Why clubs absolutely despise NRL’s proposed kick-off rule

Rugby league's 2026 began with the report of a handful of new rules proposed by the NRL in an attempt to promote greater contest and strategy within games, and as a result, boost the game's entertainment factor.

In the mix is the widely controversial kick-off rule after teams have either scored or conceded tries, with the proposed rule stating that the conceding team in these circumstances have the choice to either kick off the next set, as per traditional practice, or to receive for the chance to contest for a try of their own.

Within only a week of the rule's proposal, the NRL have fought a losing battle, with players, fans and media figures alike, heavily criticising the decision that will truly shake up rugby league as we know it.

Reports of a unanimous stance against this new rule by all 17 clubs within the NRL franchise have hit headlines hard – though realistically, any controversy that has the Roosters and the Rabbitohs on the same side of the fence must indeed be a no-brainer.

So how have we come to this point and what is it about the NRL kick-off rule that we all seem to despise?

An email from the Clubs Consultation Committee, which essentially made its way to The Telegraph, states that “Clubs are opposed to this proposed rule, as they believe this changes the fabric of the game in a way that may not be justified.”

The “fabric of the game” in question comes with the belief of keeping the game as traditional as possible, especially when it is already working without fail in the modern era.

While supporters of this rule change claim that the new regulation will allow for a broader range of tactics, with teams likely opting for certain decisions depending on how much they are leading or conceding, as well as keeping the margins closer, honing a more competitive game overall, there is no shortage of naysayers rebutting with the age-old saying “if it ain't broke, don't fix it”, which essentially drives the question, is this change even necessary?

For a long time, the NRL have been accused of “change for change's sake”, yet it wasn't until now that the fire is really burning at their heels.

While critics were often quick to point fingers at the NRL in previous years, nothing was ever to do with the kick-off, establishing the fact that the rule itself is indeed, not broken.

In fact, the currently proposed rule has been attempted before, prior to the NRL's establishment, in the chaotic years of the Super League War and according to NRL and Nine expert Phil Gould, “it [the rule] was a disaster”.

With all the 17 teams bound in an allegiance against the NRL in this controversy, it's quite clear where the issue is, and to see that, we must ask ourselves, what is the purpose to be achieved through the rule change?

To repair a shattered part of the game? No. To build upon player welfare? No. To hone competitiveness and build interest in the game? Absolutely.

The NRL may think one way about how this rule change would forge a closer competition and smaller margins, with the addition of new tactical elements, yet at the end of the day, all of this boils down to an attempt to make the game more interesting, thus boosting membership, sponsorship and TV viewership, and in NRL terms, this translates to skyrocketing revenue, flashy billboard graphics and a thicker wallet for Peter V'landys.

Why do teams and players oppose this? Because what part of the rule change directly benefits them?

For the players, there are no rewards to reap on or off the field.

Imagine just having completed a gruelling attacking set with a well-earned try, fatigued, but giddy with the prospect of going again off the momentum.

Instead, the said momentum is put to an abrupt halt when referee Grant Atkins confirms that the team you happen to score against have requested possession and that you would be kicking off, then immediately launching into fast, hard defence.

If you wish to torture your mind further, imagine your opposition as the Melbourne Storm.

The fans will love the game with the low scorelines and competitive spirit. The NRL will love the game with the raining buckets of member/sponsorship gold.

The players, who make up the teams, will despise the game with its demanding shifts between attack and defence, as well as bottling the momentum that remains the “fabric of the game”.

The NRL can then argue that the rule was in fact targeted at the weaker sides in the competition, and that revenue played no role whatsoever in the initial proposal.

Even then, it is doubtful still that the bottom three sides will appreciate it.

If we're under the assumption that stronger teams will, under regular circumstances, score more tries than weaker ones, the weaker side happens to be at a further disadvantage, should the rule be introduced.

For example, if the Panthers are leading 3 tries to none against the Dragons, with the Dragons finally putting points on the board by coming back with one of their own, the Panthers may immediately request possession and get the next attacking set.

Given the Panthers have a higher set completion rate than the Dragons, we assume they score a fourth try. Dragons request possession and get intercepted midway with a blunder, leading to a fifth try for the Penrith boys.

In essence, the controversy will not end here.

While critics and media figures will continue to exchange blows with the NRL in the midst of the kick-off debate, both sides have their reason to do so.

How this rule will unfold prior to preseason is anybody's guess, yet at this rate, it seems that what isn't broken should indeed be left alone… or at least given proper examination down in reserve grade.