Set restarts.

[The Rocket]

2 minutes ago, DavidM said:

I think this is a salient point . Yes there’s a siren , but if we get a spate of restarts and the game carries on at a pace the crowd will be wondering often what they’re for . There’s no stoppage for explanation , and doubly magnified if something comes off the back of it . As I say , I like this change , but I just think the application shouldn’t be picky and over technical . Especially when the fans return .

I think that everyone over here is so glad that they have put an end to the wrestle that there has only been sporadic questioning of "what was that for?" , it may come . Another bonus is we are seeing more tackles in the opposing team`s attacking zone instead of sets ending around the half way mark.

[BadlyOverdrawnBoy]

As it stands there is no penalty for slowing the ptb on tackle zero. This can be a crucial time from a quick 20m restart when the defence is in rapid disorganized retreat. 

There seems to be a high incidence of "milking" going on as well, though I don't know if it's an increase or not because I didn't see much NRL last year. Maybe lose a tackle for milking could work?

[The Rocket]

5 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Thanks for the reply Rod, as for your last comment that has been going on for years adopting our rules and style of play, my stock question when discussing the merits of both games with a Rah Rah follower is "How many coaches as Rugby League employed from the Union ranks to improve our game, not many if any at all, then compare that to how many coaches the Union game has employed from Rugby League to improve their game, enough said.

Someone once said to me that union would dearly love to drop two players from the field to open it up, but they can't do that, as a few years ago the word Union was dropped from their title and the game became known now officially as Rugby which was registered, so because in the kerfuffle that erupted in France in the 30's when League was taking a strong hold and the union authorities would do anything to try to halt it's progress the French RL registered the name Rugbytreize or the 'game of thirteen' subsequently not allowing Union to reduce the player's on the field to thirteen if they ever so wished to do so, how much that is true I don't know, perhaps someone with more knowledge of the subject could inform me. 

Love the observation  "how many Rugby coaches ....?"  Got one ear on the radio here .....great game going on .....love the way Maguire is introducing real  grit into the Tigers. Tigers just hit the front.

[DavidM]

Wait until we get a full stadium and it’s 24-24 in the last minute and there’s a holding down infront of the sticks !

[unapologetic pedant]

2 hours ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

There was a concern coaches would work a way around it.... Haven't seen much to suggest this yet... Not sure how they would anyway

Markers not square or breaking early was identified as the most common means of circumvention the coaches and players have hitherto come up with. That was the reason given on Tuesday by the ARL commission for extending six-again to these infringements.

In a following piece on NRL.com Paul Green claimed the refs were becoming "trigger-happy" over ruck offences. He added that it was harder for players to learn and for coaches to teach when the reasons for offences were becoming more opaque. Not convinced by the former argument, but the latter makes eminent sense.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

1 hour ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Markers not square or breaking early was identified as the most common means of circumvention the coaches and players have hitherto come up with. That was the reason given on Tuesday by the ARL commission for extending six-again to these infringements.

In a following piece on NRL.com Paul Green claimed the refs were becoming "trigger-happy" over ruck offences. He added that it was harder for players to learn and for coaches to teach when the reasons for offences were becoming more opaque. Not convinced by the former argument, but the latter makes eminent sense.

Yes I wondered where the new marker 6 again one came from

I guess the players need to learn you can't deliberately slow things down... Tackle and get off when held.... Don't want to go down union route of rolling away but they need to learn

[unapologetic pedant]

1 hour ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Yes I wondered where the new marker 6 again one came from

I guess the players need to learn you can't deliberately slow things down... Tackle and get off when held.... Don't want to go down union route of rolling away but they need to learn

In the early nineties, long before the phrase was used in Union, the RFL sent out an order for tacklers to instantly "roll away" when the tackle was complete. This meant that unless the tackle were dominant, it became close to impossible for a tackler to be a marker. If defences wanted markers, extra players had to come out of the line. I never liked it, but it was more viable with a 5m offside line. The crackdown took the familiar pattern of initial glut of penalties, followed by consternation, followed by petering out as the season wore on.

Linked to this, when GB toured down under shortly after in 1992, we found the Aussies had already made their PTB much faster. Hard to believe now that this prompted complaints from our management that they were not playing the ball correctly. 

[Futtocks]

5 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

That's not the point, yes there will be much less free kicks awarded but with this new ruling people on the terraces will be scratching thier head saying "whats that for". Presently there is no need for an audible call from the ref at least he gives a visual action saying what discretion has been commited in awarding a free kick, be totally honest Kent and you as well Tommy if you are reading this, do you know, see or realise every time a set- restart is awarded what it is for even with your close up television view?

