NRL Chairman Peter V'Landys has doubled down on the reported kick-off rule change. He is saying once they have spoken to all teams they will make a decision. CEO Andrew Abdo said what fans don't understand is they are trying to make the game better. What he and V'Landys doesn't understand is this rule has not passed the pub test. There are some out there who like it, fair enough but the majority hate the idea, including a host of former NRL players.
They seem so arrogant that this rule seems like it is more of a "Look at us" gimick as opposed to what is good for the game. Abdo reported a jump of 87 million more viewers in the last 6 years, isn't that enough? Bunch of idiots, they will run the game into the ground more with greed of trying to get flavour of the month ideas to try and be too clever. The fact that many have said to them this is a bad idea then to reply they don't realise what we are doing just shows you are just doing your due diligence talking to them but seemed to have made up your mind. V'Landys says leadership means you make tough decisions. The HIA rule of 11 days stand down was a tough decision but it was needed for player safety. How is this a tough decision for the good of the game?
Going with the approach of; we have an idea what do you think? And feedback is we don't like it to then come back and say "You just don't get it". It is out of touch and it is an issue for the game moving forward. Abdo for one is a problem with this game moving forward, always disliked him.
This game is better than it has ever been. Last years finals were some of the best in recent memory and the comp was close. Why is there a sudden urge to change and make it better when it is already good? If those you are presenting it too address concerns you listen as many speak for the fans.
https://www.zerotackle.com/vlandys-doubles-down-on-controversial-rule-changes-229982/
Replies
Personally, I'm not convinced the kick off rules are broken and therefore they don't need fixing. I'm just not seeing a situation where it would be a tactical advantage to choose to kick off to the other team. Are you behind on the scoreboard and chasing points? Then you need the ball in your hand even if it is at your end of the field. Does the opposition play for a short kick off in that situation? Unlikely. Do you choose to kickoff, trying for the short kickoff and gambling on wether you win possession? Unlikely. The choice is to receive from the kickoff. But then what if you're defending a lead? If the other team hasn't got the ball, then they can't score. So again, the choice is to receive from the kickoff. So I see it always being the same choice so the 'tactical' arguement goes out the window. It's all about balancing possession and I just don't see how it isn't an attempt to dampen the effects of being poor defensively - as Matty Johns clearly pointed out. Are we just trying to make the game 'fair' and ensure no one feels too bad after the game. Not a fan at all. Is there another side to this coin I'm not seeing. Plenty of thinkers here that may show me something I've missed.
The 7 tackle restart rule is verey, VERY broken. Why is a knock on in goal and 1 done anywhere else on the field punished so differently? Makes no sense to me. Very glad this atrocious rule is finally being mended. I remember why the rule was first introduced and that aspect that they wanted to address is only sometimes the reason 7 tackles/20 metre restart are awarded. Should a missed field goal attempt warrant 7 tackle set? Here I think you get some differing views. I'm happy for that to stay as it fits into the kicking the ball dead area which was the original tactic that was being addressed by the rule change. But does it need tweaking for the short kick in the attacking red zone? Can see 2 sides to that one but would be happy for it to remain as is.
As for other rule changes - the NRL needs to consider 2 things in my opinion.
1. Is the rule broken? i.e. Are the vast majority of fans constantly complaining about it? Yes - needs fixing. No - leave it alone.
2. If it does need fixing, follow the K.I.S (S) principle - Keep It Simple (Simon/Susan/Stupid). Don't make it even harder for the refs and bunker to officiate. They struggle at times as it is for whatever reason (but that's probably worth a seperate blog)
I beleive there are 4 rule changes all up being considered but can't recall what the other 2 are but interested to see others thoughts on what rules are/aren't broken and if the NRL is addressing a current need or not.
I've always thought that attempts to score shouldn't be punished with a 7 tackle set. So kicks within the 20 metre zone, shots at field goal and knock-ons over the line should all be a simple 20 metre restart with 6 tackles.
I've even gone as far to say that a double movement should no longer be a penalty. If you're deemed to be tackled short, then you should just have to play the ball from where you were tackled.
The six-again rule, despite PVL continuing to claim it boosted viewership, resulted in some of the most lopsided competitions in NRL history. It has and continue to be bad for the game and negatively impacts the flow of matches.
I'd love to know where he's getting those viewership numbers. It seems he's making those up or severely cherry-picking that data, because there is no way the NRL is getting 100m+ in viewership when the main market has only a population of like 12 million or something.
The only rule changes I agree with are the 7 tackle set change for players who knock-on when trying to score. A knock-on in the in-goal should never have been a 7 tackle set.
And having a 6 man bench. I've been on this for years. We haven't had a change to the number of players on the bench for over 20 years. With the introduction of the concussion rules and the rapidly changing pace of the game, having an extra 2 players that allows tactical tweaks or covering injuries is welcome. I actually think it's something that will benefit the Eels.
Lots of discussion regarding the recruitment of Pezet has centred on Joash's role. A 6 man bench means we can select TDS, Joash and Walker, without taking a hit to our forward rotation. Joash then becomes a bit of a trick play selection during the match if we have a backline injury or need some more energy on the field.
The more i have heard about the 6 man bench, the further i am leaning off the fence towards no. A lot more experts than i thought are against it.
All these rule changes are doing is basically legislating the big men out of the game.It also limits styles different teams bring.Everyone pretty much attacks and defends in the same way.By depowering the bigger player the game loses that physicality and replaces it with fatigue.The game has gone to far that way.
Basically pvl is just turning the game into a product he can sell that looks good for the viewership.Expansion the same add more product rinse wash repeat.
As mentioned the product if they continue down this track will become a 20 team snooze fest as innovation will be stunted.
Thing is Coryn, that he seems to not be getting, is the product itself is great right now. He can sell it for more right now. Then he has ideas like this and the stupid conference system and shortening the season, limiting the amount of content. Makes you think if he can ever sit still.
Imagine him as a GM for a footy team? He would be getting rid of great players to get the new great player in, then a new one pops up and he goes for that etc.
I don't think it is I think the product is just repetitive there's very little innovation in the game and it feels like they only want a certain type playing the game.
The Rule changes for me are constant disruption imo it feels like he can't let the game settle into a rhythm.Every other year he's introducing new rules for no reason.
I mean the centrepiece of the game SoO isn't a better product as an example.