Law Innovations Trial QLD
-
@nzzp said in Law Innovations Trial QLD:
same as 50/22. Keen to see that dropped as well. It hasn't had the effect they wanted.
Difficult to judge - there have been a few, but is it not used because the defensive players are dropping back? Or because the kickers don't want to put through an uncontestable kick? Are attacks not going wide enough to make use of the space that might be there when they're attacking around halfway?
Watch nearly every Test team - if they get up to the 10m line it is usually a midfield bomb. You see the wingers/FB come up to contest, because they were hovering back around the 22 waiting, either on "coathangers" duty or for the 50/22.
-
@Machpants said in Law Innovations Trial QLD:
@voodoo said in Law Innovations Trial QLD:
@Crucial said in Law Innovations Trial QLD:
@voodoo said in Law Innovations Trial QLD:
I like pretty much all of those. On the advantage rule, if the ref is clear and the attacking team awake, they'll just need to make a call after the 2nd phase as to whether to have a crack on the 3rd or to take the penalty (by knocking on or whatever). Might not be perfect, but I detest unlimited and unclear advantage for 12 phases before being called back,
Can players just ask for the penalty to apply? Surely that is better than making them deliberately knock on? Call it like a mark. Often I think players keep on playing because they are unsure what the ref is thinking and the ref thinks he should keep advantage going because the players are continuing to play.
Oh absolutely, zero issue with that
I'm sure they can ask
I have heard the ref ask sometimes and occasionally the players but it isn’t common. I think it is worth a trial to make it clearly an option to see if it is used.