Rules that are a joke

ryno_ wrote:

SI wrote:Yep, keep the scrum.  We all know it's inane from a possession point of view, but it does give the players a bit of a rest whilst still keeping one of the trademarks of the game.  To me the speed of the game is just about perfect this year and the quality has been great.

Its pointless though. Theres no pushing. The ball doesnt even go in the scrum sometimes. Its a rugby union trademark - its an embarrassment in league.

Yeah, that's why I said I know it's inane. The purpose it serves now is to give them a break. I personally think if they start taking taps it becomes just a little too fast.

i used to defend keeping the scrum because it can atleast open the field up for some creative set plays


but now that 99% of the times it just a hit up by a forward or outside back, i can't really see the benefit in keeping them

leaguegod wrote:i used to defend keeping the scrum because it can atleast open the field up for some creative set plays


but now that 99% of the times it just a hit up by a forward or outside back, i can't really see the benefit in keeping them

Yeah I would agree with this. It would basically take away the shot clock debate as well. Once all your players are onside you can play the ball or tap it or whatever is how they decide a restart. I don't care that scrums aren't contested. I can't see why if you knock on you should get a 50/50 chance of getting the ball back.

To me the game is at the perfect speed now. Take away the scrum and it could be just too quick all of a sudden.

ryno_ wrote:

Its pointless though. Theres no pushing. The ball doesnt even go in the scrum sometimes. Its a rugby union trademark - its an embarrassment in league.

They are actually allowed to push, they just dont. You see a good push 2/3 times a year and it always catches the attacking team off guard. They just dont push any more because it means that the scrum couldnt break up and get back in defence quickly.

It pisses me off so much when the ball isnt even out of the scum and the hooker and prop from the other side are the 2 blokes that break and make it to the attacker at the AD line.
How the fuck can the hooker get there first. The lock doesnt even attempt to make a tackle, its usually the fullback and he just runs back to his normal position.

If there is a scrum on the left side of the field, the defending team puts their left back rower in front row, their left centre in the back row and fullback at lock. Its a joke, they should be made to pack in in their actual positions.

Players are ALWAYS offside on scrums, the scrums always break too early, and players are ALWAYS offside when defending their try lines.
Not to mention if its golden point and someone is going for a FG. NONE of them are onside.

Pieman wrote:

They are actually allowed to push, they just dont. You see a good push 2/3 times a year and it always catches the attacking team off guard. They just dont push any more because it means that the scrum couldnt break up and get back in defence quickly.

It pisses me off so much when the ball isnt even out of the scum and the hooker and prop from the other side are the 2 blokes that break and make it to the attacker at the AD line.
How the fuck can the hooker get there first. The lock doesnt even attempt to make a tackle, its usually the fullback and he just runs back to his normal position.

If there is a scrum on the left side of the field, the defending team puts their left back rower in front row, their left centre in the back row and fullback at lock. Its a joke, they should be made to pack in in their actual positions.

Players are ALWAYS offside on scrums, the scrums always break too early, and players are ALWAYS offside when defending their try lines.
Not to mention if its golden point and someone is going for a FG. NONE of them are onside.

Perfect summary. The only thing you forgot to add is that if a team does push and win it against the head, 90% of the time the ref blows time off and gets them to redo the scrum anyway.

The problem with making the actual positions pack in the scrum is that whose to say what player's correct position is. A coach will just say they've changed position several times during the game (which they are entitled to do). I don't want Darius Boyd wearing a 13 jersey so that he can pack in at lock in the scrums. And technically, whose to say what position is what. Sometimes JT is on the wing in defence, but he's not a winger. Most teams have their half or 5/8 defending inside the centre, but sometimes the second rower will be there with the half inside that. Does that make the half the second rower and the second rower the halfback?

leaguegod wrote:i used to defend keeping the scrum because it can atleast open the field up for some creative set plays


but now that 99% of the times it just a hit up by a forward or outside back, i can't really see the benefit in keeping them

That is true but I don't think whether teams are utilising it or not should be taken into account.

It's a messy part of the game which needs to be tidied up but I think it is now too far gone to revert back to actual contests in the scrum (the hookers of these days would get deadset reamed.....poor choice of words I know).

