Jump to content

An old RL rule


Recommended Posts

I've been thumbing my way through copies of the late lamented Rothmans RL Yearbook and I came across a reference to an old rule that I'd never heard of before.

In 1958 the RFL introduced a rule whereby if the play-the-ball acting half-back was tackled in possession a scrum was conceded. This was a new one to me, though nowadays it's a Masters RL rule.

I wasn't even a twinkle in the late 50s so it was well before my time, but does anyone have any recollection of this rule and how long was it in place

Link to comment
Share on other sites


21 minutes ago, Number 16 said:

I've been thumbing my way through copies of the late lamented Rothmans RL Yearbook and I came across a reference to an old rule that I'd never heard of before.

In 1958 the RFL introduced a rule whereby if the play-the-ball acting half-back was tackled in possession a scrum was conceded. This was a new one to me, though nowadays it's a Masters RL rule.

I wasn't even a twinkle in the late 50s so it was well before my time, but does anyone have any recollection of this rule and how long was it in place

This was in the days of unlimited tackles and 5yd defensive lines. It was to prevent the dummy halfs from taking an interminable number of 1yd gains. It certainly ended with the introduction of the limited ( originally four) tackles rule, round about 1966 I believe.

Sport, amongst other things, is a dream-world offering escape from harsh reality and the disturbing prospect of change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting if slightly irreverent reference book is "Rugby League in It's Own Words" by Tim Wilkinson and Ray Gent, published in 2004. Many of the changes to the sport are covered in an entertaining narrative format. It isn't necessarily completely authoritative but a good read.

Sport, amongst other things, is a dream-world offering escape from harsh reality and the disturbing prospect of change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, craig hamilton said:

I used to like the fact that you could play the ball to yourself. Saw it in action during the BBC's Challenge Cup final programme at the weekend. Had forgotten about it.

And the opposing player could also strike for the ball. I believe that they were both made illegal at the same time. This actually goes back to the original concept of the PTB which was a one-man opposed scrum where the tackled player was supposed to drop the ball from around chest height and both players could strike for the ball.

Sport, amongst other things, is a dream-world offering escape from harsh reality and the disturbing prospect of change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, craig hamilton said:

I used to like the fact that you could play the ball to yourself. Saw it in action during the BBC's Challenge Cup final programme at the weekend. Had forgotten about it.

They should bring that one back!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Number 16 said:

I've been thumbing my way through copies of the late lamented Rothmans RL Yearbook and I came across a reference to an old rule that I'd never heard of before.

In 1958 the RFL introduced a rule whereby if the play-the-ball acting half-back was tackled in possession a scrum was conceded. This was a new one to me, though nowadays it's a Masters RL rule.

I wasn't even a twinkle in the late 50s so it was well before my time, but does anyone have any recollection of this rule and how long was it in place

from laws of the game 

in 1961

in an effort to discourage incessant and purposeless runs by the dummy-halves, a rule was made that should the dummy-half be tackled after running with the ball there would be a scrum 

in 1963

The rule that a dummy-half caught with ball would result in a scrum was rescinded. Dummy-half runs were now unrestricted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as they don't bring back Parramatta's "flying wedge" tactic... nostalgia can go too far!

Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
Ralph Waldo Emerson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, craig hamilton said:

I used to like the fact that you could play the ball to yourself. Saw it in action during the BBC's Challenge Cup final programme at the weekend. Had forgotten about it.

The marker could strike as well.  I think that and the rule above are all part of the evolution of the original RU ruck pre 1895.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Nomad XIII said:

In the UK, the kick off was switched to the scoring team part way through the short 1995/96 season in preparation for the new era of Super League the following year (the ban on the marker striking and the tackled player playing it to himself was done at the same time). In Australia it applied only in the Super League for the one year it actually ran in 1997. It never applied in the NRL the following year, and was reversed in the UK in 1999 as the rules were harmonised.

I really liked that one myself. In the modern game where possession is more key than position I thought it evened up things slightly, despite the concern over a team being pinned back in their own half permanently. I think we threw the baby out with the bathwater some there. Scoring team kicks off from their own 40M line could have been a good tweak.

I thought at the time the team scored against should’ve just had a tap on the halfway( that could be the 20 or 40 depending on how it was working. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Blind side johnny said:

This was in the days of unlimited tackles and 5yd defensive lines. It was to prevent the dummy halfs from taking an interminable number of 1yd gains. It certainly ended with the introduction of the limited ( originally four) tackles rule, round about 1966 I believe.

