Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Organix, post: 2775986, member: 8187"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Active Now

No members online now.

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)

Reply to thread

Log in

Active Now