Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
The Rocket

Simple Game

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, The Rocket said:

Forget that second sentence of third paragraph, it`s funny because I stuck it on as an afterthought ? 

Smart bit of heads up dummy half play by Tedesco to get the penalty tonight, and fancy a charge down and it goes upstairs for a Captains Challenge. Wouldn`t have mattered if they`d only listen to us. I`ll have a read of your dummy half post soon and get back to you. Ooroo.

That third paragraph now does make sense, and it feeds into another point Saint 1 made about energy conservation. Not conceding extra possession is the priority for teams` and coaches` relating to risk/reward across the eighty minutes in modern, highly-demanding RL.

The risks defenders take of conceding a try when trying to usher a kick over the dead ball line would have been unthinkable in the past. They do it now because the potential for conceding a try on tackle 12 or 18 carries the cost of all the extra work of defending 1 or 2 repeat sets, which affects how they can compete for the rest of the game. The same calculation militates against an attempted charge down rarely, if ever, being worth the risk under the current rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/10/2020 at 15:53, unapologetic pedant said:

One area that doesn`t get nearly enough examination is how the importance of the dummy-half has grown over the past 2 to 3 decades. I regard this role as one of the most difficult to master in the whole of sport. To have to read how the ruck is shaping, be slick and error-free off the ground, scan the defensive line in front, and communicate with your teammates behind, requires a special combination of head-down and head-up play. 

One effective dummy-half play is the pass across the ruck. A dummy off the ground and jumping out the other way can lure naive markers to bite and open up space. But much more likely to pull the markers out is where the No. 9 jumps out one way then throws the pass back the other way. He has to angle his body to get the deception, then bring the pass right round in the opposite direction, which makes it tough to keep balance and avoid the pass going forward.

This play is decisive because, with the markers neutralized, an against-the-grain runner (full-back is a good option) can hit the hole behind the ruck.

BTW, is "against-the-grain" now referred to as "Out/In"?

I think the thing about hookers in particular isn't those ballplaying skills in isolation, but the requirement to be able to do that on top of the defensive workload of 40+ tackles (and the skills intrinsic to that such as the wrestle and good first up contact).

Often good dummy half play is more subtle than that too, in terms of looking like going one way. You'll often see hookers put one foot outside of their centre of mass, as in this pic below where Hunt has stuck his left foot out:

2067547806_hunt(2).PNG.44761545b65b1de7a3b7b41957d4a235.PNG

Hookers will do this for a long pass anyway (to the left), but it also means he can then use it to push off to the right and make the markers plant their feet as a result. 

While an out-to-in line is technically against the grain, I wouldn't say that is what the term refers to. I would say "against the grain" refers to dropping a runner back underneath, such as the option the number 12 runs off Cleary in the try below

10 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

That third paragraph now does make sense, and it feeds into another point Saint 1 made about energy conservation. Not conceding extra possession is the priority for teams` and coaches` relating to risk/reward across the eighty minutes in modern, highly-demanding RL.

The risks defenders take of conceding a try when trying to usher a kick over the dead ball line would have been unthinkable in the past. They do it now because the potential for conceding a try on tackle 12 or 18 carries the cost of all the extra work of defending 1 or 2 repeat sets, which affects how they can compete for the rest of the game. The same calculation militates against an attempted charge down rarely, if ever, being worth the risk under the current rule.

I suppose the counterpoint is that this is just the risk/reward balance at this point in time and it's ever-changing. Parramatta made a charge-down today and scored from the set after regathering, and they scored from kicking on 1st (Titans and Cowboys have also had some success with early kicks this season). 

11 hours ago, The Rocket said:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-03/nrl-last-tackle-what-they-do-grubbers-adam-reynolds/12727844

Thought I`d stick this on here, they have a habit of disappearing pretty quickly otherwise.

Good read. The way I see it is that kicks are for repeat sets and running it on last is for tries. However, obviously  have to do both because otherwise the defence can adjust accordingly! Regularly kicking on 4th or running on last seems to work relatively well as a combination. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/10/2020 at 00:53, unapologetic pedant said:

One area that doesn`t get nearly enough examination is how the importance of the dummy-half has grown over the past 2 to 3 decades. I regard this role as one of the most difficult to master in the whole of sport. To have to read how the ruck is shaping, be slick and error-free off the ground, scan the defensive line in front, and communicate with your teammates behind, requires a special combination of head-down and head-up play. 

