Dunbar Posted March 18, 2019 Share Posted March 18, 2019 11 minutes ago, Dave T said: I don't disagree with the principle, but I'm not sure that rings true when you watch the NRL. I think the NRL demands more creative play to break down defences than Super League. I don't think there is any coincidence between the way the two leagues are played (reffed) and the fact that the half back position is the biggest gulf in quality between the two. "The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby. "If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted March 18, 2019 Share Posted March 18, 2019 27 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said: Yeah that's certainly more punishing the attack rather than rewarding the defence. yeah, and it then rewards the defending team in attack as it gives them 7 tackles - I'm a fan of RL being a 6 tackle game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert Prince Posted March 18, 2019 Share Posted March 18, 2019 1 hour ago, deluded pom? said: It's not over 11 metres. A metre is three inches longer than a yard. Ten times three is thirty inches which isn't a yard. Have you been lying to your Mrs all these years? Am I missing something here... I pointed out that 10m line is more like 11 yards. I don't think I was at all talking about a 11m line. In any event the 10m line is too wide. Years ago 3 yards was enough then 5 yards. Now it 11 yards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denton Rovers RLFC Posted March 18, 2019 Share Posted March 18, 2019 17 hours ago, henage said: Maybe if the refs stopped calling the players by there 1st names it might give them a little more authority . For a long while after I left the army I still called my son by our surname, I don't think it's the first name that is the problem, it's a way to target a player specific to what's going on, if you use surnames it can be more problematic with multiple syllables and a name they aren't used to being called singularly. The problem lies partly in not backing up by the ref in terms of punishments.. Apparently the game needs to flow so refs aren't strict, by not being strict the game doesn't flow, you see exactly the same thing with police on the roads, so called minor indiscretions - I was just a few mph over the speed LIMIT (not a target), stuff like obstruction,, careless driving, pavement parking, 'we' even let off drink driving if you're over the actual limit at the time of driving because of the primitive systems we have in place. Drivers continue to take the micturate, the odd one gets a minor slap on the wrist but motorists just like players know the likelihood of being punished is tiny so they carry on doing what they do. Stop reminding players to do x, if they don't follow the laws, penalise, if they break the laws again, penalise again and again and again until they and the coaches get the message. If the touchie sees an infringement, don't effing ignore it for the sake of letting the game flow, take their advice as they have a far better view in many instances, touchies need to be calling offsides far more often, particularly at the scrum and massively so when teams are within the 10. These things are killing the game and the enjoyment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stirk Posted March 18, 2019 Author Share Posted March 18, 2019 Denton Rovers RLFC We still have a great product within Super League.... and I agree with some of your points, However your last sentence sums it up brilliantly! That’s why the RFL have to now get a grip of the play the ball area. That along with the stupid passing of the ball into the defending players. Because it is spoiling the enjoyment of our game...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxford Posted March 18, 2019 Share Posted March 18, 2019 7 hours ago, Dunbar said: Is Rugby League the only sport in the world where the players are allowed to break the laws of the game and the defence for letting them do it is that if we didn't let them we would have to penalise them! That would sum up alot of it very well but refs have been coaching for years now. I would say bending the rules would be more accurate and the refs learn to lean with the wind. 2 warning points Non-Political Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunbar Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 For various reasons I haven't got to see a lot of live rugby for the last few years. I went to the Broncos vs. FC game yesterday and really enjoyed it. On tv, with the close up on the play the ball I get really frustrated about the sloppy play the balls we have now but at the live game it didn't matter one bit - when you focus on the wider picture with attacking and defensive structures and the speed of the live game the play ball execution becomes much less of a deal. "The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby. "If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrispmartha Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 On 3/18/2019 at 1:52 PM, Dave T said: I don't disagree. I hate things like the 7 tackle rule just because a peach of a grubber kick may go 2 inches too far. I hate the 7 tackle rule, if were going to have it it should only be if the ball goes over the dead ball line without bouncing. I do think in SL there has been far too much emphasis on a quick play the ball and its now at the point where if the play the ball takes over a couple of seconds the fans are screaming for a penalty and often the ref obliges. I'm not sure where we go with the player lying in the ruck but if it is blatantly obvious the payer has played the ball into the player in the ruck it should either be a penalty to the defending team or just re set the PTB and carry on. I absolutely hate to see players throwing the ball into a player to get a penalty though that is straight down the line cheating IMO, the Tomkins one on Sat was ridiculous and he laughed when it was given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 