Jump to content

Simple Game


Recommended Posts

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

 

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, The Rocket said:

 

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.

 

 

 

 

One of the criteria requiring the ref to call "Held" is when the ball-carrier cannot part with the ball. Crucially, the law does not require a call of "Held" when the ball-carrier has no inclination to part with the ball. If that were the criterion, the call would be instantly upon contact, and one-out settler hit-ups would automatically result in gains of territory and quick PTBs. Thus it would reward lack of ambition and creativity.

What you`re describing is good defence. It`s up to the team in possession to find a response. If instead we nullify good defence by changing rules and interpretations, we remove the incentives for teams in possession to be ambitious and creative.

I posted the reference to the CNK instance because it was a perfect example of what you seem to object to, i.e one of the back 3 collects a kick, goes into contact, gets stood up and driven back. There was a similar occasion a couple of weeks before in Storm/Eels where a kick was taken by Vunivalu who, rather than just rumble forward into the chasers, passed to Papenhuyzen, who ran a great line and raced away up-field.

Hence, the Storm`s ambition and creativity got them to half-way, and the Raiders` lack of ambition and creativity had them back over their own goal-line. That`s how it should be. Premature "Held" calls blur the line between good and poor play. They incentivize negativity, particularly from deep field position, and early in the tackle count.

On your legal point. Written constitutions and charters by no means prescribe everything. They provide a core of basic rights, entitlements. That`s why I drew the analogy with the obligations of the RL tackle and ruck. The most famous examples are the U.S. First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, assembly etc, or the Second Amendment right to bear arms. The reverse approach is to assume a citizen is naturally free to do these things unless forbade by common law or statute.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Rocket said:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-20/nrl-set-restarts-ruck-infringements-grand-final-2020-recap/12778854

Seems that tries from scrums have increased, but offloads in general play decreased.

Quite a good article. My one cavil is that it was not "unanticipated" that set-restarts would lead to fewer offloads.

The general pattern of attacking play in RL 2020 is that teams only get creative and take risks when they are expressly attempting to score. And they only expressly attempt to score from good field position. From deep field position, they concentrate on gaining territory. And with a 10m offside line, premature "Held" calls, and an unchallenged tackle 6 kick, gaining ground requires minimal creativity and almost no risk-taking.

That this trend is exacerbated by more possessions of 7,8,9+ tackles should surprise no one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Quite a good article. My one cavil is that it was not "unanticipated" that set-restarts would lead to fewer offloads.

The general pattern of attacking play in RL 2020 is that teams only get creative and take risks when they are expressly attempting to score. And they only expressly attempt to score from good field position. From deep field position, they concentrate on gaining territory. And with a 10m offside line, premature "Held" calls, and an unchallenged tackle 6 kick, gaining ground requires minimal creativity and almost no risk-taking.

That this trend is exacerbated by more possessions of 7,8,9+ tackles should surprise no one.

While it may be true that the law changes have affected the way that teams play, there also has to be a consideration to ability and performance in these matters.

According to NRL.com team stats there were an average of 9.4 offloads per team per game in 2020 which is down from 9.8 in 2019 (a change of -0.4 per game or -5%).

But then when you look at the teams who finished in the top 6 this year, their offloads per game increased from 9.2 in 2019 to 9.9 in 2020 with 4 of the top 6 individually making more offloads (a change of +0.7 per game or +7%).

Then, when you turn to the bottom 6 in 2020, their offloads per game fell from 10.5 per game in 2019 to 8.8 in 2020 (a change of -1.7 per game or -16%). 

I would argue that the change in offloads this year reflects the performance of the teams more than the adoption of the new laws. 

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

 

I would argue that the change in offloads this year reflects the performance of the teams more than the adoption of the new laws. 

I would say any rule change, like longer periods of possession or the change from 5 to 10m offside line, that makes it easier to gain ground without taking risks will logically suppress risk-taking. Even if only discernible by offload counts to a decimal point, rather than in the general mode of play that we notice.

You took me to task months ago for saying there was a perception the current NRL was risk-averse. This wasn`t in comparison with the UK game, but with what I remember of the Winfield Cup when I first saw it in the 80s. Unless the memory is deceptive, I`m sure most teams looked for, and made, more offloads in deeper field positions back then.

It`s certainly the case that any difference due to rule changes is dwarfed by the choices coaches and players make on how they want to play.

Sacking coaches during the season didn`t used to be a feature of the Australian game in the way it was here. Maybe because of their huge Leagues clubs making plenty of money off the field they could afford to be more imaginative and long-term in their thinking. Over here clubs` thought the only way to be profitable was to get people through the turnstiles by winning games. The scrutiny and pressure the media now put NRL coaches under is bound to lead to increased inhibitions on the field.

I assume those figures are for successful offloads. To reliably assess risk-taking between higher and lower placed teams, we would also need figures for attempted offloads.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.