NRC Law Variations - have your say

[Eyes and Ears]

After the first week i think the rule changes/interpretations have had the desired effect.

Whilst only one match was broadcast the reports have indicated that there hasn't been any massive increase in cynical fouls, and teams are obviously boycotting penalty goals to go for tries instead.

The importance of kicking hasn't been lost with the Canberra Vikings losing to the Spirit despite scoring the same amount of tries. Having a 3 point conversion has ensured that kickers are still a vital piece of the team.

I didn't see any time wasting at the scrums or taking shot for goals in the Brisbane City vs Sydney Stars game, what about the rest of the games?

I believe there were 2 YCs for cynical fouls in each of the games in Canberra and Coogee. Might be a bit early to judge yet.

 

[Pfitzy]

The statistic which i want to see is the statistic of how long the ball is in play for compared to Super Rugby and Test Rugby. It should in theory be statistically higher due to the shot clock on the scrum and penalty kicks, as well as the reduced number of penalty goals.

In terms of providing bang for buck, the longer the ball is in play then the better it is for the fans and viewers.

Will be interesting to see the games they put up on YouTube, and whether they release the stats associated with time in play.

 

[Braveheart81]

The observation of Pfitzy is an interesting one. The Brisbane game seemed to finish earlier than traditional games. Less time wasting (no penalty shots) etc. Anyone pick that with the other games?

It was scheduled to start 10 minutes earlier than a Super Rugby game.

Penalty shots and scrum resets shouldn't change the length of the game because the clock doesn't stop.

Besides starting earlier, I think the biggest difference to the length of the game was not using the TMO. That makes a significant difference in my view.

Maybe there were also less lengthy injury breaks?

 

[Sully]

Half time was a lot shorter.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

Will be interesting to see the games they put up on YouTube, and whether they release the stats associated with time in play.

Game 1 - 37.18 mins for Ball in Play. The rest are not yet available.

 

[Omar Comin']

37.18 is excellent for a game with 10 tries. The time between a try being scored and the ball being kicked off again is fairly significant. Over a minute each time.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

Brisbane v Stars - 37.18
NSW Country v Rams - 34.28
Vikings v Spirit - 33.50
Rising v Rays - 32.43

 

[fatprop]

Ok two cents

I don't like the points change, it is leading to not enough punishment for penalties in the red zone.

 

[qwerty51]

Disagree, we saw the cards come out. I don't see there being more cynical stuff than other games and they're scoring tries too so where's the impact of red zone infringements? I'd like the conversions to go back to 2 though.

 

[Pfitzy]

I see an increase in cards for cynical infringements anywhere on the park. That's good enough for me

 

[fatprop]

The cards are after what 4 penalties, so 3 and no sanction, "9" points down under real rules

 

[Scoey]

I'm not certain you can readily attribute the increase in tries scored to the law changes.
This level of rugby was always going to have plenty of tries scored. At this level, defences are less organised and tacklers are not generally as competent or skilled compared to super rugby.
All the law changes have done is removed penalty kicks. I'm not yet convinced that the product is better for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Train Without a Station]

As many have noted there's a bit of a barbarians feel to it to date.

 

[Pfitzy]

The cards are after what 4 penalties, so 3 and no sanction, "9" points down under real rules

No. Because not all those penalties are in kickable distance. Is a key difference to refs just going to the pocket in the red zone or handing out multiple warnings.

 

[Omar Comin']

The cards are after what 4 penalties, so 3 and no sanction, "9" points down under real rules

Keep in mind if you kick a goal on the 1st penalty the ball then goes back to neutral territory. You may not get it back into the red zone for a long time.

It took about 10 minutes for the Vikings to get a yellow card for repeated infringements on Thursday night because the Rams kept attacking (and scored 1 try in the process - then a 2nd after the card). In a normal game it wouldn't have happened anywhere near that quickly. The Rams might have kicked a goal or two but because the Vikings then get the kick off, the pressure on their defence would have been less (and less immediate). The Vikings may well have had their own opportunities in the mean time, which would balance things out in the referees mind.

After that card the Vikings were forced to defend with a lot more discipline for the rest (and majority) of the match.

 

[Joe King]

I don't equate penalty goals to boring rugby, but it does get boring when games are full of penalty goals.

The new laws have been a breath of fresh air in the way they have negated this aspect of rugby.

I'd love to see these laws trialled at a higher level. The game would be more consistently pleasing for the spectator.

 

[ChargerWA]

I was against the points change for penalty/conversion originally, but I have decided it was a masters stroke.

My concern was that it could diminish the importance of kicking for goal, but with the number of tries being scored, in part because of the change they are getting just as much opportunity to kick as before. And from harsher angles a lot of the time. It might actually advantage our kickers.

 

[Scoey]

The longer the season goes on, the more tedious the NRC is getting for me. It's completely one dimensional now and just doesn't excite me. I certainly am interested in the results from a competition point of view and supporting my team but as far as a spectacle goes IMO they have diminished the game and the product.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pfitzy]

Which team are you supporting, out of interest?

 

[Scoey]

I'll also add that at the beginning, most folk that were supportive of the changes, held that position with the view that they would 'reduce' the amount of penalties.
I don't have any stats on me but any idea how many penalty goals have been attempted so far?
My view is that if the brief was to reduce penalties then they have gone too far.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk