Official 2024 NRL General Discussion

[Vichyssoise]

I think I would rather kick deep and tackle someone on the 10m for 7 tackles then on the 30m for 6.

Also, with a bit of training, I'm sure the kicker can make sure there's enough hang time on his kick for his teammates to smash the poor bloke catching the ball.

 

[bort]

NRL Physio

Reports today that the NRL kickoff could be changing - the proposal is any kickoff that goes beyond the opposition’s 20m line on the full will result in a 7 tackle set (via WWOS). Said to be done in...

www.facebook.com

10% of concussions in 2024 occurred from kicks offs, which make up just 3.6% of events in the game. So in 2024 a player was 3x more likely to be concussed on a kick off.

I don't like the change. But I get it.

 

[apezza]

NRL Physio

Reports today that the NRL kickoff could be changing - the proposal is any kickoff that goes beyond the opposition’s 20m line on the full will result in a 7 tackle set (via WWOS). Said to be done in...

www.facebook.com

10% of concussions in 2024 occurred from kicks offs, which make up just 3.6% of events in the game. So in 2024 a player was 3x more likely to be concussed on a kick off.

I don't like the change. But I get it.

What's the raw numbers for concussions from kick offs?

Average kick off per game is what? 8?

So 60 odd kick offs per week x 27 rounds = 1500+ kick offs per year.

X/1500 equates to very low concussion rate

 

[Vichyssoise]

The NRL should work on reducing the amount of points scored. It'll automatically reduce the number of kick offs and related concussions.
I suggest getting rid of the 6-again first.

 

[bort]

What's the raw numbers for concussions from kick offs?

Average kick off per game is what? 8?

So 60 odd kick offs per week x 27 rounds = 1500+ kick offs per year.

X/1500 equates to very low concussion rate

So you would argue although the data supports that kick-offs are 3x more dangerous the volume of them is low enough the escalated risk can be ignored?

Everyone would have a data point where that sentence is true for them, and one where it becomes false and the escalated risk is too great.
Whether you agree with where it is at or not in the NRL right now will be everyone's own opinion. If it was 5x more dangerous would that be where you drew the line? 10x? Would it have to be 50x more dangerous?

Personally I think it will be like the shoulder charge - I wish they didn't change it* but I understand why and I only really miss the best maybe 5% of them.
*(I still think they could have tried just much harsher penalties for shoulder charges gone wrong so you don't risk it if not comfortable with your technique)

 

[apezza]

So you would argue although the data supports that kick-offs are 3x more dangerous the volume of them is low enough the escalated risk can be ignored?

Everyone would have a data point where that sentence is true for them, and one where it becomes false and the escalated risk is too great.
Whether you agree with where it is at or not in the NRL right now will be everyone's own opinion. If it was 5x more dangerous would that be where you drew the line? 10x? Would it have to be 50x more dangerous?

Personally I think it will be like the shoulder charge - I wish they didn't change it* but I understand why and I only really miss the best maybe 5% of them.
*(I still think they could have tried just much harsher penalties for shoulder charges gone wrong so you don't risk it if not comfortable with your technique)

I'm sceptical of the "3x more" stat without knowing the full figures.

I have 2x the chance to win the lottery if I buy 2 tickets v 1 but the actual odds are still incredibly low.

I understand though it's all litigious these days

 

[Milkshark]

I can understand why they’re looking to change the rules, I just think it will mean more short kick offs, which I am not a fan of.

The short kick offs and six agains is making the game a hybrid union game.

 

[bort]

I'm sceptical of the "3x more" stat without knowing the full figures.

I have 2x the chance to win the lottery if I buy 2 tickets v 1 but the actual odds are still incredibly low.

I understand though it's all litigious these days

Message NRL Physio and ask him

Broadly speaking though if there were 142838 tackles in the NRL in 2024, and 2168 kick-offs (let's call it 2150 to account for some tries at end of half or fulltime), and 2.5 tacklers average per kick off that would be 5375 tackles in kick-offs, and 137,463 tackles in rest of play.
Which fits with what NRL physio said pretty much.
10% of failed HIAs come from 3.7% of play, 90% of failed HIAs come from 96.3% of play

If we say it is 9 concussions out of 5375 tackles that means each tackle on a kick of is 0.17% chance of causing a failed HIA
And say the other 90 concussions (NRL physio saying total 90-100) across the other 137, 463 tackles that's 0.07% chance of causing a failed HIA.
So there it would work out to approx 2.5x as likely. (attributes all HIAs to tacklers though because I can't be ****ed working out number of runs and factoring that in).

At the end of the day, I don't think anybody wants this change, it is just a question of whether or not it is in the best interest of current and future players enough to warrant it (without materially negatively detracting from the sport).

I can understand why they’re looking to change the rules, I just think it will mean more short kick offs, which I am not a fan of.

The short kick offs and six agains is making the game a hybrid union game.