It will be interesting how it is viewed ftom the terraces and how well it will be received over here.

And I do wonder if our player's are as collectively fit and conditioned enough as the NRL player's. I would go as far as to say if we want to win the World Cup then don't adopt this rule change and risk it being adopted internationally.

Just a thought.

That's quite a risk to take. 

[Harry Stottle]

17 hours ago, Futtocks said:

That's quite a risk to take. 

Hi futtocks, I watch both the NRL and SL with great regularity, in general the NRL looks and appears to be faster in all the aspects of the game when put in comparison with each other, in these past weeks that the NRL has returned and this 're-set' rule has been implemented the Rugby League Football they are playing down under seemingly has speeded up by a couple of notches, my worry is that collectively in our game we will not match that speed for the reason I stated that we are not as conditioned or as fit as they are and coupled with the intensity they play at it will leave us behind.

I have been fervently positive for the England camp in the WC with Mr Wane at the helm, his selection criteria and the attitude I believe he will instill into his charges, but that was prior to this new rule change if it happens to be implemented into the International Rule Book.

Question, if the rule is not adopted in the Northern Hemisphere could it still be made globally for international fixtures?

As an afterthought considering that probably 70%+ of the player's in the WC will be from the Southern Hemisphere and will have played with that rule for 18 months then really it should be adopted, majority rules cones to mind.

 

[Futtocks]

58 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Hi futtocks, I watch both the NRL and SL with great regularity, in general the NRL looks and appears to be faster in all the aspects of the game when put in comparison with each other, in these past weeks that the NRL has returned and this 're-set' rule has been implemented the Rugby League Football they are playing down under seemingly has speeded up by a couple of notches, my worry is that collectively in our game we will not match that speed for the reason I stated that we are not as conditioned or as fit as they are and coupled with the intensity they play at it will leave us behind.

I have been fervently positive for the England camp in the WC with Mr Wane at the helm, his selection criteria and the attitude I believe he will instill into his charges, but that was prior to this new rule change if it happens to be implemented into the International Rule Book.

Question, if the rule is not adopted in the Northern Hemisphere could it still be made globally for international fixtures?

As an afterthought considering that probably 70%+ of the player's in the WC will be from the Southern Hemisphere and will have played with that rule for 18 months then really it should be adopted, majority rules cones to mind.

That last part was what I was thinking of when I posted. If NRL rules get imposed on the RWC, we don't want to come into that tournament without experience of playing that way. Especially when playing the Kangaroos plus one of the Sutton brothers as the ref.

[Damien]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Question, if the rule is not adopted in the Northern Hemisphere could it still be made globally for international fixtures?

As an afterthought considering that probably 70%+ of the player's in the WC will be from the Southern Hemisphere and will have played with that rule for 18 months then really it should be adopted, majority rules cones to mind.

As far as I am aware the only competition to implement these rules is the NRL. There are a lot more leagues and governing bodies around the world than just the NRL. Whether rules are adopted on the International stage by the IRL should depend on the wishes of its members around the world, not just be decided what competition a lot of players may happen to play in. This is particularly so when competitions change the rules on a whim with no consideration of the IRL, and I level this blame at Super League just as much as the NRL. If the IRL vote to implement them based on their members then that's fine, that should be the sole consideration.

[unapologetic pedant]

4 hours ago, Damien said:

As far as I am aware the only competition to implement these rules is the NRL. There are a lot more leagues and governing bodies around the world than just the NRL. Whether rules are adopted on the International stage by the IRL should depend on the wishes of its members around the world, not just be decided what competition a lot of players may happen to play in. This is particularly so when competitions change the rules on a whim with no consideration of the IRL, and I level this blame at Super League just as much as the NRL. If the IRL vote to implement them based on their members then that's fine, that should be the sole consideration.

There`s no word yet on whether other Australian competitions will adopt the new rule. They will have to assess whether it`s appropriate for players with lower fitness levels. There`s always been a trade off between PTB speed and offside line. If an unsympathetic ref of an amateur game applies the rules of both similar to the NRL, the consequence is non-stop whistle for ruck or offside penalties.

We could have not just differing interpretations, but literally separate rules for elite competitions from the rest. This would add to the fact that already when an English team plays an Australian one, it`s obvious they have very different ideas of what constitutes a legal PTB. 

Next year we could go into a World Cup, aiming to showcase the game of Rugby League Football, with no standard acceptance of what that game is.

 

[my missus]

i think the restart is a good idea but is being over used, when a team is on a roll they are more likely to get a restart and having watched every game since the come back i believe there has been more teams getting hammered because of it.

