Jump to content

Laws question - scrum when tackled on the last


Recommended Posts

A "play the ball" awarded to the defender camp after the last tackle is not in the spirit of the game.

The play the ball should only be played by the attackers after a tackle .

Rather than a scrum, i think that an indirect penalty should be awarded, with kick in touch and tap, or directly a tap by the defender camp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


10 hours ago, Nomad XIII said:

The one that really blew my mind, though. After a kick to touch the loose head was awarded to the kicking team. In the 1971 Grand Final it was absolutely St George's tactic that when they were on the last tackle about 10 metres from the opposition line they just kicked the ball sideways into touch and took their chances with the scrum.

1983 appeared to be the year they made some major changes. Head and feed both went to infringing team, the non-kicking team were awarded head and feed after a kick to touch, and the handover was introduced (although only in the instance of a player caught in possession on the last).

Kicking sideways into touch became a common practice for a time following the introduction of the handover. Teams would even shift the ball towards the touchline on the penultimate tackle of the set, to ensure they would find touch on the last.

Don`t understand your last paragraph. Surely you mean the head and feed went to the non-infringing team. And under what circumstances other than "a player caught in possession on the last" would a handover result?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kicking games were generally terrible in the 80s. Getting rid of the scrum on the 6th speeded the game up but it also exposed how poor a lot of kickers were.  Even kicking to touch from penalties was pretty dire in terms of distance for the most part.  1983-84 the bomb was basically the only form of attacking kick you'd see - which is why a 'large' fullback like Ian Wilkinson did well. 

My problem with scrums now is that they don't even allow the attacking team one full play without forwards involved.  Forwards don't bind at all and are fit enough to provide good cover across the park for the most part. If scrums were to be kept, I'd make forwards stay in contact with the scrum for the first tackle, and not move away until the PTB is complete at the next. That way scrums could at least be used to try something in attack with backs vs backs. 

Also, although scrums are still notionally a contest for possession, almost every time a defending team puts a shove on they're either penalised or the refs find some reason to reset. However, occasionally refs let them do it. Its either a contest or not. If not, no pushing should be allowed full stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, BrisbaneRhino said:

 

Also, although scrums are still notionally a contest for possession, almost every time a defending team puts a shove on they're either penalised or the refs find some reason to reset. However, occasionally refs let them do it. Its either a contest or not. If not, no pushing should be allowed full stop.

Recently watched Oldham v Australia from 1987. Oldham won 3 against the head. I know scrums can be a pain and time consuming, with constant resets etc. But I really miss the contested scrum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, BrisbaneRhino said:

If scrums were to be kept, I'd make forwards stay in contact with the scrum for the first tackle, and not move away until the PTB is complete at the next. That way scrums could at least be used to try something in attack with backs vs backs. 

That sounds great in theory but I am not sure it would work in practice.

Let's say the team feeding the scrum make a 50 metre break on the first tackle and are caught and play the ball. The defending team's forwards won't break until the play the ball is executed so will all be miles offside and may be even for the next tackle after that. I can't see how that can be policed effectively.

"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

12 hours ago, BrisbaneRhino said:

My problem with scrums now is that they don't even allow the attacking team one full play without forwards involved.  Forwards don't bind at all and are fit enough to provide good cover across the park for the most part. If scrums were to be kept, I'd make forwards stay in contact with the scrum for the first tackle, and not move away until the PTB is complete at the next. That way scrums could at least be used to try something in attack with backs vs backs. 

Didn`t they trial at the end of last year a rule where the correctly numbered players had to be in the scrum, this was intended to stop teams from sticking a second rower or whatever out in the backline because he was a better defender. Not sure if that is a rule this year. And players could only break from the scrum once the ball came out as well, not early and had to remain bound until the call.

I think the best we can hope for in this situation is that we will get at least one opportunity for a centre on centre play, or a backline move that doesn`t involve a second rower out there defending and congesting things when there is a scrum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, BrisbaneRhino said:

Kicking games were generally terrible in the 80s. Getting rid of the scrum on the 6th speeded the game up but it also exposed how poor a lot of kickers were.  Even kicking to touch from penalties was pretty dire in terms of distance for the most part.  1983-84 the bomb was basically the only form of attacking kick you'd see - which is why a 'large' fullback like Ian Wilkinson did well. 

