dont worry its a great idea.

some people just struggle with change

thats just gonna complicate things even more.

in the circumstance described above wouldnt it be classed as a professional foul anyway? punishable by a penalty and sinbinning

yes at first probably



but i think we'd get used to it eventually. the idea of two markers and a defensive line ten yards back seemed tricky originally!

which circumstance do you mean?

why, soccer has red card / yellow card.

basically unless its a violent conduct you cant kick for touch.

its very simple.

endless penalties ruin a game.

the best part of the game is when it just flows without stoppages

a game can build up nice momentum and its great to watch

you get endless stupid penalties and it makes the game stop start.

especially when its for a penalty for a minor infringement

we want to have a game which flows, not something which allows referress to get involved.

Or maybe if teams were square at marker, got back 10 meters and didn't commit high tackles as often the game would flow?

if that attitude was around in 1907 we would still be playing rugby union

were a player in an attacking position is held down deliberately to slow it down in the last few seconds of the game!

i think your idea has legs, the main problem i would see in practise is that it may speed the game up too much,

i know the offending team lose a lot from a penalty with either points or a lot of yards but they also get a little breather and to reset the line, back to one hammers a team struggling to get back with more tackles to make quickly, all the attacking team would need to do is keep running at the markers struggling to get in position making 10 yards down the field and staying on the 1st tackle

im not sure it doesnt put too much effort into fitness, but it would be interesting to see it trialled and see how players and coaches adjust

in a similar vain, i would like to see a 5 minute sin bin for all head high challenges, i think tackle technique would change very quickly and they would disappear from the game,

i also wonder, with the amount of dummy half running we see these days, whether allowing teams to have a third marker wouldnt change it up a bit, it would take someone out of the defensive line so there would be a bit more space on the fringes encouraging more creative play

I understand what you're getting at.

But I think if the game were to become faster and more emphasis put on fitness then this would be a step forward for the sport.

some of the most enterprising play and skill is showcased when defences are tiring.

I think the tactic of teams committing a foul intentionally so their team can have a rest is something that we shouldn't accept. if the rules i'm talking about were put in place then teams would not intentionally give away penalties as there'd be no guarantee of a rest! All it would mean is that they'd have to make six more tackles.

The back to one would hammer tiring defences but surely this is a positive aspect of my idea? The incentive to be squeaky clean in all aspects of the game would still be there because if you're not then you're not going to get the ball.



What about clumsy tackles where there is no malice or agression?

Only complication would be for the ref, and players able to understand if it was a full blown penalty or reset the tackle count. Not sure the offences in the category 1 can be classed as minor. Interference at PTB is an effective way of slowing opponents ball down, downgrading that would just result in even more negative play.

How would spectators know of the 'penalty' and more tackles to follow?

restarting the tackle count is still a fair penalty, its just not as draconian as a kick for touch & restarting the tackle count

the referree can signal six to go for the minor penalties

Your first point i'd agree, it could be at the referees discretion to pull it up and award the 'penalty' e.g. deliberate slowing with a minute to go.
I don't personally like your idea of all head high challenges in the bin. We have a contact sport and occasionally there will be them, for me it's part and parcel. IMO chicken wings should be an instant sin bin though.

Again sod 3rd markers..GET RID OF 'MARKERS SQUARE'!!
haha sorry it's something i'd love to see implemented, to stop all the dummy half running, or one out football and get rid of those feckin annoying penalties where the tackled player gets up moves a yard to the left and the hooker goes right 'PIIING'.
People would need to be 'slightly' more creative, no need for 5m defence lines or 3rd markers ere!

It's simplification by reducing the options. Basically a penalty is given, but the team that the penalty is awarded to can only take the tap - except that it's a re-start by ptb. Not a big change at all.
Would be interesting to trial it and see how it goes. I think that as a speccy I would get really confused as to what is going on - would need an in-stadium announcer to explain that the count was zeroed.

a full blown penalty would be indicated the same way as it is now, a back-to-one penalty would be indicated by three short blasts of the whistle and the existing back to one signal.

interference is an effective of slowing opponents down but it would still be penalised so I don't think the incentive to interfere would be that great. You're still costing your side another six tackles.

It isn't a "downgrading" of offences as such, more a way of speeding up the process of the spotting and awarding of a penalty for a common offence.

Illiegally slowing down opponents ball is not a minor offence, it breaks the flow, results in a succession of drives and a kick because the defence is already set by the time the ball is back in open play.

even those, i think it would force players to always err on the side of caution when tackling around the head, a clumsy tackle is accidental and yes it has no malice but it is still avoidable,

i think what we would see rather than lots of players in the bin, is a change in tackle technique which would mean we just wouldnt see head high tackles anymore

the only dispensation i would give is when a player falls into it because that is just unfortunate and not really the fault of the tackler

this is some of the best thinking ive read on here

this is the kind of good idea you get from a leading NRL coach who has a great knowledge of the game and thinks about how to improve it

some people have raised some valid critisisms but they are fairly minor

a kick for touch and a restart of the penalty count are way to draconian

I don't think it would be that confusing for spectators or players and I certainly don't think a stadium announcement would be required!

If back-to-one is called by the ref at the moment, it's pretty clear to most people what's happened. If you add three blasts of the whistle to this then I don't think there'd be much confusion.

That's the main plus of the idea for me, keep it flowing.
Not only that but i reckon the 40m a team gains is too much sometimes for petty offences.

On a slightly different note how do you think it would affect scores? Because sometimes you can 'clear your line' with a penalty. Would the better teams benefit far too much from a rule change like this? or would it make no difference?

everyone used to love bill harrigan being the ref for origin.

why?

he let the game flow and would hardly blow penalties.

the problem with this is if players know this they will deliberately commit more offenses knowing the penalty will be small.

but clearly the goal of less penalties in a game is a good one.

another suggestion is to maybe have use of the sin bin if a player commits say 3 penalties, much like personal fouls in basketball

But much of what you are classifying as "minor penalties" are actually very cynical offences, simply awarding another set of six would encourage more cynical play result in few line breaks and more conservative play.

the worst is when a team in defence has put a big effort and get to last tackle, and then for a very minor offence the attack gets a penalty and invariably a try as they are tired from all that tackling