15 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said: I hate the 7 tackle rule, if were going to have it it should only be if the ball goes over the dead ball line without bouncing. I do think in SL there has been far too much emphasis on a quick play the ball and its now at the point where if the play the ball takes over a couple of seconds the fans are screaming for a penalty and often the ref obliges. I'm not sure where we go with the player lying in the ruck but if it is blatantly obvious the payer has played the ball into the player in the ruck it should either be a penalty to the defending team or just re set the PTB and carry on. I absolutely hate to see players throwing the ball into a player to get a penalty though that is straight down the line cheating IMO, the Tomkins one on Sat was ridiculous and he laughed when it was given. I think there is a lot to be said for the ref making players go back and do things again instead of penalising. I think penalties have too big an influence on our game, and the ref being encouraged to blow too often is a risky approach. Ultimately, attackers are trying to play the ball as quickly as they can, and if they play the ball incorrectly, or move off the mark, there may be an argument to get them to move back and lose all of the advantage of the quick ptb that they have gained from that infringement. The real problem is that if you get the balance wrong, then you risk giving the advantage to the defence which can be a bit negative. We now see flops galore - it doesn't appear to be a penalty offence any more, the amount of tacklers piling on when a ball carrier is down is a joke, and this came from Oz as they made the decision to allow for more control at the ptb. There is also the issue that you raise of the defender lying in the ruck, I have less of an issue with this and if anybody is cheating it is the defender who is not allowed to be there. It is not a defence to say he can't help being there, it is like a defender not being 10m and trying to claim that it is not his fault he couldn't get back in time. Some teams use the defenders in the ruck thing as a tactic, and Saints in particular have always been very good at this. I actually think it should be an automatic penalty if a player is in the ruck - it shouldn't be left to the AHB to throw the ball into the player - but if he doesn't do this, and changes his position, and even limits his options to run or pass (disadvantaging himself) then the defender in the ruck has done his job and they got an advantage out of it. I think we need to be clear what we are looking to do. If we are happy to allow longer in the tackles for the defence, then penalise anybody in the ruck at the ptb - that should balance it out. You also then go for controlled ptb's that must be on the mark with no hands on the ground - or play it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 1 hour ago, Dunbar said: For various reasons I haven't got to see a lot of live rugby for the last few years. I went to the Broncos vs. FC game yesterday and really enjoyed it. On tv, with the close up on the play the ball I get really frustrated about the sloppy play the balls we have now but at the live game it didn't matter one bit - when you focus on the wider picture with attacking and defensive structures and the speed of the live game the play ball execution becomes much less of a deal. I'd agree with this. I also think that sometimes watching on TV it is helpful to just put something at the back of your mind, and suddenly it becomes less of an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrispmartha Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 10 minutes ago, Dave T said: I think there is a lot to be said for the ref making players go back and do things again instead of penalising. I think penalties have too big an influence on our game, and the ref being encouraged to blow too often is a risky approach. Ultimately, attackers are trying to play the ball as quickly as they can, and if they play the ball incorrectly, or move off the mark, there may be an argument to get them to move back and lose all of the advantage of the quick ptb that they have gained from that infringement. The real problem is that if you get the balance wrong, then you risk giving the advantage to the defence which can be a bit negative. We now see flops galore - it doesn't appear to be a penalty offence any more, the amount of tacklers piling on when a ball carrier is down is a joke, and this came from Oz as they made the decision to allow for more control at the ptb. There is also the issue that you raise of the defender lying in the ruck, I have less of an issue with this and if anybody is cheating it is the defender who is not allowed to be there. It is not a defence to say he can't help being there, it is like a defender not being 10m and trying to claim that it is not his fault he couldn't get back in time. Some teams use the defenders in the ruck thing as a tactic, and Saints in particular have always been very good at this. I actually think it should be an automatic penalty if a player is in the ruck - it shouldn't be left to the AHB to throw the ball into the player - but if he doesn't do this, and changes his position, and even limits his options to run or pass (disadvantaging himself) then the defender in the ruck has done his job and they got an advantage out of it. I think we need to be clear what we are looking to do. If we are happy to allow longer in the tackles for the defence, then penalise anybody in the ruck at the ptb - that should balance it out. You also then go for controlled ptb's that must be on the mark with no hands on the ground - or play it again. You make a fair point about players lying in the ruck however I think there are far too many penalties given when a player is trying to get out of the way but the attacker is trying to play the ball too quickly so the defender has no chance and half the time the attacker hasn’t played the ball