My problem with scrums now is that they don't even allow the attacking team one full play without forwards involved.  Forwards don't bind at all and are fit enough to provide good cover across the park for the most part. If scrums were to be kept, I'd make forwards stay in contact with the scrum for the first tackle, and not move away until the PTB is complete at the next. That way scrums could at least be used to try something in attack with backs vs backs. 

Also, although scrums are still notionally a contest for possession, almost every time a defending team puts a shove on they're either penalised or the refs find some reason to reset. However, occasionally refs let them do it. Its either a contest or not. If not, no pushing should be allowed full stop.

Unless you were Deryck Fox of course

“Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.”

Clement Attlee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Kicking sideways into touch became a common practice for a time following the introduction of the handover. Teams would even shift the ball towards the touchline on the penultimate tackle of the set, to ensure they would find touch on the last.

Don`t understand your last paragraph. Surely you mean the head and feed went to the non-infringing team. And under what circumstances other than "a player caught in possession on the last" would a handover result?

Yeah, non-infringing team, sorry.

From 1988 the handover was also awarded after a knock-on when the team was on the last tackle. Probably for a forward pass on the last tackle though I didn't see an example.

By the late 1990s when I was really into the game it replaced almost any scrum when the infringing team was on the last tackle (knock-on, forward pass, accidental offside, ball kicked into touch on the full). I think the only exception was a kick to touch not on the full. About 10 years ago the NRL started awarding it for a kick out on the full regardless of tackle count, SL snuck that one in on the restart of the season this year, while suspending all scrums for the rest of the season). As of next year the NRL will award a handover for any kick to touch or player tackled into touch. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Derryck Fox was another "miss" by Leeds as a junior. Exactly the sort of genuine halfback we lacked for most of the 80s.

On scrums, if we're going to have them but not let sides contest possession they should be used to keep forwards out of at least one play. Otherwise they serve no purpose whatsoever. At the moment they're an unsightly mess with no doubt who will get the ball, and backrowers fit and fast enough to help stop most attempts at backline moves. Its also led to a drop off of some basic skills in that situation - why would teams bother practicing moves just backs v backs when it virtually never happens?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Nomad XIII said:

From 1988 the handover was also awarded after a knock-on when the team was on the last tackle. Probably for a forward pass on the last tackle though I didn't see an example.

By the late 1990s when I was really into the game it replaced almost any scrum when the infringing team was on the last tackle (knock-on, forward pass, accidental offside, ball kicked into touch on the full). I think the only exception was a kick to touch not on the full. 

I`d forgotten it was as long ago as 1988 that a handover was ruled for after a final tackle knock-on. I knew it couldn`t have been so at the initial introduction of the handover, because I recall witnessing the glaring anomaly of a scrum being called after a last-tackle knock-on then regather. Whereas had the player held on to the ball and been wrapped up, it would have been a handover.

Another subsequent change was zero tackle, to address the similar anomaly of an opposition player diving on a loose ball following a knock-on, and Tackle 1 being called. Inevitably refs were calling a scrum or last-tackle handover to obviate the disadvantage. As things have turned out, we might as well not have zero tackle now that refs just call knock-on or double knock-on almost every time the ball hits the deck.

On that last point, and given you said you`d been watching old games from a modern perspective. Do you notice how frequently a loose ball used to be play-on, where now it would be called knock-on? In the past, players were allowed to fight for the ball on the ground, but now the ref wants to blow the whistle and determine possession with a call. I see this as the worst blight on the current game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, BrisbaneRhino said:

Derryck Fox was another "miss" by Leeds as a junior. Exactly the sort of genuine halfback we lacked for most of the 80s.

On scrums, if we're going to have them but not let sides contest possession they should be used to keep forwards out of at least one play. Otherwise they serve no purpose whatsoever. At the moment they're an unsightly mess with no doubt who will get the ball, and backrowers fit and fast enough to help stop most attempts at backline moves. Its also led to a drop off of some basic skills in that situation - why would teams bother practicing moves just backs v backs when it virtually never happens?