Gridiron players are justifiably credited with learning and implementing a complex playbook. But the RL players in key tactical positions have to call and execute their plays whilst everything is in motion.

One effective dummy-half play is the pass across the ruck. A dummy off the ground and jumping out the other way can lure naive markers to bite and open up space. But much more likely to pull the markers out is where the No. 9 jumps out one way then throws the pass back the other way. He has to angle his body to get the deception, then bring the pass right round in the opposite direction, which makes it tough to keep balance and avoid the pass going forward.

This play is decisive because, with the markers neutralized, an against-the-grain runner (full-back is a good option) can hit the hole behind the ruck.

BTW, is "against-the-grain" now referred to as "Out/In"?

Smith is the master of drifting out of dummy half, he seems to be know exactly where to position himself to attract the markers and of course pull defenders from the line towards him all the while scanning the defensive line and choosing  who to pass to. And yet seeming to be doing the whole thing in slow motion. He is also of course the master of the pass as well, on the chest or just out in front or even in the gap for the player to run onto as well, as if instructing him where to run.

I saw a smart play from the dummy half in the St. George vs. Roosters NRLW match. The right hand centre of the opposition was involved in a tackle about 10 metres in from touch, she was still on the ground when the play the ball was made, quick as a flash the dummy half shot down the blindside where the Roosters were a bit thin as the number 3 was out of play. I suppose this is another thing that the dummy half must continually monitoring, who`s involved in the tackle, the obvious one is when the fullback is involved in a tackle and there`s nobody at home. It may be an opportune time to kick downfield or even attempt a 40/20.

Given the role of `hooker ` is now largely redundant, union is replacing their hookers with another prop, the hooker really having no other role on the field as the half stands behind the ruck, was that always the case.. Unlike League where the hooker still plays dummy half ( i.e. behind the ruck ). Ricky Stuart at the Raiders experimented with an `over-sized` hooker/dummy half with Siliva Havili when Josh Hodgson`s when out injured, however seems to now have replaced him with the Ryan Papenhuzen look alike and far more mobile Tom Starling. Havili comes on now at lock but can also give the number nine a rest. He obviously likes that mobility at dummy half that Cook at Souths is the master of.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/09/2020 at 14:10, The Rocket said:

 

Earlier in the year we saw `six-again` to get rid of the wrestle which had become truly a blight on the game. Worked a treat. However the Roosters then Penrith very quickly realised if you kept the player up off the ground the tackle wasn`t considered complete, if you dragged him back about 5 metres even better, plenty of time for your defensive line to reset just like the wrestle had achieved. However it does take three blokes initially in the tackle to keep the bloke up off the ground, a fourth will often come in to help drag him back.

 

 

 

 

The law relating to the upright tackle is that it`s complete when the player is "held in such a manner that he can make no further progress and cannot part with the ball".

Personally I would redefine progress as momentum both offensive and defensive. I would let defenders drive the tackled player back to his own goal-line if they could manage it. The only proscribed action would be lifting the legs. It ought to be the responsibility of the tackled player, who has lost the contact, to find the floor, either himself or assisted by teammates. His other option to avoid losing ground is to fight to get the hands free and pass. Many an improbable offload is somehow squeezed out when a ball-carrier is heading over the touchline and stands to materially lose by holding on to the ball.

The current rule pre-dates the 10m offside line, when cheap metres were not so readily available. Before, if teams stuck to dummy-half runs and one-out hit-ups, they were at risk of making insufficient territory. They had to look more to pass out of the tackle. And as alluded to in the quote, such an offload creates space, with 2,3,4 defenders tied in. We see less of this under the current refereeing habit of calling upright tackles complete prematurely.

This is one area where at the moment I prefer English refs to Aussies. Ours generally wait longer for completion, giving greater opportunity for the defence to underscore their win in the contest by gaining territory, or for the ball-carrier to get a late offload away. Some of the younger Aussie refs are bellowing "Held, Held" barely a second after contact, or immediately the ball-carrier starts to go backward. There`s little attempt to read the tackle. I suspect this compulsive "Held" yell has just become part of the way they demonstrate they`re in control of proceedings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/10/2020 at 11:47, unapologetic pedant said:

The law relating to the upright tackle is that it`s complete when the player is "held in such a manner that he can make no further progress and cannot part with the ball".