I propose that players are forced to still bind and set a 'simulated scrum' but we no longer have to feed the scrum - it is a simple tap and go (maybe from the back of the scrum where they would have retrieved the ball in years gone by).

Any player giving away any penalty should have to go to the nearest touch judge and stay with them until their team gets ball back. If the touchie end up with three players so be it.

Penalties should only be a tap or kick at goal, no kick for touch then tap that is too much of a reward.

I was a bit passed off by the official NRL site joking about the multi ball in the tigers have on the weekend.

Sure it can be funny to a neutral, but it was an error by the refs, and I'm not sure it's the sort of thing that sound be condoned.
I'm going by a DT article here and not the rule book, but even if play on is the correct call, I don't think it's a good idea of the NRL to celebrate it. Otherwise if I was a coach I'd think about ways to use it as a tactic

Milchcow wrote:
I was a bit passed off by the official NRL site joking about the multi ball in the tigers have on the weekend.

Sure it can be funny to a neutral,  but it was an error by the refs,  and I'm not sure it's the sort of thing that sound be condoned.  
I'm going by a DT article here and not the rule book,  but even if play on is the correct call,  I don't think  it's a good idea of the NRL to celebrate it.  Otherwise if I was a coach I'd think about ways to use it as a tactic

There no hard and fast rule. The ref has to determine in his own judgement if the teams were disadvantaged. Im ok with the play on call - the alternative would have been a scrum 10m out, ala Wati Fatarse in origin when he ran onto the field and stopped a QLD try. I think that would have been too much advantage.

Sashamaloo wrote:Any player giving away any penalty should have to go to the nearest touch judge and stay with them until their team gets ball back. If the touchie end up with three players so be it.

Penalties should only be a tap or kick at goal, no kick for touch then tap that is too much of a reward.

Thats the rule in touch football for a professional foul on your own line. Its great because its so fast. Ref points to the corner and you jog over. Play on.

I'll take a bit of cow and a bit of Rhino.

I'm happy with the call and from a field position point of view the drop out was better for the tigers. It's a bad look the NRL making light of this sort of thing.

Sammy gets 2 weeks for throwing a bottle
Bulldogs fan gets life for throwing a bottle
Social media fame for throwing a ball. What if had of hit someone ?

ryno_ wrote:

There no hard and fast rule. The ref has to determine in his own judgement if the teams were disadvantaged. Im ok with the play on call - the alternative would have been a scrum 10m out, ala Wati Fatarse in origin when he ran onto the field and stopped a QLD try. I think that would have been too much advantage.

You do realise I wasn't criticising the ruling. I was criticising the NRL having a laugh about it

Hookers passing the ball into players who are actually out of the ruck and being rewarded with a penalty. the will smith one last night was ridiculous

heard the comms talking about another one too when i was in the kitchen in the later games

its got to the point where the hookers are just taking the piss and getting rewarded every time

Yeah Milf and friend both did one on Friday that were a bit of a joke. But if the defence are going to be lazy cunts and not clear the ruck or get onside, they are asking for it.

The ruck play the ball that Will Smith did against Luke was an embarrassment to the game, bounced it on his chest and got the penalty, yes players need to clear the ruck but this was beyond the joke

Who ever at NRL headquarters is making these laws that are either slowing the game down or making the game a farce needs to be sacked

leaguegod wrote:Hookers passing the ball into players who are actually out of the ruck and being rewarded with a penalty. the will smith one last night was ridiculous

heard the comms talking about another one too when i was in the kitchen in the later games

its got to the point where the hookers are just taking the piss and getting rewarded every time

absolutely. they are taking the piss.
There needs to be a "Cynical play" rule. Its not in the spirit of the game, penalise them.

Get rid of the obvious ones. If you can chuck one into a bloke without making it look like you're doing it on purpose, then all power to ya!

When you go looking for the player, however, you end up looking like a tool, and should be penalized accordingly.

dasherhalo wrote:Get rid of the obvious ones. If you can chuck one into a bloke without making it look like you're doing it on purpose, then all power to ya!

When you go looking for the player, however, you end up looking like a tool, and should be penalized accordingly.

If the bloke is genuinely in the ruck and in the way of a pass - yep.
These ones recently though.. they are a fucking joke and it makes the NRL look fucking amateur

I hate that the video ref cant look at forward passes.. why the fuck not?