Jump to content

The modern ruck' in Rugby League


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

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".

https://www.rugby-league.com/the_rfl/rules_and_regulations/laws_of_the_game/tackle__play_the_ball

Play with foot (e) When the ball touches the ground it must be heeled (i.e. backwards) by the tackled player. The ball must not be kicked or heeled by the player marking him. The ball is in play when it has been played backward.

 

"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


  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply
2 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

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.

I quite agree, the ruck is very different over here when compared to the NRL. There are so many other differences too.

It is also very different in the Championship to SL, which leaves me even more flummoxed.

Where we see penalties much more frequently for incorrect ptbs, but given in a very arbitrary way. They will be let go for most of the game, then the ref will blow one or two up at random. The ptbs will not improve or change, but they will be ignored for the rest of the game.

Although I don't agree with having different ideas of how to ref a game, depending on where it is played.

I can at least understand why it happens. What I cannot understand is, why the game is refereed differently from one division to another.

Surely the same messages are being relayed to all refs in the same country?

Especially when the lower the division, the more pedantic the refs seem to be and less inclined to let the game flow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Dunbar said:

https://www.rugby-league.com/the_rfl/rules_and_regulations/laws_of_the_game/tackle__play_the_ball

Play with foot (e) When the ball touches the ground it must be heeled (i.e. backwards) by the tackled player. The ball must not be kicked or heeled by the player marking him. The ball is in play when it has been played backward.

 

https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/rfl-confirm-play-the-ball-rule-changes-for-2020/

The Rugby Football League’s laws committee has approved a change in the policing of play-the-balls in the 2020 season.

The proposal, which was unanimously accepted, stresses the responsibility of the tackled player “to maintain balance and control and make a genuine attempt to make contact on the ball with the foot”.

It is also the tackled player’s responsibility to place the ball on the ground at their feet and not on a defender, and a failure to fulfil any of those requirements (balance, control, placing the ball on the ground and making a genuine attempt to play it with the foot) will be ruled a lost ball (not a penalty), leading to a scrum.

Do the rules supersede the laws committee, or vice versa?

Are the refs:-

A) Following the rules,

B) The laws committee interpretation of the rules

C) Are they incapable of seeing what is going off at the ptb

D) Ignoring A) and B) and doing what they want.

I'd bet if you looked at the rule for putting the ball in the scrum, putting the ball in the middle is likely to be referenced.

I cant remember the last penalty for feeding I saw, although, in fairness I was probably still at school when it was given. 🤣🤣🤣

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dunbar said:

https://www.rugby-league.com/the_rfl/rules_and_regulations/laws_of_the_game/tackle__play_the_ball

Play with foot (e) When the ball touches the ground it must be heeled (i.e. backwards) by the tackled player. The ball must not be kicked or heeled by the player marking him. The ball is in play when it has been played backward.

 

If I were defence counsel for the RFL, I would argue that the last sentence doesn`t definitively say "The ball is in play when it has been played backward with the foot." 

i.e. you could only unambiguously reach that conclusion by combining the last sentence with the first. And that the "Play with the foot" requirement has been superseded by the "genuine attempt" guidelines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 09/04/2021 at 21:51, Dunbar said:

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.

I’d put money on a lot of Burgess’s shoulder problems are from the era when shoulder charges were still legal.  Rather than anything to do with wrestle techniques. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bobbruce said:

I’d put money on a lot of Burgess’s shoulder problems are from the era when shoulder charges were still legal.  Rather than anything to do with wrestle techniques. 

I guess it is impossible to know.  The only thing I would say though is that Burgess was a right hander and favoured his right shoulder in contact (and shoulder charges) and yet all his problems were in his left shoulder. 

"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

Tackling technique is a big factor in the spate of HIA’s as well , although whether the game has become too spooked by the understandable fear of future litigation and consequences and gone to safety first is another issue . Guys are getting dragged off for just about every knock on the mush , and it seems to be getting more and more difficult to pass a HIA . I’d love to know what that test is , maybe it’s quantum physics as it has a huge fail rate 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, DOGFATHER said:

The proposal, which was unanimously accepted, stresses the responsibility of the tackled player “to maintain balance and control and make a genuine attempt to make contact on the ball with the foot”.

C) Are they incapable of seeing what is going off at the ptb

They know perfectly well that most players are deliberately hopping over the ball. They`ve been told to ignore it. The only doubtful question is by whom have they been told to ignore it.

