is a master of the field goal. (Photo by Ian Hitchcock/Getty Images)
There’s the obvious, internationalist argument that such rule changes undermine the global unity of the sport, diverging the nature and scoring of the game between hemispheres, widening the legalistic chasm between the domestic and the international.
The British game and the international game haven’t signed up to these rules, but if they eventually do, there’s not a chance in hell that they would have been consulted about the original catalyst. It’s not as if this is an insignificant change either: it alters the complexion of scoring, one of the most basic tenets of any sport.
But c’est la vie. The NRL is the most prestigious competition, Australia has the most participants, and the Antipodes drive viewing and commercial figures. That’s not to say I’d like to see a joint up approach, but until the international and northern hemisphere tournaments can offer more, then the Peter V’landys tail will continue to wag the rugby league dog.
More than legalistic interpretations of whole-of-game rule changes, the new drop-kick arithmetic is the indulgence of folly: gimmick for gimmicks’ sake. Perhaps I move in different circles with more narrow attitudes: you don’t have to tell me that Bradford isn’t Bondi. But I know of no fan from any continent that was clamouring for such a change.
Sometimes sides will take a point on the verge of halftime to make their lead that bit more secure. If a cricket score is being amassed with the scoreboard running down, attempts at the sticks may be a crowd-pleasing (or irritating) novelty. And there is nothing more exhilarating than a 79th-minute kick to secure a last-gasp victory by the barest of margins.
The field goal is a great part of the game. But its otherwise low utility – resulting in scarcity, uniqueness and glory – risks being undermined in search of the equivalent of half a try.
I don’t want this to derail into a cross-code battleground, but while rugby union enters into its mission to make the game more appealing by borrowing some league contraptions, I don’t see the reasoning behind migrating towards a more unionist approach in rewarding kicks for goal over creativity in try scoring.
(Photo by Ryan Pierse/Getty Images)
The reason that NRL HQ gave for such a change was that sides that don’t breach the 40 metres after five tackles will hardly ever create try-scoring opportunities from such a distance, and so tend to either kick for touch or boot it into the air, for the opposition to humbly restart after a brief interlude in action.
And while I agree it can sometimes become quite monotonous, it is the entirely wrong solution for a problem exacerbated in the minds of the rule makers. Because if it is not used for a last-minute winner, or very select tactical reasons, the field goal is just as boring to onlookers.
The solution, if one really is needed, would ideally be to move away from the over-structured rigidity of NRL attacks. Five drives and a kick does become repetitive. Until recently, the game in England was played on a more off-the-hook nature (something you may see in the likes of Canberra’s players), which meant that even if the quality were worse, it could be more entertaining.
If the DNA of the game needs such an overhaul, maybe the answer lies in providing NRL playmakers with more freedom of expression, the latitude to try audacious moves far away from the opposition line, even at the risk of a couple of metres of lost territory.
Maybe I’m looking at this wrong: in spite of the above musings, I am willing to be open minded and give these new changes a go. The NRL have built up a residue of goodwill and trust to enable such a move – it’s such a shame that they’re blowing it on a needless sacrifice to the otherwise satisfied gods of entertainment.
BeastieBoy
Roar Rookie
it's designed to increase excitement. They can take a shot late in the game and get breakthrough points but they risk a turnover and a counter attack with space. It creates space in the defensive line as they need to leave players at the back. So the attacking team may look as though they are setting for the goal from far out, but they may use the space to run it instead. Great Idea!
andrew
Roar Rookie
Hey Lisa, exactly right. I was listening to Peter Tunks a while back and, like rolling the ball between your legs tunnel ball style and forward passes he said until the referees start penalizing players they'd keep on doing it. I don't care if there's a 100 penalties in a game, until players get the message nothing will happen. Fifita and Woods at Cronulla make no attempt to play the ball properly and i lose count of the number of forward passes i see every game. Andrew Abdo is getting paid big bucks and what comes in, a 2 point field goal, spare me.
