Tweet
Alot was said last night and on this forum about new rules that had an effect on our play. Are the new rules that have been referred to about the third man in around the legs which is now not allowed or something? I think I missed something over the off-season because I had no idea what was being talked about. Can someone help me out?
-
-
Yeah 3rd man in below the knee is no longer allowed. A rule they brought in to stop defenders diving in at the knee.
The other rule which I hate is the zero tackle start from the 20 if the ball is kicked over the dead ball line. -
Wow they are stupid rules.Originally posted by Tommy Smith View Post
It's gonna be a hard adjustment for our defence, but I guess it will be a struggle for all teams. We will need Minis organisation more than ever now since the ruck will be faster. However our mobile pack should equally benefit from that first rule
And as for that second rule, can't see the point of that at all.Comment
-
Second rule is in place to keep the ball in play more, when playing teams with fullbacks such as GI, barba, slater, dugan and co, teams are inclined to kick it dead to take their fullback out of play, with the zero tackle restart, it makes the kicker think twice about kicking it dead or not. Crucial when a team needs a field goal, they almost get an extra 10m for free, which can get u into field goal territory.Originally posted by rwbfl View Post
On the third man in, im sure I saw afew last night by both teams that went un penalised. This is dodgy because its another thing that will be up to the referees discretion.Comment
-
New rules are annoying. They often remind me of QLD's unicameral law making process where whoever is in charge creates their own reactive/ideological BS. I don't like people on motorcycles... put them all in prison for no reason if they breach minor rules. The rules become silly.
Rule changes should require the majority of clubs to agree. Afterwards, fans (maybe only members) should get a vote. That way rules would be more practical and less ideological. Could also encourage people to sign up!
If there's too many new/ideological rules then they become the focus of the game. This means everything else gets ignored while the refs struggle to police the rules they are focussing on with tunnel vision.Comment
-
Rules are Rules, the Team that figures out the angle which best exploits the rules to their advantage , will be the most successful.
I hope we work out our angle soon.Comment
-
They had to change the rules to beat us!Comment
-
These new rules are worse than Workchoices.SUPER DRAGON!Comment
-
not quite johnny?Comment
-
Referees boss was just on 2GB saying that the NRL wants faster play the balls, more "continual play".
4.5 sec play the balls last night, 3.5 sec ones in our game v Souths.
"Superleague" here we come.Comment
-
They are incredibly stupid, did Stephen Conroy write them?Originally posted by stephenj View PostSUPER DRAGON!Comment
-
At least under Workchoices kids could work 2 hours at the newsagent etc after school.Originally posted by Johnny. View PostComment
-
Goodbye Johnny then.Originally posted by bondi-boy View Post
This leak they have running the joint is worse than Gallop. Bring back the bike rider, at least you knew he was a Murdoch plant.SUPER DRAGON!Comment
-
If you get a tackled play onto his back, the rule states you're supposed to have a longer time to get off him?
Probably penalise you for that these days?Comment
-
Yes, I was correct.
In the Panthers v Knights game today some Panthers players [two from memory] tackled a Knights player front-on, hard, big hit, sat him on his butt then his back.
Dominant tackle.
Ref penalised them for taking too long to get off the tackled player.
Fox commentator; "Given the dominance of the tackle I thought that was reasonable [the amount of time it took the tacklers to get off the tackled player].
Reckon we were bad...this game was a "toss the ball anywhere mistake-a-thon".Comment
Comment