NRL announces rule changes for trainers, endorses challenge system

[greeneyed]

Captain's challenge and rule changes rid NRL of 'six again' fears?

A controversial captain's challenge and an updated rule book have the power to rid the NRL of the controversy that overshadowed its showpiece event.

But it will do little to spare Canberra Raiders fans the outrage after the club fell agonisingly short of a drought-breaking grand final triumph earlier this year.

Read more: https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/ ... /?cs=14239

[Raidersteve]

Can’t believe they chose these rule changes over wrestling and ruck interpretations.

Annesley has proven farcically hopeless in this role.

The officials came up with absolutely nothing to address #SixAgain by the looks. It took the Commission to do "something".

I know it won't happen this way but I could see an argument for the unnatural interupt of the play being used for the 6again situation. If the ref screws as royally as he did then realised what he had done in changing a call which unnaturally affected the way the team played he should be able to replay of the tackle.

I was thinking they might possibly use the rule that way, but listening to the Annesley press conference, it doesn't seem to be what they're intending. It was simply the ball touching the referee, a trainer or another object (eg camera) or pitch invader.

The problem I see is if it went to a captains challenge it would still have gone to the Roosters based on the fact that apparently it didn't touch Teddy as they did post match they will deny that the ref got it wrong. Meaning the Raiders lose their challenge.

The only positive would be that they would have had their defensive line set correctly and would have been able to compose themselves rather than what happened.

[gangrenous]

Okay I’ve now watched the video and I still don’t see how either of the grand final issues have been properly resolved. Really, really disappointed in the outcome.

Good on the journalist who pressed Annesley about the Raiders fans, and pointed out the Roosters would still have got the ball back.

Shame on Annesley for being unable to even acknowledge that Raiders fans were entitled to have been disappointed by the outcomes in the grand final even if they were refereed under the laws of the game at the time and the decisions were correct at the time (which is in itself debatable).

[simo]

Can’t believe they chose these rule changes over wrestling and ruck interpretations.

Annesley has proven farcically hopeless in this role.

The officials came up with absolutely nothing to address #SixAgain by the looks. It took the Commission to do "something".

I know it won't happen this way but I could see an argument for the unnatural interupt of the play being used for the 6again situation. If the ref screws as royally as he did then realised what he had done in changing a call which unnaturally affected the way the team played he should be able to replay of the tackle.

I was thinking they might possibly use the rule that way, but listening to the Annesley press conference, it doesn't seem to be what they're intending. It was simply the ball touching the referee, a trainer or another object (eg camera) or pitch invader.

The problem I see is if it went to a captains challenge it would still have gone to the Roosters based on the fact that apparently it didn't touch Teddy as they did post match they will deny that the ref got it wrong. Meaning the Raiders lose their challenge.

The only positive would be that they would have had their defensive line set correctly and would have been able to compose themselves rather than what happened.

Or you could just stick with the ref not being able to change his 6 again call because, you know, he called 6 again

[greeneyed]

Okay I’ve now watched the video and I still don’t see how either of the grand final issues have been properly resolved. Really, really disappointed in the outcome.

Good on the journalist who pressed Annesley about the Raiders fans, and pointed out the Roosters would still have got the ball back.

Shame on Annesley for being unable to even acknowledge that Raiders fans were entitled to have been disappointed by the outcomes in the grand final even if they were refereed under the laws of the game at the time and the decisions were correct at the time (which is in itself debatable).

I agree.

[Raidersteve]

The officials came up with absolutely nothing to address #SixAgain by the looks. It took the Commission to do "something".

I know it won't happen this way but I could see an argument for the unnatural interupt of the play being used for the 6again situation. If the ref screws as royally as he did then realised what he had done in changing a call which unnaturally affected the way the team played he should be able to replay of the tackle.

I was thinking they might possibly use the rule that way, but listening to the Annesley press conference, it doesn't seem to be what they're intending. It was simply the ball touching the referee, a trainer or another object (eg camera) or pitch invader.

The problem I see is if it went to a captains challenge it would still have gone to the Roosters based on the fact that apparently it didn't touch Teddy as they did post match they will deny that the ref got it wrong. Meaning the Raiders lose their challenge.

The only positive would be that they would have had their defensive line set correctly and would have been able to compose themselves rather than what happened.

Or you could just stick with the ref not being able to change his 6 again call because, you know, he called 6 again

Problem being they are yet to acknowledge that they got it wrong in the gf. They simply stated that the right decision was made in the end and that it was just unfortunate how they got to the decision. They have ignored the rules of the game in that the ref can't change their call.

