Set restarts.

[Dunbar]

15 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

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.

It reminds me of an incident after South African Ray Mordt signed for Wigan. In one of his first games at Central Park, he retrieved the ball for a tap to be taken after a penalty touch finder and before he took the tap he went over to the touchline to place the ball down.  He had obviously seen it done often enough that he thought it was part of the process of restarting the game.

[unapologetic pedant]

5 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

It reminds me of an incident after South African Ray Mordt signed for Wigan. In one of his first games at Central Park, he retrieved the ball for a tap to be taken after a penalty touch finder and before he took the tap he went over to the touchline to place the ball down.  He had obviously seen it done often enough that he thought it was part of the process of restarting the game.

Another example of misapprehension I regularly see in the developing nations mentioned is on a six- tackle handover. When the player takes possession they sometimes flop to the ground then jump up to play the ball. After initial puzzlement, it dawned on me that they must have seen this on training drill footage where in an unopposed session players will go to ground after hitting the tackle pad to simulate gameplay.

All this tells me that RL is more complicated than people in the heartlands allow for. And when you add in the translation of rules and interpretations into Turkish, Serbian, Greek, we really ought to be more thorough in the information we send out to incipient RL nations.

[RP London]

2 hours ago, redjonn said:

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...

true.. especially authority figures.. 

[Dunbar]

It is probably less likely to happen now than ever with the 7 tackle sets from the 20m but a touch finder from the optional restart on the 20m gives the feed to the kicking team. A play you hardly ever see.

But even the threat of it would force defending teams to think about dropping wingers back and open up the field for attacking play.

These varieties are missing from our game.

[unapologetic pedant]

19 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

It is probably less likely to happen now than ever with the 7 tackle sets from the 20m but a touch finder from the optional restart on the 20m gives the feed to the kicking team. A play you hardly ever see.

But even the threat of it would force defending teams to think about dropping wingers back and open up the field for attacking play.

These varieties are missing from our game.

Here`s an ultra-pedantic cure for insomnia.

I loathe the phrase "7- tackle set". I think it should always be called "zero tackle". Principally because we should seek to preserve the number 6, for reasons of recognition and consistency, wherever possible.

When there`s a lost ball and the team regathering have, by any standard, a full play, it is rightly not called a 7-tackle set. There`s an argument that when possession is similarly transferred by being kicked over the dead ball line, the tap on the 20 is part of the same play and thus a zero tackle.

[Dunbar]

I am surprised that an unapologetic pedant hasn't picked up on this but there is no 22 metre line or 22 metre area on a Rugby League pitch.

[Damien]

16 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

It wasn't awareness of the laws that let him down, it was execution.  He was trying to make the ball dead by kicking the ball into touch… he just made a pigs ear of it.

Exactly plus an element of showboating and celebrating too early. It was just poorly executed as you say.

[Damien]

7 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

But if the hooter has gone and a player takes the ball over the sideline I can't even think what else a player would even think it could be apart from the end of the game.

Yeah everyone knows that. Kicking the ball out to end the game is something I have only seen in recent years too, it is certainly not something that was widely done in the past.

[unapologetic pedant]

5 hours ago, Dunbar said:

I am surprised that an unapologetic pedant hasn't picked up on this but there is no 22 metre line or 22 metre area on a Rugby League pitch.

It hadn`t escaped my notice, but after the "wound up" saga I thought it best to let it slide.

[Liverpool Rover]

There was a moment towards the end of the Warriors Brisbane game when Brisbane had the ball well in their own half and on the first tackle a Warriors player blatantly dropped on the Brisbane ball carrier after he had been tackled which under the old rule would have been a penalty but instead there was no consequence at all. 

[DavidM]

6 minutes ago, wiganermike said:

I think it only counts as a voluntary tackle if a player not about to be tackled drops to the ground (or doesn't get up after diving on a loose ball) and waits for someone to come to them to effect a tackle. A player about to be tackled or who is already in contact with a tackler throwing themselves to the ground as they do to avoid going into touch or their in-goal is classed as a surrender tackle hence the occasional call of 'surrender' from refs (indicating that the player has surrendered the ruck). Surrender tackles aren't a penalty offence.

I dislike even the term surrender tackle , it’s a total misnomer in our game . Avoiding physical contact is not rugby league , throw yourself down get penalised or face the consequences of being fair game to be smashed or dragged around 

[DavidM]

4 minutes ago, wiganermike said:

Both of those would result in a penalty against the player effecting the retribution as I'm sure you know.

I do know , I’m saying it shouldn’t be like that . And ‘ retribution ‘ for what , throwing yourself on the floor should be the abrogation of all your rights outside of head contact . It needs killing  off 

[Dunbar]

It's interesting that on the RFL website under the laws of the game, the voluntary tackle is still documented but in the NRL 2020 laws and intrpretations the voluntary tackles has been removed from the vocabulary.

