The modern ruck' in Rugby League

[DOGFATHER]

33 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

I don`t disagree with anything you`ve written here.  Although I`m not sure what "change in interpretation" refers to.

The vast majority of tackles still take the form you describe in your first paragraph. The fact that tacklers initially attempt to hold the ball-carrier up more often than previously is not a major change. If every tackle were a "proper tackle", i.e. quickly completed, there would be less variety in the tackle and ruck, and it wouldn`t necessarily lead to more open play away from the ruck.

AFAIK the rules haven't changed.

Refs used to immediately shout held once momentum had been stopped.

The refs now sometimes shout hellllldddd, then release, and in some cases Mooooove as well, all as part of the same tackle. Then to add insult to injury, the defenders generally put the player on the deck, all without being penalised. 

Therefore, there must have been a change to the interpretation of the rules.

If the refs were consistent and did the same thing for every tackle, it wouldn't be quite so bad, but they aren't consistent with it. This gives the refs a huge influence on results IMHO. Sorry to name, names but Chris Kendall is particularly bad for it, he allow a "love in" after every tackle, then suddenly from out of nowhere, he'll just starting shouting "held" and if the defenders are not off in a nanosecond, he blows it up for holding down at random.

I totally agree with the posts about getting the balance right though. In the nineties, it had gone too far the other way, with the cheap yardage that you highlighted earlier. Saints were masters at it, and were almost unstoppable once they got on a role. We used to see 40 -30 score lines in most games, which wasn't perfect, but better than what we have now.

Maybe something like the shot clock for scrums, could be introduced for the 4th official to administer after every tackle, allowing 3 seconds for defenders to get out of the way before blown a penalty for interference/holding down?

Whatever is done let's keep it simple and try to avoid as much interpretation as possible. 

[unapologetic pedant]

52 minutes ago, DOGFATHER said:

AFAIK the rules haven't changed.

Refs used to immediately shout held once momentum had been stopped.

It isn`t obvious when momentum has been stopped. Or when there`s no further chance of an offload. If "Held" is called too early it eliminates the potential for the ball-carrier to turn the tide in his favour. To push off again with the leg drive, twist and turn, get the arms free to offload.

And of course offloads are more valuable with more defenders tied in to the tackle, so it has to be worth the ref giving himself a few seconds to reliably judge the tackle.

The alternative, when "Held" is called instantly, is that a pattern can emerge of - run out of dummy-half, smack, "Held", tackle 1, play the ball; run out of dummy-half, smack, "Held", tackle 2, play the ball, and so on through the set. From deep field position, that will get you to a kick from roughly halfway so why risk anything more elaborate?

1 hour ago, DOGFATHER said:

The refs now sometimes shout hellllldddd, then release, and in some cases Mooooove as well, all as part of the same tackle. Then to add insult to injury, the defenders generally put the player on the deck, all without being penalised.  

I watch more Aussie RL than English RL. With that proviso, I never see the scenario you describe where I think it goes too far and isn`t penalised. What I have seen, frequently, is players popping an offload out of the tackle, then the receiver who was running off into space has to come back because the ref had called "Held". And an opportunity for exciting play is snuffed out.

[unapologetic pedant]

7 hours ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

Maybe we can revisit the ruck with the ref or another time.

Refs are probably the best people to hear from on all technical matters.

Eliciting anything of value from our players and coaches is a "blood from a stone" exercise.

[David Dockhouse Host]

We plan to run a follow up tomorrow whilst considering some of these comments, anything else you would like us to consider?

[Dunbar]

1 hour ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

We plan to run a follow up tomorrow whilst considering some of these comments, anything else you would like us to consider?

I think a sensible extension of the conversation is how the six again has changed the game.

Personally, I feel that the six again call has had some success in cleaning up the ruck with teams under the threat of conceding a new set. I know it is not universally popular but the other option to clean the ruck is for the ref to blow the pea out of the whistle.

Of course you can then go on to discuss how the six again and more ball in play time has impacted the overall game and propensity for some games to blow out a little with teams unable to spoil the attack... though that may be another full episode. 

[Dunbar]

1 hour ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

We plan to run a follow up tomorrow whilst considering some of these comments, anything else you would like us to consider?

Another angle to explore is how the change in tackling technique has changed the physical nature of the game.

The game has moved from being a collision sport to one of collision and wrestling.  While some people say there are fewer spectacular big hits that previously (particularly with the shoulder charge being outlawed) there is no doubt that the stress placed onto players in a game today is higher than ever.  We are seeing players like Sam Burgess being forced to retire early and you wonder how the evolution of the game has caused some of this.

[DOGFATHER]

Another evolving rule change has been the ball steal. That might be worth a look. There certainly seems to be a big difference in the way the rule is administered.

In Australia, they seem to put greater emphasis on the ball carrier keeping control of the ball. Here it seems to be a lottery, if the ball comes free. Was it a loose carry and a knock on, or was the ball yanked free. This has been further complicated by the recent changes to the rule. At what point did the other tacklers let go of the man? Was it before, or after the ball was reefed free?

I really feel for the officials with this. In some tackles it is impossible to tell. If they get it wrong, there can be huge momentum shifts in the game. Why not simplify the rule? Revert back to stealing is allowed all of the time, regardless of the numbers in the tackle. 

[DOGFATHER]

The golden point rule. To me it's just a glorified drop goal competition.

A draw is a perfectly good outcome in league games. It is okay for cup matches where replays want be avoided.

Draws don't happen much in RL, so why the need to find a winner?

Does the golden points distort the league positions?

