KIERSTEN DUKE: Too much rule tinkering is bad for NRL — or is it?

There’s an idea that rugby league should never stop evolving.

The NRL cannot simply stand still while the game changes around it. Player safety, entertainment, fatigue, tactics and the demands of modern television all have to be considered.

But there is also a point where tinkering becomes overkill and almost just for the sake of it.

Watching the NRL experiment with the new kick off rule, while simultaneously still dealing with the fallout from its expanded six-again interpretation, it is fair to ask whether the game is becoming unnecessarily complicated.

The new kick off rule is simple enough in theory. When a team concedes a try, penalty goal or field goal, they can choose whether to receive the restart or kick off itself.

I’m not convinced. As an expat one of the things that drew me to rugby league was how accessible and simple it was as a game. It was fast to pick up and easy to become a fan of.

It’s clear the rule has divided the league community.

South Sydney Rabbitohs coach Wayne Bennett is firmly in favour.

“It’s got a lot of benefits. You’ve got an option” Bennett said.

“If you don’t want to use the benefits, well just do what you always did because you’ve got a choice.”

That is a reasonable argument. The beauty of the rule, according to Bennett, is that teams are not being forced to abandon the traditional kick off. They simply have another tactical option available to them.

But that doesn’t mean everyone believes another option makes the game better. The players in particular seem confused by the new inclusion and Melbourne Storm’s Cameron Munster certainly isn’t convinced.

“I’m not a fan to be fair,” Munster said after the Storm’s trial against Brisbane.

“I know what they’re trying to do with the game, but it’s not going to stop those momentum swings.”

And perhaps that is the biggest problem with the change. Rugby league oozes excitement because it’s a game built around momentum.

A team scores a try, celebrates, resets and then has the opportunity to defend against the opposition’s response. That sequence is part of the fabric of the sport. It creates pressure and, importantly, the possibility of comebacks.

Melbourne actually became the first team to use the new rule when they elected to receive after conceding, attempting to stop Brisbane’s momentum while Melbourne were down a player. But the rule was only used three times during the game.

It’s hardly screaming revolution.

Perhaps the more interesting question is why the NRL feels the need to keep introducing new rules?

The expanded six again interpretation introduced this season has already dramatically altered the rhythm of matches. The restart can now apply to certain ruck and 10 metre infringements outside the 20 metre area, increasing the amount of possession and placing even greater emphasis on fatigue and defensive resilience. Players have raised concerns about the impact of the change, with some arguing that the referee’s whistle is now having too much influence on games.

That is where Munster’s criticism becomes particularly relevant.

His teammate Harry Grant made the point even more bluntly, “if you need to introduce a new rule to counteract the effects of another rule, perhaps the original rule needs to be reconsidered”.

That is difficult to dismiss.

The NRL should absolutely experiment. Trials are a good thing. After all, the game cannot improve without testing ideas in real situations.

But the players, who are at the core of it all, also deserve to be heard.

Munster made that clear when saying “sometimes you need to talk to the players as well, we’re not robots.”

That should be the takeaway.

The kick off rule may ultimately prove to be a clever tactical innovation. Bennett sees benefits and coaches may find ways to exploit the choice that nobody has considered yet.

But the NRL needs to be careful that in its quest to make rugby league faster, closer and more entertaining, it doesn’t accidentally strip away the very things that make the game compelling.

Perhaps Grant was right, the answer isn’t another rule.

Perhaps it’s simply making sure the rules we already have are working properly.