Set restarts.

[Dunbar]

1 minute 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 !

Spot on.  I hate seeing players throw themselves to the ground... in particular full backs/wingers fielding kicks and avoiding being pushed into their in goal.

Fight to get out.  Some you win and some you lose.  But as a sport we should not be rewarding people not trying to run the ball.

[DavidM]

4 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Too much coffee this morning Dave?  

I have never drank coffee in my entire life . Tea made me and the British Empire what we are ... and look at the state of us

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

4 minutes ago, DavidM said:

I have never drank coffee in my entire life . Tea made me and the British Empire what they are ... and look at the state of us

I've been over doing caffeine last few weeks.... Now avoiding it and in withdrawel 

[Liverpool Rover]

19 hours 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?

At the beginning and end of the season when grounds are softer it would possibly favour the teams with a big pack who would’ve able to roll downfield.

[RP London]

whatever rule changes come in I would like to see our commentators act more like the their aussie counterparts when analysing decisions. From what i can tell the aussies seem to be quite happy as long as they can understand why the decision was given, even if it may have been wrong with the benefit of endless replays etc. Ours seem to want to find fault with the ref even if his decision was "understandable". 

[DavidM]

10 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

I've been over doing caffeine last few weeks.... Now avoiding it and in withdrawel 

Very wise ....

https://news.sky.com/story/welder-36-found-dead-after-consuming-too-much-caffeine-12018401

[The Rocket]

16 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Too much coffee this morning Dave?  

I think this is how Joe  Leilua  felt when he tried to take that guys head off. P.S. Joey is something of a cult hero around our house . Double dummy flick pass when he put Batemen over for that try against Melbourne last year . To pull that off or even to try that --what a special.

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, The Rocket said:

the Sydney Roosters modelled their jersey on the French one i.e. tricolors and rooster emblem. Bring it back.

That sounds probable but presumably it was a 1950's French tour that impressed the Roosters, it would be intersting to learn if it is fact or fiction. 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

1 hour ago, DavidM said:

Very wise ....

https://news.sky.com/story/welder-36-found-dead-after-consuming-too-much-caffeine-12018401

Good lord.... Think I heard about some on consuming caffeine 'mints'... Treating them as normal mints and nearly died

[Damien]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

Its a pretty standard way of peeling off meaning that only 1 defender can *ostensibly* get off the tackled player at a time.

The rules currently don't specifically outlaw it and its another example of how well organised defences are even in the minutiae of a tackle.

It is also quite old, I remember our coaches coaching this at least 20 years ago.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

It is also quite old, I remember our coaches coaching this at least 20 years ago.

Very true its standard practice for a long time now!

[DeadShotKeen]

As someone who was ardently opposed to the rule change I will admit that it has mostly been a success. The big problem with it - as others have mentioned - is really just a presentation one in that the commentators are not frequently enough explaining the infringement that has led to a "6 again". Sometimes they don't even acknowledge that one has taken place, even though we hear the bleeps and see the graphics. That needs sorting, especially when the sport has a new captive audience due to Covid-19.

One thing that troubles me is how a ref determines whether to give "6 again" or a penalty. A few weeks ago there were identical holding down infringements on the 20 metre line in 2 games (one was in Sea Eagles vs Eels, I forget the other) and 1 ref gave a "6 again", the other a penalty. Does anyone know if there is a specific rule in place here or is it up to the ref? If it's the latter I don't see how that can be right. They should formalise the process by decreeing a "6 again" in one area of the pitch and a pen in the other. This is open to discussion but I would say 30 metres out or less = pen and any other area of the pitch = "6 again". That way the rule is serving its purpose of speeding up the game and avoiding PTB infringements whilst also maintaining the old decision making approach and penalising the offending teams more (as long as refs allow a quick tap over 10 metres out to mirror the "6 again").

As a work-in-progress I would say it is pretty exceptional but it does nonetheless need a little fine-tuning.

[The Rocket]

8 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

That sounds probable but presumably it was a 1950's French tour that impressed the Roosters, it would be intersting to learn if it is fact or fiction. 

