ARL Rule Changes (long)

ARL Rule Changes (long)

Post by Wade Singlet » Sun, 09 Mar 1997 04:00:00


I'd like to reproduce a leaflet for discussion here that I received when I
attended the opening ARL game of the season. It relates to the rule
changes introduced by the ARL and explains the reasons behind them.

[start]-------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Message to all ARL Supporters regarding Rule Changes
from ARL Chief Executive, Neil Whittaker

The Australian Rugby League has approved eight rule changes for the 1997
Optus Cup season, following trials during the recent Country Carnival.

We feel it is important that you, the fans, fully understand these changes.

They have been devised after extensive consultation with players and
coaches, and are designed to make the game faster and more attractive to
you, the spectator.

Along with each change I will try to explain the reasons behind it.

CHANGE 1
If the ball is kicked from inside a team's 40 metre line and finds touch,
otherwise than on the full, inside the opponent's 20 metre line, the
kicking team will be awarded the loose head and feed at the following
scrum.

  REASONS: This not only rewards kickers but prevents players from slowing down
  play, by watching kicks roll into touch. Because players are going to be under
  more pressure to retrieve the kick, the team in possession will also have more
  reason to run at the defensive line instead of kicking all the time.

CHANGE 2
From a kick off, 20 meter restart, or goal line drop-out, where the ball
finds touch otherwise than on the full and after travelling the required
distance, the kicking team will be given the loose head and feed at the
following scrum.

   REASONS: This rule also forces players to play at the ball and creates more
   opportunity for variety in the kick off, instead of everyone kicking deep
   into the in-goal.

CHANGE 3
Where a player in possession kicks (other than from a start or restart of
play) or passes the ball which accidentally strikes an opponent and goes
into touch, the feed and loose head at the subsequent scrum will go
against that team. Where a player kicks or passes the ball which
accidentally strikes an opponent and goes into touch in-goal or over the
dead ball line, play will restart with a place-kick from the 20 metre line
instead of a goal-line drop-out. However, where a player kicks or passes
the ball in his own in-goal and the ball accidentally strikes an opponent
and goes into touch in-goal or over the dead ball line, play will restart
with a goal-line drop-out.

   REASON: As in a charge down you shouldn't suffer a possession loss unless you
   actually play at the ball, this rule brings more consistency into the game.

CHANGE 4
There is to be no striking in the play-the-ball and the ball must be
played backwards.

   REASON: To both speed up and tidy up the play-the-ball area.

CHANGE 5
Players from the team in possession of the ball are no longer required to
retire 5 metres from the play-the-ball but need to retire behind their own
acting half-back (dummy-half).

   REASON: This brings the rule into line with recent practice and eliminates
   confusion over the "mouse trap" play used by St.George last year

CHANGE 6
The referee will take time off when stopping play to administer a caution.

   REASON: The fans come to see football. We want to stop anything cutting into
   playing time.

CHANGE 7
This re-writes the scrum role so that the half is required to simply feed
the ball into the tunnel, not the centre of the tunnel.

   REASON: To make the rule come into line with what is actually happening.

CHANGE 8
A player is permitted to steal the ball in one-on-one tackles.

   REASON: The player in possession should be responsible for protecting the
   football but at the same time this rule stops a second or third player coming
   in just to steal the ball.

These changes will be introduced at all levels of the game playing under
international laws. In other words every age group from Under/13 upwards.

We also looked at introducing Video-Referee for the 1997 season but our
trials showed that there are too many delays involved with the present
technology.

The two or three minutes it might take for an attacking team to be told
they are going to get the ball back from a scrum re-start or line
drop-out, will ease all the pressure they have put on the defence.

The in-goal touch judges give a faster decision and throughout out trial
were just as accurate. That's better for the fans and players.

We'll look at the "Video-Ref" again when the response times can be improved.

I hope you enjoy the changes we have made, we will certainly be monitoring
the reactions of our fans.

