PTB - back to how it should be?

[Wellsy4HullFC]

2 hours ago, Padge said:

The problem is that coaches want the ball played before the opposition's defence is set.  The quick play the ball gives the attacking team the opportunity to make easy yards. A slower play the ball means that coaches will have to think of ways of getting around an organised defence, something coaches don't like because it involves taking risks.

Enforcing proper PTBs will slow the game down, player having to get to his feet, having to concentrate on actually playing the ball with the foot. It will only be slowed fractionally, but we play a game of inches not yards. It is that fraction that the attacking team is trying to gain so they can take the easy yards option.

 

See, I get all that. I just don't see playing the ball with the foot being that big a deal or even much help in achieving the aim of slowing the PTB.

I do feel some people only want it tidying up because it's "the rule". Some people think it looks nice. 

If it truly is about slowing the PTB as you say, are there other solutions too? Is it another area that we can evolve? I'm not saying we should, but there are always other options.

[Padge]

3 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

See, I get all that. I just don't see playing the ball with the foot being that big a deal or even much help in achieving the aim of slowing the PTB.

I do feel some people only want it tidying up because it's "the rule". Some people think it looks nice. 

If it truly is about slowing the PTB as you say, are there other solutions too? Is it another area that we can evolve? I'm not saying we should, but there are always other options.

If that fraction of time didn't make a difference in attack then the attacking team wouldn't risk a penalty by not getting to their feet and playing the ball properly. Its a a risk assessment that is going on, if the risk is low and advantage high you take the risk, if the risk is high and advantage high then you are more likely not to take the risk, if the risk is high and advantage low then you are unlikely to take the option at all.

 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

3 hours ago, Padge said:

If that fraction of time didn't make a difference in attack then the attacking team wouldn't risk a penalty by not getting to their feet and playing the ball properly. Its a a risk assessment that is going on, if the risk is low and advantage high you take the risk, if the risk is high and advantage high then you are more likely not to take the risk, if the risk is high and advantage low then you are unlikely to take the option at all.

 

Isn't a lot of the reason more (or part)  to do with the rolling action being more consistent with your hand than your foot, this reducing the risk of knocking on (either by the man playing the ball or the dummy half)?

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

See, I get all that. I just don't see playing the ball with the foot being that big a deal or even much help in achieving the aim of slowing the PTB.

I do feel some people only want it tidying up because it's "the rule". Some people think it looks nice. 

If it truly is about slowing the PTB as you say, are there other solutions too? Is it another area that we can evolve? I'm not saying we should, but there are always other options.

The soloution I believe is return to the rules. Then evolve from there adjusting the rules accordingly. The rucks a mess, penalties given against the rules. No point invoking hardlines on stepping off the mark,or markers not square when the PTB breaks the rules to start with.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

6 hours ago, SL17 said:

The soloution I believe is return to the rules. Then evolve from there adjusting the rules accordingly. The rucks a mess, penalties given against the rules. No point invoking hardlines on stepping off the mark,or markers not square when the PTB breaks the rules to start with.

So you'd be happy with the thousands of penalties a game that would be produced by this for the foreseeable future?

I personally think it's gone on so long (not playing the ball with the foot, stepping off the mark, wrestling at the ruck, etc) that to just put a hardline clamp on it would take too long to weed it all out and ruin all games as a spectacle for so long that people would stop watching.

[Lowdesert]

52 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

So you'd be happy with the thousands of penalties a game that would be produced by this for the foreseeable future?

I personally think it's gone on so long (not playing the ball with the foot, stepping off the mark, wrestling at the ruck, etc) that to just put a hardline clamp on it would take too long to weed it all out and ruin all games as a spectacle for so long that people would stop watching.

So it works for NRL teams  (evidence over the recent 3 games v SL) but it can’t work here, would cause thousands of penalties in SL, ruin games as a spectacle and attendances diminish.  Based on what evidence, given we haven’t tried?