The NRL’s innovation committee is considering a rule change that would grant the opposition a seven-tackle set when a team kicks the ball out in open play.
The Sydney Morning Herald reports the committee will convene early next week to discuss the impact of recent rule changes and consider further changes.
The Herald said the main agenda item will be whether all kicks in general play that find touch – except for the 40-20 and 20-40 – will result in a seven-tackle set to the opposition.
It reported the initiative could be tested as early as the round 25 clash between Canterbury and Wests Tigers.
Innovation committee chairman Wayne Pearce believes the tweak could result in more ball-in-play time by discouraging ‘touch-finder’ kicks.
“At the moment, when a ball gets kicked into touch, there’s a turnover and the team can have it in the middle of the field or wherever they want to have it,” Pearce told the Herald.
“My view is that there’s a difference between a player running into touch – whether it be trying to score a try or whatever – and a player deliberately kicking into touch to slow the play down.
“Sometimes players can’t help going into touch or the ball getting passed into touch, but if the ball is deliberately kicked into touch, then there should be some sort of disincentive.
“This is only my view – and I haven’t run it past the innovation committee yet – is that we would restart with a seven-tackle set.
“That then becomes consistent if you kick the ball dead-in-goal. So rather than dead-in-goal, the whole perimeter of the field – if the ball gets kicked out of bounds – then there’s a seven-tackle restart. It disincentivises some of the teams from kicking into touch and trying to get a slow restart.”
The governing body has often used final round matches of no consequence to finals to test rule changes.
Last year referees were asked to adjudicate on tries without going to the bunker, giving the video reviewers until the conversion to overturn the decision. The trial was considered successful and was implemented this season.
The NRL have added several innovations, not all of them embraced by fans, in the past few seasons, reverting to one referee and introducing the six-again call for most infringements. Pearce said new changes would be minor.
“The main point is we made a lot of significant changes and we’re moving into a consolidation phase,” said Pearce.
“There is no doubt the game flows a lot better than it had when the wrestle was in, that’s for sure.
“I can’t see the sense in change for change’s sake. That’s why we might run with the one trial and see how that goes because the feedback has been pretty good over the changes we’ve brought in over the last couple of years.”
Pearce ruled out a change to the kick off after a try.
“One of the things we don’t want to do is change the essence of what the game is about and that would significantly change the spirit of the game,” Pearce said.
“We’re conscious of the tradition and the history of the game. We don’t want to tamper with that.”
Maxis Pastit
Roar Rookie
I quite like the idea. I find it a bit incongruous that a game that is meant to be played inside a boundary (a rectangle in this instance) rewards a team for deliberately putting the ball outside the boundary or gives you a chance to get it back. I understand it is part of the games strategy and that there are other rules in play. I also think it’s good to throw these ideas out there regardless of their validity. It gives the over-reactors something to react to. That was probably Wayne’s real objective with this idea.
Wayne Turner
Guest
Stupid idea. Here's a rule change I would like: Scrap 6 again rule,replacing most penalties. Excuses refs from accountability,effects games outcomes too much,game turned into touch football,and injuries increased by the speed.Go,back to penalties,refs have to explain why they give them,and it doesn't effect the outcomes of games so much.
Greg
Roar Pro
So after they first mess around with the rules. The unintended result, for a number of reasons is blowout score lines. Instead of acknowledging this problem Pearce conjures up another rule change surrounding kicking for touch. Let's consider why a team might be kicking: 1) Run the clock down when in front. 2) They have done a lot of defense and need a breather. 3) To eliminate the running threat from an opposition winger or fullback. Looking at 1 and 3, on the surface this might look like a good idea. If we can reduce 1, the team behind has a better chance of catching up. If we can reduce 3 then we get to see more of a good ball runner running the ball. But, if we take a deeper look, particularly at 2 and 3, surely this is just one more thing leading to greater blow outs. A team that has done the hard work defending, then coming off their line, now has little choice but to kick the ball straight back to the dominant team with no chance to rest and recover. A team with a running threat so strong teams actively find ways to minimise their impact is likely to be one of the better teams due to that running threat. Like the rule changes brought in before them this will only further give the better teams a leg up and punish the lesser teams.
