Opinion Should we simplify the rules?

[BulldogsNRL]

Lets use Reimis Smith Try as a example

Instead of the little errors and etc we just look at

Did he take the call cleanly?
Yes
If he lost it did he regain possession before the ball hits the ground?
Yes
Did he ground the ball cleanly?
Yes

So it’s a try

Let’s simplify the rules to stop the controversy

 

[JUNKYARD DOGS]

The rules are simple, its just the league like to complicate them.

Don't really mind what they said about double movement though, if you can get it down its a try.

 

[BulldogsNRL]

The rules are simple, its just the league like to complicate them.

Don't really mind what they said about double movement though, if you can get it down its a try.

Agreed
Cause here’s the thing it’s the defenders job to stop you but you still managed to get there so it’s a try

 

[TwinTurbo]

I voted no, for the simple reason that when does a bobble become a knock on? Say, it goes forward 1m then it's a knock on, if it goes forward 10mm then it's a bobble, what about 50mm is that a knock on? Or 100mm? Or 200mm? Are we now measuring how far it is propelled forward before we decide if it's a knock on or a bobble?

Go Dogs

 

[BulldogsNRL]

I voted no, for the simple reason that when does a bobble become a knock on? Say, it goes forward 1m then it's a knock on, if it goes forward 10mm then it's a bobble, what about 50mm is that a knock on? Or 100mm? Or 200mm? Are we now measuring how far it is propelled forward before we decide if it's a knock on or a bobble?

Go Dogs

I see where your coming from it’s just ridiculous how fussy we are getting

 

[The DoggFather]

Where is the "I want competent and non-corrupt judgement of the rules" option?

 

[_G-Dog_]

The current rules for knock on should remain.. if the replays are not clear just go with the refs call..and if ref hasnt made a call advantage should go to attacking team..

The rules should be black & white.. theres no need to change the definition of a knock on..

 

[TwinTurbo]

Double movement, always tricky to rule on. They allow double movements in union but that's different because of their tackle rules (no play the ball) etc. I think it would be silly to allow a player tackled with the ball around his waste to then promote it past his head with outstretched arms. So again it comes down to how much of a double movement we allow. Is 100mm OK but 1m is too far? Again quantifying how far just makes it more complex than it already is.

Go Dogs

 

[BulldogsNRL]

The bunker should be able to be used more because if it’s there why not use it?

 

[Raysie]

Lets use Reimis Smith Try as a example

Instead of the little errors and etc we just look at

Did he take the call cleanly?
Yes
If he lost it did he regain possession before the ball hits the ground?
Yes
Did he ground the ball cleanly?
Yes

So it’s a try

Let’s simplify the rules to stop the controversy

Although I agree a simplification of the rules and making it as black and white as possible is the way to go, I don't know if your example is the best though. Did he catch it cleanly? I'm still not sure. Did he regain possession cleanly? I'm still not sure. Did he ground it cleanly? I don't think he did, as did many others.

Unless you say it's okay to have a bit of bobble here and there, then it'll never be simple.

 

[BulldogsNRL]

Although I agree a simplification of the rules and making it as black and white as possible is the way to go, I don't know if your example is the best though. Did he catch it cleanly? I'm still not sure. Did he regain possession cleanly? I'm still not sure. Did he ground it cleanly? I don't think he did, as did many others.

Unless you say it's okay to have a bit of bobble here and there, then it'll never be simple.[/QUOTE
It’s like impossible as everyone will agree and disagree with points and decisions

 

[JUNKYARD DOGS]

Although I agree a simplification of the rules and making it as black and white as possible is the way to go, I don't know if your example is the best though. Did he catch it cleanly? I'm still not sure. Did he regain possession cleanly? I'm still not sure. Did he ground it cleanly? I don't think he did, as did many others.

Unless you say it's okay to have a bit of bobble here and there, then it'll never be simple.

I think they were talking about if they are contending the ball in the air it doesn't matter if there are some small knock on's its a contest for possession and play on. I could be wrong?

 

[Wahesh]

The rules are simple, its just the league like to complicate them.

Don't really mind what they said about double movement though, if you can get it down its a try.

What I don't understand about double movement is why is it a penalty if the player is near the line, but not a penalty is the player does the same thing short of the tryline? If in general play they are told to move back to play the ball, the same should apply for double movement.

 

[Raysie]

I think they were talking about if they are contending the ball in the air it doesn't matter if there are some small knock on's its a contest for possession and play on. I could be wrong?

Ahh okay, then yeah I agree that could work. But then where does it end and where does it apply? Does the player have to be in the air? Is it covering the entire contest for the ball?

Just opens another can of worms.

 

[JUNKYARD DOGS]

Ahh okay, then yeah I agree that could work. But then where does it end and where does it apply? Does the player have to be in the air? Is it covering the entire contest for the ball?

Just opens another can of worms.

Yeah dunno hey, I wouldn't be surprised if it opened up more contentious calls??

 

[Alan79]

Any rule changes they make at this point in time scare me. Every time they change a rule it allows refereeing preferences to have a larger bearing on the results over a wider variety of areas. The rules used to be more or less black and white. No two on one strip choices going to refs discretion, a knock on was a knock on, there weren't teams that could step off the mark (sometimes refs penalize defenders as offside when tackled players step off the mark), it was clear what a shepherd run was.

Now there are loads of grey areas across the game. We shouldn't make changes unless it means that the referees have no choice but to make clear decisions. Right now we have a situation where the refs can interpret a situation in too many ways.

 

[Mr Invisible]

The only reason the game is overly complicated is to allow manipulation by betting partners and game officials to a predetermined result. They don't even try to hide it anymore, and Greame Annesley is constantly apologising and saying "yep they got that wrong", before passing the buck to so called referees coaches. There is zero acountability for faceless men.

If the above wasn't true, they'd have scaled back things years ago.

You'll notice that every introduction and tweak to the rules, only creates more ambiguity surrounding the game. It's a deliberate and calculated ploy to ensure games can be shaped in a certain direction.

Sure there is still some luck and gameplay required though.

 

[Alan79]

The only reason the game is overly complicated is to allow manipulation by betting partners and game officials to a predetermined result. They don't even try to hide it anymore, and Greame Annesley is constantly apologising and saying "yep they got that wrong", before passing the buck to so called referees coaches. There is zero acountability for faceless men.

If the above wasn't true, they'd have scaled back things years ago.

You'll notice that every introduction and tweak to the rules, only creates more ambiguity surrounding the game. It's a deliberate and calculated ploy to ensure games can be shaped in a certain direction.

Sure there is still some luck and gameplay required though.

Great teams can still beat an opponent and an impartial referee. But the gambling sponsors shape the betting so that they aren't likely to cop serious losses on the unexpected results. But you saw in our early season game against Melbourne that while they can't move the goalposts, they can make the goalkicker line up his shot from 15 metres closer to the sideline when there's a chance that the script might go wrong and they're about to lose money for the gambling sponsors.

To me that was enough of a fuckup to sack a referee. But it was just a case of an apology at that time and a really tough task for Martin to kick us back into the game. Blatant cheating from the refs.