Heyou
Roar Rookie
:thumbup: That whistle would be blowing every few minutes for a game or two or maybe three, at which point players would be getting out of the chucking of forward passes-habit quick bloody smart. So many rules to police and adjudicate on but this is as you say a BLIGHT.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
The two point field goal adds another sixth tackle option. Like the one point field goal it is an alternative to the bomb. I am surprised the field goal isn't used more often as a way of getting a minor reward of one point and a new set of six from the kick off. Maybe the two point field goal will be an incentive to getting a minor reward of two points and a new set of six from the kick off.
Pickett
Roar Rookie
Latrell would be just about the only one who can land this.
criag
Roar Rookie
I'll tell you exactly what it's designed to achieve: the same as any CEO who goes in and re-organizes, re-structures....it's all about 'look at me!' look at the impact I've had in my new job!' They put it on their cv and the long list helps them to get their new job. These changes have nothing to do with improving rugby league.
andrew
Roar Rookie
Big Daddy, to use one of Gus's lines don't get me started on forward passes. It's a blight on the game and the referees just let them go. I just wish the referees had the cahunas to penalise offenders .
andrew
Roar Rookie
It's b.s. Barry.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
The field goal was changed to one point in 1971 because everyone was kicking them as tries were only three points. I don't recall any being kicked from forty metres out but it was a long time ago. Maybe they'll change tries to five points and try conversions to one point.
Kobi
Guest
No one is going to kick field goals from 40 plus mtrs battling to kick one inside 30.
Big Daddy
Guest
Back in the day when Simms and Glasgow could knock them over at will it would be interesting what distances they were kicking them from and if the 4 tackle rule was in vogue then. Kicking field goals from long distance is not easy and if we have guys buying kicking them will they change the rule back to one. I for one don't see any advantage mainly because if no one has kicked them before why invent a rule to encourage it. It makes no sense.
Muzz
Guest
It's just another betting option.
Paul
Roar Guru
I'm making the 50th comment on this issue and seem to be the only person who has no issues with this. For a start, I can vividly recall guys from years gone by banging over field goals from long distance. Whether it's my imagination I'm not sure, but I recall at least one from his side of half way with a gale behind him at Redfern - I'm pretty sure it was Simms. That's pretty exciting to watch. I'm also wondering what harm it's going to do to the game? I suspect it will be rarely used for no other reason than I doubt there'd be too many guys capable of drop kicking a ball accurately over 40 metres. I also see it as an alternative to other options which have been mentioned, eg bombs ( boring) and repeated kicks into touch or into the in goal area. Interestingly too, no one seems to mind teams taking two points from a penalty, so is there a difference? Why don't we simply see how it plays out.
Paul
Roar Guru
I think there was one all season, based on a comment by Brandy Alexander.
Paul
Roar Guru
— COMMENT DELETED —
Adam
Roar Guru
And why the 40m line specifically? To me that puts it out of range for most players and therefore no one dares even contemplate it. Now if it was the 30 you might have a decision to make late in the game when it is tied to go for the two, which is a buffer equal to a penalty or go for the slightly easier 1 pointer. Still a dumb rule either way
mushi
Roar Guru
No! But if you concuss someone you get a re-kick
Nick
Roar Guru
I can't see many opportunities eventually because rugby league drop goal kicking is horrific. Its not like rugby union where they routinely pot them from distance. Secondly, if the drop kick is charged down and recovered by the opposition you are gifting them prime field position for an attacking set of 6.
Nick
Roar Guru
Cricket. The BBL looks absolutely nothing like international T20. Australian cricket has always used domestic competitions to experiment foolish ideas. The two innings one dayers being an example.
Geoff from Bruce Stadium
Roar Rookie
Funny thing is Walter the drop kick died in AFL back in the late 1970s. I am old enough to remember AFL players booting 50 metre drop kicks back in those days - there were some pretty decent exponents of the art back then - and from someone who played the game it was always easier to mark a drop kick as the ball hung in the air. But then it was decided by coaching staff that the risk of drop kicks being sprayed was too great and the drop kick was replaced by the drop punt. Its been decades since the AFL had drop kicks as part of the game. More is the pity I say. I actually like the fact that NRL still has the field goal as part of the game. And if players are skilful enough to pot field goals from 40 metres out that will be a sight to behold. But I can't really see it happening unless a team was desperate or they have a very good field goal kicker. I can't see too many of them capable of these kicks in the game at the moment. Maybe Cooper Cronk or Benji Marshall back in their hey day.