The Disruptor Rule

apezza said:
I mean, thay have a separate rule for charge downs (no knock ons) so they could do it.

So - If its just between two players and it bobbles between them befor settling with one of the players therefore not a knock on? Yeah I can see that working.
Click to expand...
I'd change this rule if up to me. AFAIC if the defender is good enough to perform a charge down I don't believe the attacking team should be rewarded with 6 again if they get the ball back.
 
HaroldBishop said:
I'd change this rule if up to me. AFAIC if the defender is good enough to perform a charge down I don't believe the attacking team should be rewarded with 6 again if they get the ball back.
Click to expand...
I could live with that. It would protect the kicker more than other dumb rules they have introduced.
 
BlackWhiteBlue said:
I think aerial contests should haventheir own rules, in that whoever catches it gets it. If it bounces between players in the air, but you still come down with it (in control, not a bat back) then its your ball. No knock ons in the aerial contest (unless it hits the ground).

Disruptor is stupid. So is taking 20 minutes for the bunker to check if you knock it on into this guy before taking possession, given they refuse to use super slow motion or 4/8k footage, their viewing of these things is blurry and always contentious.

Let the players play
Click to expand...
Would be 'odd' by convention but I like the concept

Proud Shark said:
Not to mention the dumb tackle in the air rules. Just penalise it hard if a player is put in a dangerous position where they could land on their head/neck. Giving a penalty or a penalty try because a player changes from catching to putting their hand on the attacker is complete BS.
Click to expand...
Always been a strong agree on this, could argue the eel injury recently is a fair suggestion there is elevated risk even if not dangerous though.
Always some risk though, and I don't like penalising some of what they are calling tackles in the air.
Not sure how you implement something that works better though.
 
bort said:
Would be 'odd' by convention but I like the concept


Always been a strong agree on this, could argue the eel injury recently is a fair suggestion there is elevated risk even if not dangerous though.
Always some risk though, and I don't like penalising some of what they are calling tackles in the air.
Not sure how you implement something that works better though.
Click to expand...
Yeah, there's always risk in rugby league, though. I think the Simonson one is just a freak accident.

To me so much of the game could be fixed by buffing the judiciary and reducing the sin bins. Punish foul play after the game, unless it's reckless/intentional. If you then want to use injuries to weight decisions at least you can do it with some extra information, rather than in the heat of the game (I still think it shouldn't be a factor).

As for this ruling, I'd be fine with the ref being able to make a decision as to whether the player is genuinely competing for the ball, with a few potential makers of eyes for the ball and timing of the jump/contact. I think that's simple enough that you can get most decisions right with common sense. In almost all of these situations, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...... If in doubt, you go in favour of the attacking team. There should be an emphasis on allowing the players to compete for the ball.
apezza said:
If charge downs were deemed a knock on, you would have less players charging wildly at a kicker with their arms out.
Click to expand...
I thought HB was saying charge downs still not a knock on but also not 6 again, making them more attractive as it would still be last tackle.
 
apezza said:
If charge downs were deemed a knock on, you would have less players charging wildly at a kicker with their arms out.
Click to expand...
What percentage of players going at kicker are genuine charge down attempts vs pressure, or happy to cause pressure, but throw arms up anyway just in case

I don't know that answer and don't expect anyone here too, but just saying not sure charge down being a knock on would drastically decrease amount of players sprinting on on kicker, they probably just keep arms down more often
 
bort said:
Would be 'odd' by convention but I like the concept


Always been a strong agree on this, could argue the eel injury recently is a fair suggestion there is elevated risk even if not dangerous though.
Always some risk though, and I don't like penalising some of what they are calling tackles in the air.
Not sure how you implement something that works better though.
Click to expand...
I just hate the splitting hairs that goes on with some of these decisions.
 
Proud Shark said:
Yeah, there's always risk in rugby league, though. I think the Simonson one is just a freak accident.

To me so much of the game could be fixed by buffing the judiciary and reducing the sin bins. Punish foul play after the game, unless it's reckless/intentional. If you then want to use injuries to weight decisions at least you can do it with some extra information, rather than in the heat of the game (I still think it shouldn't be a factor).

As for this ruling, I'd be fine with the ref being able to make a decision as to whether the player is genuinely competing for the ball, with a few potential makers of eyes for the ball and timing of the jump/contact. I think that's simple enough that you can get most decisions right with common sense. In almost all of these situations, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...... If in doubt, you go in favour of the attacking team. There should be an emphasis on allowing the players to compete for the ball.

I thought HB was saying charge downs still not a knock on but also not 6 again, making them more attractive as it would still be last tackle.
Click to expand...
Issue with punishing after the fact is team that was hurt by the infringement gets no relief for it.
On the flip side, swings and roundabouts say you should benefit from someone elses misfortune just as often. Just doesn't have same obvious impact in the moment. Obviously real bad stuff can still be binned or sent.