Yours sincerely
Neil Whittaker
ARL Chief Executive

[end]---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My opinion? Well changes 5,6,7 & 8 are just common sense really.

Changes 1 & 2 are quite similar and I haven't formed an opinion on their
worth as I have yet to see these rules being used. I can see the merit in
them though, sort of "If you're gonna _let_ the ball go into touch then
you'll have infringed because you've stopped play".

I don't like change 3. It's a controversy waiting to happen IMO. For
instance, what if a team is attacking and kicks the ball, it strikes an
opponent who was ruled to have played at it but clearly didn't, and from
the ensuing scrum a winning try is scored? The old way was more cut and
dried, the feed went against whoever last touched the ball before it went
into touch.

Change 4, by not letting a player strike for the ball in the play-the-ball
it takes away the chance for quick markers to contest possession against
players who don't play the ball correctly. I can live with it but is it
really necessary to force players to play the ball backwards if no marker
is present? Dean Pay was penalised for this in the Parra v Norths game,
unfairly IMO.

Well that's it, now over to you.

Cheers,
Wade

"It's My Game"
Carn the Rabbitohs!

 
 
 

ARL Rule Changes (long)

Post by Ian Georg » Sun, 09 Mar 1997 04:00:00

Wade:
Watching Norths and Parra last night, I believe the new rules are basically
an improvement.

Quote:
>snip<
> Changes 1 & 2 are quite similar and I haven't formed an opinion on their
> worth as I have yet to see these rules being used.

Can't agree here. Although there were no changeovers ruled in the game last
night, I can think of at least 3 occasions where the ball was played at and
returned where under the previous rules it would have rolled into touch for
a scrum to be formed. I think the issue with inside the 40, to within the
20 rule will be getting consistency in rulings, frankly. Last night Manson
got a fairly important ruling on inside the 10 wrong against North's from a
general play kick, when he was basically in position with the attacking
line.

I can see a lot of potential errors on early tackle count, general play
kicks from inside the 20, on broken play, seeing as the linesmen and ref
are unlikely to be in position to call both ends of the paddock accurately.
When all is said and done though, I like any rule that cuts down on scrums:
as these are generally uncontested now, and this rule is an improvement
IMHO. The positive side of the rule is that a fullback or winger who has
dropped back has no chance of knowing for certain if the kicker was inside
the 40 or not, so they are going to have to err on the side of caution and
bring the ball back.

Quote:
> I don't like change 3. It's a controversy waiting to happen IMO. For
> instance, what if a team is attacking and kicks the ball, it strikes an
> opponent who was ruled to have played at it but clearly didn't, and from
> the ensuing scrum a winning try is scored? The old way was more cut and
> dried, the feed went against whoever last touched the ball before it went
> into touch.

Yep, impossible to rule consistently on this, and this rule is a step
backward.

Quote:
> Change 4, by not letting a player strike for the ball in the
play-the-ball
> it takes away the chance for quick markers to contest possession against
> players who don't play the ball correctly. I can live with it but is it
> really necessary to force players to play the ball backwards if no marker
> is present? Dean Pay was penalised for this in the Parra v Norths game,
> unfairly IMO.

Well, Wade, not really unfairly was it? Anyone who plays the ball forward
is going to get penalised under this rule. It was pretty embarrassing for
Pay, as he is the only guy who did it but I bet he has company over the
first few rounds. I think the change is positive, because there was never
any consistency amongst referee's ruling whether or not a marker was
present and whether or not the strike was clean.

Parramtta have marked themselves as contenders this season, even though
they really were not all that convincing by the end of the game, and
squandered too many opportunities to put the game beyond doubt.

That's my $.02, anyway. ~Ian

 
 
 

ARL Rule Changes (long)

Post by Leigh Gillespi » Tue, 11 Mar 1997 04:00:00

Quote:

> CHANGE 1
> If the ball is kicked from inside a team's 40 metre line and finds touch,
> otherwise than on the full, inside the opponent's 20 metre line, the
> kicking team will be awarded the loose head and feed at the following
> scrum.

