Jump to content

Pitch markings


Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

Fair points, but for me I do not think 10m is the right off side line. I'd prefer 8m max.  Given sensible "gridiron" lines then I would have a standard length of 96m. This is close to 104 yards which is close to 110yds pre metric pitch.... although I do wonder if the original length years ago was 100yards.

Maximum size was 100 yds years ago. with two 25 yd lines, basically quartering the field.  Even then, 100 yds was a maximum and not a mandatory length. Most of the older grounds will definitely have been built to that specification.

No team is an island.........................................

http://www.flickr.com/photos/31337109@N03/

Link to comment
Share on other sites


2 hours ago, Bulliac said:

Maximum size was 100 yds years ago. with two 25 yd lines, basically quartering the field.  Even then, 100 yds was a maximum and not a mandatory length. Most of the older grounds will definitely have been built to that specification.

Thanks yes.

This is why I do not agree with the mindless metrication and sticking to 10s and 100s. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21/03/2020 at 20:16, Rupert Prince said:

The point then is the advertising not the lines?

 

CORRECT although I seem to re-call they had an exclusive way back in all pitch markings (Or at least the special paint that could be eradicated from the pitch after the match)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

Thanks yes.

This is why I do not agree with the mindless metrication and sticking to 10s and 100s. 

Well, there was no actual need to change but as the country moved to decimal it would have made the RL look a bit fogeyish not to, imo. The determination of the RFL and RU not to do the same was evident in our going to 20 metres and RU going for the, more or less equivalent to 25 yds, in using 20 metres.

For some reason, I'd guess, it's more cock up than deliberate, Toronto have their markings at 9 metres between the lines. If you see their games on TV the (intended) 10 metre line just about touches the 10 yard soccer centre circle, so must be short. Strangely, as a died in the wool diehard who wouldn't normally say this, I think, for a short field, it may be a better way than a mixture of 10s with an odd couple of shorter sections around then centre line, which is the norm. 

I'll go away and don my tin hat now...

No team is an island.........................................

http://www.flickr.com/photos/31337109@N03/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Bulliac said:

Maximum size was 100 yds years ago. with two 25 yd lines, basically quartering the field.  Even then, 100 yds was a maximum and not a mandatory length. Most of the older grounds will definitely have been built to that specification.

Do you have a source for that claim?  They would have inherited a maximum of 110 yards from RU just as Canadian rugby football did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Bulliac said:

Toronto have their markings at 9 metres between the lines. If you see their games on TV the (intended) 10 metre line just about touches the 10 yard soccer centre circle, so must be short.

That used to be true of Lamport but they fixed it up last year. They now just have a short 10 (albeit with a solid line instead of a gapped line) like everybody else with a short pitch does. 

image.png.0488417051e758b82e8988527685064d.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Bulliac said:

Well, there was no actual need to change but as the country moved to decimal it would have made the RL look a bit fogeyish not to, imo. The determination of the RFL and RU not to do the same was evident in our going to 20 metres and RU going for the, more or less equivalent to 25 yds, in using 20 metres.

For some reason, I'd guess, it's more cock up than deliberate, Toronto have their markings at 9 metres between the lines. If you see their games on TV the (intended) 10 metre line just about touches the 10 yard soccer centre circle, so must be short. Strangely, as a died in the wool diehard who wouldn't normally say this, I think, for a short field, it may be a better way than a mixture of 10s with an odd couple of shorter sections around then centre line, which is the norm. 

I'll go away and don my tin hat now...

I think the issue is worth further consideration.

There are 2 issues. One is the ideal off side line at the play of the ball and, Two is the need for suitable pitch markings.

I think 10m (11 yards!) Is too great. At the beginning it was 3 yards, then 5 yards then 10 yards and then 10m (11yards!). Convenience has linked the number 10 to the neat idea of a grid to assist the referee. This is associated with the apparent need to have a pitch length with a zero on the end of it. But it's not cosy numbers that count... it's the best lines to suit our game.