Yes I don`t quite get that either as the Roosters are a foundation club and go back 50yrs. before that tour, so does that mean they redesigned their strip after that tour ?  It is interesting to speculate though before we get the facts and as the Great English Poet T.S. Eliot wrote:  "there will be time in a minute      for revisions and decisions that a minute will reverse "

[Damien]

9 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

Yes I don`t quite get that either as the Roosters are a foundation club and go back 50yrs. before that tour, so does that mean they redesigned their strip after that tour ?  It is interesting to speculate though before we get the facts and as the Great English Poet T.S. Eliot wrote:  "there will be time in a minute      for revisions and decisions that a minute will reverse "

Looking at this it seems that the heritage jersey that the Roosters weared a couple of years ago is pretty similar to what they weared up to the 1950s with just variations in the hoops:

https://www.roosters.com.au/news/2018/04/07/the-heritage-of-the-tricolours/

[The Rocket]

13 minutes ago, Damien said:

Looking at this it seems that the heritage jersey that the Roosters weared a couple of years ago is pretty similar to what they weared up to the 1950s with just variations in the hoops:

https://www.roosters.com.au/news/2018/04/07/the-heritage-of-the-tricolours/

Absolutely no mention of the French, so it was a myth.Perhaps the only link is between the three  colours representing "Tradition,Perseverence,Achievement" in a play on the French tricolours representing "Liberty,Fraternity,Equality" ?

[George Watt]

On 04/07/2020 at 02:20, Dunbar said:

From a purely technical perspective, the new law allows the referee to reset the tackle count in lieu of a penalty for ruck infringements.  This is essentially for holding an opponent down for too long, putting their hand on the ball, pulling the tackled player's leg or flopping onto the tackle.  A set cannot be reset for offside, markers not square or for foul play.

 

As with the actual penalties for ruck infringements, the call is subjective.  How long is too long in the tackle, what constitutes a flop etc. Because of this subjective nature, we are bound to see variations across ref's no matter how much we crave consistency.

 

I went to the Tigers v Penrith match and there were several 6 set restarts. I had no idea what some were given for and several others were not given for apparently  similar occurrences. This mirrored what I see when viewing televised matches.

Am not yet sold on the rule change due to the inconsistency, which is a point brought up by NRL coaches.

Just a comment on the voluntary tackle rule. Saw a penalty given for one back in the late 40's  during the first match I attended and cannot recall  too many since. Surely one of the most unenforced rules in the game today.

[Dunbar]

23 minutes ago, George Watt said:

Surely one of the most unenforced rules in the game today.

Well, it's up against some pretty stuff competition. I particularly like this one in the law books regarding the scrum... 'the ball shall be put into the scrum from the Referee’s side by holding it in a horizontal position with a point in each hand and rolling it along the ground into the tunnel formed by the opposing front row forwards.'

Makes me chuckle every time I read it.

The sport of Rugby League doesn't really have laws any more, it is refereed by consensus of opinion on what we all think should be applied and what should be ignored.

[Damien]

35 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Well, it's up against some pretty stuff competition. I particularly like this one in the law books regarding the scrum... 'the ball shall be put into the scrum from the Referee’s side by holding it in a horizontal position with a point in each hand and rolling it along the ground into the tunnel formed by the opposing front row forwards.'

Makes me chuckle every time I read it.

The sport of Rugby League doesn't really have laws any more, it is refereed by consensus of opinion on what we all think should be applied and what should be ignored.

I remember playing scrum half as a kid in the late 80s and early 90s and I remember on a number of occasions getting penalised for feeding at the scrum. I had no idea that this law existed though about holding the ball in a horizontal position with a point in each hand and have never seen it enforced. I have seen Union scrum halves do this though.

I also remember being penalised on a tap restart for tapping the ball with my foot with the ball in the air, as is the norm now, and not with the ball on the floor. Don't know if that is a law that was officially changed or is just another one that is now ignored too.

[Dunbar]

5 minutes ago, Damien said:

I remember playing scrum half as a kid in the late 80s and early 90s and I remember on a number of occasions getting penalised for feeding at the scrum. I had no idea that this law existing though about holding the ball in a horizontal position with a point in each hand. I have seen Union scrum halves do this though.

I also remember being penalised on a tap restart for tapping the ball with my foot with the ball in the air, as is the norm now, and not with the ball on the floor. Don't know if that is a law that was officially changed or is just another one that is now ignored too.

It's always fascinating actually reading the laws of the game. Because we have convinced ourselves on what the laws are through mutual agreement, the laws are actually quite different sometimes. 

On the tap... the laws say

For a penalty 

Find Touch from Penalty Kick 4. (a) If the ball is kicked into touch without touching any other player the kicking team shall restart play with a free kick.

And then for the free kick itself

Free Kick (Second Kick) 4. The ball may be kicked in any direction in any manner when bringing it into play after entering touch and the kicker himself may pick up the ball after he has kicked it.

