13 replies to this topic

[johnh]

Watching the way the advantage law was interpreted on Sunday, it seemed to me that if the attacking side knock on while you are defending in your own half, you as the the defending side shouldn't pick the ball up, but just hack it as far as you can down the field. That way, if you get the ball back, all well and good, you've gained 40-50 yards, and if you don't get the ball back, you just go back to where the knock on was and get the scrum anyway.

It's going to make a profound change to the game, if I've understood it correctly, or are we going to get a different interpretation each week from different referees?

What do people think?

[Robin Evans]

daft rule... scrap it. It interferes with the flow of the game and gives already stretched refs even more decisions to rule over.

[gazza77]

Watching the way the advantage law was interpreted on Sunday, it seemed to me that if the attacking side knock on while you are defending in your own half, you as the the defending side shouldn't pick the ball up, but just hack it as far as you can down the field. That way, if you get the ball back, all well and good, you've gained 40-50 yards, and if you don't get the ball back, you just go back to where the knock on was and get the scrum anyway.

It's going to make a profound change to the game, if I've understood it correctly, or are we going to get a different interpretation each week from different referees?

What do people think?

That's exactly what appeared to happen in the Wakey game! Games could end up lasting loads longer if there are lots of knock ons, and subsequent booting of the ball down to the other end of the pitch. Pointless!

[Bob Crowther]

If its not broken, don't fix it, but having said that, it is the RL we are talking about.

[thundergaz]

After Sunday and the wakey game it looks like DP isn't entertaining the rule anyway. C@s and wakey both took advantage of the rule and played for it too. We have never tried to play the rule yet but there is no better place to try it than a friendly and we haven't tried it once so I reckon DP thinks its a stupid rule too or he just doesn't think it's worth entertaining. DP as one way of playing the game as we all know he doesn't have a plan B so with this rule why would he have a plan C. But for what it's worth I think it's a stupid rule too. I reckon the SL clubs came up with this as the clowns at the RFL are not clever enough to come up with an idea to improve our game no matter how stupid the rule is.

[lingard]

We kicked the ball down field against Wakefield on numerous occasions if I recall correctly. ###### rule and smacks to me of Rugby Onion. Scrap it, designed to speed up play but in reality it slows everything down.

[Robin Evans]

We kicked the ball down field against Wakefield on numerous occasions if I recall correctly. ###### rule and smacks to me of Rugby Onion. Scrap it, designed to speed up play but in reality it slows everything down.

could not agree more. Discuss all those points almost verbatim on sunday

[The Phantom Horseman]

Agree completely that the rule is a nonsense and should be scrapped. That said, if they do persist with it, I think the way forward tactically is the chip over the top rather than the hopeful hoof downfield - much more chance of regaining possesion and if you do you will have a fair chance of scoring a long-range try.

[johnh]

It's also going to waste a lot of energy for the players charging up and down the field, because 9 times out of ten you won't get to the ball first anyway, so you've sprinted up the field for nothing, then have to trudge all the way back. I agree, scrap it, but how many games are going to be spoilt before the decision makers realise how stupid it is?

[jamescolin]

Perhaps not quite with it just off my flu bed but isn't it much the same as the old rule. One side knocks on and the ref plays advantage, no advantage gained and the scrum is packed down where the original offence was made. Head to the non offending side. The chances of getting possession after kicking 40 yards ahead are not realistic. Surely it is the coaches who are saying do this that are delaying the game. Probably why DP says don't do it.

[Matt J]

Get rid, adds nowt to the game

[Steve Slater]

I could understand it if the ball was hacked on while on the floor, but on one occasion it went through 3 or 4 pairs of hands before the Cas winger kicked it upfield when he looked like getting tackled. The ball ended up being kicked dead by Liam Finn, so I would have thought that Cas would have received the benefit of a Fev drop-out from under the sticks, but the ref dragged them all back 90 metres to where Fev dropped the ball on the Cas 10 metre line. Double insanity? It could be like a pantomime when a team kicks or throws the ball about in gay abandon, with no repercussions if the opposition should intercept or run the ball back to go over the try line.

If a team was marginally leading in the last few minutes, and the opposition dropped the ball, they could run the clock down by kicking upfield only to be brought back after a time consuming chase. Would it cause a riot?

[Ackydave]

It's not rugby union! All this does is slow the game down.

Scrap it

But, as already pointed out earlier, it's the RFL we're talking about (Yeh! scrap those boogers too!) and who knows who influences their fevered brains with hints of 'tother game.

[Griff]

Having watched it in action for the first time last night, I like it. It's almost a "free play" where the players can take risks they wouldn't normally take.

Just welting it downfield to see if you can recover the ball isn't going to be the smartest play.

And the smart players will be the ones who take advantage of it.