Rule Changes.

[Guest]

no they don't

when the ball is passed at the same time as the call of held is made it's a scrum and the feed goes to the defending side

He didn't mention passing. I am assuming he is refering to a call of held, where the attacking player doesn't hear the call and continues running. If that's the case, then halfway through this season they decided not to penalise the player instead telling him to run back and play it on the mark

[Guest]

Tell that to Blake Ferguson vs Tigers.

That was a dodgy call. But the refs certainly begun using discretion and were instructing players to go back and play the ball where the held was called, instead of penalising them for continuing on

[Guest]

- Clock to be stopped when the ball is not in play.

- If a player stays down after copping a hit, the ref must stick to his original decision.

- Golden Point to become Golden Try.

- 8 interchanges.

- If ball goes dead from a kick in the kicking teams own half, then the defensive side gets the ball from where the kick was taken.

- 20/40's to be introduced.

All I can think of for the moment.

golden point try best idea yet! 20/40 thats a given.

[redwhiteandbluester]

golden point try best idea yet!

I like golden point the way it is, but one potential amendment might be that sides can still kick a field goal, but only a try is 'golden'.

So you can chose to kick a field goal to go ahead (so you'd win the game if there were 10 minutes of added time without a try), but only a try will end the game.

[Guest]

He didn't mention passing. I am assuming he is refering to a call of held, where the attacking player doesn't hear the call and continues running. If that's the case, then halfway through this season they decided not to penalise the player instead telling him to run back and play it on the mark

that's true - I assumed he was referring to when a player offloads simultaneously with the call of held

it is a disgraceful, illogical rule

the player has done nothing wrong if he offloads at the exact same time the call of held is made, and there is no reason whatsoever his side should lose the ball

[BUDDY]

Actually I probably wasn't to the letter of the law (like many refs calls this year).

I meant if the ref calls held and play is continued (ie. the ball is passed, a third man comes in to get the player onto the ground, a player is pushed out into touch or back in the in-goal area) that the ball is just played back to where the held call was made.

The simultaneous call pisses me off but also at some grounds where the crowd is noisy, the players just don't hear the ref.

[Guest]

1 - Remove the stripping rule altogether.

2 - Bring back the 5 min sin bin.

3 - Remove the advantage rule in regards to turn overs.

4 - Video refs to rule on put downs and nothing else.

5 - Remove benefit of the doubt, any doubt = no try.

Ours is a simple game and the powers to be are over complicating it with stupid rules. They need to adopt the KISS principle.

Chook.

[Pass the Ball]

1 - Remove the stripping rule altogether.

Chook.

This one worries me Chook..

The first defender in will stop the momentum and the second defender will use both hands to just reef the ball out...

[Chook Norris]

yer i don't think removing stripping altogether would be a good thing. You'd see small little scuffles amongst players to see who actually had the ball every set.

One thing i definitely want to see implemented is time stoppages for kicking at goal/penalty and drop outs.

Golden Point to become Golden Try. (Some people don't like the idea of golden point anyway, but i find it entertaining)

[Guest]

Bring in a 5 minute sin bin - Sometimes the refs are too soft to send players to the bin, or the offence isn't weak enough for just a penalty but not strong enough for 10 minutes. 5 minutes would work.

Benefit of the doubt to the defending team. If you can't see a put down it's not a try.

Simultaneous second player when stripping is allowed to be a strip within reason i.e. it has to be pretty clear it was going to be stripped regardless of the second player. If the second player comes into contact with the ball, for example, it's not a strip.

20/40's, 30/30's brought in. If the ball goes out in the oppositions half then it's an attacking kick. It's a very attacking play with high risk but if you are good enough to pull it off... It would be nice to see instead of the huge punt down the middle of the ground.

Advantage rule - they MUST make ten metres or more. No advantage otherwise.

Appeals - one or two a game. It will have teething problems initially until players get used to it (just like in cricket and tennis) but it recognises refs make mistakes and sometimes players are in better positions.

Video refs to pull up clear infringements straight away. They may not be on the field but if they see something then pull it up. Surely 5 pairs of eyes should be able to see 99% of stuff.

A 30 second time out for when the ball goes out of play then 15 seconds to start the ensuing play. Too many timeouts the game goes slow and becomes boring. Give them 45 seconds to get the ball moving again. If you can't set your play in 45 seconds you have a problem. I'd possibly extend the final 15 seconds out to 30.

That's it for rule changes for the moment.
__________________________________________________ ____________
A point on structure of the game.

I'd leave the interchanges as is (ore reduce by one or two) but I would think about a 5 man bench. A few reasons. Firstly, with a four man bench you need players to be able to play multiple roles. With a five man bench, it may have the resulting effect of bringing back very distinct players in the junior grades i.e if a player can only play 5/8 or halfback then he still gets a shot rather than having to pick up another role. You could have on your bench 3 forwards, a proper half or hooker and proper backs. Rather than the lock/five eighth/centre or the back who can play everywhere. Does that make sense? It rewards and promotes the very distinct player.

Secondly, it allows for bigger squads and reduces injuries. With 5 players, you reduce the number of injuries from fatigue and length of seasons. Secondly, with a 5 man bench you can increase your squad size to 30. This rewards keeping players in the game, reduces injuries and has the effect of prolonging careers.

Finally, it speeds up the game slightly. I don't want it to go back to unlimited interchange style but I do want more speed and quality. I'd test it in the lower grades first for a couple of seasons. Just putting it out there. It obviously needs work but I'd like to see what people think.

[Chook Norris]

I don't mind the idea of a 5-man bench, but if that was the case interchanges should be reduced by about 4

the purpose of the interchange was to make the game faster.. and i think it's done that. But its also reduced the roll of the smaller man towards the end of halves.. and i think that's something that needs to be addressed

[Guest]

I think there needs to be more focus on the player playing the ball staying on the mark. Often the tackled player will walk off the mark and the ref will just call 'shortened the 10'. But that disadvantages the markers, who are immediately not square

[redwhiteandbluester]

I don't mind the idea of a 5-man bench, but if that was the case interchanges should be reduced by about 4

the purpose of the interchange was to make the game faster.. and i think it's done that. But its also reduced the roll of the smaller man towards the end of halves.. and i think that's something that needs to be addressed

Maybe you could have four interchange players and one reserve. So the interchange players could come on and off, but the reserve would only be used as a replacement (football/rugby style). The reserve might be a back (considering they invariably play 80 minutes, and only need to be replaced for injury, rather than rotated) and the four interchange players might be forwards (who need rotation).

[Guest]

I don't mind the idea of a 5-man bench, but if that was the case interchanges should be reduced by about 4

the purpose of the interchange was to make the game faster.. and i think it's done that. But its also reduced the roll of the smaller man towards the end of halves.. and i think that's something that needs to be addressed

I agree. The interchange I am very undecided on, especially because I love the long minute forward. But I would like to see what a 5 man bench would be like, because I think it can bring a lot of benefits. I wouldn't go any higher than 5 though. Ever.

[Guest]

Actually I probably wasn't to the letter of the law (like many refs calls this year).

I meant if the ref calls held and play is continued (ie. the ball is passed, a third man comes in to get the player onto the ground, a player is pushed out into touch or back in the in-goal area) that the ball is just played back to where the held call was made.

The simultaneous call pisses me off but also at some grounds where the crowd is noisy, the players just don't hear the ref.

Not sure about that. If the ref calls held and a defender comes in intentionally to slow the play down by throwing the attacker into touch or forcing him ingoal, he should be penalised