2017 Rule change ideas

How is the Matty Johns show relevant to '2017 rule change ideas'?

Furthermore, I think we should ban any football-based shows that try any 'comedy' - it's not funny, never has been, never will be and only appeals to the lowest common denominator
 
Did you read it? That entire post barely makes sense, I seriously don't understand what you're talking about. And if it's about the footy show, WTF does it have to do with a rule change thread?
 
Last edited:
Allo said:
How is the Matty Johns show relevant to '2017 rule change ideas'?

Furthermore, I think we should ban any football-based shows that try any 'comedy' - it's not funny, never has been, never will be and only appeals to the lowest common denominator
Click to expand...

This one is actually pretty funny.
 
Create a new thread if you wish to discuss the Matty Johns show.

2017 Rule changes.

1. Favour the Broncos more often than not.
 
Get rid of the scrum clock.

They rarely enforce it.

Once it gets down to about 2-4 seconds, they just stop the clock.

What's the point of having it if you're not going to enforce it every time?

I also still hate the 7 tackle restart, especially in Golden Point.

I don't like the fact they are trying to take tactical kicking out of the game.
 
Last edited:
The purpose of the 7 tackle set was to deter teams deliberately kick the ball touch in goal from 40-50m out. It doesn't make any sense for 7 tackles to be given when the team is trying to keep the ball in play by grubbering into the in goal or if they knock on in the in goal. The 7 tackle rule shouldn't apply for balls that go dead from an action inside the opponent's 30m zone.

I also don't like how when a team is kicking a penalty goal and the shot misses but the ball goes dead - then the opposition has to drop out from the 20m. I think the opposition should gain possession in that situation. The team shooting for goal has already had the advantage from the penalty in having had a shot for goal. It's an outdated rule that makes little sense.
 
Last edited:
Broncs_Fan said:
The purpose of the 7 tackle set was to deter teams deliberately kick the ball touch in goal from 40-50m out. It doesn't make any sense for 7 tackles to be given when the team is trying to keep the ball in play by grubbering into the in goal or if they knock on in the in goal. The 7 tackle rule shouldn't apply for balls that go dead from an action inside the opponent's 30m zone.

I also don't like how when a team is kicking a penalty goal and the shot misses but the ball goes dead - then the opposition has to drop out from the 20m. I think the opposition should gain possession in that situation. The team shooting for goal has already had the advantage from the penalty in having had a shot for goal. It's an outdated rule that makes little sense.
Click to expand...

I agree with removing the 7-tackle sets but perhaps from within the 20m mark. It is an unfair advantage for the defending team and can dramatically swing the momentum of the game. As the current restart is from 20m it would make sense to set this as the area where players can now make these offensive errors. Then a regular set with a 20m restart is enough in these circumstances. If you punt the ball downfield to get out of your half and it goes dead in goal, too bad, that is a satisfactory risk/reward scenario. The 7-tackle set in these cases negates this tactic effectively.

I also tend to agree with your opinion on the shot at goal, it does seem like a double-dip but the same could be said for knock-ons and the "zero tackle". In this case I see your point but there doesn't seem to be an apparent or severe problem. While old it seems to have stood the test of time without many detractors, probably due to it providing an added deterrent for intentional penalties within scoring range. Also, most teams won't take the kick at goal unless it is a sitter.

I like the current interchange rules, it does seem to really make teams work hard and the games do open up at the end of each half. I also like the shot-clocks as it would speed the game if enforced correctly, similar to the drop-kick rule being a penalty for in front of the line.

Along with speeding up the game I wish they enforced offside (especially being square at marker) more rigorously. Further to this, I wish they actually enforced poor PTB and stepping off the mark. Even if the just made them play it again, this would remove any advantage the attacking team gains by an incorrect (albeit fast) PTB. Also, enforce on wrestling, not so much hand-on-the-ball. The number of times a player will get worked on the ground and nothing will be called vs the number of times a player will be preventing an offload only to be pinged is upsetting.

If there was one thing I would remove it would be scrums. While they engage the forward pack and allow the backline to become more active for one play, the current state of scrummage means that is almost completely redundant (except in the case of Billy Slater/Sam Thaiday incidents). I would suggest that they either reinforce the contested scrum or completely remove it. It is one area of the game where I can easily see how non-fans would be easily confused and find it laughable. A quick restart is sufficient for the majority of cases. You don't see scrums in touch/tag football and that is an exciting game to watch when played well.

Touch judges need to shoulder more responsibility. First in calling forward passes, offsides, unfair play and lastly in ruling on tries. I understand the odd time it is difficult making a sideline call for out. Go to the bunker.

Outside of gameplay I believe that the MRC should be independent and not comprised of any ex-players. Rulings should be made based upon the guidelines and clearly defined gradings, facts and precedence. Remove the judiciary hearings, players shouldn't need defense lawyers. The club should be issued with a clear statement based on the guidelines. We have so much technology now we could practically measure the angle of the arm, the force of contact based on speed, the location of contact etc. provided clubs are issued with the evidence they should not have any rebuttal.

