Jump to content

unapologetic pedant

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

343 Excellent

About unapologetic pedant

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I`ve been through this before, but I`ll plough through it again. For reasons of recognition and consistency, I think it`s important to preserve the number 6 in RL terminology. When we are looking to establish around the world a clear identity, distinct from RU, conveying the nature of the PTB and limited possession is crucial. If we muck around with the figure, it potentially blurs the message. Also, it keeps the Tackle game in line with non-contact forms, Tag and Touch, which I see as useful development tools in building mass participation and awareness. The sort which will happen under the aegis of RL clubs, rather than separately as is mostly the case currently. And, when a team regather after an opposition error and use the ball extensively, we don`t describe it as a "7-tackle set". We say "zero tackle". No reason why that term can`t be used for a 20m restart. Most Aussie and NZ refs already say "zero coming" at the point of the tap.
  2. Paul Weller once appeared at Glastonbury kitted out like the ghost in "Randall and Hopkirk". And got pelted with mud.
  3. Some great play in today`s two televised games. Think I saw a female Touch Judge in the Cutters/ Isou game. If so, more progress for PNG RL.
  4. Somewhere in the vast tangled undergrowth of the six-again, set restart related threads, someone did point out this special case anomaly. It`s one for the sin bin. No other option. Wish people would say "zero tackle", not "7-tackle set".
  5. Love the way Troy Hardy says "Bears". Miscellaneous matter - After a week most Fox Memorial games have about 3k views on YouTube. The second half of last week`s Otahuhu/Pt Chevalier game suddenly shot up to 12k. No idea why.
  6. Another BTW. In the earlier post, you did effectively say you`ve been looking around for cajones. None of my business, of course. A private matter for you and your loved ones.
  7. Agree with those who say that a good ref is someone who wishes to be the least important person on the pitch. We could facilitate such an individual desire if we asked what constitutes good refereeing, and whether our rulebook, more specifically the guidelines on how the rules should be applied, are sufficiently sophisticated. Rather than see greater use of technology I would prefer a clearer, wider prospectus on where the benefit of the doubt should go. When to the attacking team, when to the defending team. In addition, a "No call" option. A good example is when a ball-carrier goes into contact and the ball comes loose in the direction of his own goal-line. The ball has either been lost into the defender, or the defender has dislodged it. Often neither the ref nor Touch Judges have any idea which, since it involves detecting a tiny separation, or not, between ball-carrier and ball. In the above case, if the ref calls knock-on against one team, he transfers possession. If he calls knock-on against the other team, he restarts the tackle count, awarding extra possession. Either way the call has a significant impact. Why not "No call"? The ref in effect says "I don`t know what happened, I therefore can`t call anything with certainty, I don`t want to control possession on mere guesswork, so play on, continue the tackle count". In RL, calls which determine possession are of greater consequence probably than any other Football code. When a ref makes such a call and a team score on their eighth, ninth, tenth consecutive tackle, even though the scoring team have to execute the play, everyone knows why they had so much possession. We should not force refs to make such calls, where it can be avoided. Something from the recent past is illustrative. For a long time when a ball-carrier passed after a call of "Held", the ref was forced to penalise. Then we belatedly decided this wasn`t necessary. The player could simply come back to the mark and play the ball. No harm done. The ref might have prematurely called the tackle complete, but no reason for him to compound that by penalising and transferring possession.
  8. I`m currently wondering about the "more than one way to skin a cat" theory on the field. Previously I`ve thought that the game`s rules have to be the same, bar a few minor tweaks, at all levels. Yet with six-again, we do now have a significant change at elite level which could well be inappropriate for the rest of the game. Maybe we should more explicitly distinguish between good to watch and good to play. Ideally they coincide, but not in all cases. The type of tight, strategic game that is seen, rightly or wrongly, as unattractive to viewers/spectators, can be fascinating and satisfying to play in. Different rules for different levels might maximise interest across the board. BTW, how comfortable are Welsh RU players with the label "Rah Rah"?