People either know the difference or they don't anyway, having approx 3.6% of play be a bit more like union isn't a big concern for me.
We want our game to be the best it can be, not the most distinct from Union it can be.
The question is where 'best' fits when it is a play style not everyone likes (short kick offs) vs a safety issue. Impossible to have a perfect solution I expect.

 

[HaroldBishop]

Message NRL Physio and ask him

Broadly speaking though if there were 142838 tackles in the NRL in 2024, and 2168 kick-offs (let's call it 2150 to account for some tries at end of half or fulltime), and 2.5 tacklers average per kick off that would be 5375 tackles in kick-offs, and 137,463 tackles in rest of play.
Which fits with what NRL physio said pretty much.
10% of failed HIAs come from 3.7% of play, 90% of failed HIAs come from 96.3% of play

If we say it is 9 concussions out of 5375 tackles that means each tackle on a kick of is 0.17% chance of causing a failed HIA
And say the other 90 concussions (NRL physio saying total 90-100) across the other 137, 463 tackles that's 0.07% chance of causing a failed HIA.
So there it would work out to approx 2.5x as likely. (attributes all HIAs to tacklers though because I can't be ****ed working out number of runs and factoring that in).

At the end of the day, I don't think anybody wants this change, it is just a question of whether or not it is in the best interest of current and future players enough to warrant it (without materially negatively detracting from the sport).


People either know the difference or they don't anyway, having approx 3.6% of play be a bit more like union isn't a big concern for me.
We want our game to be the best it can be, not the most distinct from Union it can be.
The question is where 'best' fits when it is a play style not everyone likes (short kick offs) vs a safety issue. Impossible to have a perfect solution I expect.

More than that when you factor in short dropouts. Not a fan.

 

[Milkshark]

The kick offs is less of a change to the rules than the 6 agains for sure @bort

The 6 agains I also am not a fan of. The rule should have been reverted a year after implementation

 

[HaroldBishop]

The kick offs is less of a change to the rules than the 6 agains for sure @bort

The 6 agains I also am not a fan of. The rule should have been reverted a year after implementation

I don't like it but I like it's better than penalties all the time imo

 

[Milkshark]

I don't like it but I like it's better than penalties all the time imo

Nicho agrees with you

I’d rather they blew penalties.

It’s too easy for refs to give repeat sets.

 

[bort]

I like the concept of the 6 agains better than repeated penalties (especially in attacking 20 if team needs/wants more than 2 points anyway)

BUT agree with Milky that lack of transparency around it is dubious.
I've no doubt ref group reviews their decision making here but I'd be very interested to see a breakdown of all 6 agains, what they were called for, and if on review the ref boss agreed with them or not. The bigger can of worms is how many are missed but that would be even harder to review accurately.

If they, as a group, believe they are getting vast majority of them right, so be it - I'd just like to see that clarified for me. And if not, why not.

 

[HaroldBishop]

Nicho agrees with you

I’d rather they blew penalties.

It’s too easy for refs to give repeat sets.

I think people forget why it came in tbh, the game was way more stop start when it was just penalties all the time. Watch teams deliberately give penalties away again, especially close to a sideline.

 

[Milkshark]

The other thing with 6 agains is the momentum they give. It makes the game too fast, with defenders simply rolling out of tackles to not get pinned.

You can the length of the field way too easily.

 

[HaroldBishop]

The other thing with 6 agains is the momentum they give. It makes the game too fast, with defenders simply rolling out of tackles to not get pinned.

You can the length of the field way too easily.

It's definitely not perfect but I believe it's better than the alternative. As I said, people have short memories.

 

[Proud Shark]

It's definitely not perfect but I believe it's better than the alternative. As I said, people have short memories.

I just think a bit of tweaking to ensure a penalty can be blown would be ideal. Something like 3 ruck infringements in quick succession = a penalty.

 

[bort]

I just think a bit of tweaking to ensure a penalty can be blown would be ideal. Something like 3 ruck infringements in quick succession = a penalty.

So teams should try and give away a third if they have two already so they can get a rest in?

Ref can already blow a penalty at their discretion - it's just rare because of the fact the default is 6 again.
If someone is repeatedly giving them away bin somebody.

 

[BlackWhiteBlue]

I think people forget why it came in tbh, the game was way more stop start when it was just penalties all the time. Watch teams deliberately give penalties away again, especially close to a sideline.

Thst Sharks/Storm match in 2019 was ****ing horrendous

 

[Proud Shark]

So teams should try and give away a third if they have two already so they can get a rest in?

Ref can already blow a penalty at their discretion - it's just rare because of the fact the default is 6 again.
If someone is repeatedly giving them away bin somebody.

Sure in some circumstances. They'd have to be prepared to defend 3 sets first though. In others they won't risk giving away a 3rd as they don't want to concede points. As it stands the only time they blow a penalty is if it's deemed a professional foul/sin bins for excessive penalties. I think 3x same offence would balance it better.