NRL NRL Rules

[mrblonde]

Here's my NRL Rule Alteration for the week:
Golden Point in Regular Season matches only happens when:
A: Scores are Tied after 80 Minutes.
B: The Score Margin Between The 2 Teams, At Any Point of The Match, Has Never Been Higher Than 12.

Honestly, why should 2 teams who aren't good enough to either stop their opponent getting a 13+ pt lead or stop their opponent from coming back from a 13 pt+ deficit get the 2 points?

So under this Fantastic Rule, the Warriors/Sea Eagles match wouldn't have had Golden Point, the Raiders/Titans match would have.

This Fantastic Rule will obviously not apply for the Final Round of Regular Season (to cover the rare event of a Draw meaning 2 Teams contesting Top 8/Top 4 end up with the Same Competition Points and Same Points Differential) and Finals Matches where, obviously, One Team needs to Win.

I'd get rid of Golden Point altogether until Final Round Regular Season/Finals, frankly, if it was my call but I guess I'm an old fuddy who's in a tiny minority.

 

[jonesy101]

I like the idea of golden penalty where teams keep playing until someone commits the first infringement, like throwing an opposition players shoe into the crowd.

 

[Ref]

Golden Point is a farcical, manufactured piece of shit.
The NRL should poll all top 30 players and see what they think.
Guessing at the stats here.
70% won by drop goal.
10% by a try
20% still a draw.
3% by penalty goal
So mostly, first drop goal wins.

 

[Ref]

I like the idea of golden penalty where teams keep playing until someone commits the first infringement, like throwing an opposition players shoe into the crowd.

OMFG, if they had that at grass roots league no referee would call a penalty.
You would have to maim someone and with intent.
I would never have a draw.
I don’t want to be lynched

 

[jonesy101]

OMFG, if they had that at grass roots league no referee would call a penalty.
You would have to maim someone and with intent.
I would never have a draw.
I don’t want to be lynched

Too true. They might have to make it golden bunker decision.

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

From zero tackle:

A possible solution to restore confidence in the NRL bunker

The NRL Bunker was introduced with much fanfare and the promise of improving the accuracy, consistency, efficiency and transparency of the decision review process.

It has conversely become a significant source of frustration among fans, players, referees and commentators.

The inconsistency in rulings on penalties, tries, knock-ons, dangerous tackles, professional fouls, sin-bins, foul play and send-offs has raised serious concerns about its effectiveness.

Remotely positioned, The Bunker is powered by a world-class fibre network connecting almost every NRL venue, and is equipped with 57 monitors to facilitate the review process.

In a surprise that will come to nobody, the technology and its promise of impartiality are undermined by the human element involved in its operations.

Each game has two officials in the Bunker, as well as an on-field referee and two touch judges, making each match subject to the varying sensitivities, preferences and decision-making processes of different officials.

It's not enough to simply require the official to have a qualification and some experience. In any judicial system, rulings and determinations can still be vastly different, depending on the judge, panel or jury.

The NRL Bunker is located at a centralised facility located at Australian Technology Park in Eveleigh, Sydney. One of the more common criticisms is that referees watching a screen could advise or even overrule a decision made by a referee who is on-field at the game.

For each NRL match, a Review Official and a Senior Review Official oversee the decision review process.

But the fundamental issue with the Bunker lies in its reliance on different officials for each game. This variability introduces human error and inconsistency, despite the advanced technology at their disposal.

The Bunker is intended to be the true constant, the final arbiter in contentious decisions, but the involvement of different people game-to-game results in subjective judgments.

A Potential Solution:

To address these inconsistencies, the NRL must implement a more streamlined and consistent approach by appointing a dedicated, full-time team of five qualified officials with experience refereeing at the NSW Cup or Queensland Cup level.

These referees would work full-time in the Bunker, overseeing all eight matches each round. This team would operate under a designated captain who would be responsible for single dialogue communication with the on-field referee.

Within this proposed system, the Bunker would function as a collaborative environment, with officials discussing and reaching a consensus on major calls such as captain's challenges, tries and foul play. The same time constraints would apply, with the Bunker captain monitoring response time.

Decisions would be made based on the majority opinion of the five officials, ensuring a more consistent and reliable review process.

Those of us who have watched a game of footy with a few mates know what it's like to see something happen in real-time, and for a consensus to be reached quickly on what the ruling should be.