>   REASONS: This not only rewards kickers but prevents players from
>   slowing down play, by watching kicks roll into touch. Because players
>   are going to be under more pressure to retrieve the kick, the team in
>   possession will also have more reason to run at the defensive line
>   instead of kicking all the time.

        Easily the worst change implemented by the ARL IMO. The premise of
encouraging players to retrieve balls before they run into touch is a
sound one, but the incentive should not be such that it encourages the
kickers to actually aim for touch - hence causing an increase in the
number of scrums and greater wastage of game time. The SL change (the
extra tackle) in this area is better IMO in that while it still provides
that encouragement to retrieve, the incentive is not so great so as to
encourage the kicking side to actually aim for touch.
        I also think that the ARL change is just plain unfair. Now the
kicking side can basicly gain quick and easy ground for nothing. Under the
previous practice a team could claim that quick and easy ground but the
penalty for doing so was the turnover of posession (be it by scrum or the
fullback retrieving the rolling ball). Now a side can take the easy option
and far from getting penalised for not doing the hard work they actually
get rewarded (with a fresh set of six less than twenty out). It also has
shades of the NFL concept if you make certain amount of ground then you
get rewarded for it. Do we really want to send RL down that path?
        Finally, I just can't work out how they reached the conclusion
that there would be less kicking in the last senetence. Going back to the
point above, if there was easy ground to be made with a reward on the end
then I fail to see what the incentive for the attacking side would be not
to kick. For instance let's say a team is forty five metres out from their
own line and they have the option of passing back five metres for a kick.
Which would be better - to waste the remainder of their tackle count
barging their way another twenty or thirty metres or putting in an acurate
kick for touch (and as time goes by teams will get more and more accurate
with practice), gaining the ground in one play and getting a fresh set of
six? All I can see the rule doing is setting up a game where teams play to
their own forty and then kick leaving the space between each 40 and the
respective 20 metre lines a virtual attacking dead zone.

Quote:
> CHANGE 5
> Players from the team in possession of the ball are no longer required to
> retire 5 metres from the play-the-ball but need to retire behind their own
> acting half-back (dummy-half).

>    REASON: This brings the rule into line with recent practice and
>    eliminates confusion over the "mouse trap" play used by St.George
>    last year

        There was no confusion, the rule was there for all to see and the
mousetrap had been specificly ruled illegal. There was no confusion, the
ref just got it wrong and no amount of retrospective pardoning or cover
ups will change that.

Quote:
> CHANGE 6
> The referee will take time off when stopping play to administer a caution.

>    REASON: The fans come to see football. We want to stop anything
>    cutting into playing time.

        Good change.

Quote:
> CHANGE 7
> This re-writes the scrum role so that the half is required to simply feed
> the ball into the tunnel, not the centre of the tunnel.

>    REASON: To make the rule come into line with what is actually happening.

        Assuming you think scrums are still worth having I suppose that's
fair enough.

Quote:
> The in-goal touch judges give a faster decision and throughout out trial
> were just as accurate. That's better for the fans and players.

        The one thing that strikes me about this whole document is the
gratutitous references to how these changes are being implemented for the
benifit of the *fans* and how they will be listening to the *fans*. One
just has to ask why it is that the ARL has only now after up*** years
decided to make these changes? Surely if they were in the interests of the
fans (which the ARL claim own the game) these would have been implemented
many years ago. In the case of the steal the ball rule it was the
ARL/NSWRL that actually changed the rule to the one that they now claim is
no good. Were they not listening to the fans then? Were they not working
in the interests of the fans then? If not, why not? Could it be that the
ARL actually deserved to be shaken from their complacent palace?

Catchya round, Leigh

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Leigh T. Gillespie                  *    "It takes leather balls      *
* Phone - Australia (077) 791219      *     to play Rugby!"             *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 
 
 

ARL Rule Changes (long)

Post by Peter Con » Tue, 11 Mar 1997 04:00:00



Quote:

>> CHANGE 1
>> If the ball is kicked from inside a team's 40 metre line and finds touch,
>> otherwise than on the full, inside the opponent's 20 metre line, the
>> kicking team will be awarded the loose head and feed at the following
>> scrum.