[Harry Stottle]

6 hours ago, Damien said:

As far as I am aware the only competition to implement these rules is the NRL. There are a lot more leagues and governing bodies around the world than just the NRL. Whether rules are adopted on the International stage by the IRL should depend on the wishes of its members around the world, not just be decided what competition a lot of players may happen to play in. This is particularly so when competitions change the rules on a whim with no consideration of the IRL, and I level this blame at Super League just as much as the NRL. If the IRL vote to implement them based on their members then that's fine, that should be the sole consideration.

 

1 hour ago, unapologetic pedant said:

There`s no word yet on whether other Australian competitions will adopt the new rule. They will have to assess whether it`s appropriate for players with lower fitness levels. There`s always been a trade off between PTB speed and offside line. If an unsympathetic ref of an amateur game applies the rules of both similar to the NRL, the consequence is non-stop whistle for ruck or offside penalties.

We could have not just differing interpretations, but literally separate rules for elite competitions from the rest. This would add to the fact that already when an English team plays an Australian one, it`s obvious they have very different ideas of what constitutes a legal PTB. 

Next year we could go into a World Cup, aiming to showcase the game of Rugby League Football, with no standard acceptance of what that game is.

 

Thanks for the reply lads, I honestly think this is a very moot point going into the WC, this new rule more than any other I can recall has altered the dynamics of the game overnight and I don't think I am being unkind in saying that with the fitness, speed, conditioning and week to week intensity of the NRL they are much better equipped to adapt to playing it at a faster rate than we are, which will be hard to evaluate until the competitions come in direct conflict, my perception is they will play it at a much faster pace.

How do you see the Northern Hemisphere adapting to it, will we be as good as the NRL player's have done almost immediately?

And on the IRL do you consider this rule should apply globally?

[Dunbar]

43 minutes ago, my missus said:

i think the restart is a good idea but is being over used, when a team is on a roll they are more likely to get a restart and having watched every game since the come back i believe there has been more teams getting hammered because of it.

I was looking at this.

In the 6 rounds since the NRL resumed and the set restarts have been introduced, six games have finished with the scoreline being a 30 points or higher differential.  Funnily enough, in the same six round last year (rounds 3 to 8 ) there were also six games where the difference was 30 or higher.

[unapologetic pedant]

11 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

 

Thanks for the reply lads, I honestly think this is a very moot point going into the WC, this new rule more than any other I can recall has altered the dynamics of the game overnight and I don't think I am being unkind in saying that with the fitness, speed, conditioning and week to week intensity of the NRL they are much better equipped to adapt to playing it at a faster rate than we are, which will be hard to evaluate until the competitions come in direct conflict, my perception is they will play it at a much faster pace.

How do you see the Northern Hemisphere adapting to it, will we be as good as the NRL player's have done almost immediately?

And on the IRL do you consider this rule should apply globally?

Like you I have more questions than answers. Frankly, I`m ambivalent about the whole thing.

We still have to see what effect six-again has on our already shambolic PTB. I fear the worst. The RFL just cannot be relied upon to uphold standards.

At a guess I wouldn`t expect the new rule to be introduced for the WC because of the perception, right or wrong, that it could blow out scorelines in any mismatches. And the Aussies will be content to play under the old rule. Their prime concern is always what works for the NRL.

[Liverpool Rover]

If we are going to introduce it over here then it should be next year. When the NRL resumed they were only a couple of weeks in to their season while we were a quarter of the way into ours which for me is too far down the line for such a big rule change.

[The Rocket]

On 04/07/2020 at 06:50, Number 16 said:

One issue seems to be so many resets on T1. Teams seem happy to offend on the first whilst their defence resets. Teams can defend 7. I would think about changing to blowing on T1 thus allowing the offended against the kick to march up field. 

Interesting ,that would certainly compound the advantage, also get the play down the other end where it is more interesting.

[The Rocket]

On 04/07/2020 at 18:10, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

There was a concern coaches would work a way around it.... Haven't seen much to suggest this yet... Not sure how they would anyway

Interesting you say that ,because the last couple of games I have seen the Roosters involved in,  they seem to be keeping the tackled player up off the ground  and thereby I thought confusing the issue about when the tackle is completed, we have seen it before it was called  " waltzing " the tackled player. I hope we don`t go back to situation of players diving at the feet of the tacklers to accelerate the tackle process.

