Jump to content


Rugby League World - Grand Finals Issue

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD - THE GRAND FINALS ISSUE - OUT 17 OCT OR DOWNLOAD IT NOW!
Try our Fantastic 4-Issue Bundle Offer:
For just £14, a saving of 10% on the regular cover price, you’ll get:

The Grand Finals Issue (out 17 Oct) – Grand Final drama from both hemispheres plus Four Nations preview
The Four Nations Issue (out 21 Nov) – Fantastic coverage of the Four Nations tournament down under
The Golden Boot Issue (out 19 Dec) – A look back at the 2014 season plus the big reveal of the winner of the Golden Boot
The 2015 Season Preview Issue (out 23 Jan) – How will your team perform in 2015? We preview every club.


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

RL players - just ball under 1 arm...


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#1 Bedford Roughyed

Bedford Roughyed
  • Moderator
  • 5,358 posts

Posted 07 June 2014 - 09:51 AM

To paraphrase Will Greenwood -

 

He (Eastmond) carries the ball in 2 hands, not like a typical RL player who just tries to beat the player with ball under one arm.

 

 

At least those RL have learnt how to catch and pass before becoming an international....


With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

#2 Middleton Bull

Middleton Bull
  • Coach
  • 2,403 posts

Posted 07 June 2014 - 12:48 PM

Greenwood is usually very positive about League and he probably wasn't trying to be derogatory. I just watched some of the NRL game between The Dragons and Cronulla and purposely watched how the players carried the ball. Most held it in two hands, only changing to one hand immediately before impact with an opponent. Not really sure what he is on about. In any event, most union players will hold the ball as they have been instructed to do so by their ex-League coaches!

#3 Futtocks

Futtocks
  • Coach
  • 20,764 posts

Posted 07 June 2014 - 04:01 PM

Bit of a dopey comment from someone who's normally fairly bright.


A mind is like a parachute. It doesn’t work if it isn’t open. Frank Zappa (1940 - 1993)


#4 Railway End

Railway End
  • Coach
  • 594 posts

Posted 08 June 2014 - 06:43 AM

A strange comment. As has been said he is generally positive about RL.

The only players I can think of in either code that don't carry the ball in two hands are union forwards who are looking to set a quick ruck and have no intention of passing. Not a critism of them by the way, it's just part of the game.

"Rugby League is rugby in the simplest form in the sense that it's about great defence, great tackling technique, good handling, good passing, catching and great kicking."

 

 Stuart Lancaster - England Rugby Union Head Coach - October 2013


#5 Pom WA

Pom WA
  • Coach
  • 100 posts

Posted 09 June 2014 - 09:29 AM

I teach League in schools and the biggest issue i have with the AFL and Union kids is them not running with the ball in two hands so this comment is a little irritating and factually incorrect. I wonder if Greenwood even knows why two hands is better than 1!?!?!



#6 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,925 posts

Posted 09 June 2014 - 09:53 AM

I remember watching a cross-code amateur game years ago,in the union half the league players were persistently losing the ball in contact with it being ripped free.  I paid attention to see why and the league players when not going for an offload were using one hand to fend, be it either straight arm or using forearm with the other holding the ball, the union defenders went straight for the ball carrying arm with two hands and came away with the ball far more often than not.  Compare that to a union player going into contact and not aiming for an offload, both hands typically nest the ball to stop effective contest.

 

Maybe contact play was what Greenwood was referring to rather than the more open play where both codes are similar, two hands while not going that fast to keep options open, one hand when in the clear and sprinting to allow the other arm to sprint pump


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#7 Tiny Tim

Tiny Tim
  • Coach
  • 7,275 posts

Posted 09 June 2014 - 10:53 AM

I remember watching a cross-code amateur game years ago,in the union half the league players were persistently losing the ball in contact with it being ripped free.  I paid attention to see why and the league players when not going for an offload were using one hand to fend, be it either straight arm or using forearm with the other holding the ball, the union defenders went straight for the ball carrying arm with two hands and came away with the ball far more often than not.  Compare that to a union player going into contact and not aiming for an offload, both hands typically nest the ball to stop effective contest.

