Dave T

I read it in the rules before your post. It was the first time I'd heard it. There are conversations going on not involving you you know. But one point I will make, this was taken from the 2022 International laws, so not sure why you focus on the RFL.

Yep, it's the first time I have ever heard the term acting half used for the 2nd marker.

This is clearly counting the ball carrier and marker as being involved in the PTB, the description of 2nd marker as an acting half back confirms this. I suspect it is a legacy of the old PTB where you could challenge for it. Effectively the PTB is seen as a ruck, with two players involved and two acting halves. I think that is all relatively clear, it is just a terrible way of describing a modern PTB. I don't understand why somebody can't write it in relatively simple terms.

Acting halfback (f) A player of each team, to be known as the acting halfback, may stand immediately and directly behind their own player taking part in the play-the-ball and must remain in this position, until the play-the-ball movement is complete

From what I could read, they seem to suggest that there is a player in the ruck (ball carrier and marker) and a dummy half on each team at the PTB. But much of the wording is clunky, dated or ambiguous.

Interpretations are needed for the whole lawbook, not only this area. If we look at the play the ball specifically: The play-the-ball shall operate as follows. (a) The tackled player shall be immediately released player immediately and shall not be touched until the ball is in play. - we would see a penalty literally every tackle in SL and the NRL (b) The tackled player shall without delay regain their feet where they are tackled, lift the ball clear of the ground, face their opponent’s goal line and drop or place the ball on the ground in front of their foremost foot. - if a player drops the ball on the ground it would be a knock on (c) One opponent may take up the position immediately opposite the tackled player. (d) The tackled player may not play the ball before the players effecting the tackle have had time to clear the ruck. - we put the onus on the tackler to get out of the way, not the ball carrier to give them time (e) When the ball touches the ground it must be heeled (i.e. backwards) by the tackled player. The ball must not be kicked or heeled by the player marking them. The ball is in play when it has been played backwards - this discrepancy in written versus actual is just the same as the above three points.

I don't disagree with the principle, there are things that bug me that may not bug you and so on, we've agreed on a few things about how the rules are written versus how it's played, but I suppose its ultimately something I'm not going to spend too much time getting wound up, because I'm only winding myself up, most people will never ever look at the book of laws, so me getting overly wound up that intentional knock ons are not penalties despite it stating that in the laws isnt really affecting anyone but me. I do understand why people want these things done properly, I get it, but there is a hierarchy of what I care about, and tbh it's not something that bothers me (and imho, many other people either). I think we have bigger things to worry about, and I get why the RFL have gone down the route they have.

Funnily enough I saw a lot of positive comments about this on social media. I was surprised when I then saw the actual shirt.

I agree with this point. Previously I've been a fan of squad numbers, I think it's far easier to understand who is who with squad numbers, and it allows for Names on shirts which helps when watching on TV - something I struggle with when watching the NRL, I don't recognise as many players and I don't have a team list in front of me when watching. But, I do miss seeing a stand off wear number 6, or a fullback wearing 1, and the number 13 shirt is one of the most iconic for me. I think there is something special in those iconic numbers and I think I'd prefer the return to normal numbers even though I get the benefit of squad numbers.

You really think that tiny, minor thing (that you don't even hear refs shout anyway) invites ridicule? See, this is my issue with this point, I get that you hate the PTB, but you are massively overstating the issue because you've gone down a bit of a rabbit hole. This isn't on most people's radar. That doesn't necessarily make my view right and yours wrong, but even if they have a clampdown on this it's gonna do nowt for the game in reality apart from reduce an area of annoyance for a small number of people.

I assume this was a huge issue in the 2017 World Cup for England?

Happy to have that debate when it happens. As has been pointed out, there was 3 in one NRL game the other day, so they aren't all doing it correctly.