[DOGFATHER]

Playing the ball with the foot. The new ruling states "an attempt to play the ball with the foot".

What is an attempt? Everybody can have a different view on what an attempt is.

[DOGFATHER]

We got rid of scrums to speed up and reward 40/20 kicks. Yet teams are not allowed to take a quick tap. We have to wait for the ref to be ready and the defense to be set, where is the advantage?

[DOGFATHER]

Why are rules administered to the letter of the law for short periods of time, then suddenly ignored?

Contact with the head was an automatic sin bin not long ago, now it is not. See the recent Willie Isa high shot on Tom Johnstone. It was clearly contact with the head, he had to leave the field and failed the HIA so could not return. The incident goes to the disciplinary panel and no punishment is administered?!?!

Grapple tackles, remember them?

Moving off the mark when playing the ball? 

Take your pick of rules that the refs are hot on, then suddenly no longer seem to either see, or penalise.

The flavour of the month is forward passes, but for how long?

[DOGFATHER]

Why has RL got 3 sets of rules? International, British and an Australian set. Rugby union and football is played to the same rules regardless of the level or the place the game is played. 

[David Dockhouse Host]

1 hour ago, DOGFATHER said:

Playing the ball with the foot. The new ruling states "an attempt to play the ball with the foot".

What is an attempt? Everybody can have a different view on what an attempt is.

100% agree.

 

Why just not play with foot

 

[David Dockhouse Host]

8 hours ago, DOGFATHER said:

We got rid of scrums to speed up and reward 40/20 kicks. Yet teams are not allowed to take a quick tap. We have to wait for the ref to be ready and the defense to be set, where is the advantage?

I don't believe the reason for removing scrums was to speed up the game. It's a temporary measure due to COVID, reducing the amount of contact between players.

[David Dockhouse Host]

Happy to out these questions to our SL ref tomorrow.

News and updates soon

[DI Keith Fowler]

Just now, David Dockhouse Host said:

I don't believe the reason for removing scrums was to speed up the game. It's a temporary measure due to COVID, reducing the amount of contact between players.

I think it was a convenient excuse to see what the game looks like without scrums. A bit of a trial to see if anyone notices, I don't notice so much to be honest. 

[Oxford]

On 07/04/2021 at 20:18, David Dockhouse Host said:

Do you prefer the way it was?

Oh dear

 

[GUBRATS]

Best way to sort out the ' ruck ' is to outlaw any change of grip by a defender once the tackled player is on the ground , all too often instead of releasing and rolling away players move their hands and lean on the player with the ball , then push them as they get off them , outlaw any second contact and it will make it much easier for the officials 

[David Dockhouse Host]

Just now, GUBRATS said:

Best way to sort out the ' ruck ' is to outlaw any change of grip by a defender once the tackled player is on the ground , all too often instead of releasing and rolling away players move their hands and lean on the player with the ball , then push them as they get off them , outlaw any second contact and it will make it much easier for the officials 

Possibly, but it would also encourage not taking a player to the floor as you are punished by having to roll away. I'd like to consider or discuss the opposite to encourage taking to the ground and discouraging holding up. The opposite being allow a few seconds holding down, which as you say often happens anyway, and calling held sooner if held up to reduce the wrestle. I realise there may be some unknown or unintentional consequences to this

[DOGFATHER]

1 hour ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

I don't believe the reason for removing scrums was to speed up the game. It's a temporary measure due to COVID, reducing the amount of contact between players.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was referring to 40/20s. We used to have a scrum, with head and feed to the team that kicked.

This was changed to a tap prior to Covid, supposedly to speed the game up.

At least the scrum took players out of the game and created space.

[GUBRATS]

2 minutes ago, DOGFATHER said:

Sorry, I meant for 40/20s. We used to have a scrum with head and feed to the team that kicked. This was changed to a tap prior to Covid, supposedly to speed the game up. At least the scrum took players out of the game and created space.

Did it ? , Really , how often were the defending pack split before the ball came out ?

[DOGFATHER]

15 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Did it ? , Really , how often were the defending pack split before the ball came out ?

More than the current rule does, where defence can walk back onside, make a cuppa and have a 5 minute chat about what sort of pies they'd prefer after the match, before the tap is taken.

[David Dockhouse Host]

We asked former SL ref Ian Smith many of the points from this thread this morning, episode coming soon on Dockhouse YouTube channel and iTunes etc. https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxE2HKdRQnvg4PJLj2Z52mQlG_gD1_1i7

[unapologetic pedant]

On 10/04/2021 at 07:57, DOGFATHER said:

Playing the ball with the foot. The new ruling states "an attempt to play the ball with the foot".

What is an attempt? Everybody can have a different view on what an attempt is.

The question of what constitutes an attempt is only relevant outside the UK. The PTB is far from satisfactory in the NRL, but some degree of impression of playing with the foot is given.

It`s palpably different over here where no attempt whatsoever is made. Anyone who can`t see the difference is either delusional or in denial. Or only watches the game in this country.

It`s obvious that the aim of most SL players is to get their foot out of the way of the ball. An incident yesterday in Catalans/Wakefield encapsulated it. A Dragons player`s foot made contact with the ball as he was trying to step over it. And comically, he was penalised for losing control. Had he managed to hop right over the ball, as per usual, he would have been fine.

[unapologetic pedant]

On 10/04/2021 at 09:33, David Dockhouse Host said:

Why just not play with foot

I can`t find definitive evidence in the rulebook for this, but my understanding was always that the ball was only back in play once the tackled player`s foot made contact with it. And that was the moment when defenders could move - hence the referee`s call of "wait for the foot".