Referring standards

[LeeF]

1 hour ago, unapologetic pedant said:

If the "agreed interpretation" is that players need make no attempt to play the ball with the foot, none of the people you cite has been willing to publicly say so.

After his refereeing career, Fred Lindop became controller of refs I think around the early nineties. He sometimes appeared on the radio to address questions about rules and interpretations. Hard to believe that under him the current PTB debacle would have been allowed to develop.

They do make an effort in most cases. It depends on your interpretation of effort

[unapologetic pedant]

7 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

I will say in defense of the OP that in all my time watching Rugby League that forward passes have never been as prominent or obviously missed as they are present day, and for me Chris Kendall is the one who misses the most, those contentios ones even the commentary bring up as being iffy and replay it is useually Kendall who is the ref he can be in good field position but doesn't see what many others see as I say the commentary or opposition player's claims, I have come to the conclusion he must have some visual defect, it happens all to often. I am not at all accusing him of 'preferring' any team.

The "iffy" forward pass matter has been exhaustively gone through many times on here.

However, I wish someone would finally say why they find a possible tiny forward pass so offensive. If an occasional pass can conclusively be shown to have travelled forward 1cm, 0.5cm, could be even less, what material effect does that have? What does it change that`s such a problem?

If Mr. Kendall does as you say, personally I applaud him for intelligently applying the benefit of the doubt. Any interpretation of the rules that deters players from passing the ball is illogical and against the interests of the game.

[unapologetic pedant]

6 hours ago, LeeF said:

They do make an effort in most cases. It depends on your interpretation of effort

I genuinely do not know what you`re looking at, if that`s what you`re seeing.

I see English players rolling the ball and palpably, deliberately stepping over it. With a few honourable exceptions like Kallum Watkins, most of the players in our game who don`t do this are Aussies or Kiwis.

[LeeF]

2 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

I genuinely do not know what you`re looking at, if that`s what you`re seeing.

I see English players rolling the ball and palpably, deliberately stepping over it. With a few honourable exceptions like Kallum Watkins, most of the players in our game who don`t do this are Aussies or Kiwis.

That’s what is deemed an acceptable effort by current agreed interpretations. Merely rolling the ball between your legs wouldn’t be. 

BTW a significant number of non British players play the ball as highlighted

BTW I’m saying it is correct or really acceptable but it is, in the main, consistent

[unapologetic pedant]

1 hour ago, LeeF said:

That’s what is deemed an acceptable effort by current agreed interpretations. Merely rolling the ball between your legs wouldn’t be. 

BTW a significant number of non British players play the ball as highlighted

BTW I’m saying it is correct or really acceptable but it is, in the main, consistent

We`re going back and forth a bit on this.

You`re clearly correct that rolling and deliberately stepping over the ball must be the current "agreed interpretation" in the UK. But nobody involved in the agreement has publicly acknowledged that. It`s flagrantly contrary to both the rulebook and the guidelines published by the RFL at the start of this year.

It`s true some foreign players slip into our method while they`re here. And there`s a small number of offenders in the NRL (Nelson Asofa-Solomona is the worst). But I`ve seen antipodeans play the ball illegally in England, then go home and resume playing the ball correctly. You can even see a sharp difference between French players for Catalans and Toulouse with those in their domestic competitions.

[The Rocket]

On 09/11/2020 at 18:24, LeeF said:

I agree with all of the above with the exception of the coaches knowledge etc. It is definitely time for a clear re-write of the law book

Maybe worth considering just getting rid of the feet in the play the ball alltogether .Isn`t it just another hark back to the union ruck any way, where the ball can only be `raked` out of the ruck by using the feet once it has been placed on the ground by the tackled player. Even in union I think that the ball can be picked up by the player following the tackled player with no rucking at all. This is what really is happening in our game when the feet aren`t used to play the ball. It`s just placed on the ground, stepped over and picked up by the dummy half.

Who knows, maybe this is what your Administrators are thinking in conjunction with match officials, this is League not union, why are we still insisting on copying this arcane part of their game where the feet have to be used to rake the ball out of the scrum or ruck.

[unapologetic pedant]

9 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

Maybe worth considering just getting rid of the feet in the play the ball alltogether .Isn`t it just another hark back to the union ruck any way, where the ball can only be `raked` out of the ruck by using the feet once it has been placed on the ground by the tackled player. Even in union I think that the ball can be picked up by the player following the tackled player with no rucking at all. This is what really is happening in our game when the feet aren`t used to play the ball. It`s just placed on the ground, stepped over and picked up by the dummy half.