They would bring the same mentality to the captains challenge. Although teams would be well aware now that refs can't do what they did and therefore know to challenge the overturning of the ruling.

[gangrenous]

That’s an interesting angle Raidersteve! If Croker challenges the undoing of the 6 again itself, what the hell happens then?!

[Raidersteve]

That’s an interesting angle Raidersteve! If Croker challenges the undoing of the 6 again itself, what the hell happens then?!

My thoughts would be that they should then apply the unnatural interruption of of play ruling and have the replay the tackle replayed from before the original kick. Probably wouldn't happen that way I think it should.

Given the rule hasn't been finalised maybe there could be some kind of adjustment to include the 6again fiasco(major ref mistake) as an unnatural interupt of play as it most certainly was.

[greeneyed]

That’s an interesting angle Raidersteve! If Croker challenges the undoing of the 6 again itself, what the hell happens then?!

Good question!

[Coastalraider]

This is 100% NRL.

Let’s change done crap that works, and change some crap that would have already worked if we actually enforced our own rules.

[gangrenous]

That’s an interesting angle Raidersteve! If Croker challenges the undoing of the 6 again itself, what the hell happens then?!

My thoughts would be that they should then apply the unnatural interruption of of play ruling and have the replay the tackle replayed from before the original kick. Probably wouldn't happen that way I think it should.

I think you’re right. Same with say... a touch judge raising his flag by accident.

But they don’t appear to be writing the rule in this fashion. So I wouldn’t hold my breath

[Azza]

May I make the following observation. The NRL are muppets.

[gerg]

So these are the rules until State of Origin and then the rules will change? Happens every year.

If you can set a scrum anywhere you like why not be able to take a penalty tap anywhere?

Tackling in the air. More blockers I guess. But let's just see how Cotric, Simonson, Croker and Scott go. We might go alright from this one.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

[RedRaider]

1. General Play challenge I like, ever since the trial all those years ago in U/20s. So many times a player loses the ball due to poor ball security and gets a strip penalty for his team. The challenge can reduce the number of ref clangers.

2. 20/40 kick as well as a 40/20. Why not just make it a 30/30 and be done with it. The side with a gale behind them may keep the ball for most of that half. Kick a 20/40 and attack to either score or catch the opposition in goal. Opposition line drop goes nowhere in a gale so side again on the attack close to the goal line. Repeat. Spiral punt kicks will be all the rage at pre-season training.

3. Scrum position rule - ho hum. Team feeding the ball 'wins' the scrum. Ball is passed to forward who has not packed into the scrum and is tackled by a defensive forward who has not packed into the scrum. Repeat.

4. Ball striking a trainer should be an immediate hand over to the opposition at the spot the attacking team trainer was hit. Trainers should not be viewed the same as a Ref. Ever. Ban the trainers entirely. I remember when it was St.Johns Ambulance who would go to aid players. Bring back the Ambo's.
4a. Alternatively - only the Head coach is allowed to run the water. Get them all down on the sideline in the heat and rain and chill. Head coaches are now pampered pooches in air conditioned boxes. Ban the coaches box... Give the fans access to visiting coaches via well considered comments on their coaching ability while they are on the sideline. Sticky may have started a trend.

5. Tackling an attacking player in the air has an obvious issue. Eg Roosters are attacking and put a kick up for Tupou. He catches the ball and contorts his body to get the ball to the ground before his feet touch the ground. The defenders are unable to touch him because he is in the air. If a defender does touch him and he loses the ball is it a 'penalty' try'? This is a poor rule which has Trent Robinson input all over it imo.
Defenders are sitting ducks under the high ball while attackers get to choose their point of entry into the play. They are not the same.

[Botman]

firstly, the trainers interferance
the NRL.com article i read said they would also be looking at further restrictions on when trainers can be on the field... if they do that, and really crack down on it, i've got no issue with replaying the tackle... if they arent addressing the trainers on the field properly then this changes very little and it's stupid

b) Challange system
I like it, because i hope its the first step towards a fulltime challenge system where officials simply make their call and the onus is on the players, be from a captain or coach via a button or whatever (it's 2019, we can figure out the technology if you want it to be a coaches challenge) to make their decision on whether the call was significant enough to risk a challenge. I believe each team should be given 2 challenges per half, with a 3rd being given if you get the first two right... these would be used in any circumstance that is not a subjective call (so eliminates forward pass and holding down penalties etc) and can be used in general play or in try scoring situations... but you only 2 a half. So if you shot your wad on some stupid knock on calls in the opening minutes of a half and can challenge a play in the dying stages on a controversial try. That's on you.

iii. 20/40
I mean im not against it, i like any rule that opens the game up and allows for match changing and momentum changing plays. I think we'll see wingers play a little deeper earlier in the set which will entice teams to use the footy coming out of their own end. So i think it could help open the game up... but i mean who asked for this? Weird. But sure why not.