 

Maybe contact play was what Greenwood was referring to rather than the more open play where both codes are similar, two hands while not going that fast to keep options open, one hand when in the clear and sprinting to allow the other arm to sprint pump

 

That's pretty much how I was coached to play RU (even as a forward). Ball in two hands looking for the pass or offload in open play, but if going into contact then switch ball to side away from the opponent then use free hand for hand off. When sprinting for the line in open play, ball in one hand, second hand for sprinting and saluting the crowd as one dives over the line.

 

I've never heard Greenwood being anti-RL, possibly some folk are being a bit sensitive and looking for a negative connotation where none was intended. 


28m391z.jpg


#8 Alfies Thumb

Alfies Thumb
  • Coach
  • 2,474 posts

Posted 09 June 2014 - 11:47 PM

I remember watching a cross-code amateur game years ago,in the union half the league players were persistently losing the ball in contact with it being ripped free.  I paid attention to see why and the league players when not going for an offload were using one hand to fend, be it either straight arm or using forearm with the other holding the ball, the union defenders went straight for the ball carrying arm with two hands and came away with the ball far more often than not.  Compare that to a union player going into contact and not aiming for an offload, both hands typically nest the ball to stop effective contest.

 

Maybe contact play was what Greenwood was referring to rather than the more open play where both codes are similar, two hands while not going that fast to keep options open, one hand when in the clear and sprinting to allow the other arm to sprint pump

 

I think you're right. The biggest issue we had with guys joining our club from other rugby league clubs was them getting stripped of the ball in contact. 



#9 Martyn Sadler

Martyn Sadler

    League Publications Ltd

  • Moderator
  • 2,857 posts

Posted 11 June 2014 - 02:31 PM

I think you're right. The biggest issue we had with guys joining our club from other rugby league clubs was them getting stripped of the ball in contact. 

I assume there is no law in rugby union, as there is in league, preventing the ball from being 'stolen' when a tackle is being made, but before it is completed, even if there are two or more tacklers in contact with the player being tackled.

 

Or am I misunderstanding the rules?



#10 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,925 posts

Posted 11 June 2014 - 03:01 PM

I assume there is no law in rugby union, as there is in league, preventing the ball from being 'stolen' when a tackle is being made, but before it is completed, even if there are two or more tacklers in contact with the player being tackled.

 

Or am I misunderstanding the rules?

No, you have it right.  If it's a simple uncompleted tackle, regardless of the number of tacklers, then the ball's fair game. If it turns into a maul (ball carrier plus one other player from each side) then the ball's fair game.  If the tackle completes, as long as the tackler completely releases for a split second and is on his feet then the ball's fair game.  I remember in the army training for union spending a decent amount of time overall just practising wrestling the ball away and defending it.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#11 Alfies Thumb

Alfies Thumb
  • Coach
  • 2,474 posts

Posted 11 June 2014 - 11:09 PM

No, you have it right.  If it's a simple uncompleted tackle, regardless of the number of tacklers, then the ball's fair game. If it turns into a maul (ball carrier plus one other player from each side) then the ball's fair game.  If the tackle completes, as long as the tackler completely releases for a split second and is on his feet then the ball's fair game.  I remember in the army training for union spending a decent amount of time overall just practising wrestling the ball away and defending it.

 

I still remember being taught how to strip the ball as a junior. Vaguely. 



#12 Martyn Sadler

Martyn Sadler

    League Publications Ltd

  • Moderator
  • 2,857 posts

Posted 12 June 2014 - 10:37 AM

No, you have it right.  If it's a simple uncompleted tackle, regardless of the number of tacklers, then the ball's fair game. If it turns into a maul (ball carrier plus one other player from each side) then the ball's fair game.  If the tackle completes, as long as the tackler completely releases for a split second and is on his feet then the ball's fair game.  I remember in the army training for union spending a decent amount of time overall just practising wrestling the ball away and defending it.

One of the most difficult laws of Rugby League is the stripping rule, whereby one-on-one it's legal, and two-or-more-on-one it isn't. So how do we judge when a ball has been stripped, as opposed to being lost by the player in possession?

 

I struggle to understand why we don't follow union on this point, and allow ball stripping without conditions.



#13 zorquif

zorquif
  • Coach
  • 1,572 posts

Posted 12 June 2014 - 10:50 AM

One of the most difficult laws of Rugby League is the stripping rule, whereby one-on-one it's legal, and two-or-more-on-one it isn't. So how do we judge when a ball has been stripped, as opposed to being lost by the player in possession?