Check out the RFL`s video on their YouTube channel in which Liam Moore and Chris Kendall go through this year`s new rules. A clip is shown of a player rolling and walking over the ball as an example of an acceptable PTB. Only "balance and control" are cited as requirements. No mention of making contact with the foot, genuine attempt or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 09/04/2021 at 20:00, 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?

 

21 hours ago, DOGFATHER said:

It is also the tackled player’s responsibility to place the ball on the ground at their feet and not on a defender, and a failure to fulfil any of those requirements (balance, control, placing the ball on the ground and making a genuine attempt to play it with the foot) will be ruled a lost ball (not a penalty), leading to a scrum.

Here`s a question you could put to a referee about the terminology used in relation to the tackle and ruck. -

A knock-on is to propel the ball in a forward direction. When a player loses control of the ball after the tackle is complete, the direction is irrelevant. If he drops the ball backwards when rising to play it, he cannot pick it up and try again. So, this is NOT a knock-on. It is a "lost ball". Yet all the media and even some top Australian officials say "knock-on".

The failure to distinguish between a knock-on (before the tackle is complete) and a lost ball (after the tackle is complete) comes to a head in the scenario where the ball-carrying arm hits the ground and the impact dislodges the ball in a clearly backwards direction. If the ref incorrectly says "knock-on", the captain might be tempted to challenge the call on the grounds that the ball went backwards. But the ball came loose after the tackle was complete, so the direction has no significance. And they would lose their challenge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, unapologetic pedant said:

They know perfectly well that most players are deliberately hopping over the ball. They`ve been told to ignore it. The only doubtful question is by whom have they been told to ignore it.

Check out the RFL`s video on their YouTube channel in which Liam Moore and Chris Kendall go through this year`s new rules. A clip is shown of a player rolling and walking over the ball as an example of an acceptable PTB. Only "balance and control" are cited as requirements. No mention of making contact with the foot, genuine attempt or not.

This point was picked up on our episode 👍due out later this week I believe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, unapologetic pedant said:

They know perfectly well that most players are deliberately hopping over the ball. They`ve been told to ignore it. The only doubtful question is by whom have they been told to ignore it.

Check out the RFL`s video on their YouTube channel in which Liam Moore and Chris Kendall go through this year`s new rules. A clip is shown of a player rolling and walking over the ball as an example of an acceptable PTB. Only "balance and control" are cited as requirements. No mention of making contact with the foot, genuine attempt or not.

https://www.superleague.co.uk/article/1841/update-|-rfl-laws-committee

Just in case the LRL had got it wrong, this link is from the SL website. 

5. Incorrect Play the Ball 

A handover is to be ordered where players do not make a genuine attempt to play the ball with the foot. (note – would previously have been a penalty).

The video you reference could also suggest, they don't actually know what the rules are.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

They know perfectly well that most players are deliberately hopping over the ball. They`ve been told to ignore it. The only doubtful question is by whom have they been told to ignore it.

Check out the RFL`s video on their YouTube channel in which Liam Moore and Chris Kendall go through this year`s new rules. A clip is shown of a player rolling and walking over the ball as an example of an acceptable PTB. Only "balance and control" are cited as requirements. No mention of making contact with the foot, genuine attempt or not.

 

21 minutes ago, DOGFATHER said:

https://www.superleague.co.uk/article/1841/update-|-rfl-laws-committee

Just in case the LRL had got it wrong, this link is from the SL website. 

5. Incorrect Play the Ball 

A handover is to be ordered where players do not make a genuine attempt to play the ball with the foot. (note – would previously have been a penalty).

The video you reference could also suggest, they don't actually know what the rules are.

 

 

Just watched the video in question. 

While Chris Kendall talks about balance and control it doesn't mean that all other factors in the play the ball are not considered. 

All ref's are still ignoring players making zero attempt to play the ball properly of course.

"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

2 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

They know perfectly well that most players are deliberately hopping over the ball. They`ve been told to ignore it. The only doubtful question is by whom have they been told to ignore it.

Check out the RFL`s video on their YouTube channel in which Liam Moore and Chris Kendall go through this year`s new rules. A clip is shown of a player rolling and walking over the ball as an example of an acceptable PTB. Only "balance and control" are cited as requirements. No mention of making contact with the foot, genuine attempt or not.

 

54 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

This point was picked up on our episode 👍due out later this week I believe

Do you think it is possible, that this is the RFL`s unstated way of speeding the game up. It is certainly quicker to walk over the ball than to stop and use the foot.  I am sorry for bringing it up but In fact it can start to look like another code where the play can just continually roll on after each tackle. 

