NRL NRL Rules

[wizard of Tauranga]

Unless it is player safety related I'd be happy for them to keep the rules as is. They don't need to be adjusted every year.

Better to keep things stable, assess the style of play and then make a few changes every few years.

Keep it traditional like union does?

I would counter that league has pushed boundaries and reinvented itself, sometimes for the worse but mostly better!

 

[Warriorshopeful]

Saw there's a slight alteration to the rule change regarding kicking out from restarts - its only a play the ball to the opposing team if the ball goes out while being intended to be a contestable kick. If you kick it dead from kickoff or it isn't going to be contestable it's still a penalty.

 

[snake77]

Keep it traditional like union does?

I would counter that league has pushed boundaries and reinvented itself, sometimes for the worse but mostly better!

I don't know the history of rule changes in union. I do know they had a lot of changes implemented in 92 and a few times I've turned over the channel and the commentators have mentioned new rules.

I'm just saying what is wrong with keeping the rules the same for a few years?

We had a big set of rule changes when they came back from the break during covid. The problem is the NRL doesn't consult the rest of the world and then expects the internationals to use their new rules as the players and referees are used to it.

 

[Noitall]

The NRL has reportedly given the bunker power to rule on and make decisions regarding field goals in a huge change to the way the game is officiated in crucial moments.

According to AAP, field goals will be analysed by the match review official in the same way tries will be in 2024 to ensure each attempt is legal.

Every field goal attempt will reportedly be reviewed by the bunker before play restarts, with analysis beginning as soon as points are awarded by the on-field referee.

The bunker will reportedly be taking a strict approach to kick blockers, whilst also being able to rule on if the ball passed through the posts and whether it was taken from outside the 40m line.

The bunker official will reportedly inform the on-field referee to delay kick-off until a final decision has been made regarding any foul play.

Should a missed field goal attempt go past the dead ball line, the bunker will also be able to check if markers were square before pressuring the kicker.

Interestingly, the bunker reportedly won’t be able to rule whether the defensive line is offside whilst attempting to stop the field goal attempt.

On-field referees can reportedly also call for bunker reviews on field goal attempts before they award points to the respective teams.

The NRL is reportedly placing emphasis on attacking blockers during a field goal attempt and will be cracking down on those floating around the ruck.

“This is something that has got progressively worse over time, and one where we need to enforce the existing rule,” NRL head of football Graham Annesley said during a midweek video session.

“Players don’t have to be a certain number of metres behind the ruck.

“But there is also a rule which talks about deliberately obstructing another player not in possession of the ball.

“If the players are forming that kind of blocking action ... the referee ... and the bunker can determine that is an obstruction, and penalise for that.”

 

[Bay39er]

So shielding your fullback under a high ball is or is not deliberately obstructing another player not in possession of the ball.??

 

[Noitall]

So shielding your fullback under a high ball is or is not deliberately obstructing another player not in possession of the ball.??

Get ready for this to create some controversial calls.

 

[ndp26]

Get ready for this to create some controversial calls.

Agree... I'm all for stamping out blockers, as blockers who move into the path of the chaser often contribute to injuries / risk of injury to the fullback/catchers - however, the NRL/refs need to be very clear on this and, of course, consistent. Don't want to become yawnion, with all the uncertainty over rules and their application.

 

[juju]

I've been seeing a bit of chatter about the NRL wanting to decrease the collision from kick off's to lessen concussions.

I'm not a fan of the new drop out changes and would really miss the kick off restarts if changes were made there.
I understand it from a welfare perspective - but really fascinating the tactical consequences this would bring both in game and selections.

NRL hope new kick-off rules reduce concussions

The NRL hope new rules encouraging short kicks-off and dropouts will prompt a reduction in concussions.

www.espn.co.uk

 

[Bay39er]

I've been seeing a bit of chatter about the NRL wanting to decrease the collision from kick off's to lessen concussions.

I'm not a fan of the new drop out changes and would really miss the kick off restarts if changes were made there.
I understand it from a welfare perspective - but really fascinating the tactical consequences this would bring both in game and selections.

NRL hope new kick-off rules reduce concussions

The NRL hope new rules encouraging short kicks-off and dropouts will prompt a reduction in concussions.

www.espn.co.uk

While not against the change from a H&S point of view how many drop outs are there in a game? - 4 or 5 on average?

How many concussions can anyone recall from goal line dropout "charge backs"?

 

[juju]

While not against the change from a H&S point of view how many drop outs are there in a game? - 4 or 5 on average?

How many concussions can anyone recall from goal line dropout "charge backs"?

I think they might be proposing or discussing making the change for general kick off's also...

 

[Worried2Death]

I think they might be proposing or discussing making the change for general kick off's also...

Where are kickoffs supposed to land, 10 to 20 from half way or something?