I believe the game is worse off for having a 11yd off side (or "gain") line. 

I believe that a multiple of either 6m or 8m would give a suitable pitch length of 96m... or 104 yards. It is for me then a consideration of whether the gain line shoukd me 6m or 8m.  I believe that the 10m line is ruining the game. The game is TOO fast, and it's TOO easy to make "yardage". Because of the tyranny of the "gridiron" I would compromise and go with 8m --  but my preference would be, for a better game, 6m  - (12m solid lines and 6m intermediate dotted).

And 96m would give a certain amount of leeway with the in goal distance in order to fit in with existing stadia. 

Here endeth the second lesson...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

I think the issue is worth further consideration.

There are 2 issues. One is the ideal off side line at the play of the ball and, Two is the need for suitable pitch markings.

I think 10m (11 yards!) Is too great. At the beginning it was 3 yards, then 5 yards then 10 yards and then 10m (11yards!). Convenience has linked the number 10 to the neat idea of a grid to assist the referee. This is associated with the apparent need to have a pitch length with a zero on the end of it. But it's not cosy numbers that count... it's the best lines to suit our game.

I believe the game is worse off for having a 11yd off side (or "gain") line. 

I believe that a multiple of either 6m or 8m would give a suitable pitch length of 96m... or 104 yards. It is for me then a consideration of whether the gain line shoukd me 6m or 8m.  I believe that the 10m line is ruining the game. The game is TOO fast, and it's TOO easy to make "yardage". Because of the tyranny of the "gridiron" I would compromise and go with 8m --  but my preference would be, for a better game, 6m  - (12m solid lines and 6m intermediate dotted).

And 96m would give a certain amount of leeway with the in goal distance in order to fit in with existing stadia. 

Here endeth the second lesson...

 

You're close, but not quite on the money.  10 metres is only too great in the absence of a rule requiring offensive players not involved in the play-the-ball to be back 5 metres from it.

If you watch matches under the previous 5-metre rule, you'll notice that teams really struggled to advance the ball much during their sets of possession, though of course part of that was that a "set of six" bizarrely only lets them run 5 plays instead of 6.  As long as the offensive players not involved in the play-the-ball still had to be back 5 metres from it, teams needed skill and variety in their play to make that ground and the game was great to watch.  Since that latter rule was dropped and the English RL authorities became weirdly obsessed with making the game as fast as possible, the game has changed for the worst as you describe.

The reason is simple: if the two sets of players advance at the same pace they'll meet in the middle between their starting points, but the more passes thrown by the offensive team the more time the defenders will have to move up and the further they'll advance.  The current rules and interpretation essentially give the offensive team 5 metres per play unless they're incompetent, going back to the previous rule and interpretation would fix the problem.

Re the lines, I can't say often enough how much the equidistant numbered lines which the Aussies have had ever since 1993 when the 10-metre rule came in will help North Americans (who all grew up seeing gridiron on TV) understand the game.  The first match I saw thanks to Dave Silcock lending me one of his videos back in 1994 had those lines and the parallels to the most popular game in this part of the world were immediately apparent to me.  A few years back I showed the game to a lady whom I was seeing at the time whose played RU using another match from Australia and her immediate response was, "it's just like football".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23/03/2020 at 06:37, Bulliac said:

Maximum size was 100 yds years ago. with two 25 yd lines, basically quartering the field.  Even then, 100 yds was a maximum and not a mandatory length. Most of the older grounds will definitely have been built to that specification.

You are mistaken there.  As you can clearly see here, the lines between the 25 yard line and midfield are all 10 yards apart, making each half of the field 55 yards and the total length 110 yards which is just a tad more than 100 metres.  I timestamped the link to the opening kickoff so that will be clearly visible.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Big Picture said:

You're close, but not quite on the money.  10 metres is only too great in the absence of a rule requiring offensive players not involved in the play-the-ball to be back 5 metres from it.