correctly in the first place, I think your idea of allowing a bit more time at the PTB is a good one it will then be a lot more obvious when a player is deliberately lying in the ruck, Ive seen penalties given when an attack simply drops the ball on a player in the ruck, there has to be more onus on the attacker to play the ball correctly IMO, Ive thought for a while we as fans don’t help as we call for penalties far too wuickly at the PTB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 10 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said: You make a fair point about players lying in the ruck however I think there are far too many penalties given when a player is trying to get out of the way but the attacker is trying to play the ball too quickly so the defender has no chance and half the time the attacker hasn’t played the ball correctly in the first place, I think your idea of allowing a bit more time at the PTB is a good one it will then be a lot more obvious when a player is deliberately lying in the ruck, Ive seen penalties given when an attack simply drops the ball on a player in the ruck, there has to be more onus on the attacker to play the ball correctly IMO, Ive thought for a while we as fans don’t help as we call for penalties far too wuickly at the PTB Yes, there is often an inbalance at the moment. We could go down the route of slowing the ptb down, but demanding higher standards of the quality from both sides. Don't play it on your hands and knees, and don't lie in the ruck. I think this is what the NRL has done. We need to decide if we want to do similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjonn Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 It does surprise me how more often than I can remember previously a defending player ends in the middle of the PTB / ruck. It seems to me that it may do with the tackling approach and numbers in the tackle that a defender ends in the middle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 1 minute ago, redjonn said: It does surprise me how more often than I can remember previously a defending player ends in the middle of the PTB / ruck. It seems to me that it may do with the tackling approach and numbers in the tackle that a defender ends in the middle. Yes. It surprises me more how fans seem to defend this practice more than any other offence at the ptb. If you are lay in the ruck when the ball is played, you have lost the ruck and deserve to be penalised as you are interfering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunbar Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 12 minutes ago, Dave T said: Yes. It surprises me more how fans seem to defend this practice more than any other offence at the ptb. If you are lay in the ruck when the ball is played, you have lost the ruck and deserve to be penalised as you are interfering. The laws of the game state that the player with the ball has to wait for the ruck to clear before playing the ball though. Clearly a player can't just lie there but if a ball carrier wins the ruck, leaves a defender on the floor and then plays the ball into him, the defender should not be penalised. "The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby. "If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjonn Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 21 hours ago, Chrispmartha said: You make a fair point about players lying in the ruck however I think there are far too many penalties given when a player is trying to get out of the way but the attacker is trying to play the ball too quickly so the defender has no chance and half the time the attacker hasn’t played the ball correctly in the first place, I think your idea of allowing a bit more time at the PTB is a good one it will then be a lot more obvious when a player is deliberately lying in the ruck, Ive seen penalties given when an attack simply drops the ball on a player in the ruck, there has to be more onus on the attacker to play the ball correctly IMO, Ive thought for a while we as fans don’t help as we call for penalties far too wuickly at the PTB I agree that many times the attacker is infringing with the way he plays a fast PTB. Somebody mentioned Garbutt earlier in the thread of noticeable "infringements", i.e. not using his foot. When he first joined Leeds it was very noticeable that he always played the ball correctly and with his foot. I guess its been "coached" out of him or he realized that as nobody else did it he may as well not bother either and get quicker PTB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 6 minutes ago, Dunbar said: The laws of the game state that the player with the ball has to wait for the ruck to clear before playing the ball though. Clearly a player can't just lie there but if a ball carrier wins the ruck, leaves a defender on the floor and then plays the ball into him, the defender should not be penalised. Yes, that is an interesting line in the rules, and tbh is one of many points that aren't based in reality. If a tackler is trying to get out of the way, they won't be given the benefit of the doubt if the ball has been played. They will be penalised. The rules also state that the ball can be dropped to play the ball, and that is must be heeled with the foot. Bizarrely, the rule book aint that helpful when it comes to these kind of discussions! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunbar Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 4 minutes ago, Dave T said: Bizarrely, the rule book aint that helpful when it comes to these kind of discussions! I know. We are playing the game as we want it to be and not as the laws state it should be. And then for some reason we also expect referees to be consistent! "The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby. "If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbruce Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 On 3/18/2019 at 12:35 PM, Lowdesert said: The NRL PTBs are cleaner and quick. Whatever the difference it will be tenths of a second and the speed of their game isn't exactly slowing down. The biggest reason NRL ptbs are better is they stop the game and send the attacking player back to if he moves off the mark. Over here when the attacking player moves off the mark we penalise the defending team for being in the way. So in the NRL players do it less because by being sent back it slows the ptb down. While over here players do it more as there’s a good chance you’ll either win a penalty or at the least you’ll take a defender out of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert Prince Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 22 hours ago, Chrispmartha said: You make a fair point about players lying in the ruck however I think there are far too many penalties given when a player is trying to get out of the way but the attacker is trying to play the ball too quickly so the defender has no chance and half the time the attacker hasn’t played the ball correctly in the first place, I think your idea of allowing a bit more time at the PTB is a good one it will then be a lot more obvious when a player is deliberately lying in the ruck, Ive seen penalties given when an attack simply drops the ball on a player in the ruck, there has to be more onus on the attacker to play the ball correctly IMO, Ive thought for a while we as fans don’t help as we call for penalties far too wuickly at the PTB I think you and DaveT make good points and so do others. There are levels of and effects of infringement which might need different penalties. If there is some needless sloppy playing of the ball trying to be too quick then make it happen again. If the defender lies on then add on a tackle to the count. If the ref thinks the attacker is milking a foul then take a tackle off the count. But also where there is open play and a flop by a defender then have a clear penalty and/or a yellow card like we do now.... or, if the ambition is to make play continuous, then restart the whole count. The rules intends however that the ptb is not contested thus we currently have the sneaky "milking" it by both sides. It seems to me that if the principle intention of the idea is there is no "contest" then both sides should be encouraged to get on with it and where necessary just add or deduct to or from the tackle count. Common sense is needed, clarity, a clear vision of what the intention, the intent, is for. More rules add to the complexity, add to the punishments, add to the ways to get round them. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrispmartha Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 39 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said: I think you and DaveT make good points and so do others. There are levels of and effects of infringement which might need different penalties. If there is some needless sloppy playing of the ball trying to be too quick then make it happen again. If the defender lies on then add on a tackle to the count. If the ref thinks the attacker is milking a foul then take a tackle off the count. But also where there is open play and a flop by a defender then have a clear penalty and/or a yellow card like we do now.... or, if the ambition is to make play continuous, then restart the whole count. The rules intends however that the ptb is not contested thus we currently have the sneaky "milking" it by both sides. It seems to me that if the principle intention of the idea is there is no "contest" then both sides should be encouraged to get on with it and where necessary just add or deduct to or from the tackle count. Common sense is needed, clarity, a clear vision of what the intention, the intent, is for. More rules add to the complexity, add to the punishments, add to the ways to get round them. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I like your idea of adding or taking away to the tackle count Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Industria ditat Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 1 hour ago, Dave T said: Yes. It surprises me more how fans seem to defend this practice more than any other offence at the ptb. If you are lay in the ruck when the ball is played, you have lost the ruck and deserve to be penalised as you are interfering. On the other hand the laws of the game state ' the tackled player may not play the ball before the players effecting the tackle have had time to clear the ruck'. The refs need to use their judgement at each tackle to decide if the tackler has had opportunity to do this. They don't do this at the moment - they seem programmed to automatically just blow for a penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbruce Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 1 minute ago, Industria ditat said: On the other hand the laws of the game state ' the tackled player may not play the ball before the players effecting the tackle have had time to clear the ruck'. The refs need to use their judgement at each tackle to decide if the tackler has had opportunity to do this. They don't do this at the moment - they seem programmed to automatically just blow for a penalty. The laws also state you can place or drop the ball at the ptb. That’s not how the game is reffed though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damien Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 2 minutes ago, bobbruce said: The laws also state you can place or drop the ball at the ptb. That’s not how the game is reffed though. I actually watched an old YouTube video the other day and it was notable how many people actually dropped the ball and played it with their foot. They were very adept at it and isn't something I had ever seen before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadlyOverdrawnBoy Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 When I played, the marker was also allowed to strike for the ball. You needed good shinpads in those days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.