>>   REASONS: This not only rewards kickers but prevents players from
>>   slowing down play, by watching kicks roll into touch. Because players
>>   are going to be under more pressure to retrieve the kick, the team in
>>   possession will also have more reason to run at the defensive line
>>   instead of kicking all the time.

>    Easily the worst change implemented by the ARL IMO. The premise of
>encouraging players to retrieve balls before they run into touch is a
>sound one, but the incentive should not be such that it encourages the
>kickers to actually aim for touch - hence causing an increase in the
>number of scrums and greater wastage of game time. The SL change (the
>extra tackle) in this area is better IMO in that while it still provides
>that encouragement to retrieve, the incentive is not so great so as to
>encourage the kicking side to actually aim for touch.
>    I also think that the ARL change is just plain unfair. Now the
>kicking side can basicly gain quick and easy ground for nothing. Under the
>previous practice a team could claim that quick and easy ground but the
>penalty for doing so was the turnover of posession (be it by scrum or the
>fullback retrieving the rolling ball). Now a side can take the easy option
>and far from getting penalised for not doing the hard work they actually
>get rewarded (with a fresh set of six less than twenty out). It also has
>shades of the NFL concept if you make certain amount of ground then you
>get rewarded for it. Do we really want to send RL down that path?
>    Finally, I just can't work out how they reached the conclusion
>that there would be less kicking in the last senetence. Going back to the
>point above, if there was easy ground to be made with a reward on the end
>then I fail to see what the incentive for the attacking side would be not
>to kick. For instance let's say a team is forty five metres out from their
>own line and they have the option of passing back five metres for a kick.
>Which would be better - to waste the remainder of their tackle count
>barging their way another twenty or thirty metres or putting in an acurate
>kick for touch (and as time goes by teams will get more and more accurate
>with practice), gaining the ground in one play and getting a fresh set of
>six? All I can see the rule doing is setting up a game where teams play to
>their own forty and then kick leaving the space between each 40 and the
>respective 20 metre lines a virtual attacking dead zone.

Although I am yet to be convinced about the quality of the rule
change I have to disagree with most of your arguements, plus also
the ARL's.

1. IMO, teams will always kick for touch if they feel that at that
   particular period of play it is in their best interest to slow
   the game down, ie, have their forwards rest while they walk to
   the scrum, set the defence etc. While if they feel their cause
   will be better suited by denying the opposition forwards the
   same opportunity they will kick down field. This goes for both
   competitions, not just the ARL's.

2. Having the defensive teams penalised for allowing the ball to go
   out, rather then rewarded, for not allowing the ball to go out,
   may (repeat may) be a stronger encouragement to the players. One
   extra tackle is not going to encourage a player to attempt to
   collect the ball if the danger of a mistake is high, or they feel
   there is no space available to run, or they wish to give their
   forwards a rest. Whereas, if their team was going to be penalised
   any attempt to stop a ball that is definitely going out could be
   deemed an acceptable risk. Thus comparing the two systems, SL's
   is gain (ball in) or no gain (ball out), while the ARL's is no gain
   or penalty.

3. I believe that what the ARL might be trying to achieve is a
   situation where, because the defensive side may be penalised for
   letting the ball go out, they are encouraging them to leave more
   of their players out of the front definsive line. Maybe this is
   why they claim the attacking team will run the ball more. Thier
   plan may also be aimed at increasing the amount of possession
   time a team has within reach of the try line. Hopefully eliminating
   some of the "six to half way, kick, six to half way, kick", where
   only a mistake allows a team to have possession in the oppositions
   half. If the fullback, two wingers and a cover defender are out of
   the line, that leaves only nine front line defenders. I would
   support any reasonably fair idea which resulted in the attacking
   team having more possession in the other teams half, but remain
   to be convinced this change will achieve this end.

