Jump to content


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Rules or no rules

refs rules

  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#21 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 21,029 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 09:50 AM

Jesus to be Christ, are you James to be Child?


2826856.jpg?type=articleLandscape

 

On Odsal Top baht 'at.


#22 Southstander13

Southstander13
  • Coach
  • 1,259 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 11:32 AM

As much as it's talked about as far as I'm aware there is no such rule as the momentum rule.

 

 

This is in the rules, it does exist, its just that everyone seems to think Stevo invented it!

 

"Direction of Pass 1. The direction of a pass is relative to the player making it and not to the actual path relative to the ground. A player running towards his opponents’ goal line may throw the ball towards a colleague who is behind him but because of the thrower’s own momentum the ball travels forward relative to the ground. This is not a forward pass as the thrower has not
passed the ball forward in relation to himself. This is particularly noticeable when a running player makes a high, lobbed pass."

 

A link if you want to have a look yourself: http://www.therfl.co...nd_forward_pass


Edited by Southstander13, 30 April 2013 - 11:33 AM.


#23 Steve May

Steve May
  • Coach
  • 10,111 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 11:38 AM

The fact you haven't seen the laws of the game makes it difficult for you to be able to tell others what they actually are!

The fact that you think the ball "must" be heeled back and the ball is to be fed in the tunnel formed by the front rowers demonstrates that your opinion isn't based on the actual laws of the game, but misinterpretations you've made of them.

You need to read the rule book, because both those things are written in there as clear as day.

If RL was played by the actual rules as they are written down, it would be a different game.

That's me.  I'm done.


#24 Steve May

Steve May
  • Coach
  • 10,111 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 11:43 AM

The problem with rugby league is not that the laws are ignored, just that they are very badly documented.

Over the game's entire history it has constantly evolved and changed, banning shoulder charges and feeding the scrum being just two of many examples. But for some reason the laws have been updated to include the former, while the latter is called an interpretation and only written in memos that are distributed then lose.

Exactly. And it's a real bug-bear of mine. If the rules change, then the rules should be changes - and what's more, it should change for all RL played anywhere in the World, perhaps after a trial period in a low level league for more dramatic changes.


It must be very difficult for players and referees in countries where the game is not widely played to work out what the rules actually are.

That's me.  I'm done.


#25 brooza

brooza
  • Moderator
  • 4,303 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 12:03 PM

The rules don't seem to say anything about scrums being uncontested.

 

I think legally they are contested, but teams agree not to...


St Albans Centurions 1st Team Manager. Former Medway Dragons Wheelchair RL player.

Leeds Rhinos, St Albans Centurions y Griffons Madrid fan. Also follow (to a lesser extent) Catalans Dragons, London Broncos, South Sydney Rabbitohs, Jacksonville Axemen, Vrchlabi Mad Squirrels, København Black Swans, Red Star Belgrade and North Hertfordshire Crusaders.

Moderator of the International board

#26 PurstonJavelin

PurstonJavelin
  • Coach
  • 200 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 12:47 PM

“Keep your head in the scrum next time, Kev” means that Kev broke the rule this time. The referee saw it, and made a decision not to punish it for the sake of the flow of the game, to the appreciation of commentators and at least 50% of spectators. But it wasn't a victimless breaking of the rules: Kev's early look helped negate the opposition attack, allowing the defence to contain with the first tackle, and the forwards to spread for subsequent tackles.

This type of orchestration of the game, openly endorsed by those running the game, now completely pervades the sport, but particularly at the play-the-ball where moving forward, not using the foot, offside, and many other elements are fudged in order to keep the game flowing. It would be silly and unnecessary to blow up for all these minor offences we are told, but there are advantages derived from these actions, otherwise coaches would not work on them.

Referees are world experts on the laws of the game, rarely miss anything, and should generally be forgiven if they do. The increasing clamour surrounding their performances is due to the extent to which we now expect them to choreograph the game, provide us with a faster, more fluid spectacle, and a more entertaining experience. They must weigh every indiscretion against the potential damage done to the quality of the spectacle. It's an impossible task. It's also an approach which looks suspicious and can appear open to abuse, more appropriate to TV wrestling than a field sport. Referees are no longer allowed to react instinctively: they enter the field with an agenda concerning the pace of the game. They choose a level of intervention. This can give rise, amongst many other problems, to an increasing element of “playing the ref”.