It`s interesting that we certainly don`t have the same magnitude of the problem over here, but I have noticed and find it extremely unsightly that the same issue of rolling and/or quickly stepping over the ball is standard practice in Touch football and no one bats an eye. In that sport it is all about catching out retreating defences and opening the game up, is this what they are trying to achieve in your game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Dunbar said:

 

Just watched the video in question. 

While Chris Kendall talks about balance and control it doesn't mean that all other factors in the play the ball are not considered. 

All ref's are still ignoring players making zero attempt to play the ball properly of course.

Joking apart. This is where the wording "genuine attempt" really makes a farce of the rule. Any ref can just cover there backside by saying as far as they are concerned, walking over the ball is a genuine attempt to play the ball. Therefore there is no right or wrong decision.

One other thing to come out of this thread.

Regain feet (b) The tackled player shall without delay regain his feet where he was tackled, lift the ball clear of the ground, face his opponent’s goal line and drop or place the ball on the ground in front of his foremost foot.

How many refs would not give a knock on if the man playing the ball dropped it, rather than placing it on the ground?

Alex Walmsley was certainly blown for a knock on in the weekend game. I'd also not be surprised if there were examples in every other game, of these being blown up as knock ons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Rocket said:

 

Do you think it is possible, that this is the RFL`s unstated way of speeding the game up. 

It`s more likely the RFL will use speeding the game up as a convenient alibi. The truth is, when this PTB rot was setting in, unlike in Aus where they reined it back, we allowed a point to be reached where most players were using the "rollball". So now, as last year`s short-lived token clamp down proved, the refs know that to restore integrity they have to be prepared to ruin games with excessive calling. The coaches and players have them over a barrel.

It`s like any law that a State permits to be "more honoured in the breach than the observance". You can`t put 90% of the population in jail, so the illegality is embedded in the culture. Obedience to the law is then seen as a mug`s game.

If the RFL had the will and the wit, they would deal with it off the field. Any players deliberately using the rollball would go on report, the footage would be reviewed, and heavy fines handed down to guilty players, coach, and club. Hit them all in the pocket and enlightenment will follow.

2 hours ago, The Rocket said:

  I am sorry for bringing it up but In fact it can start to look like another code where the play can just continually roll on after each tackle. 

The importance to the RL ruck of playing with the foot is encapsulated when the PTB is very close to the opposition goal-line with a phalanx of defenders tight around the mark. When the ball is placed, but defenders have to wait for the foot to make contact before they can move off the line, the structure is preserved. But when the ball is just rolled, it descends into mess.

With the UK rollball this scenario now resembles a RU pick-and-go. Although mercifully there`s a maximum of 5 phases.

The comparison opens up the question of how far the RFL are willing to let the PTB degenerate. For some players now, the step over the ball is moving ever closer to a roll between the legs, so that could be the next stage. Then they might find it easier to leave the ball on the ground and throw it through the legs like the snap in Gridiron.

And the final circle of torment in Dante`s RL inferno would be deciding that the least onerous option of all is for the tackled player to remain on the ground and hand the ball to the dummy-half. Anything beyond that would be another kind of hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, DOGFATHER said:

Joking apart. This is where the wording "genuine attempt" really makes a farce of the rule. Any ref can just cover there backside by saying as far as they are concerned, walking over the ball is a genuine attempt to play the ball. Therefore there is no right or wrong decision.

One other thing to come out of this thread.

Regain feet (b) The tackled player shall without delay regain his feet where he was tackled, lift the ball clear of the ground, face his opponent’s goal line and drop or place the ball on the ground in front of his foremost foot.

How many refs would not give a knock on if the man playing the ball dropped it, rather than placing it on the ground?

Alex Walmsley was certainly blown for a knock on in the weekend game. I'd also not be surprised if there were examples in every other game, of these being blown up as knock ons.

I agree on all points.

Several parts of this really frustrate me.

Firstly.  The concept of  'genuine attempt' is crazy.  Just enforce the law that a player has to play the ball with the foot and the ref then has the discretion to say that a player made a genuine attempt and so they will let it slide.  But to actually state a genuine attempt means the ref's have to decide whether a player has made a genuine attempt to make a genuine attempt.  Just apply the laws and then let the ref's have some discretion.

Secondly, none of these things that are being discussed by the ref's are laws, they are interpretations.  As you say, the laws of the play the ball are clear and they are being broken at almost every play the ball.  The laws of the scrum are very clear and they are being broken at every scrum.