4. Teams may get more accurate with practice, but with a relatively
   small target, it should not take more than one player on either
   side of the field to defend against this tactit. Then when teams
   have players in these positions, kicking to other parts of the
   field may become more appropriate.

As a said, under either set of new rules, or the old rules, IMO, both
the defensive and attacking teams will take the action they feel is in
their best interest at that stage of the game and no rule change is
going to alter that very much.

PeterC

 
 
 

ARL Rule Changes (long)

Post by Richard Fivea » Tue, 11 Mar 1997 04:00:00


Quote:

>> The in-goal touch judges give a faster decision and throughout out trial
>> were just as accurate. That's better for the fans and players.

>        The one thing that strikes me about this whole document is the
>gratutitous references to how these changes are being implemented for the
>benifit of the *fans* and how they will be listening to the *fans*. One
>just has to ask why it is that the ARL has only now after up*** years
>decided to make these changes? Surely if they were in the interests of the
>fans (which the ARL claim own the game) these would have been implemented
>many years ago. In the case of the steal the ball rule it was the
>ARL/NSWRL that actually changed the rule to the one that they now claim is
>no good. Were they not listening to the fans then? Were they not working
>in the interests of the fans then? If not, why not? Could it be that the
>ARL actually deserved to be shaken from their complacent palace?

The ARL have constantly made changes to the rules over the years "for the
benefit of the fans" sometimes they work, sometimes they don't I think we all
agree that the stealing the ball rule is a bit of a grey area, they changed
the rule to see if it would make it better it didn't really work so they've
changed it back.

To say that the ARL should have made these changes many years ago is a bit
ridiculous as I said they made plenty of changes to the rules and have
experimented with plenty of others in pre-season competition and the way the
game is played changes over the years as well so what is seen as a problem
that needs fixing now wasn't necessarily a problem 5 or 10 years ago. So I
don't think on this issue anyway the ARL have been complacent.

Richard

 
 
 

ARL Rule Changes (long)

Post by James Smi » Tue, 11 Mar 1997 04:00:00

Quote:
Leigh Gillespie writes:
> In the case of the steal the ball rule it was the
> ARL/NSWRL that actually changed the rule to the one that they now claim is
> no good.

The International board changed the rule. Australia voted against the
change.

Jim
--
James J Smith             |                   The Vault
Faculty of Engineering    | http://www.dot.net.au/~drey/jimsmith/ausindex.htm
Newcastle University      |    Australian rugby league records and history

 
 
 

ARL Rule Changes (long)

Post by James Smi » Tue, 11 Mar 1997 04:00:00

Quote:
Peter Convy writes:
> 3. I believe that what the ARL might be trying to achieve is a
>    situation where, because the defensive side may be penalised for
>    letting the ball go out, they are encouraging them to leave more
>    of their players out of the front definsive line. Maybe this is
>    why they claim the attacking team will run the ball more.

Letting the ball go out gives the opponents an advantage. Therefore
coaches will tell their players not to let it happen, and players will
get better at stopping it from happening. Therefore, such kicks will
be less likely to put the ball out of play and so attacking teams will
prefer to do something more useful with the ball than kick for touch.

The logic is not hard to follow, although whether it will work that way
in practice is another matter.

Jim
--
James J Smith             |                   The Vault
Faculty of Engineering    | http://www.dot.net.au/~drey/jimsmith/ausindex.htm
Newcastle University      |    Australian rugby league records and history

 
 
 

ARL Rule Changes (long)

Post by Brett Abrah » Tue, 11 Mar 1997 04:00:00

Quote:

>1. IMO, teams will always kick for touch if they feel that at that
>   particular period of play it is in their best interest to slow
>   the game down, ie, have their forwards rest while they walk to
>   the scrum, set the defence etc.

eg. rule number one when playing the Broncos is to put the ball into
touch so you can set your defensive line, kick deep and you are playing
to their strength.