Not that we ever penalise it either but they seem to have just removed it.

[unapologetic pedant]

2 hours ago, wiganermike said:

It comes down to that word that irks so many RL fans, interpretation, the surrender tackle is a current interpretation of the situation I described. I am aware of the wording in the laws of the game on voluntary tackles but like many of our game's laws the situation is officiated by interpretations in slightly differing scenarios. When a player dives to ground to get out of the in-goal as tacklers advance and cut off his/her exit or a player held by tacklers and moving towards the touchline fights their way to the floor it is interpreted not as a voluntary tackle but as him/her surrendering the ruck. The ref calls 'surrender' and the play continues. If a full back chasing a kick put in behind him drops on the ball with no-one close to him and lies on the ground waiting until an opponent places a hand on him that would be interpreted as a voluntary tackle (as the ball carrier was making no attempt to advance with the ball) and would be penalised.

The laws are written, match officials are given direction on how to interpret different scenarios.

I`m in full agreement with all your posts on this.

There is an intrinsic football morality in the application of most of the game`s laws. An official who simply tries to be 100% accurate, neglecting factors like who deserves the benefit of the doubt, can make some awful decisions. Currently the random guesswork involved in some knock-on and ball-stealing calls can cause injustice and be against the interests of the game.

A player looking to find the floor after struggling out of the in-goal or to evade the touchline is morally different from one doing the same in centre-field whose team is one score up with seconds on the clock.

And to regard a prone player as "fair game to be smashed" is to invite serious injury. We had an example of this danger in the England-PNG 2017 World Cup game when a knocked-out Kevin Brown was monstered on the deck.

[Dunbar]

Again, this is where the laws differ between the competitions.

In the NRL laws and interpretations, the surrender tackle is defined and the voluntary tackle is omitted... so the situation where a player 'finds the ground' near his own line is permitted by law.

https://www.nrl.com/siteassets/operations/documentation/nrl_laws_interpretations_2020.pdf

Here is the text:

Surrender Tackle

Occurs when the player in possession surrenders his run in or at the line. Defender are permitted to work the player on the ground, move to a bear hug position, lay on  the player in possession or spin to the front of the tackle. It is the sole responsibility of the Referee to identify this tackle. If a player surrenders, he cannot be lifted or dragged into touch or in-goal.

The RFL version of the laws sill list the voluntary tackle as an offence.

[Dunbar]

Edit

[DavidM]

1 hour ago, unapologetic pedant said:

And to regard a prone player as "fair game to be smashed" is to invite serious injury. We had an example of this danger in the England-PNG 2017 World Cup game when a knocked-out Kevin Brown was monstered on the deck.

Every tackle invites serious injury . Voluntarily throw yourself to the ground isn’t rugby league in my book , you should be open to any kind of legal shot as you would in any tackle , and dragged back in goal or out . And you should NOT be able to negate an obstruction . Picking out one extreme example in a thousand as a justification for the law shows a weak argument for it . Players know when someone’s knocked out , any contact then is thuggery . That’s not the run of the mill incident we see though every single week . Cam Smith threw himself down , Canberra dragged him in goal and got penalised . Both comms said it looked  wrong , I agree . It’s a poor perception encouraging protecting  n rewarding that 

[unapologetic pedant]

20 hours ago, Dunbar said:

Again, this is where the laws differ between the competitions.

In the NRL laws and interpretations, the surrender tackle is defined and the voluntary tackle is omitted... so the situation where a player 'finds the ground' near his own line is permitted by law.

https://www.nrl.com/siteassets/operations/documentation/nrl_laws_interpretations_2020.pdf

Here is the text:

Surrender Tackle

Occurs when the player in possession surrenders his run in or at the line. Defender are permitted to work the player on the ground, move to a bear hug position, lay on  the player in possession or spin to the front of the tackle. It is the sole responsibility of the Referee to identify this tackle. If a player surrenders, he cannot be lifted or dragged into touch or in-goal.

The RFL version of the laws sill list the voluntary tackle as an offence.

The phrase "spin to the front of the tackle" leapt out at me. Does this only relate to a surrender tackle? - rhetorical question.

I can`t be bothered checking but I think I`ve seen in either the RFL or NRL rulebook some admonition against spinning in standard tackles and occasionally, although not recently, it be penalised.

Of course it`s something we see regularly when the tackler`s contact is roughly around the midriff and he lands to the side of the ball-carrier at the point of completion. Surely it`s not just legal but excellent technique when a tackler can manoeuvre round into marker on the ground whilst holding the tackled player in. As long as it`s done reasonably quickly. Get the feeling though that this is what some mean when they bemoan "wrestling".