We must be the only sport where the actual laws are irrelevant and the sport is refereed by consensus rather than the law book.  And then we have the cheek to demand that the ref's are consistent!

We should have a sport wide fundamental review of what laws we believe the sport should be played to - amend the law book appropriately and then allow the ref's to actually apply those laws appropriately and consistently.

"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

23 minutes ago, Saint 1 said:

"Knock on" and "lost ball" mean the same thing to most people. This is a non-issue.

It is only the same thing because we have made it the same thing though.

This is one area that I 100% in agreement with Unapologetic Pedant on, referees will blow the whistle pretty much every time a ball carrier loses the ball... either to penalise the defenders for a steal or the ball carrier for 'loose carry'.  But if the ball has gone backwards it should be play on as a no knock on has occurred.

There is no such thing as a 'loose carry' in the laws - it is either a knock on or it is play on.

After the tackle is complete and before the execution of a play the ball then a lost ball is a relevant call.

"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

13 hours ago, The Rocket said:

 

Do you think it is possible, that this is the RFL`s unstated way of speeding the game up. It is certainly quicker to walk over the ball than to stop and use the foot.  I am sorry for bringing it up but In fact it can start to look like another code where the play can just continually roll on after each tackle. 

It`s interesting that we certainly don`t have the same magnitude of the problem over here, but I have noticed and find it extremely unsightly that the same issue of rolling and/or quickly stepping over the ball is standard practice in Touch football and no one bats an eye. In that sport it is all about catching out retreating defences and opening the game up, is this what they are trying to achieve in your game.

The PTB and the new strip rules are already looking like Touch & RU.  The apathy regarding the former is so ingrained now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Saint 1 said:

"Knock on" and "lost ball" mean the same thing to most people. This is a non-issue. 

It was precisely my point that most people wrongly conflate the two. And the misunderstanding leads to wider misunderstandings. If it`s a non-issue, this means the inherent difference between before and after the completion of the tackle is a non-issue. In which case, the whole tackle and ruck is a non-issue. In which case, Rugby League is a non-issue.

Some of the popular disenchantment with officials, and the corresponding abuse directed at them, derives from ignorance of the rulebook. Partly caused by the use of misleading terminology.

I`ve even heard commentators say there was "a little knock-on" when the tackled player is pulled up for inadvertently kicking the ball forward at the PTB. How in heaven`s name can you knock the ball on with your foot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lowdesert said:

The PTB and the new strip rules are already looking like Touch & RU.  The apathy regarding the former is so ingrained now.

Hilarious isn`t it, we`re over here unilaterally changing rules to compete with our greatest competitor afl, and your over there unilaterally ignoring them in order to compete with your greatest competitor, the union.

Seriously though, the NRL have been up front about it, they have made it very clear we are in a competition for eyeballs with our opponent and that the fans want more non-stop action, short of making the games longer the best way was to cram more in.

I find it very hard to believe that the neglect of the PTB is just that though, i.e. neglect, given that union is probably your most immediate competitor, soccer being on another level altogether, I do wonder whether those in the inner sanctum at the RFL see the best immediate way forward for League is being a kind of rugby union but with a 10 metre rule. And lets face it, the 10 metre rule, apart from 6-tackle sets, is the big difference between the codes. Union when it is at best, the ball comes out of the ruck pretty fast, the problem is though it always hit that brickwall 0-metre defensive line. Maybe the RFL have decided well we can get the ball out of the ruck quicker by ignoring PTB protocols, and we still have the advantage of our 10-metre rule and therefore have the best of both worlds.

As I said I find this hard to believe this is purely neglect, It really wouldn`t be that hard to fix, there must be another motive.

 Edit: If you look at Pedant`s post 19 hours ago on the RFL PTB video it actually shows that they obviously consider not using the foot as perfectly acceptable. So for some reason or other this is coming down from on high.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

Hilarious isn`t it, we`re over here unilaterally changing rules to compete with our greatest competitor afl, and your over there unilaterally ignoring them in order to compete with your greatest competitor, the union.

Seriously though, the NRL have been up front about it, they have made it very clear we are in a competition for eyeballs with our opponent and that the fans want more non-stop action, short of making the games longer the best way was to cram more in.

I find it very hard to believe that the neglect of the PTB is just that though, i.e. neglect, given that union is probably your most immediate competitor, soccer being on another level altogether, I do wonder whether those in the inner sanctum at the RFL see the best immediate way forward for League is being a kind of rugby union but with a 10 metre rule. And lets face it, the 10 metre rule, apart from 6-tackle sets, is the big difference between the codes. Union when it is at best, the ball comes out of the ruck pretty fast, the problem is though it always hit that brickwall 0-metre defensive line. Maybe the RFL have decided well we can get the ball out of the ruck quicker by ignoring PTB protocols, and we still have the advantage of our 10-metre rule and therefore have the best of both worlds.