Quote:
>   While if they feel their cause
>   will be better suited by denying the opposition forwards the
>   same opportunity they will kick down field.

If your chase is good then a long kick will in most cases result in 3 to 4
rucks by backs while their tiring forwards are still returning.

Quote:
>   This goes for both
>   competitions, not just the ARL's.

>2. Having the defensive teams penalised for allowing the ball to go
>   out, rather then rewarded, for not allowing the ball to go out,
>   may (repeat may) be a stronger encouragement to the players. One
>   extra tackle is not going to encourage a player to attempt to
>   collect the ball if the danger of a mistake is high, or they feel
>   there is no space available to run, or they wish to give their
>   forwards a rest. Whereas, if their team was going to be penalised
>   any attempt to stop a ball that is definitely going out could be
>   deemed an acceptable risk. Thus comparing the two systems, SL's
>   is gain (ball in) or no gain (ball out), while the ARL's is no gain
>   or penalty.

>3. I believe that what the ARL might be trying to achieve is a
>   situation where, because the defensive side may be penalised for
>   letting the ball go out, they are encouraging them to leave more
>   of their players out of the front definsive line.

IMO this will only occur if certain teams have been shown to regularly
gain advantage of the new rule (which I doubt will happen).

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
>   Maybe this is
>   why they claim the attacking team will run the ball more. Thier
>   plan may also be aimed at increasing the amount of possession
>   time a team has within reach of the try line. Hopefully eliminating
>   some of the "six to half way, kick, six to half way, kick", where
>   only a mistake allows a team to have possession in the oppositions
>   half. If the fullback, two wingers and a cover defender are out of
>   the line, that leaves only nine front line defenders. I would
>   support any reasonably fair idea which resulted in the attacking
>   team having more possession in the other teams half, but remain
>   to be convinced this change will achieve this end.

>4. Teams may get more accurate with practice, but with a relatively
>   small target, it should not take more than one player on either
>   side of the field to defend against this tactit. Then when teams
>   have players in these positions, kicking to other parts of the
>   field may become more appropriate.

Agreed, see below.

Quote:
>As a said, under either set of new rules, or the old rules, IMO, both
>the defensive and attacking teams will take the action they feel is in
>their best interest at that stage of the game and no rule change is
>going to alter that very much.

Bingo!  a good tactical kicker will take advantage of either rule.
 
 
 

ARL Rule Changes (long)

Post by Leigh Gillespi » Tue, 11 Mar 1997 04:00:00


Quote:
> Leigh Gillespie writes:

> > In the case of the steal the ball rule it was the
> > ARL/NSWRL that actually changed the rule to the one that they now claim is
> > no good.

> The International board changed the rule. Australia voted against the
> change.

        That's not the way I remember things. The change was a direct
result of an incident in the 1990 State of Origin match at Olympic Park in
Melbourne. Alan Langer fairly stole the ball in a tackle about twenty
metres out from his own line but was penalised. The resulting penalty goal
ended the Queensland fight, costing them the match and the series. The
change came right out of NSWRL HQ to to prevent further such incidents,
stifle one of Langer's greatest skills and in a way to retrospectivly
vindicate an incorrect refereeing decision (as the ARL are now trying to
do by changing the mousetrap rule). With the NSWRL control of the ARL and
the ARL's position to dictate international policy the rule was pushed
thru - to the detriment of RL ever since.

Catchya round, Leigh

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Leigh T. Gillespie                  *    "It takes leather balls      *
* Phone - Australia (077) 791219      *     to play Rugby!"             *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 
 
 

ARL Rule Changes (long)

Post by Richard Fivea » Tue, 11 Mar 1997 04:00:00


Quote:
>        And precisely how long did that take? The change occured before
>the 1991 season and it is now 1997. For a change that supposedly hasn't
>worked they really took their time fixing it. Come on seriously, surely if
>is in the interests of the fans to change the rule now it was in the their
>interests back in 1992? `93? `94? `95? RL and the way it is played hasn't
>changed *that* much in six years! IMO it's a bit indicative of the whole
>ARL attitude to the running of the game - ie. we're not going to hurry up
>and fix anything until we absolutely have to. In this case "when they
>absolutely had to" was just far too late - the horses had bolted.