So even though it is not explicitly stated that the ball must leave the hands, the fact it says the kicker may pick the ball up after the kick implies he/she should not be holding the ball.

[The Rocket]

1 hour ago, George Watt said:

1 hour ago, George Watt said:

Just a comment on the voluntary tackle rule. Saw a penalty given for one back in the late 40's 

 

Bloody Hell!  Did you have anything to do with the steam engine !

[unapologetic pedant]

23 hours ago, Dunbar said:

Spot on.  I hate seeing players throw themselves to the ground... in particular full backs/wingers fielding kicks and avoiding being pushed into their in goal.

Fight to get out.  Some you win and some you lose.  But as a sport we should not be rewarding people not trying to run the ball.

Got mixed feelings about this, particularly when a player surrenders just in play having brought the ball back from the in-goal and in the process escaped most of the opposition bearing down on him. He surely deserves the reward of marking the play rather than risk being held up and driven back if he can`t find the floor in a tackle. To compensate defenders are entitled to smother him on the ground, he can`t expect to play the ball quickly.

[redjonn]

23 hours ago, RP London said:

whatever rule changes come in I would like to see our commentators act more like the their aussie counterparts when analysing decisions. From what i can tell the aussies seem to be quite happy as long as they can understand why the decision was given, even if it may have been wrong with the benefit of endless replays etc. Ours seem to want to find fault with the ref even if his decision was "understandable". 

I think its more an ingrained culture/society issue being demonstrated. We as in a large portion of our population here just want to find fault with anything and everything and if we still could hung drawn & quarter said persons...

[unapologetic pedant]

13 hours ago, The Rocket said:

Absolutely no mention of the French, so it was a myth.Perhaps the only link is between the three  colours representing "Tradition,Perseverence,Achievement" in a play on the French tricolours representing "Liberty,Fraternity,Equality" ?

This does not stop the Roosters being the most popular NRL team amongst French RL fans.

Interesting question of who the second most popular is. There`s a bloke (guessing it`s a bloke) who has a Facebook page "Treiz`Attitude" who appears obsessed with the Manly Seabirds. There`s also some affection for the Bulldogs, maybe because of their Lebanese connections. There are a lot of people of Arab heritage now involved in Rugby a Treize.

[The Rocket]

1 minute ago, unapologetic pedant said:

This does not stop the Roosters being the most popular NRL team amongst French RL fans.

Interesting question of who the second most popular is. There`s a bloke (guessing it`s a bloke) who has a Facebook page "Treiz`Attitude" who appears obsessed with the Manly Seabirds. There`s also some affection for the Bulldogs, maybe because of their Lebanese connections. There are a lot of people of Arab heritage now involved in Rugby a Treize.

Love the Manly " Seabirds ". Robinson speaks French you know  and took them there for a training camp before the WCC. Of course you would know that he spent 4 years at Toulouse ...player/ coach or just coach. I am getting off track but I believe Brian Smith signed him as a player at Parra or Newcastle then asked him to join the coaching squad.

[unapologetic pedant]

4 hours ago, Dunbar said:

It's always fascinating actually reading the laws of the game. Because we have convinced ourselves on what the laws are through mutual agreement, the laws are actually quite different sometimes. 

On the tap... the laws say

For a penalty 

Find Touch from Penalty Kick 4. (a) If the ball is kicked into touch without touching any other player the kicking team shall restart play with a free kick.

And then for the free kick itself

Free Kick (Second Kick) 4. The ball may be kicked in any direction in any manner when bringing it into play after entering touch and the kicker himself may pick up the ball after he has kicked it.

So even though it is not explicitly stated that the ball must leave the hands, the fact it says the kicker may pick the ball up after the kick implies he/she should not be holding the ball.

I quite like the tap technique where they keep their foot on the floor and bring the ball down to it. It just looks better than cocking a leg up to the ball.

I`m not 100% clear what the law is on how the ball should be brought back on to the pitch for a free kick. The rulebook says it should be placed on the sideline by any non-player. I had always assumed this was to prevent sharp practice from ballboys or off-field personnel, rather than a specific set-piece requirement.

You notice confusion over this in games in developing nations like Turkey, Serbia, Greece. The winger goes to the ball on the sideline and looks to the ref to give the go-ahead. When he/she passes off the ground to the kicker, the defensive line immediately moves up without waiting for the tap to be taken. When the ref pulls them up they take the ball back to the sideline to do the whole thing again. They must think it`s some League version of a lineout. Unless I`m missing something.