[The Rocket]

On 04/07/2020 at 20:06, Harry Stottle said:

Thanks for the reply Rod, as for your last comment that has been going on for years adopting our rules and style of play, my stock question when discussing the merits of both games with a Rah Rah follower is "How many coaches as Rugby League employed from the Union ranks to improve our game, not many if any at all, then compare that to how many coaches the Union game has employed from Rugby League to improve their game, enough said.

Someone once said to me that union would dearly love to drop two players from the field to open it up, but they can't do that, as a few years ago the word Union was dropped from their title and the game became known now officially as Rugby which was registered, so because in the kerfuffle that erupted in France in the 30's when League was taking a strong hold and the union authorities would do anything to try to halt it's progress the French RL registered the name Rugbytreize or the 'game of thirteen' subsequently not allowing Union to reduce the player's on the field to thirteen if they ever so wished to do so, how much that is true I don't know, perhaps someone with more knowledge of the subject could inform me. 

It`s incredible to think that French Team toured Australia twice in the 1950`s and won both series,  in `56 losing their first 5 games including the First Test, then storming home to win 16 out of  18 games including the last two Tests . In 1960 we played a three test series in France and the result was 1-all with a drawn Test Match. I think the French played in a World Cup Final in the 1960`s as well. Before the Kiwis beat us in series a few years ago the French were the last nation to beat the Aussies 2-0 in France in 1978, I was a kid but I can distinctly remember the outrage, I think the penalty count was like 9-1 and 11-1 in both tests. One other thing I read once that the touring French made such an impression in Australia for their flamboyant and exciting play that the Sydney Roosters modelled their jersey on the French one i.e. tricolors and rooster emblem. Bring it back.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

39 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

Interesting you say that ,because the last couple of games I have seen the Roosters involved in,  they seem to be keeping the tackled player up off the ground  and thereby I thought confusing the issue about when the tackle is completed, we have seen it before it was called  " waltzing " the tackled player. I hope we don`t go back to situation of players diving at the feet of the tacklers to accelerate the tackle process.

Voluntary tackles are banned anyway aren't they 

I think the ref's have been fantastic with the new rules. The touches have not been great this year though 

[DavidM]

13 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Voluntary tackles are banned anyway aren't they 

I would dust off the voluntary tackle rule. I  hate to see players throwing themselves on the ground , in whatever situation . In our sport it looks terrible . Refs should penalise every one in my book . As it is , defenders should be more savvy and not touch them . And less of this rubbish about putting a hand on a prone player constituting a tackle . Mr Set Restart Gee said this on Saturday . If you throw yourself on the floor you should lose all rights and be fair game to be smashed and carted around like a wheelie bin . And please bin this ridiculous thing of negating obstruction by throwing yourself down . The obstruction has already happened ! Ours is a physical contact sport . Don’t get me started on this !

[The Rocket]

2 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Voluntary tackles are banned anyway aren't they 

I think the ref's have been fantastic with the new rules. The touches have not been great this year though 

Yeah I agree the refs in RL are generally pretty good , we don`t want  them to be like rugby where they seem to want to show off how clever they are and how they know all the rules in the rule book. Yes voluntary tackles are illegal, and it seems that the refs do allow the defending team a little more time if they perceive a "surrender" tackle and that would negate any attempt to get a faster play the ball . As regards "waltzing " a little harder to adjudicate if the player is still moving. With your last statement I think Manly might agree with you there..... deadset penalty on the last play yesterday.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

2 minutes ago, DavidM said:

I would dust off the voluntary tackle rule. I  hate to see players throwing themselves on the ground , in whatever situation . In our sport it looks terrible . Refs should penalise every one in my book . As it is , defenders should be more savvy and not touch them . And less of this rubbish about putting a hand on a prone player constituting a tackle . Mr Set Restart Gee said this on Saturday . If you throw yourself on the floor you should lose all rights and be fair game to be smashed and carted around like a wheelie bin . And please bin this ridiculous thing of negating obstruction by throwing yourself down . The obstruction has already happened ! Ours is a physical contact sport . Don’t get me started on this !

Too much coffee this morning Dave?  

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

1 minute ago, The Rocket said:

Yeah I agree the refs in RL are generally pretty good , we don`t want  them to be like rugby where they seem to want to show off how clever they are and how they know all the rules in the rule book. Yes voluntary tackles are illegal, and it seems that the refs do allow the defending team a little more time if they perceive a "surrender" tackle and that would negate any attempt to get a faster play the ball . As regards "waltzing " a little harder to adjudicate if the player is still moving. With your last statement I think Manly might agree with you there..... deadset penalty on the last play yesterday.

Some of 'walking' tackles have resembled mauls at times over the last few weeks with attackers joining in the shoving