I think they trialed him and decide he wasn't quick enough.  It's true Deryck was not the fastest player over the ground, he was however the fastest player between the ears.  Plus he was a superb kicker from the hand.  

“Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.”

Clement Attlee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard him on an interview and it was more the case that when he trialled we already had Kevin Dick and Ian Mackintosh, with Mark Conway in Colts.  Sadly for Leeds Ian Mackintosh was forced to retire ridiculously young due a knee injury, Dick never really matured into a controlling scrum half and Conway also didn't meet his full potential. However, at the time the decision was made it was pretty understandable. Benefit of hindsight and all that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/01/2021 at 00:58, unapologetic pedant said:

 

On that last point, and given you said you`d been watching old games from a modern perspective. Do you notice how frequently a loose ball used to be play-on, where now it would be called knock-on? In the past, players were allowed to fight for the ball on the ground, but now the ref wants to blow the whistle and determine possession with a call. I see this as the worst blight on the current game.

From games in the 1980s the biggest difference I notice, and something that infuriates me about the modern game, is how quickly players got on with the game after a change in possession. A handover was about as quick as any other play the ball. If a scrum got formed you saw 12 players RUN towards the spot and get bound into two packs. Actually quite funny when the referee said “not there” and the two packs went for a walkabout to the correct spot.

Now I can understand that with the modern game being at such a relentless pace, players want to suck in some deep breaths at a break in play, but every single restart involves the referee blowing his whistle several times and giving instructions on who should be where. Frankly it's like watching a teacher dealing with a bunch of 10 year olds. Handover gets ordered, player acts dumb and tries to play the ball, gives the referee a confused look, falls over on the ball, gets up and accidentally kicks it backwards. And because no-one is ever penalised, there's no disincentive for any this time-wasting.

Just one example from a couple of years ago. Wigan are awarded a 10 metre handover, needing to score with a minute left. George Williams tries to get to the spot. Opposition player stands in his way 7 metres from the line, arms out to block his path. Referee blows whistle and we get the “what? What's the matter sir? What am I doing wrong?” He knows damn well where he should be and he should get penalised for obstructing play, but of course the referee explains it all politely while a few seconds get wasted and the defence gets set.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14/01/2021 at 19:28, Nomad XIII said:

From games in the 1980s the biggest difference I notice, and something that infuriates me about the modern game, is how quickly players got on with the game after a change in possession. A handover was about as quick as any other play the ball. 

A handover, because it results in a PTB, should be a continuation of the game. On any other PTB a player does not have to wait for the markers to be set and the rest of the defenders to be onside before he can play the ball. This is how it was originally yet, as you say, refs now treat it as a set-piece, requiring everybody to be in position before they give permission to restart the game. And the consequence is an automatic, banal, first-play settler.

Something similar has happened regarding the rule where a player is held up over the goal-line, and retreats 10m to where the mark is. Again, because it is a PTB, the game should not stop, and when the rule was first introduced the player held up would rush back to the 10m line. Ensuring that the mark was parallel to where the player was held up was the only criterion to be met for the ref. If the defence were not sharp enough to get markers in place - tough luck. Just like any other PTB. But now, as with the handover, everybody has to wait for a whistle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/01/2021 at 00:20, Nomad XIII said:

 As of next year the NRL will award a handover for any kick to touch or player tackled into touch. 

This is a terrible rule change. It means a team can bang the ball over the touchline knowing they can set a full defensive line and have plenty of time to do so. It also represents a diminution in variety.

The worry with anything that makes the game more homogeneous is that the effects in people drifting away, or not being initially attracted, happen gradually or imperceptibly. So administrators are never faced with clear evidence that their decisions have harmed the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/01/2021 at 14:30, The Rocket said:

Didn`t they trial at the end of last year a rule where the correctly numbered players had to be in the scrum, this was intended to stop teams from sticking a second rower or whatever out in the backline because he was a better defender.

Jeez - the number of problems and loopholes there must be in there !!

Just number your second rowers 3 and 4.   What happens if a back gets sent off ?   And don't even think about squad numbers.

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am a little out of touch with modern law changes.

