You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!
This reply was deleted.
More stuff to read
"You want to trade two backs for an average forward, what are you on about."
"A great view on how we did it, HOE.
I'm wondering if we are forgetting the 27th person on the field, the referee. I'm watching a different game this year, where it feels referees are playing a huge part in the games. I can't get over the feeling…"
I'm wondering if we are forgetting the 27th person on the field, the referee. I'm watching a different game this year, where it feels referees are playing a huge part in the games. I can't get over the feeling…"
"All good mate, it must be something both clubs are open to. I have no idea why the dogs wanted Galvin (but they did). He would have been a much better fit with us. Sometimes there's things in life we simply don't understand or can't explain."
Replies
I don't like the rule either. The fresh set in possession from a successful 40/20 is already reward enough and the current iteration of the rule is tilted towards causing sin bins which is extremely poor design, in my opinion.
Also 7 tackle rule was introduced to stop players kicking the ball dead intentionally as a tactical play and not for every single play the ball goes dead which they've done ie . It's ridiculous
David smith n Greenberg are good at $$ but clueless with regards to most things rugby league.
Agree. They need to can that rule change. The dead ball rule they need to alter. If you're kicking a cross field bomb or dribbling a grubber in and it goes dead it's unfair the other side gets an advantage. Your intention isn't to kick it dead, the intention is to either score or force a repeat set. The rule should say that kicks from within the attacking 20 that go dead do not result in a 7 tackle set.
Far far worse than the 40/20 - which is really an aberration - something you may only see once per game, or wait weeks on end to see
The point is that the NRL is focusing USELESS ideas on an irrelevant tactic, that rely's more on luck than skill
You may not agree with my summation of the 40/20 but you MUST agree that the occasional results of a successful 40/20 kick will not define a Team or a Season - it may just eek out an unlikely win, but that's it
Far far worse than the 40/20 is the complete failure of the NRL to understand that kicking for touch on a penalty is the real villian
Once upon a time, with poor surfaces, leather balls, 5m apart defenses - it would usually take teams much time and effort to alter field position - that is WHY the kick into touch on a Penalty was designed in the first place - to "penalise" the opponent and to gain "some" advantage
But that is such an antiquated idea in the modern game, that it should be removed immediately - no exceptions - and the Team being awarded the Penalty should start on a "zero" tackle - that's it, that's all the advantage a Penalty should yield for such "petty" crimes as slowing the play the ball or being offside - a REPEAT set starting at ZERO or a FRESH set starting at ZERO is the reward - that's it, absolutely nothing else
With the current 10m rule, The "problem" with kicking for Touch then getting the extra set for a "misdemeanor" is that the Penalty can literally have a genuine Try scoring opportunity as a "consequence" for nearly every where on the field from where the "crime" occurred - in other words, the punishment is too severe for the crime right now
I wish the NRL would look more at "big picture" rule changes, than tweaking irrelevant changes to such minor tactical aberrations such as the 40/20
If you remove the kick for touch then you'll encourage those differential penalties to become more prevalent. If a side is back-pedaling and need to slow the ruck down, knowing the opposition can't peel off 30 metres with a kick for touch, they'll just commit the foul and reset their defensive line. The Roosters do that when they're on their try-line already.
Maybe a 8 tackle set for penalties should be introduced instead of the kick ? I like it, I thought 7 was enough with the "zero" tackle but will settle for 8 if the kick is abolished
you'll encourage those differential penalties to become more prevalent / they'll just commit the foul and reset their defensive line
How can "getting" a repeat set with 7 tackles NOT be seen as an advantage ?
In Attack - ie you get a Penalty when you have possession - and this is what I believe you are talking about
Ok, let's play this out - even if Teams do as you say, let's say it's on tackle 3 - then add another 7 for the penalty (that's now 10 plays to be defended).........and let's say they do it again on tackle 4.......that's 3 + 4 + 7 = 14
The point is, it keeps accumulating against the defending Team. Any side knows that getting "repeat" sets generally leads to Try scoring possibilities - why any defending side (apart from Parra) willingly give away penalties "in a row" ?
That is the "multi "penalty scenario - now lets just take "more prevalent" and say a Team commits 4 more fouls - 2 per half now that the kick has gone away - that's 4 extra sets with min of 8 (if penalty conceded on tackle 1) or 12 (penalty given on tackle 5) NOW multiply these by 4 - that is a range of between 32-48 EXTENDED plays ie sets that have a min 8-12 plays - Why, as a coach, would you give your opponent that much EXTRA ?
In Defence - ie - You get the ball from a penalty while defending is always seen as a "bonus" - getting possession is the reward
The point is - right now the Penalty "sentence" of receiving 30+ meters on top of a repeat set, far out weighs the misdemeanor "crime"
Tele, if your defensive line is shot and you know that if the opposition get a quick play the ball they'll break through and that a penalty will merely result in a tap, would you not give away the penalty? Teams are becoming fitter, and provided their defence is set, are rather difficult to breach. Manly's an example here. Their defenders have their assignments and they keep their shape. Given how great their defence is, would they not be fine in conceding a penalty if field position isn't given up?
The greatest disadvantage to a defending side from a penalty is the field position gain by their opponents, not the extra set. You take away that factor from these kinds of penalties and you're going to see more of them.
Also, hands in the ruck not only are aimed at slowing the play the ball but are also aimed at forcing the ball loose. IMO if you're trying to force a mistake illegally you should be penalised via a penalty and field position through a kick for touch.
A stupid Rule. The game is already fast enough. Rules like this are turning the game in to touch football.
If they want to speed the game up- easy stop all the time wasting mainly by players staying down to have decisions overruled or to give their team a breather.
It's the same with any quick tap off a penalty or 20m restart. There is no skill involved when there is no opponent...if you can't beat the opposition fair & square its about as exciting as pissing into the wind. The game should always be 13 against 13. You never saw Kenny, Ella or Grothe score tries with the opposition's backs turned.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next