Blocker's Blow Up: It's time to fine-tune the rules

Steve Roach | rugbyleaguelive.com | 18/07/08 | 0

All this talk of players signing contracts, breaking contracts, defecting to rugby or heading to the UK is making me dizzy.

Every now and then these guys actually play football, and just once in a while it's kind of fun talking about the game we actually sit down each weekend to enjoy.

Now, we know our game isn't perfect. It never will be. But to my way of thinking, there are some really fundamental laws which could do with a bit of fine-tuning.

Firstly, penalties.

It just seems to me that more and more games are being won or lost on the basis of a crucial penalty or 50/50 call.

More tries are being scored in the sets directly following a penalty than ever before, and how often do teams on the wrong end of the penalty count come away with the win?

Rarely. At best.

I think the reason for this is the huge advantage a team receives with a free-kick penalty.

For example, how many times have you seen a team work it out from their own in-goal to the 40m line, only to get a dubious 'holding down' penalty on the 5th tackle?

They kick for touch, tap it on the opposition's 30m line, and before you know it they are attacking the tryline for repeat sets or a try.

Now sure, the defensive team should be penalised for the infringement. But that one decision could very realistically cause a six point swing in the game.

We are always bagging the referees for incorrect decisions, but maybe we should deflect that blame towards the rules which allow a simple penalty to turn a match on its head.

My suggestion?

Let's have two types of penalty. Like the old 'short arm, long arm'. Let's have minor infringements like holding down and ball strip as, say, 'Grade Two' penalties.

These can simply reset the tackle count. No free kick. Just a play the ball.

We saw Todd Carney get penalised for stepping off the mark against the Dragons on Sunday. Now, theoretically, St George could have kicked a penalty goal to win the game (had it been drawn).

Should that really have decided the outcome? Not in my opinion.

That's a perfect example where the Dragons could have been handed possession via a play the ball. No free kick. No shots at goal.

Now the second tier of penalties would be 'Grade One'. High tackles, dangerous tackles and offside penalties. These would receive a free kick as per usual.

What do you think? Would this work?

Secondly, tries from kicks.

I'll be honest. I hate seeing teams score cheap tries from launching the ball as high as possible and hoping for the best. To my way of thinking, this shouldn't be worth the same amount of points as a well worked backline play, or clever offload.

Let's make tries from kicks worth two points. And take away the shot at goal. If you score from a bomb or grubber, you get your two points and that's it. Now how many teams would we see running the ball and working set plays if this were to happen?

Greg Inglis is a master at fielding bombs. So is Israel Folau. But I guarantee most punters would prefer to see them combine in a classy backline movement rather than catch a kick and dot it down.

Thirdly, golden point extra time.

Why are games still decided by field goals? We see two teams battle it out for 80 minutes, pushing for tries and repeat sets.

Then, just when the game reaches its golden point crescendo, we change the rules.

All of a sudden team tactics change.

Just when we want to see teams open up and chance their arms – they play safe and tight.

Just when we want to see attacking, exciting footy – they become defensive.

Golden-point should be decided by a try, not a field goal or penalty goal.

Let's see them go all-guns-blazing for the four-pointer. Let's make golden-point a showcase for our game. The field-goal arm wrestle isn't rugby league. It's rubbish.

Well, that's my rant. Have you got any suggestions?

The field-goal arm wrestle isn't rugby league. It's rubbish Steve 'Blocker' Roach