As Jim Smith (I think) posted in this thread the rule change was implemented
by the International Board and the ARL voted against it at the time. But while
the rule change didn't really work, the old rule wasn't/isn't much better it
still has it's problems so it isn't really fixed.

Richard

 
 
 

ARL Rule Changes (long)

Post by Leigh Gillespi » Tue, 11 Mar 1997 04:00:00

Quote:


> >> The in-goal touch judges give a faster decision and throughout out trial
> >> were just as accurate. That's better for the fans and players.

> >        The one thing that strikes me about this whole document is the
> >gratutitous references to how these changes are being implemented for the
> >benifit of the *fans* and how they will be listening to the *fans*. One
> >just has to ask why it is that the ARL has only now after up*** years
> >decided to make these changes? Surely if they were in the interests of the
> >fans (which the ARL claim own the game) these would have been implemented
> >many years ago. In the case of the steal the ball rule it was the
> >ARL/NSWRL that actually changed the rule to the one that they now claim is
> >no good. Were they not listening to the fans then? Were they not working
> >in the interests of the fans then? If not, why not? Could it be that the
> >ARL actually deserved to be shaken from their complacent palace?

> The ARL have constantly made changes to the rules over the years "for the
> benefit of the fans" sometimes they work, sometimes they don't I think we all
> agree that the stealing the ball rule is a bit of a grey area, they changed
> the rule to see if it would make it better it didn't really work so they've
> changed it back.

        And precisely how long did that take? The change occured before
the 1991 season and it is now 1997. For a change that supposedly hasn't
worked they really took their time fixing it. Come on seriously, surely if
is in the interests of the fans to change the rule now it was in the their
interests back in 1992? `93? `94? `95? RL and the way it is played hasn't
changed *that* much in six years! IMO it's a bit indicative of the whole
ARL attitude to the running of the game - ie. we're not going to hurry up
and fix anything until we absolutely have to. In this case "when they
absolutely had to" was just far too late - the horses had bolted.

Quote:
> To say that the ARL should have made these changes many years ago is a bit
> ridiculous as I said they made plenty of changes to the rules and have
> experimented with plenty of others in pre-season competition and the way the
> game is played changes over the years as well so what is seen as a problem
> that needs fixing now wasn't necessarily a problem 5 or 10 years ago. So I
> don't think on this issue anyway the ARL have been complacent.

        The steal the ball rule was seen as a problem from the first
season it was implemented (1991). It is now six years later and for
everyone of those intervening years it has been a problem. The problem was
there, everyone knew about, why wasn't it fixed? The answer - because it
didn't have to be. If the fans didn't like the rule then tough. The only
reason they have now been motivated enough to finally fix the problem is
because the fans now have an alternative option. I just find it all a bit
hypocritical that the ARL are now saying that it's the fan's game and
running the game in the interests of the fans is their priority when for
so long it has been a like it or lump attitude.

Catchya round, Leigh

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Leigh T. Gillespie                  *    "It takes leather balls      *
* Phone - Australia (077) 791219      *     to play Rugby!"             *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 
 
 

ARL Rule Changes (long)

Post by Wade Singlet » Wed, 12 Mar 1997 04:00:00


Quote:

> > Change 4, by not letting a player strike for the ball in the
> play-the-ball
> > it takes away the chance for quick markers to contest possession against
> > players who don't play the ball correctly. I can live with it but is it
> > really necessary to force players to play the ball backwards if no marker
> > is present? Dean Pay was penalised for this in the Parra v Norths game,
> > unfairly IMO.

> Well, Wade, not really unfairly was it? Anyone who plays the ball forward
> is going to get penalised under this rule. It was pretty embarrassing for
> Pay, as he is the only guy who did it but I bet he has company over the
> first few rounds. I think the change is positive, because there was never
> any consistency amongst referee's ruling whether or not a marker was
> present and whether or not the strike was clean.