Personally I would redefine progress as momentum both offensive and defensive. I would let defenders drive the tackled player back to his own goal-line if they could manage it. The only proscribed action would be lifting the legs. It ought to be the responsibility of the tackled player, who has lost the contact, to find the floor, either himself or assisted by teammates. His other option to avoid losing ground is to fight to get the hands free and pass. Many an improbable offload is somehow squeezed out when a ball-carrier is heading over the touchline and stands to materially lose by holding on to the ball.

" no further progress " ,  if the word `progress` retains it usual meaning than  it would seem that the law is not being enforced when ever someone is driven backwards in the tackle. Very odd.

Perhaps those `young Aussie referees` calling `held, held` are simply following the rule book. 

Another problem I have with this driving back is when it is used against smaller framed players. Matt Dufty who has proven a revelation at fullback with his chiming into the backline and brilliant passing game was almost lost to the game because he was obviously being targeted by the opposition early in the year to the point everytime he was tackled he was being lifted and carried back several metres. To the point he was becoming a liability, was dropped and told he could look elsewhere by the club. That exciting young Storm fullback has been copping similar treatment.

What a shame if these smaller players became a liability because they can be lifted and carried over the sideline or back into the in-goal. It`s all very well saying `find the ground` but when you weigh 80kgs and are being lifted by two or three 90kg+ opponents it`s not going to be that simple.

I think that rather than seeing more miracle offloads, if this driving back in defence were encouraged, the end result would more likely be more play bogged down at one of the field. The exact thing that the rule makers were attempting to remedy when they introduced limited tackle and the 5 metre rule. Junior Paulo and Josh Papali  have both shown recently there is still plenty of scope for those off-loads in the game without being driven back 10 metres.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, The Rocket said:

" no further progress " ,  if the word `progress` retains it usual meaning than  it would seem that the law is not being enforced when ever someone is driven backwards in the tackle. Very odd.

Perhaps those `young Aussie referees` calling `held, held` are simply following the rule book. 

Another problem I have with this driving back is when it is used against smaller framed players. Matt Dufty who has proven a revelation at fullback with his chiming into the backline and brilliant passing game was almost lost to the game because he was obviously being targeted by the opposition early in the year to the point everytime he was tackled he was being lifted and carried back several metres. To the point he was becoming a liability, was dropped and told he could look elsewhere by the club. That exciting young Storm fullback has been copping similar treatment.

What a shame if these smaller players became a liability because they can be lifted and carried over the sideline or back into the in-goal. It`s all very well saying `find the ground` but when you weigh 80kgs and are being lifted by two or three 90kg+ opponents it`s not going to be that simple.

I think that rather than seeing more miracle offloads, if this driving back in defence were encouraged, the end result would more likely be more play bogged down at one of the field. The exact thing that the rule makers were attempting to remedy when they introduced limited tackle and the 5 metre rule. Junior Paulo and Josh Papali  have both shown recently there is still plenty of scope for those off-loads in the game without being driven back 10 metres.

 

This is an area of the game where I have a view, but not strongly held. It becomes stronger when there is a spate of unduly premature "Held" calls, especially those where an offload is made roughly simultaneously and the recipient has to stop and hand the ball back. A call like that is proof positive of a referee failing to read the tackle.

Some Aussie RL refs start out in Touch, where a play is instantly complete upon contact. This may influence their reluctance to let tackles develop. A ball-carrier can appear to be wrapped up, then through good technique get the hands free. If the ref jumps the gun, it snuffs out second-phase play. Thus, I would rather they erred on the side of waiting longer.

A ref calling "Held" too early risks the game degenerating into - dart out of dummy-half, smack, "Held", tackle 1, play the ball - dart out of dummy-half, smack, "Held", tackle 2, play the ball., etc till we get to the kick. With a 10m offside line these tactics can gain ground as well as any contributions from forwards.

If a smaller player charges directly into several forwards he deserves to be held up and driven a long way back. It`s up to his team to create space for smaller players, where even if they`re tackled by a forward, they can isolate them one-on-one and find the floor. And as I said before, if a player gets it wrong and is stood up, his teammates are entitled to "Lend weight" to stop backward/lateral momentum or bring the tackle to earth.

Players of differing sizes have to work out their own method for their position. Watching them do so is part of the rich variety of the game. The core role of Dufty or Papenhuyzen is not to take on forwards in three-man tackles. If it were and a smaller player could routinely be as effective as a larger one in the middle, it would blur the distinctions between varying attributes and make the game more homogeneous across the park.

