Apr 18th, 2017

Channel Nine commentator Phil Gould believes there are three rules ruining the game at the moment. (AAP)

Apr 18th, 2017

The three worst rules in the NRL today are the stripping rule, the seven-tackle rule for 20-metre taps, and the inconsistent interpretation around so-called shoulder charges.

I don’t know about you but I find these three aspects of our game, the most frustrating of all.

1. The stripping rule, as it supplied by referees today, is ridiculous. It also seems to be a rule where no-one has the courage to deal with the interpretation.

The rule was originally introduced to prevent a defender racing in and stealing the ball from an opposition player, when he was already held in a tackle by one or more other defenders.

At the time, most people referred to this as the "Alfie Langer" rule. The little Bronco halfback was a master at coming in and reefing the ball away from a man in possession, whilst he was held in the tackle by a couple of his teammates. He was brilliant at the caper.

The argument came as to whether the referee had called the man "held", or that the tackle was complete before Langer stole the ball. To avoid the confusion, they simply made a rule that you could not steal the ball from a man in possession, if there were two or more defenders involved in the tackle.

The key action we were trying to eradicate in this situation was a defender "stealing" or "raking" the ball away from the player in possession.

Referees went completely overboard with the interpretation by penalising any defender who made contact with the ball during the tackle, causing that ball to come loose. Merely "coming in contact with the ball" in the process of making a tackle, is not "stripping".

What I find even more absurd is when a ball runner loses possession on impact when tackled, but is awarded a restart to the tackle count because the ball may have been dislodged by defender’s arm.

But wait, there’s more …..

Former Brisbane Broncos halfback Allan Langer was a master at stripping the ball when he had other teammates in the tackle. (AAP)



What about when a defender comes in contact with the ball with his arm during the making of a tackle, and because the ball comes loose, it has been ruled that the man making the tackle knocked the ball on.

How can a defender knocked the ball on, if the other player has the ball at the time? Surely a defender cannot knock the ball on, unless it has been released or passed by the player in possession, before the defender touches the ball.

I see too many ball runners undeservedly rewarded with penalties or a restart to the tackle count, despite the fact they have lost possession through their own loose carry or poor ball security.

Jolting the ball loose from a ball runner is not "stripping", "stealing", or "raking".

2. The blanket rule of awarding seven tackles for every 20m tap situation because of the attacking team’s infringement in the opposition in goal area drives me round the bend.

Surely common sense must prevail. Not every infringement in the opposition in goal area deserves a 20m territory penalty and a seven-tackle set.

Several years ago, we saw the negative tactic creep into the game where teams would deliberately kick the ball dead from long range to give their opponents a 20m tap, rather than risk kicking the ball to an opposition fullback or winger who had the brilliant running game and potential to hurt them on kick return. Don’t kick it to Darius Boyd. Instead kick it dead in-goal and just set up our defensive line ready for their 20m tap. This tactic was only used by a few teams in a few games. This negative play had hardly reached epidemic proportions and was not necessarily a huge issue in our game.

Lo and behold, in one of the most unbelievable knee-jerk reactions ever witnessed, the NRL came up with this most stupid of rules, that all 20m taps would now be rewarded with seven tackles rather than the standard six.

Brisbane fullback Darius Boyd's brilliance on kick returns led to negative tactics from some teams and prompted a rule change. (AAP)



They introduced the rule to combat the occasional negative tactic from a long-range kick. In doing so they included absolutely every infringement the attacking team can make in the opposition in-goal area, or forcing the ball dead in-goal through a kick from any distance.

The little grubber kick from 5m out that rolls an inch or two, to far. A team who misses a field-goal attempt and the ball goes dead in-goal. A kick that is caught on the full in the goal area, even if the kick only travels two metres! A player knocking the ball on, in the attempt to ground the ball for a try.

Why do any of these infringements warrant a 20m penalty and the seven-tackle set to your opposition?

It’s absurd.

If the tactic of deliberately kicking the ball from long-range was so bad that it need to be discouraged, then surely, we could get an interpretation to the rule that penalise as this one action, without penalising all the other ways a team can have a minor infringement in the opposition in goal area. Is it so difficult that someone in charge of the rules committee can’t deal with this matter straight away?

I see no place in our game for seven-tackle sets from 20m taps.

3. Finally, this whole obsession of trying to outlaw the “shoulder charge”, has gone way over the top.

We get it. Some aggressive shoulder charges where defenders race in and blindside a ball-carrier with a deliberate use of the tucked arm and cocked shoulder can cause serious injury. Furthermore, we understand the dangers if the aggressive shoulder contact, that’s delivered carelessly or recklessly, contacts the ball runner’s head. We all know what these things look like. We know the tackle you are trying to outlaw.

But honestly, some of the other stuff that gets penalised, charged, and even suspended in our game, defies belief. Some collisions in our game are just impossible to avoid and many instinctive actions of players as they brace for unexpected contact or collusion should not be ruled upon as shoulder charges.

The problem is we have no one who will take on the responsibility of deciphering the difference in the application of our rules. It’s a "one size fits all" approach.

Not only this, I’m convinced that judiciary expertise and rule implementation across the various levels of our game, differs remarkably.

Just this week, South Sydney player Sam Burgess was charged by the match review committee for delivering a so-called shoulder charge. Burgess was doing nothing more than bracing himself a collision. He should never have been charged. Thankfully, the judiciary panel members found him not guilty, correcting what would have been a gross injustice.

South Sydney forward Sam Burgess was cleared of a shoulder charge that would have been a gross injustice if it had been upheld. (AAP)



The problem I have is that Panthers NRL front rower Tim Browne was cited for an identical incident in a New South Wales Cup game recently, and to defend himself had to appear before a completely different judiciary process at the New South Wales Rugby League.

Highlighting the gross inconsistency in the application of this rule, Browne was found guilty at the judiciary hearing and incurred a two-week suspension.

Astounded by this decision, the Panthers club complained to the New South Wales Rugby League. Within 24 hours they called our NRL head coach Anthony Griffin to admit the judiciary had made a mistake with this ruling. That didn’t do Browne or the Panthers any good. Browne had to sit out the next two weekends and was unavailable to play in the NRL team even though he had suffered his unfair suspension add a completely different judicial level in a different competition. I have no doubt that if his case was heard before the same judiciary panel that exoneration Sam Burgess, and many other NRL players before him, Browne would also have been cleared.

This is not the first time this has happened. The RLPA should be looking to protect player’s rights in this regard.

For NRL coaches, it creates quite the dilemma.

Does this mean that NRL clubs are at risk of losing players to suspension if they play them in State League competitions to keep fit, when they are not required to play NRL football that weekend?

Anyway, you may have opinions on these three areas of our game. You may also have some other aspects of the game and rule interpretations that you would like to express.

Don’t start me on play-the-ball infringements and pocket referees. Please don’t raise the issue of obstruction rulings from the bunker. And you old-timers, please spare me your frustrations on the modern-day scrums and all the ways they disappoint you.

Remember, none of this should be seen by way of criticism of our referees. This has nothing to do with the referees. This has everything to do with the rules of our game and the interpretations that are imposed upon referees to deliver. It’s the rules that are wrong. Not the officiating.

Under the circumstances, I think our referees do a pretty good job, despite the over-coaching they receive.