Yeah, you're quite right. The penalty I mentioned _was_ fair because of
the new rules. But I still think players should be able to play the ball
forward if no marker is present.

Quote:
> Parramtta have marked themselves as contenders this season, even though
> they really were not all that convincing by the end of the game, and
> squandered too many opportunities to put the game beyond doubt.

Parramatta are no doubt the sleeping giants of the ARL. I think this may
be the year they finally awaken.
 
 
 

ARL Rule Changes (long)

Post by James Smi » Wed, 12 Mar 1997 04:00:00

Quote:
Leigh Gillespie writes:

>> Leigh Gillespie writes:

>> > In the case of the steal the ball rule it was the
>> > ARL/NSWRL that actually changed the rule to the one that they now claim is
>> > no good.

>> The International board changed the rule. Australia voted against the
>> change.

>    That's not the way I remember things.

I've noticed your memory can be odd at times. :-) I'll go and look it up
when I get the time.

Quote:
> With the NSWRL control of the ARL and
> the ARL's position to dictate international policy the rule was pushed
> thru - to the detriment of RL ever since.

I believe it was France who suggested the change, and Australia who were
outvoted. As I said, I will look it up.

Jim
--
James J Smith             |                   The Vault
Faculty of Engineering    | http://www.dot.net.au/~drey/jimsmith/ausindex.htm
Newcastle University      |    Australian rugby league records and history

 
 
 

ARL Rule Changes (long)

Post by Kurt Brow » Wed, 12 Mar 1997 04:00:00

Quote:

>         That's not the way I remember things. The change was a direct
> result of an incident in the 1990 State of Origin match at Olympic Park in
> Melbourne. Alan Langer fairly stole the ball in a tackle about twenty
> metres out from his own line but was penalised. The resulting penalty goal
> ended the Queensland fight, costing them the match and the series. The
> change came right out of NSWRL HQ to to prevent further such incidents,
> stifle one of Langer's greatest skills and in a way to retrospectivly
> vindicate an incorrect refereeing decision (as the ARL are now trying to
> do by changing the mousetrap rule). With the NSWRL control of the ARL and
> the ARL's position to dictate international policy the rule was pushed
> thru - to the detriment of RL ever since.

Is there any decision/action that the ARL has taken in the past ten
years that the SLer's think  was not specially designed to disadvantage
either Canberra or Brisbane or one of their players...

I mean, I've heard accusations of refs riggin games and making bad
decisions, but changing the rules after the event to justify decision
made in the previous decision, I don't think so. The five metre rule and
the feeding of the scrum are simply changes to remove rules from the
rule book that were not being followed or enforced. I think this can
only be a good thing.

 
 
 

ARL Rule Changes (long)

Post by James Smi » Wed, 12 Mar 1997 04:00:00

Quote:
Kurt Brown writes:
> Is there any decision/action that the ARL has taken in the past ten
> years that the SLer's think  was not specially designed to disadvantage
> either Canberra or Brisbane or one of their players...

> I mean, I've heard accusations of refs riggin games and making bad
> decisions, but changing the rules after the event to justify decision
> made in the previous decision, I don't think so. The five metre rule and
> the feeding of the scrum are simply changes to remove rules from the
> rule book that were not being followed or enforced. I think this can
> only be a good thing.

It's a matter of viewpoint. To an unbiased observer, it's a case of a rule
isn't being followed in practice so the rule book is changed. To a
*** theorist it's a case of there must have been a reason for the
rule change, and it must have had something to do with disadvantaging
the non-Sydney clubs. As such rule changes are usually prompted by one
or more instants where the non-application of the rule has caused
controversy, the *** theorists have a field day.

Jim
--
James J Smith             |                   The Vault
Faculty of Engineering    | http://SportToday.org/~drey/jimsmith/ausindex.htm
Newcastle University      |    Australian rugby league records and history