The opening poster teased a little with his title, but his concern seems a genuine one. Take the principle of improving the spectacle a little further. Why not give all 50/50 decisions to the team behind, ensuring a closer game? It will increase the excitement, bring in more spectators, sell more tickets and SKY subscriptions, improve the sport's standing. Or, wouldn't it make good business sense to eliminate the less attractive teams in the early rounds of the cup, keep them away from Wembley or Old Trafford? This, of course, does not, has not, and never will happen.

And yet...



#27 brooza

brooza
  • Moderator
  • 4,303 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 12:52 PM

Who remembers James Child's first game of the season a couple of years back? 37 penalties and he was almost lynched as if the penalties were his fault


St Albans Centurions 1st Team Manager. Former Medway Dragons Wheelchair RL player.

Leeds Rhinos, St Albans Centurions y Griffons Madrid fan. Also follow (to a lesser extent) Catalans Dragons, London Broncos, South Sydney Rabbitohs, Jacksonville Axemen, Vrchlabi Mad Squirrels, København Black Swans, Red Star Belgrade and North Hertfordshire Crusaders.

Moderator of the International board

#28 bobbruce

bobbruce
  • Coach
  • 6,004 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 01:29 PM

Who remembers James Child's first game of the season a couple of years back? 37 penalties and he was almost lynched as if the penalties were his fault


The reason for that was everyone moaning about consistency. The only way refs can be truly consistent is to penalise every offence not matter how small without using any common sense or game management. As you say it was tried lasted about two weeks and then people wanted them to go back to the old style of reffing.

#29 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 9,744 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 05:31 PM

You need to read the rule book, because both those things are written in there as clear as day.

If RL was played by the actual rules as they are written down, it would be a different game.

You are indeed correct. However, there are that many interpretations and notes that these original laws are historic it seems. I'll have a look later, but I've read the play the ball note in the past saying "an attempt with the foot" (which makes sense going by what we see in SL as they penalise players that just step over the ball without making an attempt) and a scrum note about the ball passing the first front rowers leg. I'll give it a search.

I've never liked the term "heeled" anyways! Has any player ever used the heel to play it backwards? They all use the sole or the toes! Can you imagine how messy it would be if players heeled it?!
Posted Image

#30 ehbandit

ehbandit
  • Coach
  • 594 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 06:19 PM

You are indeed correct. However, there are that many interpretations and notes that these original laws are historic it seems. I'll have a look later, but I've read the play the ball note in the past saying "an attempt with the foot" (which makes sense going by what we see in SL as they penalise players that just step over the ball without making an attempt) and a scrum note about the ball passing the first front rowers leg. I'll give it a search.
I've never liked the term "heeled" anyways! Has any player ever used the heel to play it backwards? They all use the sole or the toes! Can you imagine how messy it would be if players heeled it?!

they did use to heel it back in years gone by. have a look at some old games
http://m.youtube.com...u&v=lRsbrlDAWZQ think it is shown in the 2nd play the ball

Edited by ehbandit, 30 April 2013 - 06:28 PM.


#31 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 21,029 posts

Posted 01 May 2013 - 06:40 AM

The one that stands out to me is a player can (place or) drop the ball to play it, but you can't drop the ball to play it really.


2826856.jpg?type=articleLandscape

 

On Odsal Top baht 'at.


#32 brooza

brooza
  • Moderator
  • 4,303 posts

Posted 01 May 2013 - 08:06 AM

The one that stands out to me is a player can (place or) drop the ball to play it, but you can't drop the ball to play it really.

I was talking to a ref about this a while ago. It's tricky to do but it's possible. The Americans tend to do it this way, apparently.

 

You need to put your foot on it as soon as it hits the floor and you can't let it bounce!


St Albans Centurions 1st Team Manager. Former Medway Dragons Wheelchair RL player.