At a higher level, former players and seasoned commentators on broadcasts already appear to offer that discussion and consensus approach, and are often the ones who are the first to be surprised when a decision comes through from The Bunker which is contentious and confusing.

By standardising the officials in The Bunker, the NRL would reduce the variability and subjectivity currently plaguing the system, providing a more consistent and fair experience for all involved in the sport.

The implementation of this solution could restore confidence in The Bunker's ability to make accurate and impartial decisions, aligning with the original goals of the technology.

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

From zero tackle:

NRL to consider interchange rule amendments

The NRL is considering changes to the interchange rules to address the significant impact of early injuries on match outcomes, citing data that shows a quarter of games in 2024 have been affected by early injuries.

An analysis by AAP reveals, teams in 2024 have lost at least one winger, centre, or fullback to injury before halftime in 23 games. The affected teams have managed to win only six of those matches, losing 17.

No team has won from behind on the scoreboard after losing a back in the first half, and holding onto a lead typically requires an advantage of at least 12 points.

The issue was again at the fore in St George Illawarra's recent loss against Canterbury. Leading 12-6 when Jack Bird was injured, the Dragons collapsed to a 44-12 loss with Tom Eisenhuth filling in at centre.

The call for changes grows louder, specifically an amendment allowing coaches to name a six-man bench and choose four to activate, or permitting the 18th man to be used when a player suffers a match-ending injury.

"At the end of the year we do a consultation process with clubs, coaches and players, and they raise these issues at that time," ARL Commission chairman Peter V'landys told AAP.

"We have to evolve all the time and that is why the game is in the sweet spot it is in. We do move with what is required. I'm sure there are solutions the coaches will put forward and we will look at them."

Brisbane Broncos head coach Kevin Walters supports the idea of extended benches or easier use of the 18th man.

"Sometimes there are accidents as well where players get concussed or pick up injuries. For the players' welfare as well. It makes sense to me. We have seen this year, particularly when you lose those outside backs, it makes it very hard," Walters lamented.

While some clubs have opted to name specialist outside backs on their reserves list, it can sometimes prove to be a backfiring gamble, and one that not all clubs have the capacity to put into practice.

 

[Inruin]

EXCLUSIVE: Bennett vents on state of NRL officiating and floats key sin bin, send-off changes

‘Discussion we need to have’ — Bennett floats big sin bin, send-off changes amid fears for the game

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[Canonball]

View attachment 7995

EXCLUSIVE: Bennett vents on state of NRL officiating and floats key sin bin, send-off changes

‘Discussion we need to have’ — Bennett floats big sin bin, send-off changes amid fears for the game

www.foxsports.com.au

Quite a major statement really - i agree with his points and his suggestions - would make the game better

 

[Union Blues]

The NRL can change what they like but until said Rule changes are applied without bias by the Ref's and the Bunker, along with the Judiciary, then and only then will the game raise above its self.

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

View attachment 7995

EXCLUSIVE: Bennett vents on state of NRL officiating and floats key sin bin, send-off changes

‘Discussion we need to have’ — Bennett floats big sin bin, send-off changes amid fears for the game

www.foxsports.com.au

Some explosive comments:

“If I was a punter I couldn’t bet a penny on rugby league at the moment,”

And

“What I want is fairness for every team.”

What is he’s insinuating?

 

[Brightman]

Some explosive comments:

“If I was a punter I couldn’t bet a penny on rugby league at the moment,”

And

“What I want is fairness for every team.”

What is he’s insinuating?

He's taking an approach that can't be ignored, MONEY. What's more the punter's money that leads to the NRL's mega broadcast deals.

Yes, Bennet is absolutely inferring unfairness but probably not bias..

 

[Inruin]

What is he’s insinuating?

Inconsistency and incompetence

 

[j_p]

Inconsistency and incompetence

Has someone else taken over this account?

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

Inconsistency and incompetence

The inconsistency and incompetence is world leading!

The way they get an illogical ruling not agreed to by commentators and fans is diabolically consistent… is it possible to be that bad?

Montoya head hit; RTS sin bin; try with no separation in 1 game from 1 video ref…

Week after week… year after year…

We should have the multi person group in the bunker as proposed to get better outcomes.

 

[Inruin]

The inconsistency and incompetence is world leading!

The way they get an illogical ruling not agreed to by commentators and fans is diabolically consistent… is it possible to be that bad?