Edited by unapologetic pedant
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, unapologetic pedant said:

 

If a smaller player charges directly into several forwards he deserves to be held up and driven a long way back. It`s up to his team to create space for smaller players, where even if they`re tackled by a forward, they can isolate them one-on-one and find the floor. And as I said before, if a player gets it wrong and is stood up, his teammates are entitled to "Lend weight" to stop backward/lateral momentum or bring the tackle to earth.

Players of differing sizes have to work out their own method for their position. Watching them do so is part of the rich variety of the game. The core role of Dufty or Papenhuyzen is not to take on forwards in three-man tackles. If it were and a smaller player could routinely be as effective as a larger one in the middle, it would blur the distinctions between varying attributes and make the game more homogeneous across the park.

Too right.

I got into RL back in the 90s when these kind of gang tackles and piledriving guys backwards were part of the English game. The early 'Held' calls are yet another example of the sport becoming Rugby Lite. Get rid asap.

 

  • Haha 1

Rugby League: Alive and Handling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

if a player gets it wrong and is stood up, his teammates are entitled to "Lend weight" to stop backward/lateral momentum or bring the tackle to earth.

Shall we call that a 'ruck' or a 'maul'? 🤔

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, marklaspalmas said:

Shall we call that a 'ruck' or a 'maul'? 🤔

In the RL rulebook it`s described as "lending weight". It`s always been there as an option for the team in possession to regain some control over tackles they`ve lost control of. It`s particularly important in relation to the touchline to prevent the width of the pitch being narrowed de facto by several metres.

The significant difference between RL "lending weight" and an RU maul when in possession, is that in League the intention is to halt momentum or bring the bodies to ground as quickly as possible. Whereas the aim in Union is to build momentum and keep the bodies up for as long as possible.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, unapologetic pedant said:

In the RL rulebook it`s described as "lending weight". It`s always been there as an option for the team in possession to regain some control over tackles they`ve lost control of. It`s particularly important in relation to the touchline to prevent the width of the pitch being narrowed de facto by several metres.

The significant difference between RL "lending weight" and an RU maul when in possession, is that in League the intention is to halt momentum or bring the bodies to ground as quickly as possible. Whereas the aim in Union is to build momentum and keep the bodies up for as long as possible.

 

Do you remember Les Catalans' first ever Super League game against Wigan(?) that night?

Dragons were trailing with a few.mins to go, and some guy goes for the line, gets stopped about 3M out. Another Catalans' guy charges in... Drives the ball carrier and a couple of Wigan defenders over the line. 

Ref takes a quick look..... Try given! Stadium erupts, and Cats win on a historic night for RL. A ridiculous call if we are sticking to the rules.

I always thought that sort of thing should be allowed though. It's hard to accommodate it into the rules, without permitting those Eton Wall Game pile-ups from rugby union, but it is so frustrating to see one guy fighting for a score against several defenders, and his teammates have to stand by and do nothing.

Just brainstorming.... but Could we allow it inside the 10M for example?


Rugby League: Alive and Handling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2020 at 22:45, The Rocket said:

" no further progress " ,  if the word `progress` retains it usual meaning than  it would seem that the law is not being enforced when ever someone is driven backwards in the tackle. Very odd.

Perhaps those `young Aussie referees` calling `held, held` are simply following the rule book. 

Another problem I have with this driving back is when it is used against smaller framed players. Matt Dufty who has proven a revelation at fullback with his chiming into the backline and brilliant passing game was almost lost to the game because he was obviously being targeted by the opposition early in the year to the point everytime he was tackled he was being lifted and carried back several metres. To the point he was becoming a liability, was dropped and told he could look elsewhere by the club. That exciting young Storm fullback has been copping similar treatment.

What a shame if these smaller players became a liability because they can be lifted and carried over the sideline or back into the in-goal. It`s all very well saying `find the ground` but when you weigh 80kgs and are being lifted by two or three 90kg+ opponents it`s not going to be that simple.

I think that rather than seeing more miracle offloads, if this driving back in defence were encouraged, the end result would more likely be more play bogged down at one of the field. The exact thing that the rule makers were attempting to remedy when they introduced limited tackle and the 5 metre rule. Junior Paulo and Josh Papali  have both shown recently there is still plenty of scope for those off-loads in the game without being driven back 10 metres.

