Play the ball with the foot - a petition

[Tonka]

There aren’t many objective reasons for requiring the ball to be played with the foot.  

One thing in its favour is that it ensures the tackled player is properly on his feet and helps with playing it squarely back to the dummy half, which makes it fair on the markers who also have to be square.  It also gives the defensive line a second more to get back and set.  If there were no requirement to play it or even “make an effort”, I’d expect players to start rolling it back very wary from a half-standing position giving the attacking side a bit of an unfair advantage and it could get messy.  At the moment we’re half way to that.

But in any case “making an effort” to do something is not a good approach in any sport - you either have to do something or you don’t.

(As an aside, I used to like the old rule where you could tap to yourself if there was no marker)

[Dunbar]

43 minutes ago, jannerboyuk said:

Putting the current rules aside for a mo, whats wrong with rolling the ball back or stepping over, why does the foot have to touch the ball in principle? 

In my opinion it is all about control. Playing the ball with the foot adds some structure to the process as the tackled player needs to be in control of their body/balance etc and clearly on his feet again. Just rolling the ball back can create chaos.

[Tonka]

5 minutes ago, Luobo82 said:

I would guess that the reason for having the foot touch the ball is that is a clear marker for when the defending team can move off their line.

That's a good point too (better than mine!)

[Southstander13]

5 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Not many penalties given for avoiding using the foot. Ironically, Hull got penalised despite clearly using the foot!

I thought that one was for playing it off the mark (assuming its the one I think you're referring to) though the commentary team seemed to think it was to do with the foot.

[Southstander13]

I couldn't work out what the intention was based on this weeks games.

If they want foot on the ball every time then you could have penalised nearly every PTB. If they want "making an effort" to get the foot on the ball then this would make more sense and maybe halves the number of incidents.

But the frustrating thing this week was that they penalised once for not getting a foot to the ball, and then the next three PTBs were exactly the same with no penalty.

The penalties appeared to be a bit random, so hopefully with a week to reflect they can nail down an interpretation and maintain that in future weeks.

[Tonka]

47 minutes ago, Southstander13 said:

I couldn't work out what the intention was based on this weeks games.

If they want foot on the ball every time then you could have penalised nearly every PTB. If they want "making an effort" to get the foot on the ball then this would make more sense and maybe halves the number of incidents.

But the frustrating thing this week was that they penalised once for not getting a foot to the ball, and then the next three PTBs were exactly the same with no penalty.

The penalties appeared to be a bit random, so hopefully with a week to reflect they can nail down an interpretation and maintain that in future weeks.

Totally, it's a bit of a mess at the moment.  The rules don't help the refs here.

[Luobo82]

1 hour ago, Southstander13 said:

If they want "making an effort" to get the foot on the ball then this would make more sense and maybe halves the number of incidents.

How do you define making an attempt though? Is it just to have lifted your foot off the floor but it got no where near the ball? Or you have to get your foot with in an inch of ball?

It just makes it so vague and difficult to get consistent referring.

Put it in another context would people be happy if a forward pass wasn’t called forward because the player attempted to throw it back? (Sounds like Stevo’s momentum rule).

Or should a try be awarded still if the ball hasn’t been grounded? Say like when someone gets held up because at least they made an attempt to ground it.

Any player taking a kick at goal is making attempt to put the ball between the posts but doesn’t mean they just get given them two points anyway if they miss!

[Southstander13]

26 minutes ago, Luobo82 said:

How do you define making an attempt though? Is it just to have lifted your foot off the floor but it got no where near the ball? Or you have to get your foot with in an inch of ball?

It just makes it so vague and difficult to get consistent referring.

Put it in another context would people be happy if a forward pass wasn’t called forward because the player attempted to throw it back? (Sounds like Stevo’s momentum rule).

Or should a try be awarded still if the ball hasn’t been grounded? Say like when someone gets held up because at least they made an attempt to ground it.

Any player taking a kick at goal is making attempt to put the ball between the posts but doesn’t mean they just get given them two points anyway if they miss!

Its fairly clear, if you roll the ball back and step over it then its a penalty.

If you roll the ball back and make an action/attempt to touch it with your foot then its not a penalty.

As a referee you would be able to tell the difference quite clearly, and whether the ball actually touches the foot or not isn't then an issue. It would be extremely consistent.