Leeds Rhinos, St Albans Centurions y Griffons Madrid fan. Also follow (to a lesser extent) Catalans Dragons, London Broncos, South Sydney Rabbitohs, Jacksonville Axemen, Vrchlabi Mad Squirrels, København Black Swans, Red Star Belgrade and North Hertfordshire Crusaders.

Moderator of the International board

#33 darkrose

darkrose
  • Players
  • 3 posts

Posted 04 May 2013 - 07:18 PM

OK, it seems my basic point has been understood and most replies are consistent with my view. I'd appreciate opinions on another minor point - why isn't a drop-goal a knock-on? If a player fumbles and drops the ball, then fly-hacks it and it goes between the sticks - well, what happens? One point or a scrum?


Edited by darkrose, 04 May 2013 - 07:20 PM.


#34 ehbandit

ehbandit
  • Coach
  • 594 posts

Posted 04 May 2013 - 09:46 PM

OK, it seems my basic point has been understood and most replies are consistent with my view. I'd appreciate opinions on another minor point - why isn't a drop-goal a knock-on? If a player fumbles and drops the ball, then fly-hacks it and it goes between the sticks - well, what happens? One point or a scrum?

check Ben Thaler response here http://www.therfl.co...feree/asktheref

#35 Celtic Rooster

Celtic Rooster
  • Coach
  • 1,658 posts

Posted 05 May 2013 - 12:31 AM

There's at least one forward pass in every set of six in Super league games, regardless of the momentum law. They pass the ball forward and the touch judges have to be under instruction to ignore it! The momentum law exists but has been added to the laws fairly recently, and if momentum applies to the ball it must also apply to the player who passes it. There is absolutely no excuse for the ball finishing in front of the player who passes it. Anyway, we are all Rugby league fans and our opinions won't make any difference, but it I can't defend my sport when I have Union lads laughing at us because of the forward passing.



#36 bobbruce

bobbruce
  • Coach
  • 6,004 posts

Posted 05 May 2013 - 09:54 AM

There's at least one forward pass in every set of six in Super league games, regardless of the momentum law. They pass the ball forward and the touch judges have to be under instruction to ignore it! The momentum law exists but has been added to the laws fairly recently, and if momentum applies to the ball it must also apply to the player who passes it. There is absolutely no excuse for the ball finishing in front of the player who passes it. Anyway, we are all Rugby league fans and our opinions won't make any difference, but it I can't defend my sport when I have Union lads laughing at us because of the forward passing.


Union uses the same rules.

#37 Just to be clear

Just to be clear
  • Coach
  • 330 posts

Posted 05 May 2013 - 10:12 AM

The momentum law exists but has been added to the laws fairly recently

Just to be clear, no it hasn't. People only think that because they had not heard of it before Stevo started mentioning it.

if momentum applies to the ball it must also apply to the player who passes it. There is absolutely no excuse for the ball finishing in front of the player who passes it.

Yes there is. A player can change angle, slow down, stop or be tackled, all of which will impede his momentum compared to that which was exerted on the ball.

Wind can also legally blow the ball forward of the passer before it is caught.

#38 brooza

brooza
  • Moderator
  • 4,303 posts

Posted 05 May 2013 - 11:31 AM

There is absolutely no excuse for the ball finishing in front of the player who passes it.

Unless the player who passes the ball slows down. After all, it's pretty pointless running ahead at top speed in fron the the player that now has the ball. You slow down and drop behind so you can receive the ball again if needed


St Albans Centurions 1st Team Manager. Former Medway Dragons Wheelchair RL player.

Leeds Rhinos, St Albans Centurions y Griffons Madrid fan. Also follow (to a lesser extent) Catalans Dragons, London Broncos, South Sydney Rabbitohs, Jacksonville Axemen, Vrchlabi Mad Squirrels, København Black Swans, Red Star Belgrade and North Hertfordshire Crusaders.

Moderator of the International board

#39 statties

statties
  • Coach
  • 278 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 09:32 PM

apart from football I think most team sports have different laws in the various club comps from continent to continent.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users