Official 2026 NRL General Discussion
- Thread starter Mr Ryan
- Start date
Sharky Pete
Jaws
It was always a staple in AFL whenever anyone kicked 100 in a season.
The way that game is played now a 100 goal full forward is as rare as snow in the Simpson Desert.
HaroldBishop
Megalodon
Great, just what the game needs 
The NRL has warned clubs to “expect a high focus” on ruck infringements after reviews that indicated several penalties were missed last weekend, despite a 35 per cent increase in set restarts across round one.
In the NRL’s weekly missive to coaches, head office warned that several areas of play will come under the microscope in round two, including ruck speed, contact on playmakers after passing and kicking, and how and when captains approach referees.
Set restarts increased 35% and divided the game. The NRL says they missed even more
The NRL has warned coaches to “expect a high focus” on ruck infringements as rugby league’s latest controversial rule takes centre stage again.www.smh.com.au
I dont get it. Also, what the hell with this new interpretation about not using one arm to bat the ball back when going up for a bomb?Great, just what the game needs
HaroldBishop
Megalodon
Yeah i don't get that either.
I'd be interested to know what tackles the NRL identified as deserving of either penalties or restarts that were not awarded. Primarily I'd be interested in if they would, on average, arrest or extend a run of momentum.Great, just what the game needs
If they are deserved penalties/6 agains then obviously they should be called either way, but these dominant runs of momentum 6 agains can create are already bad enough.
As always, I'd also be interested to know how many 6 agains the referee group felt were correct or incorrect, because as a fan I feel like half of them I'd have to go over with a microscope to figure them out. Per article Slater felt all the slow PTB 6 agains were warranted.
The number of set restarts was high, so if they also feel like they missed quite a few, either there is a big discipline issue that needs to be stamped out across the league or they are calling them too easily. I don't think they should be called more liberally than penalties, but it does feel like some are.
Theoretically (with very loose maths) the correct number of 6 agains this season, based on data of this article, is 6.7. So we were only really just over 1 per game more than 'expected'. Probably not shocking in round 1 where discipline, understanding of interpretations and game fitness may all be a bit off.
(60% of field in 2025 has average of 5.9, 100% of field in 2021 has average of 7.5, so 80% of the field in 2026 should be 6.7)
Of the games played the 6 again totals were: 5, 5, 14, 10, 9, 4, 10, 7. So there are really only 3 games that blew the overall total average out - Storms 48 point win, Warriors 24 point win, and the Raiders GP win which featured one team not touching the ball for the first 11 minutes.
Really have no idea what the hell they are talking about with these new kick challenge interpretations.
If they want to eliminate bat backs then just openly say that. That is the outcome of insisting both hands must compete for the ball.
I think they have tried to reword their already confusing and inconsistent rules on 'disruptors' with an assumption a player who just throws one hand up can't be legitimately playing just for the ball and has more focus on throwing off the defender, and that would definitely be true some amount of the time but certainly not all of it.
When SS batted down for Kennedy to score one hand only came up a little and had no involvement, but it was a very clean and deliberate play at the ball by him. I thought they may take it off us and so did commentators because only one hand touched the ball.
The two options the NRL has when a player goes up with an apparent intention just to baulk the other catcher are
- "we don't care, it is part of the skillset for you to still make the catch even through baulking"
- "we don't want baulking, either genuinely contest the ball or stay out of it"
They've decided they want the second one but can't figure out how to word it in a more professional way than just 'we want to be able to decide based on vibes in the moment the intentions of the player, which we couldn't possibly know for sure, although body language and whether they look at the ball or not is often an okay indicator'
AdShark
Oceanic Whitetip Shark
Guess it’s to prevent just sticking a hand out and calling it a challenge but too difficult to police as a set rule
Just throw two hands up in the air randomly instead. Lose a bit of extension, but that doesn't matter too much if you're not really going for the ball
The whole disruptor thing is dumb.
Say it @HaroldBishop !
I get what they want out of it. But they made it confusing, it doesn't sound like they know how they are judging it, and then they have doubled down and made it even more confusing now!
If they admit they aren't perfect, it's not that hard to convey their point (IMO). But I think the key is they need to admit calls will be made by the officials just based on vibe
NRL: We have decided we only want players involved in catches thatare making a genuine attempt to either catch the ball, or knock it back for their teammates. We do not want players who are making a genuine attempt to be impeded by those who are not. To ensure this we will need to make case by case judgement calls on what we believe the players motivations are. We accept this is not a perfect science but we think the general outcome is worth occasionally getting it wrong.
Some of the indicators we may use to determine if we feel the contest is genuine or not are
- was the attempt mistimed? To end up as a genuine attempt, regardless of intention, the player needs to execute reasonable timing
- was the player looking at the ball? For a player to be genuinely playing at the ball they would typically need to know where it is
- was a catching or bat back motion made? Simply placing a hand in the vicinity of the ball is not the same as playing for the ball
- x
- y
- z
Much like determining defensive decisions, things like strip vs loose carry, careless vs reckless dangerous tackles, escort lines, and many other facets of the game we realise we are making a call based on how we perceive a players intention rather than a concrete certain fact, but using the above factors we will endeavour to be as consistent as possible to ensure the outcome we seek - players making a genuine attempt at the ball are not impeded by those who are not.
I don't get it to be honest. I can't remember anyone complaining about being baulked when trying to catch a ball pre-disrupter days. They could already penalise if a player was physically taken out.
Yeah they have tried to fix something I don't think fans were feeling was a problem.
Is the game better for having people able to baulk? Well, no I don't think so. Not a big deal, but definitely not improving the game IMO
Is the game better for this mess of a misunderstood solution? Pretty unanimous no
Vichyssoise
Jaws
Yes. By the letter of the (new) law, Sam's bat back on Saturday was illegal. Matt Russell on Fox even said bunker might be interested. Fortunately sanity prevailed. But it's only Round 1, plenty more stupidity to come.
Western Sharkie
Jaws
Doesn’t this happen all the time anyway?
I know at my house it does!
My wife is the main culprit, quickly followed by the biggest death stare and storming off in a huff………
8-9 times daily
That’d certainly make you lose a bit of extension!
You're lucky there's no bunker!
Vichyssoise
Jaws
Surprised it's not 6-7.
Western Sharkie
Jaws
Maybe it is…….
HaroldBishop
Megalodon
40-32, I mean it's still not enough....