Greg
Roar Pro
I was going to say something similar regarding the fan survey but i also think it is important to note the lack of context around some of their questions/answers. For examp;e: 54% agree with 6 again but does this number change significantly if it didn't include offsides? 65% think the speed of the game is right, but what percentage think the speed is notably different to pre 6 agains.
Greg
Roar Pro
Pretty simple really. The majority of Roar readers are smarter than Pearce.
Short Memory
Guest
See what you've done now Junior? You've upset Mark! :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:
Short Memory
Guest
Idiotic idea. Turning the game from chess to checkers.
Nick Maguire
Roar Rookie
TB, you are definitely right about the breather. I think Wayne is well off the reservation with this one. For a start there is no problem needing a solution, how many times outside a 40/20 is the ball kicked out of play? This thought bubble is a dog and we will never hear of it again! Cheers mate
Joey
Guest
Yet the out on the full has always been the double whammy. Yardage reversed, and the other team gets six more tackles. Are they absolutely crazy?
Jim
Guest
Far from convinced by either the robustness or reach of that pole, given "More than 28,000 fans have voted in NRL.com's 2021 Fans' Poll, held in conjunction with The Daily Telegraph/The Courier-Mail."
The Barry
Roar Guru
Fair point… but the breather has already gone If someone can come up with one good reason why the defending team should be rewarded with a 7 tackle set I’ll get on board I get that it’s only Pearce and he doesn’t speak on behalf of the rules committee… but I think it’s scary that he’s on the committee of this is his way of thinking and he’s prepared to go public with this BS…
Paul
Roar Guru
really good point. What team is going to attempt that if it means a 7 tackle set in a close game?
mach4
Roar Rookie
Some of them already have the bolts.
Nick Maguire
Roar Rookie
TB, isn't the only change Wayne (not the CTTEE) is considering the 7 tackle set not 6? Wouldn't you still get your breather? I don't like the concept of this and it's not going to fly anyway however we should keep it in perspective.
Nick Maguire
Roar Rookie
"“This is only my view – and I haven’t run it past the innovation committee yet – is that we would restart with a seven-tackle set." It's just Wayne.
Nick Maguire
Roar Rookie
"“This is only my view – and I haven’t run it past the innovation committee yet – is that we would restart with a seven-tackle set." No, just one of them running it up the flagpole. I doubt anyone will salute.
Andrew01
Roar Rookie
Actually it should be going the other way. When a team finds touch in the corner, the team getting the ball should have to start form the corner (10 in from touch), not given the option to bring the ball in centre field. But off the top of my head the two biggest issues with Mr Pearce's plan; Less kicking and being penalised for finding touch means wingers don't drop back on the 5th tackle meaning even less ball carrying attacking threats. And less kicking for corners means fewer balls going dead in goal which means fewer 7 tackle sets, which takes away attacking opportunities which is all you clowns supposedly care about - points leave us and our game alone.
Rob9
Roar Guru
Yea the headline would suggest that. But nup…. sure enough, they’re at it again!
mushi
Roar Guru
New 40-20 rules will be multi-ball. You are allowed as many footballs as you want but as soon as the 6 tackles have been effected it's a turn over.
mushi
Roar Guru
Q. Why the rule changes A. We like tactical kicking as much as a boxing federation Q. okay should we have draws or get rid of them? A. Get rid of them - we like draws as much as tactical kicking Q. Okay so how should we get rid of them A. First team to score Q. Isn't that likely to be via a drop kick from general play, ie kind of tactical kicking A. Of course - it'll be brilliant. Exactly what the crowd wants to see! Actually while we're at it lets say any drop kick from 40m will be worth 2 points - that will get even more kicking into the game! Q. Okay I thought we hated tactical kicking? A. We do, what's your point?