 

[juju]

Where are kickoffs supposed to land, 10 to 20 from half way or something?

I guess that's what they're hoping to bring in eventually to minimise that massive contact.

You can understand why.... but still seems a bit sad.

 

[Chief]

Absolutely crazy. You could literally keep going with this cos it wont end until its touch. Cos you ban the kick off then what - what about the half back punting the ball down the field for the full back to catch on the full and run full tilt at the advancing line. Is that not the same as a kick off. So then what - do they mark the ball where they catch it and and they wait for everyone to set up ten metres out and the play starts. Just stupid. If we want to eliminate any type of risk to the players we need to not let them touch each other. Cancel all team sport. Cos even non contact runs the risk of players bumping each other.

 

[BangBro's (still banging)]

Another one of my many random questions.....

Why doesn't the nrl extend the bench to 18?

I hate having an 18th man that sits there scratching his balls whilst he could be getting crucial cup time!

I think this rule needs some serious thought, perhaps to accommodate this you could drop subs to 7 a match?

Or even if a club wants 19 to 20 in the starting team you drop more subs, say down to 5 a match?

I'm not sure, but i feel like the bench could use another player to accommodate HIA but also be involved in the game if the coach decides to do so.

 

[Akkerz]

Not a fan of this bit of brilliance - the."disruptor' rule. There are already rules to cover dangerous play. .
I'm in agreement with Paul Kent in that the game has become overly managed to achieve a preferred result and it's ruining the spectacle

 

[snake77]

The NRL has rules?

After listening to their explanation on the number of offsides that were let go for the Raiders vs Titans game I'd argue they are more like guidelines.

 

[snake77]

Not a fan of this bit of brilliance - the."disruptor' rule. There are already rules to cover dangerous play. .
I'm in agreement with Paul Kent in that the game has become overly managed to achieve a preferred result and it's ruining the spectacle

It doesn't help that like a lot of rules/guidelines they come up with they are not consistent on when they enforce them.

In the last few rounds there were comments during games that it should be classed as a disruptor but wasn't ruled. Then last week they started blowing the whistle on them.

Then it's up to interpretation. Did they have a valid attempt to catch or were not even looking at the ball. The Capewell one on the weekend he wasn't going up as a disruptor but jumped to early and ended up pulling his hands away. Do coaches then tell players to look up and keep their hands up.

If they keep enforcing it hopefully behaviour change. It could mean less contests unless it is an attacking kick as sides let the catcher get the ball and then nail him.

 

[Next Year]

It doesn't help that like a lot of rules/guidelines they come up with they are not consistent on when they enforce them.

In the last few rounds there were comments during games that it should be classed as a disruptor but wasn't ruled. Then last week they started blowing the whistle on them.

Then it's up to interpretation. Did they have a valid attempt to catch or were not even looking at the ball. The Capewell one on the weekend he wasn't going up as a disruptor but jumped to early and ended up pulling his hands away. Do coaches then tell players to look up and keep their hands up.

If they keep enforcing it hopefully behaviour change. It could mean less contests unless it is an attacking kick as sides let the catcher get the ball and then nail him.

The Capewell "disruptor" penalty on the weekend was an interesting one. I believe it was misinterpreted by ref Butler. Capewell intended to attempt a catch, realised his timing and positioning was out, and so then pulled out of the contest. He could have chosen to collide but decided against it which was the right thing to do - but then got pinged for it anyway. Poor refereeing decision by Butler in that circumstance IMO. Capewell did not appear to have intent to disrupt, but to compete.

 

[BangBro's (still banging)]

The Capewell "disruptor" penalty on the weekend was an interesting one. I believe it was misinterpreted by ref Butler. Capewell intended to attempt a catch, realised his timing and positioning was out, and so then pulled out of the contest. He could have chosen to collide but decided against it which was the right thing to do - but then got pinged for it anyway. Poor refereeing decision by Butler in that circumstance IMO. Capewell did not appear to have intent to disrupt, but to compete.

I absolutely hate the rule! Who cares if you are disrupted! Your job is to defuse it and it's the attacking teams job to get the ball back! It's fucken ridiculous!

If you make contact then of course penalize the attacking team.

 

[jonesy101]

I absolutely hate the rule! Who cares if you are disrupted! Your job is to defuse it and it's the attacking teams job to get the ball back! It's fucken ridiculous!

If you make contact then of course penalize the attacking team.

This exactly.

We had a situation in the Souths v Sharks game where using the disruptor logic Milne should have been awarded a penalty, however it was missed because it wasn't a bomb being defused in their own 20 and happened mid-field.

Then on the flipside of the disruptor rule a couple of weeks ago in the Warriors v Raiders game CHT who jumped first got dangerously cleaned out by Rapana who was not penalised as he "had eyes for the ball."

It was so much simpler when the adjudication was based on dangerous contact initiated by the attacking player.