4. Scrum position
I like it, dont think it will change anything at all but hopefully it will encourage teams to run more set plays off the scrum. I very much doubt it, but dreams are free right? When im running a footy team we'll be running set plays off every scrum outside our own 30.

- Tackling attacking player in the air:
No need to repeat what most of the RL community are saying. It's ridiculous and i cant imagine why a team like the Roosters will have anything in the red zone play book outside of setting up a bomb to Daniel Topou

[BJ]

I just feel the NRL is ignoring the real issues of wrestling and ruck management and implementing rules around the secondary issues for the game.

[greeneyed]

I doubt the NRL has given the tackle in the air two seconds thought. It's a disaster waiting to happen... and I agree it is probably driven by a thought bubble from Trent Robinson, who wanted Sia Soliola penalised for charging down Cronk.

[Beejay]

The scrum rule I like. As a team you’d set the scrum in the middle of the field every time.
3v3 each side, or 4v4 and 2v2. Best of luck stopping RTS, Ponga and Co in those spots.

[Beejay]

I doubt the NRL has given the tackle in the air two seconds thought. It's a disaster waiting to happen... and I agree it is probably driven by a thought bubble from Trent Robinson, who wanted Sia Soliola penalised for charging down Cronk.

It will make kicks harder to defend. Which may very well be the intention.

[Botman]

I doubt the NRL has given the tackle in the air two seconds thought. It's a disaster waiting to happen... and I agree it is probably driven by a thought bubble from Trent Robinson, who wanted Sia Soliola penalised for charging down Cronk.

It will make kicks harder to defend. Which may very well be the intention.

If that’s the answer, then they asked the wrong question
The code should not be making it easier and incentivising boring bomb-ahan tactics
It should be making that play more difficult to encourage teams to use ball movements

[gerg]

I doubt the NRL has given the tackle in the air two seconds thought. It's a disaster waiting to happen... and I agree it is probably driven by a thought bubble from Trent Robinson, who wanted Sia Soliola penalised for charging down Cronk.

It will make kicks harder to defend. Which may very well be the intention.

If that’s the answer, then they asked the wrong question
The code should not be making it easier and incentivising boring bomb-ahan tactics
It should be making that play more difficult to encourage teams to use ball movements

The other flow on will be the impact it has on what sort of body type you have on the wing. Sure that has already happened to some extent but would you rather have a Vunivula or a JAC with this rule. I love watching JAC but he isn't very tall, or particularly good in the air.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

[Beejay]

I doubt the NRL has given the tackle in the air two seconds thought. It's a disaster waiting to happen... and I agree it is probably driven by a thought bubble from Trent Robinson, who wanted Sia Soliola penalised for charging down Cronk.

It will make kicks harder to defend. Which may very well be the intention.

If that’s the answer, then they asked the wrong question
The code should not be making it easier and incentivising boring bomb-ahan tactics
It should be making that play more difficult to encourage teams to use ball movements

I don’t disagree in theory.
However with more opportunities to score, will force extremely disciplined defences like the Roosters to come up with a way to defend this which should reduce other parts of their defence.
Considering good defensive teams were conceding only one try in big games, this could make a fair difference.
Hard to say exactly what the impact will be, next year, and then in future years.

[GreenMachine]

The 20/40 rule is a joke but when you think about it, how often do teams get pinned inside their 20 on the 5th tackle?

The defensive team is better off letting them roll out past the 20 meter line to negate the possibility of a 20/40.

It’s a dumb rule...the NRL is practically endorsing all football happen between the 20 to 40 meter lines...

Why not a simple rule where a 60 meter touch finding kick grants you a repeat set?

The rest of the changes are trash...too little too late with respect to the trainer rules.

[GreenMachine]

May I make the following observation. The NRL are muppets.

1000%.

[Matt]

What's more worrying is that, in less than a wk, in NRL public have shredded most of these rules and already seen the issues. The governing body hasn't

[GreenMachine]

What's more worrying is that, in less than a wk, in NRL public have shredded most of these rules and already seen the issues. The governing body hasn't

Makes you wonder who are they consulting when proposing these changes?