 

Couldn't agree more, the modern day players physical presence is completely different to days gone by hence why you really can't compare between era's. As much as we'd all love to reminisce about the good old days and legends of the past the very best teams of those era's would get beaten 100-0 by every team in the modern day simply due to the sheer disparity in physical talent. 

If held were to never be called every player would instantly become 6'3"+ and 110kg. The disparity between guys like Dufty/Papenhuyzen etc. and the biggest guys on the field is massive, and many of these big men can play 80 minutes without breaking a sweat. Removing the already very limited safeguards against their physical domination by reducing or removing the held calls would eliminate them from the game completely, which would be an immense shame as they add plenty to our great sport.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SL17 said:

I’ve never seen in the RL laws of the game. Lending weight?

Strap yourself in. Hope you`re sitting comfortably.

From the RFL`s rulebook, under the section "Tackle and Play the Ball". - Notes.

[ Moving tackled player 2.(a) - Where opponents do not make a tackle effective in the quickest possible manner but attempt to pull, push or carry the player in possession, it is permissible for colleagues to lend their weight in order to avoid losing ground. Immediately this happens the referee should call "Held". ]

This last sentence indicates that if the ball-carrier is left to fend for himself, the ref should allow defenders to drive him back. But if teammates get involved and create a stalemate, that`s when the upright tackle is complete. The most certain way to complete a tackle by lending weight is to bring it to ground, especially relevant when the movement is heading over the touchline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, UTK said:

Couldn't agree more, the modern day players physical presence is completely different to days gone by hence why you really can't compare between era's. As much as we'd all love to reminisce about the good old days and legends of the past the very best teams of those era's would get beaten 100-0 by every team in the modern day simply due to the sheer disparity in physical talent. 

If held were to never be called every player would instantly become 6'3"+ and 110kg. The disparity between guys like Dufty/Papenhuyzen etc. and the biggest guys on the field is massive, and many of these big men can play 80 minutes without breaking a sweat. Removing the already very limited safeguards against their physical domination by reducing or removing the held calls would eliminate them from the game completely, which would be an immense shame as they add plenty to our great sport.

You`re neglecting the distinction between backs and forwards. In all codes of Football the core of the contest is to create time and space with good attacking play, to deny time and space with good defensive play. In RL, in general terms, the role of bigger players is to create time and space for smaller, quicker players to exploit.

Most "Held" calls are in the midst of the forward battle. If tackles are routinely called complete too quickly, there`s less ability for forwards to draw defenders in and create time and space for the smaller, quicker players you want to see flourish.

Edited by unapologetic pedant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, UTK said:

If held were to never be called every player would instantly become 6'3"+ and 110kg. The disparity between guys like Dufty/Papenhuyzen etc. and the biggest guys on the field is massive, and many of these big men can play 80 minutes without breaking a sweat. Removing the already very limited safeguards against their physical domination by reducing or removing the held calls would eliminate them from the game completely, which would be an immense shame as they add plenty to our great sport.

Your dead right with your first point. The effort required for a gym trained, muscle bound 90kg+ defender to lift and hold off the ground an 80kg player is akin to one of us lifting a bag of chips. The ensuing chance of that player being injured while being driven backwards and landed on by three such defenders is greatly enhanced.

 

 

4 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

You`re neglecting the distinction between backs and forwards. In all codes of Football the core of the contest is to create time and space with good attacking play, to deny time and space with good defensive play. In RL, in general terms, the role of bigger players is to create time and space for smaller, quicker players to exploit.

I think that in this case it maybe you who is neglecting the difference between backs and forwards. Certainly a play amongst forwards designed to open up the play for a smaller, faster and more elusive player to exploit that space will involve the risk of that smaller player being collared and punished defensively, either by being a) hammered, b) dragged back a reasonable distance or by c) the referee allowing extra time in the tackle by defenders under the dominant tackle rule, which by the way I think is a reasonable ruling.

The area I am more concerned with though is these new exciting lightweight fullbacks who being backs are much easier to isolate given their position on the field and where and when they receive the ball. i.e. bombs and from kick clearances. So often we see these players, especially when they take a bomb, be lifted and held, in the manner described in my response to UTK above, until other converging defenders arrive to join in the pushing of the player back several metres or if they dare to run anywhere near the sideline meet the same fate. How can that make the game better, effectively narrowing the field of play by several metres or do all wingers have to be built like the proverbial brick dunny.

And your right, most "helds" are called amongst the forward battle because once again a back who receives a ball from a kick or wide play does not often have the luxury of having the referee on hand to call " held " as the referee is often catching up to the play.