This is exactly my point - there has been a crackdown, because the NRL has been as slack on this, which I am getting challenged on and being told that the NRL players play it right and SL doesn't. My view is that there has absolutely been a crackdown in the NRL, and there is only one reason we have crackdowns - because something is an issue. My personal stance on this is that it doesn't materially affect the game. A problem with the ptb is that if we are overly pedantic we end up in a place where referees are trying to police something that involves millimetres from a distance of 10 to 20 metres. That's why I think the RFL interpretation is a reasonable approach to take - as long as the PTB is controlled and the actions required have gone through, the pressure won't be put on the referee to judge whether a stud has skimmed the ball or not. We've seen it before where a ref pings a player and then he gets stick on the replays because it is a PTB that is like many others, or the player has actually played it, or missed my a millimetre. The link I shared from Moley does exactly that. Out of interest I looked at two games' highlights vids online - the Hudds game and the NQ Cowboys game, and whilst they only showed the tries, there really was no discernible difference imho - I think it is one of those things that if you pay attention to it you will notice it and get annoyed (a little like if you focus on the wide defenders straying a yard or two offside then it becomes a big issue) - but for me the foot element of the PTB just looked the same (and one of the main reasons for that is that the cameras actually zoom out as the ball is played). The bigger issue at the PTB for me is the player not being stood up correctly, just throwing it back like NFL, or making no attempt at all - and the RFL rules will catch all of these things. In reality, we all have these mall things that bug us about the game, I hate the lack of referee signals, but sometimes we need to accept that not everyone cares about the things we do and our solution isn't always the best route.

Well people clearly think differently on this. In Oz there are people who feel the PTB is an issue just as people here feel there is an issue. But happy to disagree, and I'm certainly not gonna spend too much time arguing moleys point for him!

I'm loathe to use this reference as I don't like Moley but...

Conversations about incorrect play the balls have been going on for at least the last 10 to 15 years now, and tbh, for most viewers I suggest they don't recognise any difference when watching a game, until we get a ref's call on it. I understand people not liking the approach, but it certainly isn't a big thing tahdjt fundamentally changes anything. There is no controversy when it comes to test matches or world club games or anything.

I think you are missing my point, or rather I'm not being clear. These PTB's are a feature of the modern game because players are always looking to get quicker PTB's and the authorities on both sides of the world haven't been bothered about it. The NRL may have now taken a different approach and decided to go for the touch with the foot, but this hasn't always been the case. The RFL have decided that policing whether a toe touches a ball or not isn't the most important element of the PTB (I'm OK with that, I understand why others are not), but this 'issue' has not been solely an RFL one. If this has never been a problem in the NRL, how is it a regular thing that is pinged? But this is the pou t I made in my original post, the NRL are focusing on this, but they ignore other things that the RFL may focus on. They had a couple of weekends punishing high tackles last year, then gave up, they are bottling nasty tackles with on report right now. In reality, the same issues happen in both comps, the different bodies take different actions on different things at different times. I suspect that'll always be the case.

3 instances being pulled in one game hardly reinforces the view that it isn't an issue in the NRL and has only become one because the RFL have ignored it. That doesn't make sense. And let's be honest here, if there were 3 in an SL games the fans would complain about the refs and RFL.

Are you based in Oz? I get the complete opposite to you on my social media.

This just isn't a reflection of reality. The reason that there were 3 instances in that one game is because they are having a clampdown on something that they have ignored just like the RFL. The RFL have had clampdown before and then we move on, just like the NRL will until the next time some people get annoyed by it. In reality, it's not that big a deal.

I'm not questioning the relevance of your post on this thread, I'm questioning the relevance of a comparison of Wakefield to a Queensland Cup team. It doesn't mean anything to anyone. They don't play each other, they aren't competing with each other, they exist in two different worlds. Whether one is better than the other has no relevance to each other.

But what is the relevance of that? Nobody in the UK cares what the Queensland Cup even is, its a regional RL comp on the other side of the world. It has no relevance to Wakefield.

If we're being honest it shows some of the limitations of RL worldwide. The NRL despite its size doesn't have strong worldwide TV deals, has little international presence and shows no interest in proper expansion. It's their prerogative, but they have little interest in doing the stuff that some of our fans slate the RFL for. As you say, it is a niche product, the majority of RL viewers over here have zero interest in the NRL. Those who are interested should just enjoy it without using it as a stick to beat the British game with. SL is in a funny place here. It gets criticised as lower quality than the NRL. It gets criticised for being less exciting than the Championship. It basically can't win. I'm amazed any sponsors and media are interested at all with the game here based on the toxic fan base.

Apart from at Test level, it doesn't really mean anything that the NRL is better than SL if that's what people decide. NRL isn't an option for me to go to each week. I don't have a choice between going to the Halliwell Jones or the Suncorp. I do however have a choice between going to watch the Wire or Sale Sharks or Man City. The NRL being a great comp is a good thing.

If you really think the Aussies would know how to run the game over here you need to think again.