Whats peoples thoughts on these new rule changes, refs penalised alot in the pre season games

 

Concerned at Eels, as we are a rather undisciplined team, can see us giving up crucial meters to these rules.

The "down town" rule i like, but gonna cost some teams a win on these penalties late in a game

You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!

Join 1Eyed Eel

Votes: 0
Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • The down town rule was one where people thought we would struggle with, so remains to be seen. But the rule itself i do like.

    The drop out rule i understand why they did it but do not like it. I feel it takes out the skill of the line drop out. Yes fans might find it boring and they limit the chance of concussion with the long drop out run back.

    • I don't mind the drop out rule but it may hurt Parra.  We are shit defenders on our line so if we don't get ball back nearly certain other team will score.

      I think the team receiving the ball should be able to pick it up at any time though even if doesn't go the 10.  If a team does a poor kick the opposition should have an opportunity to capitalise.

  • Getting rid of the leg pull I like very much 

  • Downturn will be hard to police but I don't mind.

     

    Last year's GF was essentially decided by a penalty kick from a bad drop out and a try from a failed Drop out it's a risk reward situation I think the penalty should still apply I know they want more tries etc but I'm not so keen on it.

    I hate the consistent rule changes some work others are not needed except I feel to speed up the game for TV 

  • Just another tactic for the NRL to have even more influence on managing a games outcome. We will no doubt see some refs blowing whistles for examples that other refs are letting identical ones go.  Just more interpretations for them to leverage. Ask yourself why , after these rules have been rules for years , but all of a sudden they're calling them out. Why now ?  And why wernt they policing these rules before ?  Penrith have been exploiting this downtown rule allowing players to block runners on Clearys kicks , now they tell us this is illegal.so ultimately referees are admitting they let illegal plays go 

  • It was about time they did something about blockers for field goals. The defence didnt stand a chance charging down the kick or putting pressure on the kicker to miss.

  • The only change to the drop out rule I would have made would have been to allow the defensive or receiving team to play at the ball before it goes 10 metres. They stil have to stand 10 metres back when the ball is kicked but once it's kicked it's in play for the receiving team. That would eliminate those shit grubber kicks where the receiving team is standing there waiting for the ball to cross the line and then they either play at it too early and give away a penalty or the kicking team is able to grab the ball first. I hate that, you should have to execute those kicks properly and that rule change ensures that. 

    • Whilst I agree with your call above ,  I don't mind the defending team getting a good chance of winning the ball back .  It takes away the guarantee of another 6 if you plod through 5 tackles and grubber the  ball in for dropout .  

      but yeah , if you do a slow shit grubber drop out the receiving team should be able to attack it before it goes 10 .  

This reply was deleted.

More stuff to read

Eelovution replied to Clintorian's discussion Lomax Update - Zac Lomax entered into preliminary contracts with R360 and the Melbourne Storm prior to being given his blessing by Parramatta
"It appears to me that the Lomax camp, his handlers, Storm and the NRL have all suffered with premature ejaculation. That got too excited early on.
Lomax thought R360 was starting, Storm thought he got a clearance, and the clowns at NRL registered a…"
5 minutes ago
iamnot replied to Clintorian's discussion Lomax Update - Zac Lomax entered into preliminary contracts with R360 and the Melbourne Storm prior to being given his blessing by Parramatta
"I'm not sure how a court could determine what is a fair settlemt in the NRL sphere. Unless they use the value of Lomax contract as a baseline, or do you use the precedent set by the Dogs when they paid Brisbane $500k for Oloapu? There are far too…"
25 minutes ago
iamnot replied to Clintorian's discussion Lomax Update - Zac Lomax entered into preliminary contracts with R360 and the Melbourne Storm prior to being given his blessing by Parramatta
"We don't need to shop him at all. He can sit in NRL pergatory for three years haha"
29 minutes ago
Nitram replied to Clintorian's discussion Lomax Update - Zac Lomax entered into preliminary contracts with R360 and the Melbourne Storm prior to being given his blessing by Parramatta
"So Melbourne storm were dodgy and then still did the right thing and uploaded their dodgyness to the nrl portal thingy... This is comical stuff. The audacity and arrogance of the melbourne storm offends me as it should ALL nrl fans. This is our game…"
32 minutes ago
More…