NRL

Despite the opinions of most fans, clubs, players and hardcore rugby league traditionalists, the NRL appears hellbent on ignoring them and changing the rules of rugby league every year.

Read more Football

This is exactly the message the NRL is sending with its latest proposal, which is now set to be trialled during the 2026 season and could ultimately change kick-offs, and rugby league, forever.

Whether it is a complete lack of self-awareness, stubbornness or simply a disrespect for the most important voices in the game, being the fans and players, remains to be seen.

The SMH has reported ARLC has approved a trial of a controversial kick-off change in matches with no bearing on the finals later in the 2026 season, with the proposal allowing the team that conceded a try to decide whether it wants to kick off or receive the ball to restart play.

MORE: Cowboys star Tom Dearden makes major call on future amid Sydney rumours

Whilst neither team involved in the trial will have their finals campaign impacted by the result, the significance of implementing a change in an NRL match is far greater than one individual game.

We have seen this approach before, with the Captain’s Challenge trialled in pre-season matches before being introduced as a competition rule, providing a precedent for supposedly experimental changes quickly becoming permanent features of the game.

Based on how often the NRL is changing rugby league and how little they seem to care about the feedback its biggest stakeholders give them regarding it, you would be forgiven for thinking this was simply a box-ticking exercise before the rule becomes permanent.

Because largely, that is what it has become.

If you speak to any long-term rugby league fan on the street, most will tell you one of the things they hate most about the game in 2026 is the rules, whether that is the sheer volume of changes, the way those changes are altering the fabric of what rugby league was or simply the individual rule itself.

Getty Images

The six-again rule has been one of the most contentious, and one the NRL has already had to reshape multiple times because it was arguably implemented too quickly and has produced a game that is increasingly difficult to reconcile with the sport many fans grew up watching.

Even the players’ association has questioned the NRL’s approach to major rule changes, with the issue of meaningful consultation repeatedly becoming a flashpoint between the governing body and the RLPA.

For the most part, the NRL has been steadfast in its approach to rule changes, which at times has bordered on being disingenuous.

In 2025, we were subjected to the broken record of NRL officials insisting there had been no rule changes for the season, because multiple interpretation and officiating changes to criteria for existing rules were not being classified as rule changes.

It was a frustrating stance when fans were watching a 2025 season that was, in plenty of areas, being adjudicated differently to the season before, while the NRL appeared determined to convince everyone it was the same game.

Except, of course, it wasn’t.

Multiple new rule changes were then introduced for 2026, with the most significant arguably being the NRL doubling down on six-agains, including moving the threshold for certain set restarts from the 40-metre line to the 20-metre line.

If rugby league is consistently in such good shape, why on earth do we feel the need to change the fabric of the game so heavily every single year?

The latest push is sure to be just as controversial as any rule change under Peter V’landys’ leadership, with clubs having already pushed back strongly against the proposed kick-off alteration.

If you did a street poll, it is hard to imagine many traditional rugby league fans rushing to defend the idea either — so who exactly are the NRL doing this for?

When changing rules, the biggest things to consider should be whether the change is actually needed, what exactly you are trying to achieve, the repercussions of the change and whether we are still left with the fabric of what is supposed to be rugby league.

The stated purpose of the kick-off change is to manipulate momentum and give teams that have just conceded a try a better chance of getting back into the game, but the logic behind it is completely flawed.

If the Penrith Panthers are winning 18-0 against the Titans and the Gold Coast manage to fight their way back to 18-6, they are suddenly back in the game with momentum, but under the proposed rule their comeback could be immediately stifled by Penrith choosing to receive the kick-off rather than give the ball back to the Titans.

Let’s also call a spade a spade here — who on earth is going to CHOOSE to not receive the ball in rugby league. If we are changing it, change it to what it is, the team who scores has to kick off.

The entire point of scoring a try in rugby league has always been that you earn the right to restart the game by forcing the opposition to kick the ball back to you, and this proposal turns that fundamental concept on its head by effectively rewarding a team for conceding points.

That is probably the biggest argument against it, because rugby league has always been a game built on earning possession of the football, while the proposed change completely slaps that ethos in the face by rewarding poor defence and punishing the team that has just scored.

Getty Images

If the NRL is serious about bridging the gap between cellar dwellers and the powerhouses through rule changes, perhaps they should start by looking at the six-again system, which has arguably created an even bigger advantage for the competition’s best teams.

The worst teams in the NRL cannot keep up with the physicality, power, fitness and skill of the top sides, so it makes complete sense that they will be pushed into giving up six-agains when they are under sustained pressure.

There are more infringements in a game of rugby league today when you combine penalties and six-agains than there were penalties before the six-again rule was introduced, and who is being slugged with these extra infringements? Of course, for a large part, it is the worse-performing teams in the league, and those are the teams most vulnerable and least able to deal with that swing.

When I speak about the NRL being disingenuous, this is another example of the murky waters they have created around the six-again system.

The combined penalties and six-agains were sold to clubs, players and fans as simply replacing penalties — instead of blowing a penalty for a ruck infringement that would previously have been blown, the referee would just call six-again.

Except, of course, that is not what has happened. There are now more total infringements in games when you combine penalties and six-agains than there were penalties before the six-again rule was introduced, completely undermining the argument that six-agains were simply replacing penalties that would have been blown anyway.

Anyone who watches the game knows that six-agains have become a huge part of how matches are shaped, and the teams suffering most are often those already struggling to contain the competition’s best attacks.

Of course the NRL will never willingly admit to the multitude of issues that have emerged from six-agains, but that is important to note because it completely contradicts the supposed reasoning for the kick-off change in the first place.

The NRL says it wants to reduce the ability of a team to build unstoppable momentum, yet it has simultaneously introduced a rule that creates longer attacking periods, more fatigue and more opportunities for the best teams to punish weaker sides.

Perhaps next year the league can allow non-top-eight teams to have a 14th player on the field?

If we no longer care about the fabric of rugby league, the opinions of the people who actually play it or what the fans want to watch, it seems difficult to outright rule anything out….no matter how ridiculous.

NRL

Comments