Montoya head hit; RTS sin bin; try with no separation in 1 game from 1 video ref…

Week after week… year after year…

We should have the multi person group in the bunker as proposed to get better outcomes.

I think it starts at the top. How this has been allowed to progress to this point is beyond belief. Its a tough enough job being a ref without having all that input given to you during the game and the different interpretations week to week. Also seems to be an element of trying to fix things that aren't broken. The disruptor rule for example. It would be interesting to see how many clubs were behind that rule change. And then the communication from the NRL in the following weeks was incredibly poor as the rule has seemingly been redacted. Is this the case? How are players, clubs and fans supposed to know this? Just creates further confusion and poor perception.

It surely has to be time for a change at the top and clear direction around interpretation given to the on field ref with less interference from the bunker. I'd also like to see a challenge each per half per team - you can't accrue them so you get two in the second half though.. As an aside to all off that I think there are some good refs coming through at the moment.

 

[Inruin]

Has someone else taken over this account?

Nope, many posters get confused about this. And frequently I have found. Unlike some ref rulings, and many posters on here, I have been very consistent with my assertion that there is not a conspiracy in the NRL (state of origin is clearly different and Klein is in Qld back pocket) and if there is any bias it's likely to be an unconscious one. Never have I said that they get everything right and that it's incompetence, bunker interference and differences in interpretation that cause most of the issues. And there is so much more that the players and team can do and control that has a bigger bearing in the game.

It is good to see that the majority of people have moved on from conspiracy to bias to unconscious bias. Basically to where I have consistently been.

In future, it would save a lot of time and angst if everyone realized I am right and just agreed with me. Get on board people instead of trying to maintain your clearly wrong viewpoints. A little tip for you all, if your views or thoughts are quite different from mine, you are 99.9% likely to be wrong. The other 0.01% you have clearly misunderstood and are also wrong.

 

[John Nick]

Nope, many posters get confused about this. And frequently I have found. Unlike some ref rulings, and many posters on here, I have been very consistent with my assertion that there is not a conspiracy in the NRL (state of origin is clearly different and Klein is in Qld back pocket) and if there is any bias it's likely to be an unconscious one. Never have I said that they get everything right and that it's incompetence, bunker interference and differences in interpretation that cause most of the issues. And there is so much more that the players and team can do and control that has a bigger bearing in the game.

It is good to see that the majority of people have moved on from conspiracy to bias to unconscious bias. Basically to where I have consistently been.

In future, it would save a lot of time and angst if everyone realized I am right and just agreed with me. Get on board people instead of trying to maintain your clearly wrong viewpoints. A little tip for you all, if your views or thoughts are quite different from mine, you are 99.9% likely to be wrong. The other 0.01% you have clearly misunderstood and are also wrong.

Thanks Inruin
I needed a good laugh

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

It is good to see that the majority of people have moved on from conspiracy to bias to unconscious bias. Basically to where I have consistently been.

Bennett’s old and the old don’t like to change very fast.

Still on stage 1?

 

[Sixagain]

What rule changes I'd like to see but never will are:

Striking for the ball at the play the ball.
Ability to strip the ball in a two tacklers on one ball carrier situation.
FBI and CIA protection removed for the kickers. Look back on the history of league since the 4 tackle rule and then 6 tackle rule came into being and you'll see the kickers standing behind the attacking line. If kickers don't want to be tackled then stand back behind the attacking line and not up in the attacking line like they do these days.
Return to the sensible situation where refs used to use 5/10 minutes in the sinbin and send off. These days refs throw around cards like confetti. So many games are influenced by refs handing out cards in the modern game that the ability of teams define their own destiny is lost in to many games.

Basically I find the modern game bland in comparison with the game of even 20 years ago. I'd like to see more of a contest for the ball than we have these days. Look at union, every tackle is a contest for the ball and it is one clear area that they are miles ahead league. The modern game is turning into a tackle version of touch rugby and it just doesn't get the my juices flowing like it used to. Look at the kicker of the ball situation. You have kickers falling onto the ground crying in agony to get a penalty these days. The stupid rules have allow this to happen and even stupider refs who fall for it. Make the kickers move far enough back that they can't tackled in the act of kicking and if they want to crab up for extra meters and get tackled then that has consequences for them and their team.
Our code needs more of a contest for the ball otherwise we get into a pattern of 5 tackles kick, 5 tackles kick, 5 tackles kick until someone makes an error.