Last of all, after I suggested changes, I honestly just wish they stuck firmly with whatever rules. I really get annoyed at the constant rule changes, these knee-jerk changes makes it seem like the game is broken. Set the rules, enforce the rules and abide by the rules. Human error is inevitable and that is footy. The game should be as fair as possible. I don't care so much if we win or lose, as long as it is fair. If a commentator is upset with the rule they can have a cry all they want, they just end up looking like a salty sook and wrong. Fair enough if a ref gets it wrong but in terms of rules the commentators could set forward a clear list of arguments as to why they dislike the rule and the NRL, clubs and players could vote on whether to change it. Otherwise, just play footy. (One example of this is the call on Oates being tunneled in the air on his leaps, they were calling that unfair and Oates just dropped the ball. I would argue that kicking to a player who is set, can jump higher than your contesting player and has a good play on the ball puts the onus on the attacking team to consider kicking elsewhere or not contesting the kick by running under the player. Otherwise you risk giving away a penalty of this kind. The players need some safety in this area.)

Sorry for the long post but there are several areas of the game that are not well understood and if a clear and easily understood explanation of why the rules are in place was given in response to calls by the commentators there would be less confusion and dissatisfaction within the NRL fan base. I feel as though commentators not having a clear understanding of a rule is a clear indication that your average supporter wouldn't have a clue and take what Gus says as gospel (and the Messiah he certainly ain't). That said, we as supporters also have a responsibility to understand the game and (while it is fun to take a strong bias towards the Broncos) cop it sweet when things go against us fairly and even sometimes when refs miss a call.
 
I read all of that. I'm now considerably older and more wrinkled than before, another ice age has come and gone and I believe we now have met aliens and can travel faster than the speed of light but I read all of that. Well written, good points and I didn't notice even one spelling or grammatical error.
 
Sproj said:
I read all of that. I'm now considerably older and more wrinkled than before, another ice age has come and gone and I believe we now have met aliens and can travel faster than the speed of light but I read all of that. Well written, good points and I didn't notice even one spelling or grammatical error.
Click to expand...
Good onya Sproj. Hahahahaha. Sorry to have aged you.
 
One thing that really annoys me is the inconsistent calling of forward passes. They'll call a random forward pass after letting 5 worse go uncalled.

I believe that this is down to the positioning of the touch judges.

When i was growing up, the touch judges were always in line with the ball, putting them in a perfect position to make the call on forward passes, meaning we saw the majority called correctly.

But as the game speed the touch judges changed from being in line with the ball to marking the 10m, in order to help the ref out. And all of a sudden forward passes were let go as the touch judges weren't in the best position to rule on them.

Now we come to the introduction of the two referee system. The touch judges are still marking the 10m and IMO they should go back to being in line with the ball. If the main referee needs a break, he can swap with the pocket referee to get his breathe back.
 
Foordy said:
One thing that really annoys me is the inconsistent calling of forward passes. They'll call a random forward pass after letting 5 worse go uncalled.

I believe that this is down to the positioning of the touch judges.

When i was growing up, the touch judges were always in line with the ball, putting them in a perfect position to make the call on forward passes, meaning we saw the majority called correctly.

But as the game speed the touch judges changed from being in line with the ball to marking the 10m, in order to help the ref out. And all of a sudden forward passes were let go as the touch judges weren't in the best position to rule on them.

Now we come to the introduction of the two referee system. The touch judges are still marking the 10m and IMO they should go back to being in line with the ball. If the main referee needs a break, he can swap with the pocket referee to get his breathe back.
Click to expand...

Or alternatively, just use one touchie for the defensive ten and the other to watch forward passes. There isn't a whole lot else to their job description.
 
Organix said:
Good onya Sproj. Hahahahaha. Sorry to have aged you.
Click to expand...
What's much worse for mine, is that you're not asking for the moon or anything... just common sense and consistency.

We have the best game on the planet, and the NRL is continuously finding new ways to ruin it to please fucktards living in the stone age, like Gus and clueless media tards, like Slothfield, Bourbon Beck or Weirdler, not to speak of all the internal politics to please all the Sydney centric idiots.
 
Sproj said:
Or alternatively, just use one touchie for the defensive ten and the other to watch forward passes. There isn't a whole lot else to their job description.
Click to expand...

Was just thinking this... not hard to have the blind side ref mark the ten (you'd assume the ruck would prevent them seeing passes to the open side) and open side ref in line with the ball. Done
 
One thing I have an issue with is how influential the referee is in league compared to just about any other sport. Couple that with the difference in interpretation for common penalties. The worst being ruck penalties where there is no explicitly defined "rule" for slowing the ruck down that the ref can fall back on.

To me it looks as though refs are scared to blow the whistle at times due to the huge advantage gained from a penalty. I think if you remove kick for touch on lower grade penalties such as ruck infringements, offsides, markers, etc. The ref would blow more penalties, cleaning up the ruck and forcing the game to be quicker.
 
Yeah, but then you have rugby union saying that we copied them. If it is a harsh penalty then it is a greater deterrent. I'd prefer refs to just harden up.
 
If you ever go to a live game, check out the touch judges. It's like they're juiced up on Ritalin or something. They hop between the defending ten metres and the ruck - trying to make it look like they're on top of both areas but in reality missing just about everything.
 
New Posts

Unread

Active Now

No members online now.
Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top