Re: rules that you think would improve our game : Mon Dec 15, 2014 10:55 am  

Those who are advocating changes to the rules when the ball hits the floor.

Do you not just think that will make teams more risk averse, and lead to SL becoming a monotonous five drives and a kick battle for field position? IMO we should be encouraging teams who want to play expansive rugby, not discouraging them.

Re: rules that you think would improve our game : Mon Dec 15, 2014 11:23 am  

Andy Gilder wrote:

Those who are advocating changes to the rules when the ball hits the floor.

Do you not just think that will make teams more risk averse, and lead to SL becoming a monotonous five drives and a kick battle for field position? IMO we should be encouraging teams who want to play expansive rugby, not discouraging them.

My guess is that it wouldn't discourage expansive play. Knock-ons, with their consequent loss of possession, occur more frequently than do tries scored off bounced passes. And although fear of knocking-on undoubtedly often puts paid to the most speculative of offloads, there are still many (in some games too many) occasions where players are prepared to take a gamble. The argument for tinkering is more a matter of rewarding sound defensive efforts which are sometimes undeservedly undermined by a wayward pass.

Re: rules that you think would improve our game : Mon Dec 15, 2014 12:18 pm  

Jonesy's a Legend wrote:

i personally don't mind the state of origin mentality when it comes to fisticuffs

i would allow 2 players to trade blows but the moment any other players got involved in the fracas then the key instigators of a mass brawl would be sent off,imo rl is getting far too tame and soft

rugby league is a full on contact sport between gladiators and some fisticuffs should be tolerated

2 players to be allowed to trade blows? e.g Burrow v's Mose Masoe or Peacock v's Hohaia?

You can't have that or bigger players will target the smaller one's, Crazy idea

Re: rules that you think would improve our game : Mon Dec 15, 2014 7:23 pm  

Rommel wrote:

:CRAZY:

2 players to be allowed to trade blows? e.g Burrow v's Mose Masoe

You can't have that or bigger players will target the smaller one's, Crazy idea

i reckon that rob burrow would relish the challenge of having a go at that soft cock tub of lard,all he would have to do is bob and weave for 20 seconds and masoe would be out on his feet and looking for a substitution

Re: rules that you think would improve our game : Tue Dec 16, 2014 5:33 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

I've argued for many years that we should have six substitutions (no interchange once you're off you're off) I would have eight substitutes on the bench and two of those should be 21 or under at the start of the season.

I like that one.

I'm fed up watching high kicks to the corner on the 6th tackle.
Players are often offside and the attacking side can get away with murder when jumping for the ball - there's nothing to lose, whereas the defender cannot afford the slightest mistake.
I'd agree that sometimes skill is involved, but 9 times out of 10 it's a lottery.

How about stopping the attacking side from touching the ball from a kick until it has bounced?

Re: rules that you think would improve our game : Tue Dec 16, 2014 5:43 pm  

Don't allow attacking teams to kick inside the opposition 20 metre area.
Once substituted a player cannot return to the action
Dismal of players (happy with red or yellow) for constant back chat to the referee
Only allow one defender at the play the ball. I have never understood the need for two other than to help close play down.
Passes must go backwards. Unsure when this rule was changed but I find it quite depressing when full time professionals can't pass properly and consistently.
Highly unlikely that any will be introduced but would personally like to see reduced substitutions

Re: rules that you think would improve our game : Tue Dec 16, 2014 7:14 pm  

Itchy Arsenal wrote:

Don't allow attacking teams to kick inside the opposition 20 metre area.
Once substituted a player cannot return to the action
Dismal of players (happy with red or yellow) for constant back chat to the referee
Only allow one defender at the play the ball. I have never understood the need for two other than to help close play down.
Passes must go backwards. Unsure when this rule was changed but I find it quite depressing when full time professionals can't pass properly and consistently.
Highly unlikely that any will be introduced but would personally like to see reduced substitutions

NURSE! He's out of bed again!

Re: rules that you think would improve our game : Tue Dec 16, 2014 9:38 pm  

Itchy Arsenal wrote:

Don't allow attacking teams to kick inside the opposition 20 metre area.
Once substituted a player cannot return to the action
Dismal of players (happy with red or yellow) for constant back chat to the referee
Only allow one defender at the play the ball. I have never understood the need for two other than to help close play down.
Passes must go backwards. Unsure when this rule was changed but I find it quite depressing when full time professionals can't pass properly and consistently.
Highly unlikely that any will be introduced but would personally like to see reduced substitutions

I think these are well thought through and reasoned suggestions, I especially like "substituted players cannot return" coupled with "reduced substitution" - that would definitely make for a faster, more open game.

Re: rules that you think would improve our game : Tue Dec 16, 2014 11:46 pm  

Him wrote:

NURSE! He's out of bed again!

Not a response I expected but it really did make me laugh!

Re: rules that you think would improve our game : Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:21 am  

I think there's enough agreement around the game to reduce the number of interchanges, but I think that there's a bit of overkill about big players - I like watching the likes of George Burgess charge into the defence. I have no problem reducing their impact to a degree, but not simply replacing impact players with workhorses. So reduce interchanges, but just by 2.

Getting wrestling reduced can be largely done by of refs calling held earlier and enforcing it better. The number of times you hear the ref call held and yet players do not immediately stop wrestling is ridiculous, and other times refs don't call held when its clear to all that its the defenders keeping the tackle going.

Apart from wrestling the biggest problem with the game as a spectacle is the conservative 6th tackle plays in attack leading to repetitive patterns in games. You either have to incentivise passing movements, which is difficult, or penalise 'defensive' attacking kicks that don't come off to the extent that players are dioscouraged from using them.

One idea would make grounding an opposition kick in-goal should result in a 20m restart to the defence, similar to RU (possibly just for those made within 10m of the line). The reward from grubber kicks is potentially huge, but how many are really a very negative tactic simply aimed at getting a repeat set?

The high kick to the corner poses virtually no risk to the attacking side so long as they cover any possible breaks, and so has become the 'go to' play. A change which could help provide balance here would be to have a 20m restart for any kick in the air caught within the 20m. At least then the average downside for the defending team is improved.

If the effectiveness of these sort of kicks were reduced, perhaps you could offer a carrot to attacking passing moves by allowing an extra tackle if someone is held up over the line on any tackle (apart from the last)?

The hardest thing with rule changes is looking at the unforeseen consequences. I think its generally agreed what we don't want (although I reckon a hell of a lot of pro coaches don't want any rule changes) but a lot harder to predict what might happen if we tinker around too much.