However, the 40/20 Law  was a brilliant innovation and rewards skill.

The worst of the lot which has completely changed the emphasis of the game is taking back the defensive line ten yards rather than five. Half way through a season in the early nineties from recollection

Changed the way the game was played overnight. Made clever ball players largely redundant, elevated trundling forwards into superstars and allowed a breed of half backs who rarely came into contact with the opposition and could play whilst running backwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wholeheartedly agree about the slowness of everything now in terms of handovers etc. There is zero reason why a defence should be allowed to set itself in every situation. If they don't get set that's their problem. 

A personal bugbear is watching defenders lie on the tackled player and looking at the ref to tell them to get off. We should bin that nonsense - once the tackle is made defenders have no right to lay on at all IMO. Stop the refs telling players what to do and just penalise the hell out of them. 

Similar with 20m taps - the only reason a quick tap shouldn't be allowed is attacking players offside. Who cares if the ref is precisely on the mark? We all know where the tap needs to be taken.  

I think there was a definite change in mindset once coached started to realise that sometimes a penalty wasn't a bad thing and started coaching that way. Watching the old Leeds GFs its noticeable that in 2004 for example the players still had the attitude of keeping play moving at every tackle and with scrums etc. A few years later and it had all slowed considerably.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BrisbaneRhino said:

A personal bugbear is watching defenders lie on the tackled player and looking at the ref to tell them to get off. We should bin that nonsense - once the tackle is made defenders have no right to lay on at all IMO. Stop the refs telling players what to do and just penalise the hell out of them. 

Similar with 20m taps - the only reason a quick tap shouldn't be allowed is attacking players offside. Who cares if the ref is precisely on the mark? We all know where the tap needs to be taken.  

If you`re referring to behaviour after the tackle is complete (i.e. after the ball or ball-carrying arm contacts the ground), then I agree. The tackle and ruck rules are explicit that the instant the tackle is complete, defenders have to roll off/away and clear the ruck.

In the final years of the 5m offside line, refs were stricter at the ruck. The appreciation of the balance between ruck speed and offside line depth meant that, after the introduction of 10m, refs extended more latitude to tacklers. There`s a cogent argument now that because fitness levels have risen, we should restore greater rigour at the ruck. (NB. This has nothing to do with so-called "wrestling" which, in my view, is simply completing the tackle. A technical distinction has to be kept between before and after the tackle is complete.)

When you say "We all know..." - I wouldn`t be too sure. I frequently see players taking a 20m tap from the wrong spot. Just as I see players unaware of what should happen at a handover or after a player is held up over the goal-line. It reveals much about RL coaching that basic knowledge of the rulebook is subordinate to gym programmes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Bert Street said:

The worst of the lot which has completely changed the emphasis of the game is taking back the defensive line ten yards rather than five. Half way through a season in the early nineties from recollection

I`ve always been sympathetic to this view. When watching old games from the days of 5m, the most striking aspect is the depth in the attacking lines. And the willingness to go backwards to create space. In a NSWRL GF I`ve been watching there was a PTB close to the near touchline, almost on halfway. When the camera panned out, the attacking team`s winger on the far touchline was almost on his own goal-line.

The pertinent question is whether standing deep had just always been the natural inclination of teams in possession, or did they do it specifically to meet the requirements of a tighter defensive line. If we went back now to 5m would they stick with their flat attacking lines and bore us into submission with suffocating congestion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting points.

I think at that stage British rugby league had pretty well absorbed the fitness and conditioning lessons after the revolution of 1982 and were well on their way to competing internationally in all games. What the change from 5 to 10 yards did was to change the balance completely to an athlete driven game rather than a craft game played by athletes.

What then happened globally in 1995 meant that the game had to be an event for a mass audience and also had to compete for player share with rugby union. The former certainly meant that the game had to become ever simpler and less nuanced to appeal commercially. The logic of that suggests a return to five yards won't return. If it were to the coaches and players, as they have been since 1895, would incentivised to make the game attractive to an audience.

The problem for the last generation is that the game has been railroaded into making the game accessible to a  generalistTV audience rather than paying spectators with an artisan appreciation of its subtleties.

 

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.