 

I struggle to understand why we don't follow union on this point, and allow ball stripping without conditions.

 

I thought it was to discourage mauls forming...



#14 Railway End

Railway End
  • Coach
  • 594 posts

Posted 12 June 2014 - 10:51 AM

One of the most difficult laws of Rugby League is the stripping rule, whereby one-on-one it's legal, and two-or-more-on-one it isn't. So how do we judge when a ball has been stripped, as opposed to being lost by the player in possession?

I struggle to understand why we don't follow union on this point, and allow ball stripping without conditions.


I can see where your coming from but would such a rule lead to less offloading and attacking football as players become more concerned with ball Security?

"Rugby League is rugby in the simplest form in the sense that it's about great defence, great tackling technique, good handling, good passing, catching and great kicking."

 

 Stuart Lancaster - England Rugby Union Head Coach - October 2013


#15 Pom WA

Pom WA
  • Coach
  • 100 posts

Posted 13 June 2014 - 08:17 AM

The threat of losing possesion is a major contributor to the amount of kicking in union, the League runner can do so with more freedom because of the guranteed (except 1 on1) possesion. I wouldnt change the current rule in Rugby League, it would not improve the game.



#16 Martyn Sadler

Martyn Sadler

    League Publications Ltd

  • Moderator
  • 2,857 posts

Posted 14 June 2014 - 02:30 PM

No, you have it right.  If it's a simple uncompleted tackle, regardless of the number of tacklers, then the ball's fair game. If it turns into a maul (ball carrier plus one other player from each side) then the ball's fair game.  If the tackle completes, as long as the tackler completely releases for a split second and is on his feet then the ball's fair game.  I remember in the army training for union spending a decent amount of time overall just practising wrestling the ball away and defending it.

Craig, I assume there is no 'double movement' rule in rugby union, having seen Marland Yarde's try today for England.

 

Again, if that's true, I don't really see why we have that rule in our sport.



#17 bobbruce

bobbruce
  • Coach
  • 6,057 posts

Posted 14 June 2014 - 03:27 PM

Craig, I assume there is no 'double movement' rule in rugby union, having seen Marland Yarde's try today for England.

Again, if that's true, I don't really see why we have that rule in our sport.


There is but on completion of tackle they player is allowed to move the ball once. The double movement would come after that. In RU there is a need for players to be able to present the ball I think it stems from that

#18 Alfies Thumb

Alfies Thumb
  • Coach
  • 2,474 posts

Posted 15 June 2014 - 11:17 PM

Craig, I assume there is no 'double movement' rule in rugby union, having seen Marland Yarde's try today for England.

 

Again, if that's true, I don't really see why we have that rule in our sport.

 

Once a player is tackled they are allowed to do several things, but only once:

 

Offload the ball.

Lay the ball back.

Reach out for a try.

 

Good try that one.



#19 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,925 posts

Posted 16 June 2014 - 08:57 AM

Craig, I assume there is no 'double movement' rule in rugby union, having seen Marland Yarde's try today for England.

 

Again, if that's true, I don't really see why we have that rule in our sport.

There is.  Once tackled, you can place the ball in any direction (or pass/roll it not forwards) on the condition you do it immediately.  The definition of "immediately" that refs are taught is that it must happen in the time it takes you to say the word in your head.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#20 Griff9of13

Griff9of13
  • Coach
  • 5,874 posts

Posted 17 June 2014 - 08:53 AM

One of the most difficult laws of Rugby League is the stripping rule, whereby one-on-one it's legal, and two-or-more-on-one it isn't. So how do we judge when a ball has been stripped, as opposed to being lost by the player in possession?

 

I struggle to understand why we don't follow union on this point, and allow ball stripping without conditions.

 

When I first started playing RL at the beginning of the 80s ball stealing was still allowed. As others have said, you really needed to protect the ball going into contact. Though I think our rule (1on1 strip ok, more than 1 on 1 not) is a real pain for the refs to police and I don't blame them when they get it wrong. It is not too difficult to con a penalty out of the ref when you are a ball carrier when the defenders have their hands on the ball. Not that I would have ever done such a thing.  :whistle:


"it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."