Penalties/Rules of the Game

[EaglesDontTweet]

Given the recent discussion on the influence of referees on the game I thought it might be an opportune time to get your views on what rule settings we might change to better reflect the game as it currently is being played and maybe even take some pressure off the refs.

This thread has come from a comment I read by a "Mark" submitted on a story in the Daily Telegraph on July 10 (link at bottom).....

Mark
How about something radical....when a penalty is given the team receiving it gets a choice: 6 more tackles, or a kick for touch and continue the tackle count from where it is. This way refs decisions would not have as big an influence on the game.

In the modern paced game a kick and a repeat set of 6 is (should be) a huge advantage.

At the moment the exact same offence at the end of a tackle count as opposed to at the start effectively draws a very different penalty.

Link to DT Story/Mark's Quote: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...e/news-story/94f714c57259fd3ffc0315ad1f7014ac

 

[MissKate]

That is a very interesting, I quite like that idea

 

[Chip and Chase]

I'd rather they just police the current rules instead of conveniently forgetting they exist. Start by tidying up the ruck

* make players get to their feet to play the ball
* make players play the ball on the mark
* stop markers and attacking player from touching each other at the ruck, too much grabbing and pushing/obstruction there.

Also I have noticed that the moving obstruction play by defenders on kick chasers has deteriorated to a point where it is a farce...no more evident then in Origin 3 where it was literally a free for all to take people out off the ball.

 

[EaglesDontTweet]

That is a very interesting, I quite like that idea

I agree @MissKate. When I read Mark's comment I thought it was a minor tweak that could add back balance. Though I haven't fully thought through whether any teams could find some way to manipulate this change to benefit them (lazy Saturday morning).


Note to @globaleagle : Hey GE, I just noticed I fluked a sentence containing though, thought and through in the first six words. Can I claim a prize (after you've reviewed the spelling and context of course).🙂

 

[globaleagle]

I agree @MissKate. When I read Mark's comment I thought it was a minor tweak that could add back balance. Though I haven't fully thought through whether any teams could find some way to manipulate this change to benefit them (lazy Saturday morning).


Note to @globaleagle : Hey GE, I just noticed I fluked a sentence containing though, thought and through in the first six words. Can I claim a prize (after you've reviewed the spelling and context of course).🙂

Perfect!

 

[Boozo]

Scrum penalties used to be the grey area. They got rid off them because of their undue influence on the result of a game.
Now the ruck has become the new grey area with the same result. These grey areas have been, and are a breeding ground for individual referee bias.
Perhaps a solution might be a penalty = 6 more tackles. Kick for touch only if the penalty was for foul play.

 

[mickqld]

Scrum penalties used to be the grey area. They got rid off them because of their undue influence on the result of a game.
Now the ruck has become the new grey area with the same result. These grey areas have been, and are a breeding ground for individual referee bias.
Perhaps a solution might be a penalty = 6 more tackles. Kick for touch only if the penalty was for foul play.

THIS X 10
Exactly what needs to happen. This indiscriminate blowing of penalties gives too much advantage in a game of inches at times. Refs blowing a penalty for 1 thing but let 10 other incidents the same go has become a joke. STOP the heavy influence a random penalty is having on a game.

 

[yokahontas]

Scrum penalties used to be the grey area. They got rid off them because of their undue influence on the result of a game.
Now the ruck has become the new grey area with the same result. These grey areas have been, and are a breeding ground for individual referee bias.
Perhaps a solution might be a penalty = 6 more tackles. Kick for touch only if the penalty was for foul play.

Agreed. I've been in the 'introduce a short-arm penalty' camp for years; I don't think you need to give the choice of restart the count/kick for touch - there's the possibility for more stuff-ups, along the lines of the refs 'losing count' and teams getting extra tackles *by accident* etc.

Just straight up get rid of the kick for touch (or the option to take a shot at goal if you're in range) for anything other than foul play. Restart the count, tap it and go.

But...likely to happen? Nup. Because that would remove the single biggest opportunity the officials have to exert an influence and run the game to the script. Fully expect the NRL to go further down the WWE path, not fix it.