Why do we need changes every year when refereeing the existing rules is already too much for the current crop of referees?

[greeneyed]

What's more worrying is that, in less than a wk, in NRL public have shredded most of these rules and already seen the issues. The governing body hasn't

Makes you wonder who are they consulting when proposing these changes?

Why do we need changes every year when refereeing the existing rules is already too much for the current crop of referees?

Rothfield wrote an article about that... the changes were apparently kept hush, hush at the direction of the Commission, with threats of the sack if they leaked. They’d have been better off flying the kites in the media first.

[yeh raiders]

The 20/40 rule is a joke but when you think about it, how often do teams get pinned inside their 20 on the 5th tackle?

The defensive team is better off letting them roll out past the 20 meter line to negate the possibility of a 20/40.

It’s a dumb rule...the NRL is practically endorsing all football happen between the 20 to 40 meter lines...

Why not a simple rule where a 60 meter touch finding kick grants you a repeat set?

The rest of the changes are trash...too little too late with respect to the trainer rules.

I don’t think it’s a problem for 5th tackle, the wingers will already be back for a kick. It’s 3rd tackle, when they’re 10 metres out from their line because they’re getting absolutely mauled by fatigue and strong defence, and they get to belt a kick down field with even more margin of error than a 40/20, to get out of trouble.

The attackers are totally undeserving of this opportunity and the defending team are disadvantaged for their strong D.

Totally bizarre. Who even came up with this?

I don’t want random swings in momentum and possession due to circus act rule changes, I want teams to earn the right to play with the ball.

I want physicality and less slowing down of the play-of-the-ball.

That was the best of the NRL from eras gone by, and we continue to move further away from it.

I’ve got no issues with a different set of rules for junior rugby league, which are designed for increased protection to kids, but once you hit the seniors grades, the physicality (and skill) is what I pay to see.

[cat]

Firstly, an honest question does the AFL and Rugby , soccer, tennis etc keep changing the rules? If they don't there might be a good reason for it!!

I still don't agree with the trainer rule, if it hits your trainer (and the opposition hasn't deliberately thrown it at them) then you lose the ball end of story.

The way we are going each new rule will be named after the raiders! We have the "Hodgson rule" for injury compensation when playing rep games, trainergate rule, #sixagain rule already!

[gerg]

With the new bomb/tackle rule Israel would be a good get. Untouchable 'on' and 'off' the field.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

[Beejay]

Everyone enjoyed the wild swings in momentum that happened with the new strip rule, so I really can’t see people being upset if a team is getting smashed and then a player kicks from within their 20m line and nails the line well within the opposition half and get the ball back to completely shift the momentum of the game.
The fans will love it; except when it happens against your team. Which is exactly the reaction with the strip rule.

[greeneyed]

How the NRL rule changes for 2020 wouldn't have helped the Canberra Raiders in the 2019 Grand Final

The NRL has announced new rules following the controversial incidents in the 2019 Grand Final, but the new rules wouldn't have helped the Raiders.

If the #Trainergate grand final scenario were to play out under the new rule, instead of the Roosters getting the scrum feed where the ball made contact with the trainer, the referee would simply give the ball back to Roosters prop Jared Waerea-Hargreaves where he was on the 30-metre line and tell him to play the ball again.

Read more: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-08/ ... l/11777614

[gangrenous]

The ball hitting the Sydney Roosters' trainer in the third minute of the NRL grand final didn't cost the Canberra Raiders the 2019 premiership, despite what some fans in the capital might think.

Prove it Dean.

[Lui_Bon]

Firstly, an honest question does the AFL and Rugby , soccer, tennis etc keep changing the rules? If they don't there might be a good reason for it!!

AFL change their rules every year, this past season they brought in a compulsory zone system to increase scoring. The result was the lowest scores in decades mostly.
Soccer has the VAR which at least is mostly accurate, unlike the Bunker.
No-one knows the "laws" of rugby anyway.

[Lui_Bon]

The scrum rule I like. As a team you’d set the scrum in the middle of the field every time.
3v3 each side, or 4v4 and 2v2. Best of luck stopping RTS, Ponga and Co in those spots.

I like it too, if it can be implemented. You get the choice of a huge backline movement, a quite large blindside, or a chance to overwhelm the defence on either side of the scrum. That last is one which smart hookers (I mean dummy halves who now usually do the distributing from scrums) can really take advantage of. So that's us, Souths and Melbourne... Which is probably why there will be screaming to drop the rule...