In an ideal world it would touch the foot every time, and by the letter of the law that's what should happen, but we've gone years without it being enforced so this would be a step in the right direction at least.

[Tonka]

The irony is that the “attempt” to play the ball is actually an attempt to hover your foot over it to look like an “attempt” !

So you only really get done if you don’t attempt your attempt (which isn’t really an attempt).

[Southstander13]

I was just trying to find some sort of middle ground initially. I'm perfectly happy if the letter of the law was applied and it needs to be played by the foot.

I also think you can tell when a genuine attempt has been made to play the ball with the foot. I saw plenty this weekend when the player rolled it back and simply stepped over the ball.

[Dunbar]

The new interpretations as laid down help no one.

Aa I mentioned on the other thread, don't say the players must make an effort to use the foot. Say the players have to use the foot and then the ref has some discretion to say at least a player made an attempt.

But to say a player must make an attempt then asks the ref to make a call on whether a player made an effort to make an effort... it's just crazy.

Penalise the obvious and deliberate poor play the balls and the problem goes away.

[Southstander13]

8 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

The new interpretations as laid down help no one.

Aa I mentioned on the other thread, don't say the players must make an effort to use the foot. Say the players have to use the foot and then the ref has some discretion to say at least a player made an attempt.

But to say a player must make an attempt then asks the ref to make a call on whether a player made an effort to make an effort... it's just crazy.

Penalise the obvious and deliberate poor play the balls and the problem goes away.

That's pretty much what I meant, however you worded this much clearer than I managed to! Completely agree with what you've put.

[Tonka]

6 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

The new interpretations as laid down help no one.

Aa I mentioned on the other thread, don't say the players must make an effort to use the foot. Say the players have to use the foot and then the ref has some discretion to say at least a player made an attempt.

But to say a player must make an attempt then asks the ref to make a call on whether a player made an effort to make an effort... it's just crazy.

Penalise the obvious and deliberate poor play the balls and the problem goes away.

The rule could be that provided the player makes an attempt and the defence is not disadvantaged by a failure to make contact, then it's play on.  That's easier to ref and I think is the nub of it - i.e. often it doesn't really matter if they roll it or touch it with the foot.  It think that works as an in-between, if there has to be one.  Penalties for incorrect PTB can feel fussy and damage the game a bit.

[redjonn]

14 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Not many penalties given for avoiding using the foot. Ironically, Hull got penalised despite clearly using the foot!

was that the one were the player was almost side on - that is almost 180 degrees to pointing forwards ,,,, and not steady on his feet...

their was one just like that and he was penalised... hence my question...

[fighting irish]

6 hours ago, Tonka said:

Penalties for incorrect PTB can feel fussy and damage the game a bit.

Only until the lazy/cheating b ggers do it right.

Its the easiest thing in the world to stand up, put the ball on the ground and put your foot on it, then roll it back. Simples! You'd swear they were being asked to juggle blindfold.

[Dunbar]

17 hours ago, Tonka said:

The rule could be that provided the player makes an attempt and the defence is not disadvantaged by a failure to make contact, then it's play on.  That's easier to ref and I think is the nub of it - i.e. often it doesn't really matter if they roll it or touch it with the foot.  It think that works as an in-between, if there has to be one.  Penalties for incorrect PTB can feel fussy and damage the game a bit.

Asking the ref to make a subjective call on whether the tackled player made a genuine attempt to play the correctly and if not then make a subjective call on whether the attacking team were advantaged seems to me to be a really difficult thing to introduce.  This can only lead to more confusion and inconsistency for me.

I certainly don't want to see a penalty fest... but I am also sure it doesn't need to be. When the NRL starts in a few weeks we will see a much better situation and it is enforced through relatively few penalties... because the players know they will be penalised for an incorrect play the ball and so they play it properly.  It is a reinforced behaviour. 

[Tonka]

24 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Asking the ref to make a subjective call on whether the tackled player made a genuine attempt to play the correctly and if not then make a subjective call on whether the attacking team were advantaged seems to me to be a really difficult thing to introduce.  This can only lead to more confusion and inconsistency for me.

I certainly don't want to see a penalty test... but I am also sure it doesn't need to be. When the NRL starts in a few weeks we will see a much better situation and it is enforced through relatively few penalties... because the players know they will be penalised for an incorrect play the ball and so they play it properly.  It is a reinforced behaviour. 

