harrigan proposes 20/40 rule for next season

[Guest]

I don't like it, it takes serious skill to get the ball to go out in that 20 metres. 40 metres is too big a target, even a mediocre kicker would be able to hit it.

Now 50/10, that's a challenge.

[Guest]

I don't like it, it takes serious skill to get the ball to go out in that 20 metres. 40 metres is too big a target, even a mediocre kicker would be able to hit it.

Tend to agree, and also with what RoosterMania said about an easy out for teams that haven't been good enough to get off their own tryline. Having said that, one thing that will make a 20/40 something of a challenge is that 40/20s are often achieved after a couple of strong hit-ups with the roll-forward giving the kicker time and space. This will rarely be the case inside a team's own 20.

Now 50/10, that's a challenge.

Probably a better idea, and although difficult due to the narrow target space at least offers the chance of a reward for teams that have marched further upfield instead of the opposite.

[Guest]

I would like to see the sin bin rule either reduced to 5 minutes, or alternatively, once the opposition team scores a try, the player is allowed to return to the field. 10 minutes is just too long in the modern game and sometimes the penalty is just far too harsh.

Another P Sterling Idea!

[supermario]

Remember Harrigan was the Brains behind the NFL style forward pass on the last a few years back !

[stephenj]

the more rules in the game, the more chance refs have to determine the result, control is money, funny how the rise in officials numbers and control is happening alongside the rise in betting!

[Kramer]

I hear the game is in for some big changes.
The ego that is Bill Harrigan want to change the name of the game to............
.
.
.
.
.

Harrigans' Rules.

[Guest]

The thinking behind this is that wingers would have to drop back early in tackle counts to stop the 20/40 which would give teams the option of spreading it early in their own 20 instead of boring hitups and dummy half runs. It has the potential to open up a very boring and predictable part of the game. Not a bad idea in theory and worth a try.

[Danish]

Retarded rule idea. As already mentioned a team thats getting smashed inside its own end doesnt deserve an easy way out.

The rule is designed to make defensive teams constantly have one of their wingers out of the defensive line playing 2nd fullback and thus create artificial overlaps. Just another "lets find a way to give the attacking team another undeserving leg up" rule brought to you by the brain fart that is Bill harrigan.

Where the **** is that dump trunk when you need it....

[Danish]

The thinking behind this is that wingers would have to drop back early in tackle counts to stop the 20/40 which would give teams the option of spreading it early in their own 20 instead of boring hitups and dummy half runs. It has the potential to open up a very boring and predictable part of the game. Not a bad idea in theory and worth a try.

There are plenty of ways through a full defensive line. teams find ways through it all the time with smart passes, good line running and, should defence try and compress spreading of the ball.

If a team can't employ these tactics to bust the line, they do not deserve artificial help through rule changes. They should instead simply learn to play farking football

[Guest]

There are plenty of ways through a full defensive line. teams find ways through it all the time with smart passes, good line running and, should defence try and compress spreading of the ball.

If a team can't employ these tactics to bust the line, they do not deserve artificial help through rule changes. They should instead simply learn to play farking football

You're completely missing the point. The idea of the rule is to break up the usual boring pattern of 5 tackles and a kick, waiting for a turnover or penalty before trying anything interesting. Its about giving teams more attacking options early in their tackle counts to create a more interesting spectacle.

Think about it, try to get past your dislike of Harrigan, and try to see it for what it is - a good idea that has the potential to make footy a lot more interesting to watch.

[Danish]

I understand the rule change. It is about creating artificial attacking advantage by forcing a defender out of the line, in the hopes of seeing more tries scored.

Footy is already extremely interesting to watch without this sort of nonsense. Believe it or not I love watching a team like melbourne suffocate a team with field position and pressure until they crack and then unleash Cronk and Slater on the mistakes of an exhausted defensive line. And the general public must agree with me, because in this Melbourne-style, grinding, wrestling period of league, ratings have never been higher.

Rule changes like this come from the false idea that League, and indeed sport in general, is only interesting when lots of points are being scored. Name the top 5 most exciting games of league you've ever seen. I would highly doubt any are extremely high scoring affairs. Look at State of Origin as well, rarely more than 5 tries scored in a game and consistently the 3 of the highest rating spectacles on TV every single year.

harrigan and other idiots of his ilk have been trying to stamp their authority on the game with dumb rule changes and new interpretations every single year, and every single year their changes turn out to be flops which are forgotten within 6 rounds of the competition starting

[Guest]

Its not about more points necessarily. Its more about trying to break the boring pattern of 5 hitups and a kick that RL has been stuck in for so long. The 40-20 was brought in for the same reason but didn't have a huge impact because its too hard to achieve. The 20-40 in theory would be easier and potentially create more of a fundamental change in the way the game is played.

Your argument for no change is fairly ridiculous. RL has constantly evolved with the aim of creating a better spectacle. If that wasn't the case we'd still have scrum penalties and unlimited tackles and nothing but dummy half running.

State of Origin wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for the desire to try something different. In the early days it was regarded as stupid by the likes of you.

RL has stayed popular because it has constantly evolved. This would just be a continuation of that.

[Gary Worthless]

I reckon give it a go. All the "against" arguments could just as easily be said about the 40/20 rule.

I love the 40/20 rule..best new rule introduction in the history of any sport.

Maybe I will feel the same love for 20/40.