  9. Yes, entirely. I thought this was more or less what I was saying. But was disagreed with by someone who agrees with you. Maybe you put it better. My only difference with this post is that there`s no harm in starting with RU players. In some places, there might initially be no alternative. Pre-Covid, women`s RL in Wales is a perfect example. They had attracted enough players to form a couple of club teams, and from those a rep side who played two highly competitive games. From that base, if they are to sustainably grow, better to look primarily beyond RU players. The second of those Wales womens` games, that they won and was on OurLeague, was against the England Community Lions and played in St Helens. There`s always a healthy number of supporters for Wales RL games in NW England, which means we get to hear a strong rendition of the best national anthem on the planet.
  10. For my pains, I have now checked the NRL and RFL rulebooks for the definition of a charge down. Both simply state "A charge down is permissible and is not a knock-on". Not very satisfactory. I`ve seen something more explicit somewhere. The major criterion must be how close the defender is to the kick. Maybe also whether the arms are raised. I suppose you know it when you see it. The ref does now "make a case by case judgement" and always has. Nothing new. Only change will be that the ref having deemed a charge down, it would neither be ruled a knock-on nor restart the tackle count. The first example in your third paragraph, I have never seen deemed a charge down. That would not change. Nothing to do with it. A play in the Dragons/Roosters game is worth referring to. There was an attempted charge down of a Luke keary field-goal shot. Unsuccessful, touched in flight, went dead, resulting in a line drop-out. This would continue when the back-to-one rule was changed. Just as a charge down rebounding over the sideline would result in the feed to the kicking team. Not restarting the tackle count after a charge down is only relevant when the ball remains in play. It`s still tackle 6, if the kicking team regather. "Private Equity" will have to wait. Not quite bedtime, but it feels like it.
  11. I keep mentioning that the crux of this in terms of implementation is the exemption that is there for a charge down from the knock-on rule. The refs already have to determine what constitutes a charge down to distinguish it from a knock-on. All we do is extend that distinction to set restarts. I can`t be bothered looking through the rulebook for the definition of a charge down, but it includes things like outstretched arms, proximity to the kicker, moving towards the kicker. Blocking a kick with any part of the body is not a charge down. No other rule change would be necessary.
  12. Some of this is subjective preference. I thought the GF at Mt Smart 1 came across better than at Mt Smart 2. The ARL would argue, with some merit, that they were affording their GF greater prominence with Sky TV coverage. Something more likely to happen when the game is played at Mt Smart 1 before a Warriors game. Hard to overestimate the downsides of a running track. First time I experienced that was at Don Valley, Sheffield. The game takes place in the middle distance, you neither get a good view of nor feel connected to it. Playing at Mt Smart 2 guarantees restricting the crowd to family and friends. Neutrals might as well stay at home and watch the Livestream.
  13. I sympathise with what DoubleD is saying about wanting to broaden the social reach of RL, although I stand by the comment that there`s a disproportionate benefit to disadvantaged areas from RL in terms of personal discipline and group belonging. There`s an intrinsic value in that distinct from anything happening at a higher level. We are used to RU/RL, middle-class/working-class, North/South divides. Without a familiarity with their languages it`s hard to get a sense of how much of this translates in Greece, Serbia, Turkey. In France, the RU/RL split isn`t the same as ours. My main argument was that once an RL foothold has been created with existing RU players it`s unwise to continue looking in that direction. Whether we like it or not the similarity in the games and the common word "Rugby" means that in new areas RL will always be seen in relation to RU. If, just for example, for every 1000 RU participants there are 100 RL participants, it`s these figures that lead to perceptions of RL being the lesser code rather than any feelings of social inferiority. Only by growing the numbers can RL in developing nations change that around.
  14. We can`t worry about your state of mind. Anyhow, you will be relieved to know that I was intending to draw a line at this point.
  15. My understanding is that the RFL proposed limited tackles under the influence of Gridiron, hence the original 4-tackle (4 downs) rule. And that the timeline was that we implemented it in 1966, you followed in 1967. Although you were first to extend to 6 tackles. Whether limited possession had a direct bearing on ending the Dragons` long run of premiership success, or was just coincidence, is open to question. All good things come to an end. The benefit of changing the charge down rule is that when defenders are free to make the attempt, without the risk of a set restart, kickers will have to adjust, and we have a more equal and interesting contest. Unlike now where defenders have to try and apply kick pressure while avoiding giving the impression of having played at the ball. I`m giving you an AFL "behind" for the Scott Prince red herring.
  • Create New...