 

[EaglesDontTweet]

Looking for a positive I think the discretionary calls when a player has accidentally moved too far off the mark in the play the ball and can back back without penalty, and where a player is given a reprieve if they are deemed to have played on after not hearing the whistle and return play back to the original "whistle blown decision" are common sense interpretations of the rules that encourage the free flowing nature of the game.

 

[MissKate]

Agree - unlikely the nrl change such rules, wouldn't want to detract from the main event - The Refs

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

It's bloody disappointing that we are even having this discussion.

It means one thing, penalties almost always decide the game.

They decided the game in SOO2, but didn't in SOO3, so I do say " almost".

Second part.

Fair dinkum the ruck is so bad these days you could penalise nearly every single play the ball ( and from both sides).

* Moving off the line to play the ball ( a Scam special ).

* Not playing the ball properly.

* Markers not square

* Hands on the ball

* Interfetence between players at the ruck ( could go either way).

Every one of these plays is used to try and dominate the ruck, as often you do this and you win.

Penalising teams for infringements isn't working.

I suggest this ( for ruck infringements).


Penalty 1 as normal
Penalty 2 warning
Penalty 3 5 in the bin
Penalty 5 10 in the bin

Let's see how the players go with that!

 

[Pablo]

Looking for a positive I think the discretionary calls when a player has accidentally moved too far off the mark in the play the ball and can back back without penalty, and where a player is given a reprieve if they are deemed to have played on after not hearing the whistle and return play back to the original "whistle blown decision" are common sense interpretations of the rules that encourage the free flowing nature of the game.

The NRL only does this because it benefits the attacking team. And we all know the NRL consider scoring tries to be the most important part of the game. So the rules are heavily policed in favour of the team with the ball.

Attacking team can walk off the mark, throw the ball between their legs in pathetic play the ball attempts, pass after being held, often get rewarded for poor ball security by getting ruck penalties, blatant forward passes let go, fall to the ground in voluntary tackles, and can take a penalty tap with players offside all with no punishnent.
Where as defending teams get picked for everything and heavily punished. Not back the 10, not square at marker etc Even getting penalised recently when the attacking player ends up in a dangerous position in a tackle through no fault of the defenders.
Gives me the ****s at how much leniency is shown to the team in possession and how severely punished the defence is.

 

[Harvies elbow]

I can't imagine the stress on our players last week if the riff got an extra set of 6 every time we were penalised...
However, I emailed the NRL during the week and explained my frustration re play the balls and forward passes.
I received a response and basically they are happy if players attempt to play the ball and though they try to tell the refs to enforce the rules they are under stress on the field and do a good job and will be criticized no matter what....
End.
My forward pass query was not addressed.
I summarised it this way.
We know not what we do so nothing to see here.

 

[The Who]

Agreed. I've been in the 'introduce a short-arm penalty' camp for years; I don't think you need to give the choice of restart the count/kick for touch - there's the possibility for more stuff-ups, along the lines of the refs 'losing count' and teams getting extra tackles *by accident* etc.

Just straight up get rid of the kick for touch (or the option to take a shot at goal if you're in range) for anything other than foul play. Restart the count, tap it and go.

But...likely to happen? Nup. Because that would remove the single biggest opportunity the officials have to exert an influence and run the game to the script. Fully expect the NRL to go further down the WWE path, not fix it.

I also have been an advocate of the short-arm penalty, with the proviso that there is a 5-minute sin-bin for repeated offences, to help dissuade defenders from wilfully interrupting play.
A question regarding the play-the-ball: If a try is scored after a player has walked off the mark (as happens regularly) and it is missed by the ref, who refers it to the video ref for another reason, can the video ref rule on this early illegality? What exactly can a video ref rule on? I know it's not forward passes, which is stupid.

 

[Deleted member 26876]

Nah I like it how it is, if you give away a penalty you deserve to be heavily punished, otherwise it'll make sides care less about giving away penalties

 

[yokahontas]

Nah I like it how it is, if you give away a penalty you deserve to be heavily punished, otherwise it'll make sides care less about giving away penalties

The problem is, with the 'grey area' penalties, the officials are able to:

a) heavily punish a team for something very minor, or 50/50 (eg was that a strip or a loose carry? Interference at the play the ball, or the ball carrier deliberately milking by placing the ball on the marker's foot, or making no real attempt to get to his feet before placing the ball on the ground)

b) heavily punish one team by blowing a heap of, say, ruck penalties against them, but not penalising the exact same actions performed by the opposition.