Who knows, maybe this is what your Administrators are thinking in conjunction with match officials, this is League not union, why are we still insisting on copying this arcane part of their game where the feet have to be used to rake the ball out of the scrum or ruck.

I have no desire to disturb your equilibrium again. The recent meltdown with the family gathered round was worthy of King Lear.

So I`ll keep it short and simple - You are completely wrong.

[The Rocket]

2 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

I have no desire to disturb your equilibrium again. The recent meltdown with the family gathered round was worthy of King Lear.

So I`ll keep it short and simple - You are completely wrong.

You`re back.

My equilibrium is fine, I have a filthy temper that goes off and then disappears just as quickly, especially when someone is wasting my time. But don`t worry old darling, no hard feelings.

The `short and simple ` response is a relief though. For someone with such a disdain for all things union I`m surprised you would not even consider the severing of another tie to that game. Rocket.

[unapologetic pedant]

10 hours ago, The Rocket said:

You`re back.

My equilibrium is fine, I have a filthy temper that goes off and then disappears just as quickly, especially when someone is wasting my time. But don`t worry old darling, no hard feelings.

The `short and simple ` response is a relief though. For someone with such a disdain for all things union I`m surprised you would not even consider the severing of another tie to that game. Rocket.

Never been away. And continued respectfully reading your content. Just became wary of directly responding lest it prompt a fit of the vapours.

10 hours ago, The Rocket said:

Maybe worth considering just getting rid of the feet in the play the ball alltogether .Isn`t it just another hark back to the union ruck any way, where the ball can only be `raked` out of the ruck by using the feet once it has been placed on the ground by the tackled player. Even in union I think that the ball can be picked up by the player following the tackled player with no rucking at all. This is what really is happening in our game when the feet aren`t used to play the ball. It`s just placed on the ground, stepped over and picked up by the dummy half.

Who knows, maybe this is what your Administrators are thinking in conjunction with match officials, this is League not union, why are we still insisting on copying this arcane part of their game where the feet have to be used to rake the ball out of the scrum or ruck.

On your first point about using feet in the ruck, we in RL shouldn`t be allergic to the roots we share with RU. They don`t own the fundamentals common to the two games. Many would argue that had there only ever been one code, it would today look a lot more like League than Union.

On the second point that a Union player can place the ball and another just pick it up. This underlines why allowing a League player to place and step over the ball is actually a move back to, not away from, the Union ruck. Our UK PTBs increasingly resemble the Union mess as a result.

As for our administrators, you`d have to believe in fairies to think this is anything other than the product of drift and incompetence. They`re like a supply teacher who lost control of the class. There`s a horrid harmony between our on-field PTB shambles and the off-field bungling we`re plagued with.

[George Watt]

On 10/11/2020 at 22:17, LeeF said:

They do make an effort in most cases. It depends on your interpretation of effort

The word effort/attempt should be removed completely to avoid all ambiguity, with the rule rigidly enforced  that the ball MUST be played back using the foot after being placed on the ground.

If you wish to see how easy it is for players to follow the PTB rules to the letter then have a look at yesterdays SOO women's match, refereed by an elite NRL female referee.

 

 

[unapologetic pedant]

6 hours ago, George Watt said:

The word effort/attempt should be removed completely to avoid all ambiguity, with the rule rigidly enforced  that the ball MUST be played back using the foot after being placed on the ground.

If you wish to see how easy it is for players to follow the PTB rules to the letter then have a look at yesterdays SOO women's match, refereed by an elite NRL female referee.

 

 

Because of the the view they get of something, the speed at which it happens, or the tiny margin involved, officials cannot always be accurate. Where it`s impossible to be certain there should be clear guidelines setting out where the benefit of the doubt ought to go.

It should be that a pass is legal unless there`s clear evidence it went forward out of the hands, any doubt play-on. A ball which goes to ground is just a lost ball unless there`s clear evidence it was propelled in a forward direction, any doubt play-on. And so on across the rulebook.

So the RFL`s decree that players should make "a genuine attempt to play the ball with the foot" is logical and reasonable. It`s hard for refs to be sure from 10m away with bodies often in their eyeline.

But I`ve now come round to the view you set out as the only way to restore integrity. In this area, forget guidelines and interpretations, just go back to the rulebook. Unless the ball makes contact with the foot, it is not in play.

On a TV game, when the ref refers a try, the legality of the PTB should be the first thing looked at. Like a no-ball in cricket. This would make coaches and players think twice about flagrantly flouting the rules.