Yeah fair enough, although I’d say the latter test is objective.  I’d prefer it to be played properly as I’ve said.  But I kinda think that’s why the rule has ended up the way it is i.e. it’s hard to see that the defending team suffers if the ball is rolled not played on a given instance, but if done repeatedly over a game it matters.  If that makes sense.

[Bulliac]

18 hours ago, Tonka said:

The irony is that the “attempt” to play the ball is actually an attempt to hover your foot over it to look like an “attempt” !

So you only really get done if you don’t attempt your attempt (which isn’t really an attempt).

I watched the game over the weekend on TV and nothing seems to have changed under the 'crackdown'.

It's not difficult: the average under eights team can do it pretty much perfectly every time, but the pros seem to struggle. Let's be honest, pro players simply lift a leg and throw the ball through. IF a full time professional SL player was making a GENUINE effort to play the ball correctly he would actually do so 99.999% of the time. What they are really trying to do is, as said above, to con the referee into thinking they have made a 'genuine effort'.

There is an easy way to end it. The defensive line is supposed to stay back ten metres "until the ball is played by the foot" so I'd suggest referees don't penalise the defence for offside if the ball ISN'T played by the foot.

[John Rhino]

When reviewing a try by the video ref include whether the last PTB was done properly, ie played back with the foot. 

This waving the metatarsals in the air nonsense would stop in the second half 

[fighting irish]

For a professional organisation (especially a National Governing Body) to create a rule, so heavily laden with ambiguity is grossly embarrassing.

I say change it before ''our enemies'' notice and take to the press. 

[Luobo82]

In addition to the petition, I have tried writing direct to the RFL to express my views and in particular get them to explain what constitutes attempting to get your foot on the ball. Having not received a reply I chased them today and got the response of “please refer back to the press release that we previously published. We hope that provides clarity.”

 For goodness sake...

[fighting irish]

Tell them there's a discussion raging on about it on totalrl.com and everyone wants change.

[Harry Stottle]

In Australia they now play the ball correctly, they had a clampdown and many penalties were awarded so they soon got the message and the game looks far tidier for it, Our 'make reasonable effort' is to grey an area it is not conclusive it is open to the refs interpretation therefore open to criticism that the ref could be leaning to one side in awarding penalties, it is time to make it definitive so arguments are avoided.

Does anyone know what the international rule is regarding the play the ball? I fully expect we will have some Aussie refs here for the test series next year, we could be penalised at nearly every play if it is down to reasonable effort.

[Bulliac]

6 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

In Australia they now play the ball correctly, they had a clampdown and many penalties were awarded so they soon got the message and the game looks far tidier for it, Our 'make reasonable effort' is to grey an area it is not conclusive it is open to the refs interpretation therefore open to criticism that the ref could be leaning to one side in awarding penalties, it is time to make it definitive so arguments are avoided.

Does anyone know what the international rule is regarding the play the ball? I fully expect we will have some Aussie refs here for the test series next year, we could be penalised at nearly every play if it is down to reasonable effort.

I'm not certain that is the case in reality. 

It 's not that our players can't play the ball correctly, as I said earlier in the piece, if you watch an under eights game they can manage it, it's only amongst the professionals where they choose (because they're allowed to) to not bother doing it correctly. Tell them beforehand what the situation is and they will do it correctly - just like the kids.

[unapologetic pedant]

On 08/02/2020 at 12:07, Harry Stottle said:

In Australia they now play the ball correctly, they had a clampdown and many penalties were awarded so they soon got the message and the game looks far tidier for it, Our 'make reasonable effort' is to grey an area it is not conclusive it is open to the refs interpretation therefore open to criticism that the ref could be leaning to one side in awarding penalties, it is time to make it definitive so arguments are avoided.

Does anyone know what the international rule is regarding the play the ball? I fully expect we will have some Aussie refs here for the test series next year, we could be penalised at nearly every play if it is down to reasonable effort.

Even under the current guidelines it`s quite easy to distinguish between legal and illegal. When a player makes a motion over the ball with his foot this is legal because it`s often impossible to say with certainty whether contact has been made. This is visibly, unmistakeably different from the really ugly ones where the player rolls and deliberately hops over the ball.