Cheers. I guessed the reason for it. Strange to think that if the rule was still in place the game would be so different. As an example 'exit sets' wouldn't it be same and the role (and physique?) of wingers would change. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Number 16 said:

Cheers. I guessed the reason for it. Strange to think that if the rule was still in place the game would be so different. As an example 'exit sets' wouldn't it be same and the role (and physique?) of wingers would change. 

Yes, however the same can be said for many rules couldn't it? The list is almost endless.

Sport, amongst other things, is a dream-world offering escape from harsh reality and the disturbing prospect of change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, bobbruce said:

I thought at the time the team scored against should’ve just had a tap on the halfway( that could be the 20 or 40 depending on how it was working. 

That's one rule that football has we could learn from. The team that has just conceded a score gets to keep the ball from the kick off. It'd stop the games were one team gets on a roll and just scores try after try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/04/2020 at 15:48, Blind side johnny said:

And the opposing player could also strike for the ball. I believe that they were both made illegal at the same time. This actually goes back to the original concept of the PTB which was a one-man opposed scrum where the tackled player was supposed to drop the ball from around chest height and both players could strike for the ball.

It should be emphasised that the tackled player could only play the ball to himself if there were no markers, so it was a reward for, in modern speak, "Finding your front".

In relation to the old permitted contest between tackled player and marker, when the ruck was streamlined to a maximum of 4 players the theory was that the player behind each of the 2 contesting players was an acting-half. I stand to be corrected but the last time I looked, what we now call the second marker is still referred to as an acting-half in the English rulebook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/04/2020 at 14:33, Number 16 said:

I've been thumbing my way through copies of the late lamented Rothmans RL Yearbook and I came across a reference to an old rule that I'd never heard of before.

In 1958 the RFL introduced a rule whereby if the play-the-ball acting half-back was tackled in possession a scrum was conceded. This was a new one to me, though nowadays it's a Masters RL rule.

I wasn't even a twinkle in the late 50s so it was well before my time, but does anyone have any recollection of this rule and how long was it in place

Was in place when I started watching in about 1960. I remember Barry Simms loved to run from dummy half and the huge groan from the crowd when he was caught!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/04/2020 at 15:48, Blind side johnny said:

And the opposing player could also strike for the ball. I believe that they were both made illegal at the same time. This actually goes back to the original concept of the PTB which was a one-man opposed scrum where the tackled player was supposed to drop the ball from around chest height and both players could strike for the ball.

Quite regularly led to fisticuffs too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Lots of things used to lead to fisticuffs.

Only in RU. In league we had fights.

Sport, amongst other things, is a dream-world offering escape from harsh reality and the disturbing prospect of change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with RL scrums is mainly that scrums without flankers (the position that was dropped when we went to 13 a side) are unstable. I remember many years ago Ray French in his 'Rugby Leaguer' column saying that he 'd tried six man scrums in training with the school RU side he coached and that they ended up as big a shambles as RL ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/04/2020 at 14:10, Blind side johnny said:

Only in RU. In league we had fights.

There`s a video on YouTube, something like " Top ten Aussie rules all-in brawls". Even our old-timers had nothing on these blokes. Eighteen combatants a-side, several separate biff-fests going simultaneously, coaching staff and trainers joining in. Amazing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, unapologetic pedant said:

There`s a video on YouTube, something like " Top ten Aussie rules all-in brawls". Even our old-timers had nothing on these blokes. Eighteen combatants a-side, several separate biff-fests going simultaneously, coaching staff and trainers joining in. Amazing!

But, hopefully, never referred to as "fisticuffs".

Sport, amongst other things, is a dream-world offering escape from harsh reality and the disturbing prospect of change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Chronicler of Chiswick said:

The problem with RL scrums is mainly that scrums without flankers (the position that was dropped when we went to 13 a side) are unstable. I remember many years ago Ray French in his 'Rugby Leaguer' column saying that he 'd tried six man scrums in training with the school RU side he coached and that they ended up as big a shambles as RL ones.

This is a factor certainly, but the position and behaviour of the hookers contributes more to League scrum instability than the absence of flankers. Ultimately, all contested scrums are precarious, the instability just takes different forms. The League scrum is prone to skew laterally, the Union scrum is prone to inward collapse. Some Union games would be an 80-minute collapsing scrum if the ref didn`t fabricate a penalty after the fourth re-set.

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.