Harsh penalties for minor or grey area indiscretions also make milking a very lucrative activity for some players/teams. Look at the Scum, for example, when playing the ball - almost every ruck, they not only walk forward off the mark, but actually a step or two sideways. Even if you don't draw the penalty for 'not square at marker', you effectively take the markers out and limit their ability to get involved in the next tackle (because the guy who just played the ball is standing side by side with the marker, limiting his ability to peel off laterally and follow the play). Tell me that's not a coached play?!

(The Scum are not the only ones doing that, BTW. It's disgustingly widespread at the moment)

 

[Deleted member 26876]

The problem is, with the 'grey area' penalties, the officials are able to:

a) heavily punish a team for something very minor, or 50/50 (eg was that a strip or a loose carry? Interference at the play the call, or the ball carrier deliberately milking by placing the ball on the marker's foot, or making no real attempt to get to his feet before placing the ball on the ground)

b) heavily punish one team by blowing a heap of, say, ruck penalties against them, but not penalising the exact same actions performed by the opposition.

Harsh penalties for minor or grey area indiscretions also make milking a very lucrative activity for some players/teams. Look at the Scum, for example, when playing the ball - almost every ruck, they not only walk forward off the mark, but actually a step or two sideways. Even if you don't draw the penalty for 'not square at marker', you effectively take the markers out and limit their ability to get involved in the next tackle. Tell me that's not a coached play?!

(The Scum are not the only ones doing that, BTW. It's disgustingly widespread at the moment)

Yeah, I reckon the one and only solution is to reassess these grey areas and come to a conclusive rule. I'm sick of all these penalties at the play the ball where the player (on most occasions) drops the ball and gets awarded. This also causes players to milk more penalties as it's a 50/50 chance of being a penalty given the refs guess half the time.

The other solution is to bring back one ref so there isn't so many contradicting opinions (if that's the right word)

 

[yokahontas]

Yeah, I reckon the one and only solution is to reassess these grey areas and come to a conclusive rule. I'm sick of all these penalties at the play the ball where the player (on most occasions) drops the ball and gets awarded. This also causes players to milk more penalties as it's a 50/50 chance of being a penalty given the refs guess half the time.

The other solution is to bring back one ref so there isn't so many contradicting opinions (if that's the right word)

All good suggestions, but I think you also need to lessen the impact they have on the game. Getting a 'short arm' penalty, restart the tackle count on the spot and go again could (and would) still be abused to leapfrog your way upfield, but it's nowhere near as bad as the current situation, where you literally can get moved upfield into a prime attacking position in one hit, and all but gifted six points for something as stupid (and debatable) as a ball coming loose in a tackle.

 

[Deleted member 26876]

All good suggestions, but I think you also need to lessen the impact they have on the game. Getting a 'short arm' penalty, restart the tackle count on the spot and go again could (and would) still be abused to leapfrog your way upfield, but it's nowhere near as bad as the current situation, where you literally can get moved upfield into a prime attacking position in one hit, and all but gifted six points for something as stupid (and debatable) as a ball coming loose in a tackle.

They really are ruining some games, they also need to only get involved when they need to, otherwise games just don't flow

 

[yokahontas]

I can't imagine the stress on our players last week if the riff got an extra set of 6 every time we were penalised...
However, I emailed the NRL during the week and explained my frustration re play the balls and forward passes.
I received a response and basically they are happy if players attempt to play the ball and though they try to tell the refs to enforce the rules they are under stress on the field and do a good job and will be criticized no matter what....
End.
My forward pass query was not addressed.
I summarised it this way.
We know not what we do so nothing to see here.

Not sure what you mean about the extra set of six? The Riff did get that, except the times they chose to go for goal.

The difference is, under the current system you get to kick for touch and gain potentially 50m BEFORE you get your fresh set of six; under a 'short-arm' system, you still get the restarted tackle count, but it's on the mark where the penalty occurred, not halfway up the field?