As for ref/bunk (if called on) assessment, I tend to agree. There was one where a catcher went in arms up but other player got there arms to ball first, as they dragged the ball into their body the first player who was reaching for ball naturally had a) their hands track the ball around the players body and b) the players momentum going between their arms into contact
The player that became the defender almost got forced into a position that was a tackle, regardless of any effort to make a tackle. Could have been let go. Playing at the player, not going up to make a catch, or endangering someone are different stories from that and could be treated different.
 
bort said:
Issue with punishing after the fact is team that was hurt by the infringement gets no relief for it.
On the flip side, swings and roundabouts say you should benefit from someone elses misfortune just as often. Just doesn't have same obvious impact in the moment. Obviously real bad stuff can still be binned or sent.

As for ref/bunk (if called on) assessment, I tend to agree. There was one where a catcher went in arms up but other player got there arms to ball first, as they dragged the ball into their body the first player who was reaching for ball naturally had a) their hands track the ball around the players body and b) the players momentum going between their arms into contact
The player that became the defender almost got forced into a position that was a tackle, regardless of any effort to make a tackle. Could have been let go. Playing at the player, not going up to make a catch, or endangering someone are different stories from that and could be treated different.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the bold is my argument against it. That and the added bonus of not having accidents dictate results by putting a team down to 10 for something innocuous. I generally feel that if it's bad enough for a sin bin, it should be a suspension (professional fouls aside).

It would also just take so many of those decisions out of the referees hands, and put them in the judiciary's where they have the clarity of time and evidence to make informed calls. Which should (you'd hope) make for more consistent decisions.
 
Proud Shark said:
Yeah, there's always risk in rugby league, though. I think the Simonson one is just a freak accident.

To me so much of the game could be fixed by buffing the judiciary and reducing the sin bins. Punish foul play after the game, unless it's reckless/intentional. If you then want to use injuries to weight decisions at least you can do it with some extra information, rather than in the heat of the game (I still think it shouldn't be a factor).

As for this ruling, I'd be fine with the ref being able to make a decision as to whether the player is genuinely competing for the ball, with a few potential makers of eyes for the ball and timing of the jump/contact. I think that's simple enough that you can get most decisions right with common sense. In almost all of these situations, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...... If in doubt, you go in favour of the attacking team. There should be an emphasis on allowing the players to compete for the ball.

I thought HB was saying charge downs still not a knock on but also not 6 again, making them more attractive as it would still be last tackle.
Click to expand...
There's so many variations to the conversation going around I think I have suffered a HIA.

See you in 11 days!
 
HaroldBishop said:
I just think if a team isn't good enough to get a kick away because of pressure from the opposition should be rewarded.
Click to expand...
Yeah I get it. You know we will be the first team it happens to though!

Hynes' first kick in 2027 gets charged down, we chase it back and get tackled a metre out from our own line. Handover!

NRL360 talk about it for 3 weeks straight!
 
bort said:
Issue with punishing after the fact is team that was hurt by the infringement gets no relief for it.
On the flip side, swings and roundabouts say you should benefit from someone elses misfortune just as often. Just doesn't have same obvious impact in the moment. Obviously real bad stuff can still be binned or sent.

As for ref/bunk (if called on) assessment, I tend to agree. There was one where a catcher went in arms up but other player got there arms to ball first, as they dragged the ball into their body the first player who was reaching for ball naturally had a) their hands track the ball around the players body and b) the players momentum going between their arms into contact
The player that became the defender almost got forced into a position that was a tackle, regardless of any effort to make a tackle. Could have been let go. Playing at the player, not going up to make a catch, or endangering someone are different stories from that and could be treated different.
Click to expand...
I think there needs to be a full overhaul of hownthese things are done

1. Player taken out of game by foul play. Infringing player is “sent off” team can play with 13 on field still but lose a bench player.
2. If that happens at any point in the game, it factors in as a “time served” suspension so if its a 1 game suspension then they dont miss another match. Or if multiple game, then its counts as 1.

3. Injured player (by foul play) can be replaced with free interchange by any of the 6 man bench.

I think more in gam ramifications need to be made possible to disadvantage the team that commits the offence.

As Bort says, a suspensiok after the fact does not compensate the team that got the rough end of the stick
 
apezza said:
Yeah I get it. You know we will be the first team it happens to though!

Hynes' first kick in 2027 gets charged down, we chase it back and get tackled a metre out from our own line. Handover!

NRL360 talk about it for 3 weeks straight!
Click to expand...
Hynes kicking the ball 😂😂😂😂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top