The Aussies are trialling a couple of new rules in the upcoming All Stars game. I like the 20/40 rule, could have some mileage:

The All Stars game will feature an innovative "power play", in which each captain can nominate a five-minute period in both halves, where the opposing side must drop two players.

The defending team will nominate which of their players must leave the field and if the team that has called the power play scores a try in that five minute period, the power play will end immediately.

The two teams cannot call a power play simultaneously.

In another innovation, infringements in the ruck area will lead to an immediate restart of the tackle count, as opposed to a kick for touch.

The 40-20 rule has been expanded to include 20-40 kicks in play.

I don't mind the 20-40 kicks as it's just the same as 40-20, but the power play idea seems like making changes for the sake of it.

It might make a close game exciting, but what use would it be in a blow out game?

I'm assuming you have to replace two players from the subs bench, otherwise it would be 13 v 11.

What difference would that make? Surely it's just taking two players off the team for 5 minutes to give the team with the Power Play the chance to score?

I would have thought that getting rid of a teams two best players for 10 minutes would be a big enough advantage.

Edit,
I've misread it. It's the defending team who decides which players get removed.

As usual

BJ at least I admit it when I am OCCASIONALLY wrong, unlike some on here.

Does Australia operate on a different calendar? Is it April 1st over there?

I think this is quite probably the most stupid idea I've ever heard.

Awful, if true.

The 'powerplay' is a nonsense gimmick, and risks us looking more like a 'Gladiators' type novelty game than a serious sport. No, no, no, no, no.

My worry about the 20/40 is that it could encourage a lot of RU-like kicking for territory by the FB when fielding a kick and I'd rather see the ball kept in hand.

I could live with the 20/40 if I had to, but would hate for us to turn into gameshow with the introduction of 'powerplay'.

Powerplay idea is just silly. Kick thing is fine although I thought they might have gone 50/10 which makes more sense than 20/40.

I agree fully, neither idea improves the game.

I agree!

The power play is just utter stupid.

The 20/40 will just encourage teams to kick more and we will end up with a rugby union style game.

I suppose the argument for the 20:40 could be that the team without the ball may have to drop the wingers back early to cover the kick.

An attacking team with pace in it's backs could use that space to attack from deep. As usual just a point to promote discussion.

Personally I don't see much merit in either proposal, but you know me I'm always open to reasoned debate.

It possibly is the intention, but equally it could lead to fullback tennis.

I love to see a team try to escape from their own 10 with well crafted RL, if it ain't broke...

It could work if we had 6, 7 and 9 with vision and could pass a ball accurately. The Aussies will love it.

Just look at the Golden Boot results.

Over here forget it.

O... M... F... G....... Why don't we just go the whole hog and make the players all play with giant foam rubber feet and clown costumes on? We could make them play with a wet fish instead of a ball as well for even more comedy value. How about installing hidden trip-wires at random locations on the pitch - that'd be hilarious too... Rugby League is inately the most entertaining spectacle there is in sport - why the **** do the jerks who run it insist on constantly trying to denigrate it and make it into a laughing stock with this kind of nonsense? We desperately need rule changes to encourage creative half and back play and penalise one-out forward barging. We do not in any way shape or form need "It's a Knockout" segments instead. Where the hell are the heads of the guys who run RL anyway? Not in the real world that's for sure...

Why do we need to take forward play out the game? It's part and parcel of rugby league and sometimes the battle of teams that use forward play against teams that play with their backs is great to watch.

They should just leave the game as it is!

This game is often used to trial things, does not mean they will be adopted.

It's a safe way to test new rules at a elite level without it having to be done in a game that means anything

For this powerplay idea to have got as far as being trialled in a match is an absolute abomination. Whoever suggested it should have been laughed out of the boardroom and forced to wear a dunce hat for the rest of the week.

Why?


If it does not work then it will go no further. It's an exhibition match nohing more. It's like going to watch the harlem globe trotters and then complaining that every single player has not been pulled up for travelling.

You can't test an idea without seeing the practical impact of it in an actual match.

I'm sure when we moved from unlimited tackle people where saying it was a daft idea. Or maybe the 5 meter defensive line to 10. From no interchanges to 4 now 12 or what ever number we are having.

People love to throw out ideas without actually seeing them, but you would think for a sport based on the idea of moving the game on to make it more entertaining, we would not be so quick to shoot down an exhibition match.

It probably will not be adopted, but without trying who knows??

Lets face it we had Jonny Vegas playing in an exhibition match for a testimonial, but that idea of having a strange looking excuse for a rugby player taking a drive in of the ball was not adopted anywhere outside of Wigan.

I don't have an issue with ideas being trialled in exhibition matches or friendlies. My point is that for an idea to get to that stage there should at least be a reason for doing it. I've got no problem with the other two ideas being trialled (I don't really agree with either of them, but I can see why there might be a debate to be had), but the powerplay idea is completely arbitrary and doesn't address anything that might be considered a problem with the game. If I walked into a meeting and suggested that we should trial a new rule where if a player shouts "by the power of Grayskull" no-one is allowed to touch him until he has run 7.5 metres, I would hope that someone would politely tell me that my idea was stupid and that trialling it would be a waste of everyone's time.

Perhaps you should read what people have said [url=http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/nrl/rugby-league-all-star-match-to-see-three-new-rule-innovations/story-e6frfgbo-1226212746691about its introduction[/url because it suggests it's not completely arbitrary (let's be honest it won't have happened as you suggested with somebody just throwing it into the mix without discussion).

When I first read thei "power play" suggestion I had to check in case I was reading an old thread that had been started on April 1st.

Its a ludicrous idea.

S57

Fair enough, my 'jackass in the boardroom' scenario was far-fetched.

So there is some logic behind it, but it would seem to be based on what I think is a fundamentaly misguided notion, namely that the game will be more exciting if more points are scored. Not only is the basis for the idea unsound, but introducing a rule which manufactures a totally arbitrary advantage to one team for a given length of time just seems to me utterly wrong-headed, and runs entirely contrary to the spirit of the game. Rugby League is a game in which you have to earn your territory and work hard to create space for your backs - the battle to do that is, as far as I'm concerned, the central focus of the game. Why even consider undermining it?