Rule changes, Crackdowns and Penalties

["gaz"]

So the latest crackdown is on the "play the ball" which penalises the attacking side if the ball is not played correctly.
Then in my opinion, the penalty should be a differential penalty, meaning no kick for goal for the opposition.
This should also apply to not facing square as well.
Better still a differential, should be just a handover only and no kicks for the sideline for the opposition.

This would avoid a situation say if a concussed player erred while playing the ball. (Not a good way to lose a Grand final)
or
A stumble while playing the ball which can be caused by the opposition but not always seen by the ref.

I agree, the NRL should crackdown on the rules however at the same time look to minimise the referees impact on the final score.
This has now created another way, to influence the result of the match at a potentially critical time.
The best team on the day should not be decided on one incorrect play the ball.

[Johnny Tobin]

They penalise someone for not putting their foot on the ball but do nothing when players are offside at the kickoff or on their line in defence.

[zac]

Good post.
The punishment (a penalty) doesn't fit the 'crime'.
You might as well penalise players for not keeping their socks up.
Personally I think play the balls are as interesting as scrums and I didn't have a problem with the way it was policed (or not policed) last year.
If they want to crack down on play the balls, then a turn over is more than enough punishment.

[Kingsgrove-Loiner]

There were about 50 incorrect play the balls on Saturday, but the Tigers got a pass mark, and we managed to get penalised for it twice. As usual with Badger.

I was at the game and haven't watched the replay yet - what was their penalty for that put them 4-2 up? They spread the ball to the left and it broke down, but they ended up getting a penalty in front.

Was it for offside?

[Waerea-Beast!]

There were about 50 incorrect play the balls on Saturday, but the Tigers got a pass mark, and we managed to get penalised for it twice. As usual with Badger.

I was at the game and haven't watched the replay yet - what was their penalty for that put them 4-2 up? They spread the ball to the left and it broke down, but they ended up getting a penalty in front.

Was it for offside?

Napa late hit on Brooks. Was penalty worthy.

[RoosterFanNZ]

i do agree, could almost be like a free kick in union, which basically means a team can tap it from that spot or kick it out making the other team attack again but further back

[BUDDY]

Napa late hit on Brooks. Was penalty worthy.

I thought it was because he hit him too hard like the penalty JWH gave away when he hit Packer.

Incorrect play the balls will never be policed fairly. I understood Fergo's one but the call on SST was BS. There would have been 50 play the balls like that all game. Of course we received none.

[Guest]

After all these years the NRL can not even provide a reasonable interpretation of their own rules CONSISTENTLY

[eddie]

I fully support the game managers enforcing the rules.
Players should know how to play the ball by the time they reach first grade.

What we need to make these things work is referees..................remember them?

[Spirit of 66]

This has now created another way, to influence the result of the match at a potentially critical time.

This was its intended purpose.

[kakaruk]

This is what you do to avoid getting pinged.You dont get up and try to play the ball before you are standing upright as 9 times out of 10 some dickhead at marker is leaning all over you or has you by the jumper.Get up as quick as you can palm him off you and play the ball, if he trys to grab you its a penalty to you.A couple of seconds does not matter but a penalty while in possession for an incorrect play the ball 5m out does.