NRL holds tight on rules - but adds one tweak to promote 'unpredictability of the game'

I wìll quote you on that, LP. When Souths beat the Panthers twice this season and you have both feet in your mouth, you will look like an ouroboros [an ancient symbol of a snake or serpent eating its own tail]. :laughing:

A dozen? Is that the amount of times Penrith have thrashed Souths this decade. I’ve already got them in the pro column GB :silly:

I don’t like it. It doesn’t need to change some risk must exist for short kicks next thing they’ll want to change is the kicking out on the full in general play. Just leave things alone for a few years and see how it plays out

I applaud the NRL for this initiative, albeit I suspect the underlying reason is to minimize concussions. I believe it will become the norm and not the exception. The mathematics behind a team implementing this tactic is overwhelmingly positive. It is not even close and will grow in popularity as coaches focus on the best implementation. It will impact halfs and also Talent Identification and Recruitment as a tall athletic player who is good in the air has just gone up in market value.

Accidental forward pass? Already permitted from dummy half…

Yes - that's how I figured it. Ruins the miracle win

I can see them allowing offside as well so long as they didn't move prior to the kicker. Will be interesting to see how the contest gets policed. A lot of bodies and a lot of risk of legs being taken out for high balls.

Agree Robbo, but some may take a week or two to figure it out. NRLC just don’t think these things all the way through. Any game day - my team is down by 2 with 40 secs to go. We force your team to drop out. Your side can waste 30secs due to shot clock drop out and kick it 30m over the sideline from the drop out to waste time. My team then gets one play to pull off a miracle instead of levelling up the game from a deliberate conceded penalty. Which is in the rules as a “Professional Foul” and a sin bin offence.

I reckon they will be doing it from day one

I never minded the short kick offs if a team can defend, but for the Bulldogs last year I felt it was never worth it. Rather force them to attack from 30+ metres after a Burton special than gift them 5 cracks at our eggshell defence.

Reynolds either made s poor decision or had poor execution. Everyone knew the risk/reward and he went for it. It made for exciting viewing. The fact that short drop outs are occurring is evidence that the rules are working. The NRL should pat themselves on the back and move on (seriously). Has this even been trialled? Who wanted this?

"It’s probably the only thing I have disliked about the Panthers in recent years" If you you would like to add to your list LP I'm happy to offer a few additional points. I have at least a dozen. :laughing:

Under this new rule change, they are trying not to punish the team who kicked the ball (god knows why). A 20m tap would actually be too much of a reward for the attacking team. when a ball is currently kicked out of the full from a kick off, the corresponding penalty kick to touch never makes it to the 20m line. Generally it's a tap from 30-35m. So 40 is reasonably fair...under this new philosophy. The whole rule change is a joke.

I'm waiting to see how long it takes for cynical coaches to show what a nonsense this change is. I'm guessing we'll start the see drop kicks going no more than 4 or 5 yards, with defending teams getting into position for the resultant tap kick, even before the ball stops rolling. I think the NRL has this wrong. If a kick doesn't go 10 yards, the attacking team should be given the option of taking 2 points or taking the tap. There will be occasions where either option suits them.

Jimmy, I admit I don’t watch every game so wouldn’t know if that 70% correct or not. However before short drop outs, receiving teams got close 100% (admittedly uncontested) minus a knock on or letting it bounce over the sideline. Up to 30% reduction is a fair dip in a short space of time. Given teams are yet to master the art of drop outs. As a side note, I believe they have the tactic of kicking towards the sideline incorrect. Why not set up to kick to sideline but plonk it above the head of the guy standing right in front of the posts. Usually the hooker and someone lacking vertical catching ability without the most athletic players on the field around him for support / blocking / catching. I mean if you want an unfair contest this seems to be the most unfair. With the current rules (defending 100m of the field) the kicking team can supply twice as many players to the landing area than the receiving team. That in my opinion isn’t a fair contest. It’s like the 1 on 1 strip rule, 3 blokes go into a tackle one gets a good grip, yells “pineapple” and all of a sudden the attacking team lose possession through an outnumbered contest that gets them into that position. I’d sooner prefer the play the ball be a ruck contest than the 3 on 1 strip. Seems un-Australian. It’s why we don’t like soccer players diving and can’t understand why you get a point looking like you know what your doing but not executing you job in another sport. As a team under pressure in our game, your opponent has worked hard to put you under pressure to drop out. The opponent has earned that right, their least favourable attacking option is a PTB on the 10m line as an end result. That in itself will have kicking team deliberately kicking it over the sideline on the full. As a coach, I would encourage my team (while kicking) to see kicking it out as our most favourable option. It’s wrong and I shouldn’t be allowed to do it but you use rules to your favour when trying to win. I just don’t think some things in our game have been totally thought out. It’s not like these contests are an overall great spectacle. You usually see people being run off the ball, a tackle happens in the general area and if the refs have it wrong because there’s 12 people congested around the ball, possession can’t be corrected. Just seems another thing that puts unnecessary pressure on the officials.

This is ridiculous! There are far greater concerns that should have been addressed. 1. Block plays to protect kickers (i.e. 'The Great Wall of Penrith'). 2. Penalising the defence for tackling a player 'in the air' when they are 6 inches off the ground and their legs aren't being attacked. 3. Meanwhile it is a 50/50 call on players tackling kickers when both their feet are off the ground. 4. Dragging players whose progress has been halted 5-10 metres into touch or back into their in-goal. 5. 'Two-man' tackles when their is minimal significant contact by the defender not actually effecting the tackle. The original rule was brought in to stop a two-man strip just like the Origin series winning Try by JT when Hayne was stripped of the ball under the posts. 6. Changing 'Golden Point' to 'Golden Try' or whoever is in front on the scoreboard after extra time by virtue of FGs and penalty goals. 7. Tighter control of HIAs. Some clubs 'cough' Panthers still are playing on without sending players for HIAs and the NRL 'independent doctor doesn't seem to be completely independent. 8. Lessen the number of interchanges and allow for non-interchange substitutions for serious game ending injuries or concussions. 9. End the 'downtown' rule! ALL players need to be BEHIND the kicker or can only be ruled onside if the KICKER runs them onside. 10. Reward one-on-one tackles, especially around the legs with defences given more time to form their defensive line. All of the above are far more impactful on the game than this new 'fluff rule'. The rule change when you are too spineless to make the changes needed to improve the game.

Yes exactly so the kicking team will deliberately kick the ball out on the full from drop outs. It will take a few rounds before they all start doing this. It will be the 6 again all over again, where all they did was move the deliberate hold down penalty from the try line down to the kick return. Obviously as teams abused this new rule it had to change again to penalties inside your own 40m.

If I understand the change correctly, kick the drop out on the full and the attacking team gets a tap restart 10m out & 10m in? Many teams will favour that with a set defensive line restart over the unpredictability of the attacking team catching the ball and getting a staggered line to play against

I am not sure why it needs to be a ' fair contest for the ball '. The receiving team gets around 70 percent of short drop outs . That will likely continue. All that will happen is there will be more short ones. The receiving team will still end up I front.

Do we really, really need more attacking kicks. ? I don't know think so.