If you watch matches under the previous 5-metre rule, you'll notice that teams really struggled to advance the ball much during their sets of possession, though of course part of that was that a "set of six" bizarrely only lets them run 5 plays instead of 6.  As long as the offensive players not involved in the play-the-ball still had to be back 5 metres from it, teams needed skill and variety in their play to make that ground and the game was great to watch.  Since that latter rule was dropped and the English RL authorities became weirdly obsessed with making the game as fast as possible, the game has changed for the worst as you .

Etc.....

Yes fair points. RU don't have any gain line at all of course. That is going to far the other way.

One way or another I believe we should have a smaller gain line, and the pitch should be sized and lined accordingly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23/03/2020 at 13:07, hunsletgreenandgold said:

That used to be true of Lamport but they fixed it up last year. They now just have a short 10 (albeit with a solid line instead of a gapped line) like everybody else with a short pitch does.

That's wrong, the picture you posted is from before the new pitch was laid there.  This video of their divisional Grand Final last year shows that the RL lines are all the same distance apart.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Big Picture said:

That's wrong, the picture you posted is from before the new pitch was laid there.  This video of their divisional Grand Final last year shows that the RL lines are all the same distance apart.

 

I hope they've corrected it again - whilst I hate short 10s you can''t be having 9ish metre lines. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Big Picture said:

You are mistaken there.  As you can clearly see here, the lines between the 25 yard line and midfield are all 10 yards apart, making each half of the field 55 yards and the total length 110 yards which is just a tad more than 100 metres.  I timestamped the link to the opening kickoff so that will be clearly visible.

 

I've no idea about the lines on the field at Wembley (remember it is also used for other sports) but back in my early days of watching RL (1950s) the grounds were marked as I stated; with dead ball lines, goal lines, a halfway line and two 25 yard lines, ie 25 yards from each goal line. They remained like that until the game went metric, I think maybe in the seventies.

No team is an island.........................................

http://www.flickr.com/photos/31337109@N03/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bulliac said:

I've no idea about the lines on the field at Wembley (remember it is also used for other sports) but back in my early days of watching RL (1950s) the grounds were marked as I stated; with dead ball lines, goal lines, a halfway line and two 25 yard lines, ie 25 yards from each goal line. They remained like that until the game went metric, I think maybe in the seventies.

You can easily see in that video that the lines between the 25 and midfield were all the same distance apart.  Knowing that the lines closest to those two lines had to be ten yards distant from them, simple math shows that the distance from the 25 to midfield was 30 yards, not 25.  That is clearly before the game went metric, because as you can clearly see here courtesy of the different shadings on the turf, after metrication the lines between the 22 metre line and midfield were slightly closer to each other than to either of the solid lines which is different from the practice in the 1970s.  QED

And further, the fields couldn't have been marked as you stated back in the 1950s, because lines ten yards from the 25 yard lines and the midfield line were needed as kickoffs and drop-outs had to travel ten yards which Eddie Waring mentioned at the start of the 1960 Challenge Cup Final.  You can see that here.

So as I always thought, RL inherited a maximum length of 110 yards from RU, just as Canadian rugby football did.  QED

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Big Picture said:

You can easily see in that video that the lines between the 25 and midfield were all the same distance apart.  Knowing that the lines closest to those two lines had to be ten yards distant from them, simple math shows that the distance from the 25 to midfield was 30 yards, not 25.  That is clearly before the game went metric, because as you can clearly see here courtesy of the different shadings on the turf, after metrication the lines between the 22 metre line and midfield were slightly closer to each other than to either of the solid lines which is different from the practice in the 1970s.  QED

And further, the fields couldn't have been marked as you stated back in the 1950s, because lines ten yards from the 25 yard lines and the midfield line were needed as kickoffs and drop-outs had to travel ten yards which Eddie Waring mentioned at the start of the 1960 Challenge Cup Final.  You can see that here.

So as I always thought, RL inherited a maximum length of 110 yards from RU, just as Canadian rugby football did.  QED

You are clearly mistaking partial lines, which back in the day were only about as wide as the goalposts, for lines across the pitch. These were intended as a guide for the ref but were never extended across the field. I've only been following the game for 60 odd years but if you say so, ok. 