As I said I find this hard to believe this is purely neglect, It really wouldn`t be that hard to fix, there must be another motive.

 Edit: If you look at Pedant`s post 19 hours ago on the RFL PTB video it actually shows that they obviously consider not using the foot as perfectly acceptable. So for some reason or other this is coming down from on high.

 

 

I’ve seen it mate.  Seem to think comments were made on here at the time.  

For me, we can make the game too fast and the PTB is part of the games heritage.  Some don’t think this is an issue but I do.

The new strip rules here are still confusing to players.  You can see it.  They have gone from one extreme (occasionally allowing the ball to be stripped by letting it go in a standing gang tackle in the hope of a penalty) to having it stripped by a well coordinated ‘gang’.  What must amateur coaches think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

For me, we can make the game too fast and the PTB is part of the games heritage.  Some don’t think this is an issue but I do.

100% agree.

The game doesn't have to be frantic to be enjoyable.  If anything the ruck today is too fast; I would prefer if the game slowed down a little and players were forced to be a little more inventive with the ball rather than winning a quick ruck to gain an advantage. 

This doesn't mean the players are slowing down.  There is a difference between the athleticism of the players and speed they demonstrate and the speed of the flow of the game... the people managing the game cannot seem to see this distinction though.

"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

4 hours ago, Dunbar said:

It is only the same thing because we have made it the same thing though.

This is also my best guess (along with increased media scrutiny) as to why Aussie officials have changed their idea of what constitutes a knock-on over the past 20 years. They`ve extended the rulebook`s post-completion requirement to retain control into all areas away from the ruck, and in the tackle. And used "knock-on" as an all-purpose term to describe any loss of control before or after the tackle is complete.

Some of the "lost into an opponent" knock-on calls, when you look at them on a replay, there is no clear separation between hand and ball. The only evidence is a hint of one of Phil Gould`s "little bobbles".

The only area where they`ve retained a rational application over loss of control is in the grounding for a try. When the bunker are checking the put-down frame by frame, they have to see clear separation between hand and ball to rule it out.

BTW, in relation to the "grubber" thread, another reason I don`t like short-range grubbers is because they`ve become ever harder for defenders to combat without the ref or touch judge calling a knock-on. Only if the defender performs an army roll and squeaky-clean pick-up is he safe. Just diving on the ball can prompt a knock-on call. And the result is a repeat set for a team whose player has done nothing more elaborate than let the ball drop on his foot and nudge it forward a few metres.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Saint 1 said:

"Knock on" and "lost ball" mean the same thing to most people. This is a non-issue. 

But it is a massive issue because if their are two instances where League can get really boring is where we have repetitive one-out play and the other continual handling errors and the game being pulled up. With the former, hopefully teams that are coached to be more adventurous will be more successful (certainly seems to be the case in the NRL this year), whereas with the second , there will always be dropped ball, but if refs go looking for them we have a problem.

Of course another unfortunate nexus here is that, clamping down unnecessarily on the second will lead to less of the former.

4 hours ago, Dunbar said:

It is only the same thing because we have made it the same thing though.

This is one area that I 100% in agreement with Unapologetic Pedant on, referees will blow the whistle pretty much every time a ball carrier loses the ball... either to penalise the defenders for a steal or the ball carrier for 'loose carry'.  But if the ball has gone backwards it should be play on as a no knock on has occurred.

There is no such thing as a 'loose carry' in the laws - it is either a knock on or it is play on.

After the tackle is complete and before the execution of a play the ball then a lost ball is a relevant call.

Agree with everything you and the Pedant say here, it really is common sense, and the game is better for having the ball hit the deck sometimes anyway and not just because of continuity but because unpredictable things happen when the ball goes to ground.

A couple of weekends ago there were 4 or 5 Captains Challenges against knock-on calls made in the first 2 or 3 games of the round, all were successful, I just hope that the CC rule is not going to embolden refs to be even more pedantic in this area of the game. Having said that despite a couple of glaring omissions there has seemed to be a little more latitude towards balls hitting the deck lately, a couple of times I have even heard the commentators surprised that the game wasn`t pulled up, which is probably an indication of how ingrained it had become. I`m optimistic though because there does seem to be a bit of a change in attitude though.

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.