I always thought that Gordon Tallis`s much celebrated dragging of Brett Hodgson over the sideline all those years ago in SOO  should have been a penalty not a cause for endless replays and celebrations of good play. It was the act of  a bully on a smaller player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

Your dead right with your first point. The effort required for a gym trained, muscle bound 90kg+ defender to lift and hold off the ground an 80kg player is akin to one of us lifting a bag of chips. The ensuing chance of that player being injured while being driven backwards and landed on by three such defenders is greatly enhanced.

 

 

I think that in this case it maybe you who is neglecting the difference between backs and forwards. Certainly a play amongst forwards designed to open up the play for a smaller, faster and more elusive player to exploit that space will involve the risk of that smaller player being collared and punished defensively, either by being a) hammered, b) dragged back a reasonable distance or by c) the referee allowing extra time in the tackle by defenders under the dominant tackle rule, which by the way I think is a reasonable ruling.

The area I am more concerned with though is these new exciting lightweight fullbacks who being backs are much easier to isolate given their position on the field and where and when they receive the ball. i.e. bombs and from kick clearances. So often we see these players, especially when they take a bomb, be lifted and held, in the manner described in my response to UTK above, until other converging defenders arrive to join in the pushing of the player back several metres or if they dare to run anywhere near the sideline meet the same fate. How can that make the game better, effectively narrowing the field of play by several metres or do all wingers have to be built like the proverbial brick dunny.

And your right, most "helds" are called amongst the forward battle because once again a back who receives a ball from a kick or wide play does not often have the luxury of having the referee on hand to call " held " as the referee is often catching up to the play.

I always thought that Gordon Tallis`s much celebrated dragging of Brett Hodgson over the sideline all those years ago in SOO  should have been a penalty not a cause for endless replays and celebrations of good play. It was the act of  a bully on a smaller player.

A side point but agree about that Tallis tackle.  I don't think it was a penalty but much lighter guy, with momentum, oily surface - bit of a bully's effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Tonka said:

A side point but agree about that Tallis tackle.  I don't think it was a penalty but much lighter guy, with momentum, oily surface - bit of a bully's effort.

As another side point, before Sonny Bill went to union all those years ago and he was pulling off all those big shoulder charges I saw the same thing being replicated in kids footy here locally, one kid was really good at it, he has since been signed by the Roosters, it wasn`t a good look and shows that kids copy these things. Seeing little guys being rag-dolled does nothing for me or the image of the game in my opinion. Jorge Tafua of Manly lining up and nailing a player big or small may well be a case of a player getting himself in the wrong position or a play being executed poorly, for me that`s tough, but part of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/10/2020 at 02:22, Celt said:

 

I always thought that sort of thing should be allowed though. It's hard to accommodate it into the rules, without permitting those Eton Wall Game pile-ups from rugby union, but it is so frustrating to see one guy fighting for a score against several defenders, and his teammates have to stand by and do nothing.

Just brainstorming.... but Could we allow it inside the 10M for example?

We`ll have to part company on this aspect. The fact that in RL the ball-carrier has to make ground or cross the goal-line unassisted is why RL forwards have always been more mobile and develop better ball skills than their RU counterparts.

My overarching concern is that early "Held" calls deter ball-carriers from looking for offloads. Partly because with no risk of being driven back, even when they lose the contact, metres can be made without creativity. And also because they are not allowed sufficient time to fight to get the hands free.

Unless my memory is deceiving me, 30+ years ago there were far fewer calls of "Held". Could be a handful, if that, in a whole game. And back then there were more offloads in deeper field positions. It`s logical to draw a direct and indirect causal connection between these two facts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/10/2020 at 12:22, Celt said:

I always thought that sort of thing should be allowed though. It's hard to accommodate it into the rules, without permitting those Eton Wall Game pile-ups from rugby union, but it is so frustrating to see one guy fighting for a score against several defenders, and his teammates have to stand by and do nothing.

Just brainstorming.... but Could we allow it inside the 10M for example?