See the source image

No team is an island.........................................

http://www.flickr.com/photos/31337109@N03/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bulliac said:

You are clearly mistaking partial lines, which back in the day were only about as wide as the goalposts, for lines across the pitch. These were intended as a guide for the ref but were never extended across the field. I've only been following the game for 60 odd years but if you say so, ok. 

See the source image

Ah I understand now, you're basing your view on Odsal Stadium and its dimensions.  Odsal however had a shorter field than other long time venues like Central Park, The Boulevard, Belle Vue, Thrum Hall, The Boulevard, Headingley and others which could all accommodate 100 metres without any issue, so it's hardly definitive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 25/03/2020 at 17:47, Big Picture said:

You can easily see in that video that the lines between the 25 and midfield were all the same distance apart.  Knowing that the lines closest to those two lines had to be ten yards distant from them, simple math shows that the distance from the 25 to midfield was 30 yards, not 25.  That is clearly before the game went metric, because as you can clearly see here courtesy of the different shadings on the turf, after metrication the lines between the 22 metre line and midfield were slightly closer to each other than to either of the solid lines which is different from the practice in the 1970s.  QED

And further, the fields couldn't have been marked as you stated back in the 1950s, because lines ten yards from the 25 yard lines and the midfield line were needed as kickoffs and drop-outs had to travel ten yards which Eddie Waring mentioned at the start of the 1960 Challenge Cup Final.  You can see that here.

So as I always thought, RL inherited a maximum length of 110 yards from RU, just as Canadian rugby football did.  QED

RL doesn’t have a 22 m line. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, bobbruce said:

RL doesn’t have a 22 m line. 

It did before the 10-metre rule came in though.  The 25 yard line became the 22 metre line then, then when the 10-metre rule came in it became the 20 metre line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 26/03/2020 at 14:43, Big Picture said:

Ah I understand now, you're basing your view on Odsal Stadium and its dimensions.  Odsal however had a shorter field than other long time venues like Central Park, The Boulevard, Belle Vue, Thrum Hall, The Boulevard, Headingley and others which could all accommodate 100 metres without any issue, so it's hardly definitive.

They didn't use metres back then. I base my view on what I saw at several grounds around league. Odsal was full size under the old rules.

No team is an island.........................................

http://www.flickr.com/photos/31337109@N03/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Bulliac said:

They didn't use metres back then. I base my view on what I saw at several grounds around league. Odsal was full size under the old rules.

I know they didn't use metres back then, but when they switched to metric the stadiums which I mentioned (which unless I'm mistaken were the original home stadiums used by those teams) were all able to accommodate 100 metre fields of play whereas that was difficult at Odsal.  Without the sort of lines which the game has now, how do you know how long the fields of play were at those other stadiums?  Can you support your claim that 100 yards was full length under the old rules with something other than anecdotal information?  It does fly in the face of the fact that 110 yards was full length in RU before it went metric and Canadian rugby football inherited the same limit from that source, so it would have been natural for RL also to have inherited 110 yards from the same source.

The 1989 World Club Challenge between Widnes and Canberra was played before they went metric (in the UK at least), the video clearly shows three equidistant lines between the centre line and the 25 yard lines which are clearly ten yards apart because the lines closest to the centre line intersect the soccer centre circle which as we all know has a radius of 10 yards, thus the full length was 110 yards.  You can clearly see that here:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 22/03/2020 at 19:20, JF1 said:

I had occasion to email the rfl about an incorrectly marked pitch.

The reply was that in the event of a full length pitch not being available,the distance between the 30m line and the line 10m from halfway should be not less than 6m and on such an occasion,the 30m line should be a broken line.

Therefore,the minimum possible distance between the 2 goal lines is 92m.

When Hemel Stags were in League 1 the pitch had broken 30 meters lines.

Screenshot_20200330-104941_Gallery.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.