2009 NRL Rule Changes

[Clintos]

I was just reading over these again and I thought it might be a good idea to post in here for all to see.

http://www.leagueunlimited.com/article.php?newsid=17275

In one of the more bizarre changes, there will be measures to reduce time wasting at scrums. Attention will be given to the method where players rush to pack a scrum to ensure the referee signals ‘time-off’ - often with outside backs packing into the front row - but then break the formation. Referees will immediately signal a ‘re-start’ to play and ‘time-on’ should the formation break

I like this. That always used to annoy me that the backs would pack the scrum to stop the clock, and then the scrum would break down. I think this will speed up the game a bit more too.

 

[Coxy]

I'd prefer it if they forced whoever formed the scrum to pack it.

 

[Clintos]

Actually yeah. I like that idea better!

 

[Foordy]

I'd prefer it if they forced whoever formed the scrum to pack it.

correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't this new rule effectively force whoever forms the scrum to pack it as well? because if they don't they time-on will be signaled

 

[Nashy]

Yes and no.

It won't work like that on the field, it will simply stop them packing. However what I want to know is will this mean that we will see all the quick guys running in, waiting in formation until the big guys are ready, then quickly letting time run for a few seconds while the real pack forms?

 

[Kimlo]

Yes and no.

It won't work like that on the field, it will simply stop them packing. However what I want to know is will this mean that we will see all the quick guys running in, waiting in formation until the big guys are ready, then quickly letting time run for a few seconds while the real pack forms?

Maybe so but either way, if there absolutley desperate for time then it might be faster to just do it straight out rather than waste time re-packing.

But I like the idea of forcing whoever packs it to stay there cause if little guys all rush to pack it then the other team will roll them backwards and take the ball.

 

[Coxy]

I'd prefer it if they forced whoever formed the scrum to pack it.

correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't this new rule effectively force whoever forms the scrum to pack it as well? because if they don't they time-on will be signaled

Not really. It'll work like this:
- little blokes and fast guys get there and pack the scrum
- stay packed until their forwards get there
- break from the scrum
- time on for a few seconds while the forwards get set
- time off

In my scenario:
- little blokes and fast guys get there and pack the scrum
- if they unpack, time back on
- even if they unpack, they still have to go and set the scrum

You watch when a pack of actual forwards pushes them back...especially if a forward is feeding the scrum because the halfback is in it!

In reality they just won't do it, the forwards will have to get there and pack it as quick as possible to force time off.

 

[Kimlo]

I'd prefer it if they forced whoever formed the scrum to pack it.

correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't this new rule effectively force whoever forms the scrum to pack it as well? because if they don't they time-on will be signaled

Not really. It'll work like this:
- little blokes and fast guys get there and pack the scrum
- stay packed until their forwards get there
- break from the scrum
- time on for a few seconds while the forwards get set
- time off

In my scenario:
- little blokes and fast guys get there and pack the scrum
- if they unpack, time back on
- even if they unpack, they still have to go and set the scrum

You watch when a pack of actual forwards pushes them back...especially if a forward is feeding the scrum because the halfback is in it!

In reality they just won't do it, the forwards will have to get there and pack it as quick as possible to force time off.

I would love for that to be implemented, but at least it's a step forward i guess.

 

[Nashy]

I'd prefer it if they forced whoever formed the scrum to pack it.

correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't this new rule effectively force whoever forms the scrum to pack it as well? because if they don't they time-on will be signaled

Not really. It'll work like this:
- little blokes and fast guys get there and pack the scrum
- stay packed until their forwards get there
- break from the scrum
- time on for a few seconds while the forwards get set
- time off

In my scenario:
- little blokes and fast guys get there and pack the scrum
- if they unpack, time back on
- even if they unpack, they still have to go and set the scrum

You watch when a pack of actual forwards pushes them back...especially if a forward is feeding the scrum because the halfback is in it!

In reality they just won't do it, the forwards will have to get there and pack it as quick as possible to force time off.

I would love for that to be implemented, but at least it's a step forward i guess.

Yes, the NRL are very good at taking half-steps to make sure they don't annoy any of the grumpy clubs down there. You know, the same clubs that wouldn't survive without the NRL's money.

Too soft.

 

[Hamm.0]

The real way to win this is to simply have contested scrums again. Oh noes, RL players may have to work for $$$$.

P.S. Bring back contested rucks and you won't have much, if any need for wrestling in tackles.

P.P.S. Why not call time off when the ball goes out? The positive is one can never wind the clock down by kicking out. The negative is it enables a struggling defensive team a few seconds reprieve.

 

[Coxy]

Meh, if they call time off whenever the ball goes out it'll be like AFL and take 3 hours to finish a game.

If we bring back contested rucks/scrums we'll have a thousand penalties and it'll be a dog's breakfast.

 

[Professor47]

I was alright with the original rule to be honest. Not perfect but I thought it was OK. Most of the time you need to pull a rabbit out of the hat in those circumstances to win the game anyway.

 

[Ari Gold]

The real way to win this is to simply have contested scrums again. Oh noes, RL players may have to work for $$$$.

P.S. Bring back contested rucks and you won't have much, if any need for wrestling in tackles.

P.P.S. Why not call time off when the ball goes out? The positive is one can never wind the clock down by kicking out. The negative is it enables a struggling defensive team a few seconds reprieve.

Contested scrums would be a pretty bad idea for today's game IMO. Would rather drastically alter the dynamic of the game and not for the better. Imagine if you had the best scrummaging team in the game - on 5th tackle inside the attacking half you could just knock the ball on repeatedly or kick it 5m into touch and be a massive favourite to get the ball again.

 

[Coxy]

Well no, on the fifth tackle (ie, call of 5 and last) if you knock on it's a handover. But I take your point.

 

[Hamm.0]

The real way to win this is to simply have contested scrums again. Oh noes, RL players may have to work for $$$$.

P.S. Bring back contested rucks and you won't have much, if any need for wrestling in tackles.

P.P.S. Why not call time off when the ball goes out? The positive is one can never wind the clock down by kicking out. The negative is it enables a struggling defensive team a few seconds reprieve.

Contested scrums would be a pretty bad idea for today's game IMO. Would rather drastically alter the dynamic of the game and not for the better. Imagine if you had the best scrummaging team in the game - on 5th tackle inside the attacking half you could just knock the ball on repeatedly or kick it 5m into touch and be a massive favourite to get the ball again.

So, in other words, coaching staff would ultimatly be responsible for recoaching the basic skills of scrimmage?