 

15 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

The fact that in RL the ball-carrier has to make ground or cross the goal-line unassisted is why RL forwards have always been more mobile and develop better ball skills than their RU counterparts

It must have been legal at some stage because do you remember Parramattas famous flying wedge in the 70`s or early 80`s ? They only did it a couple of times from memory and may have even been in one of those famous finals games against Manly. Parramatta got a reputation for doing those sort of things back then, Mick Cronin`s place kick across the face of goal for on rushing players, the wall, where they used to line up backs to the defence and peel off in different directions to fool the defence and I think it was Parra who first started utilising the `up an under ` with Johnny Peard. I think that last one lead to a change in the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/10/2020 at 22:35, The Rocket said:

 

It must have been legal at some stage because do you remember Parramattas famous flying wedge in the 70`s or early 80`s ? 

No. 


Rugby League: Alive and Handling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Celt said:

No. 

In the dying frantic minutes of the 1976 Grand Final Paramatta received a penalty 5 metres from the goal line. The Eels formed the controversial ` flying wedge ` formation with Ron Hilditch at its apex and charged towards the goal line. The wedge collapsed one foot out with Hilditch being held up by Manly fullback Graham Eadie. The match ended with the score unaltered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

In the dying frantic minutes of the 1976 Grand Final Paramatta received a penalty 5 metres from the goal line. The Eels formed the controversial ` flying wedge ` formation with Ron Hilditch at its apex and charged towards the goal line. The wedge collapsed one foot out with Hilditch being held up by Manly fullback Graham Eadie. The match ended with the score unaltered.

Like many things that tactic might have been legal then simply by virtue of never being specifically outlawed.

It`s congruent with the general, pre-human rights principles of British legal tradition where, with an unwritten constitution, we were free to do as we chose unless prohibited by common law or statute. As distinct from jurisdictions which lay out rights and entitlements in written constitutions, bills of rights, charters etc.

RL laws in relation to tackle and ruck combine these two strands. There`s a core of prescribed obligations, beyond those all is legal unless expressly forbidden in the rulebook.

I recall an NRL game a couple of years back where Gerard Sutton sent a try to the Bunker to check whether a "Driver" was involved, i.e. was a teammate`s assistance decisive in getting the try-scorer over the line. So the 1976 "flying wedge" and anything similar must have been forbidden in the interim. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big defensive play just now in Storm/Raiders. Well-weighted kick through, collected by CNK, who ambles into contact, gets it all wrong, no effective help from teammates, gets held up and driven back over the goal-line. Not by huge forwards, but by Papenhuyzen and Olam. Line drop-out. Quite right. Win for the defence. Well done, Storm. Well done, Ashley Klein. Don`t say the latter too often.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Rocket said:

In the dying frantic minutes of the 1976 Grand Final Paramatta received a penalty 5 metres from the goal line. The Eels formed the controversial ` flying wedge ` formation with Ron Hilditch at its apex and charged towards the goal line. The wedge collapsed one foot out with Hilditch being held up by Manly fullback Graham Eadie. The match ended with the score unaltered.

I was aged 1 at the time, and we did not have Australian television in my house in Scotland. Other than that, I am sure I would have remembered it.

So thanks for filling in the blanks.


Rugby League: Alive and Handling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Like many things that tactic might have been legal then simply by virtue of never being specifically outlawed.

It`s congruent with the general, pre-human rights principles of British legal tradition where, with an unwritten constitution, we were free to do as we chose unless prohibited by common law or statute. As distinct from jurisdictions which lay out rights and entitlements in written constitutions, bills of rights, charters etc.

RL laws in relation to tackle and ruck combine these two strands. There`s a core of prescribed obligations, beyond those all is legal unless expressly forbidden in the rulebook.

I recall an NRL game a couple of years back where Gerard Sutton sent a try to the Bunker to check whether a "Driver" was involved, i.e. was a teammate`s assistance decisive in getting the try-scorer over the line. So the 1976 "flying wedge" and anything similar must have been forbidden in the interim. 

I know what Celt is talking about sometimes you see a player wrestling to ground the ball while his teammates stand there with their mouths hanging open and I`m yelling at the telly  " help the poor #### !!". But as far as pushing blokes over the tryline, I suppose if you allow one, then by logical extension how do you stop there from being 5 more, next thing you know Melbourne are using the wedge again. More work for the VR, counting players in the barge over. No thanks.

You can forget about your proposal to delay the `held `call, hoping for the miracle offload, it ain`t coming. I watched that game tonight and the first thing that every defender goes for is to wrap the ball up. Ball and top half first, then maybe someone round the legs.

I don`t understand you second paragraph. First sentence o.k. Second sentence, you mean to tell me they have a law that specifies every single thing that you can do.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...