Anyone missing scrums?

[unapologetic pedant]

On 09/07/2021 at 18:32, moorside roughyed said:

True. If I did that when I was playing my coach would rollock me. Big time. 

If now a player in the UK were penalised for using a rollball, his coach would cite occasions when opposition players were not penalised for something similar. i.e. they would take no responsibility for their own player`s illegality or incompetence.

If all the coaches, either publicly or privately, do the same, it pressures a weak and incompetent administration into succumbing. This is partly how the PTB rot has set in.

[unapologetic pedant]

12 hours ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

Keep the play the ball restart when the ball goes out of play into touch. 

Why?

[Rupert Prince]

22 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

If now a player in the UK were penalised for using a rollball, his coach would cite occasions when opposition players were not penalised for something similar. i.e. they would take no responsibility for their own player`s illegality or incompetence.

If all the coaches, either publicly or privately, do the same, it pressures a weak and incompetent administration into succumbing. This is partly how the PTB rot has set in.

At one time the defender could strike at the ball at the PLB.  Once that was changed, stopped, sanitised supposedly, at the PLB, then to me the agonising idea that the foot must touch, play the ball, is absurd.

The RU have sanitised their ruck, simplified it and allowed the ball to come back (by the hand), so much so that their game encourages running the ball far more.   We however have created a mass of confusion over playing the ball and things like stealing it, or not (such as it's impossible to accurately decipher what was going on). 

The games rulers make a maze (of byzantine proportions) of their rules... 

If rules like allow the sinbinning we just had in the Leeds Cats game on Friday then the game will end up as flag rugby.  In many ways the rule makers are determined to destroy the game.

[unapologetic pedant]

4 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

At one time the defender could strike at the ball at the PLB.  Once that was changed, stopped, sanitised supposedly, at the PLB, then to me the agonising idea that the foot must touch, play the ball, is absurd.

I disagree. Playing the ball with the foot establishes more clearly where the mark is, when the defenders can move, and gives a better structure to the ruck.

You can see all this in sharp relief when the mark is close to the opposition goal-line. If the tackled player from a metre out just rolls or chucks the ball between their legs, the result is a chaotic mess.

Your point about the marker striking for the ball does highlight a conceptual flaw in the new rules. The PTB was devised as an integral part of the tackle and ruck. The ball is played back after a tackle is complete. In the case of a handover after the ball has crossed the touchline, where there has been no tackle, the PTB makes no technical sense.

It`s the same when defences put no markers in at a sixth-tackle handover or on the 10m line after the ball-carrier has been held up in-goal. To play the ball backwards when there is no defender in front of the mark is ridiculous. In the past, this is why the tackled player could play the ball forward if there was no marker.

[BrisbaneRhino]

Some of these issues are peculiar to SL.  There hasn't been mass confusion regarding stripping in the NRL, and PTBs are reasonably clean.  Not sure why either has become an issue in SL.  Its not the rules, its clearly down to the way they are implemented.

[Rupert Prince]

9 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

I disagree. Playing the ball with the foot establishes more clearly where the mark is, when the defenders can move, and gives a better structure to the ruck.

You can see all this in sharp relief when the mark is close to the opposition goal-line. If the tackled player from a metre out just rolls or chucks the ball between their legs, the result is a chaotic mess.

Your point about the marker striking for the ball does highlight a conceptual flaw in the new rules. The PTB was devised as an integral part of the tackle and ruck. The ball is played back after a tackle is complete. In the case of a handover after the ball has crossed the touchline, where there has been no tackle, the PTB makes no technical sense.

It`s the same when defences put no markers in at a sixth-tackle handover or on the 10m line after the ball-carrier has been held up in-goal. To play the ball backwards when there is no defender in front of the mark is ridiculous. In the past, this is why the tackled player could play the ball forward if there was no marker.

The final point in para 3 is true.  It should be (actually,  is it?) a tap?  It used to be a scrum didn't  it?  But I'm old and vague these days.

[Marauder]

19 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

 

I`ve mentioned the RFL`s video posted on their YouTube channel regarding this year`s rule changes several times on several threads.

On the change from penalty to handover for an incorrect PTB, Liam Moore explains that the tackled player is only required to have "Balance and Control". There is no mention of any need to even attempt to play the ball with the foot.

The refs are not letting them "get away with it". They are merely applying the current rule as instructed. 

The RFL just can`t summon the honesty to explicitly say what the rule now is, and amend their rulebook accordingly. And they are not held to account for the disjunction between de jure and de facto because on technical matters the RL media are every bit as feckless as they are.

Guidelines are the vehicle to bend the rules, the rules state you play the ball with the foot.

[dkw]

24 minutes ago, Marauder said:

Guidelines are the vehicle to bend the rules, the rules state you play the ball with the foot.

Don't the rules just say something like "make an attempt to play the ball with your foot" or something similar? 

[unapologetic pedant]

2 hours ago, dkw said:

Don't the rules just say something like "make an attempt to play the ball with your foot" or something similar? 

The most recently published RFL guidelines from early 2020 are that the tackled player must "maintain balance and control, and make a genuine attempt to make contact on the ball with the foot".

Only if people are away with the fairies (BBC commentators for instance) are they unable to see that the second requirement has been abandoned in practice. But the RFL have made no further statement on the matter.

2 hours ago, Marauder said:

Guidelines are the vehicle to bend the rules, the rules state you play the ball with the foot.

This is true, but to accommodate inevitable doubt, many rules in sport and other areas of life are better applied with discretion rather than rigidly. Officials need to know where to give the benefit of the doubt.

If we look at the way Aussie officials apply the knock-on rule when the ball goes to ground, we can see how things can go wrong. They currently call a knock-on if they can`t be certain the ball was lost backwards. Any doubt, and they call it forward. This means players can drop the ball a metre backwards and still be called for a knock-on.

Imagine if the same distorted logic were applied to the PTB, where if the ref had any doubt whether the foot had made contact with the ball, he would call it as incorrect. The ref is often unsighted, there would be dozens of bad calls in a game.

This is why the "genuine attempt" criterion was introduced. If the ref thinks a player didn`t make contact with the foot, but made a genuine attempt to, he has licence to let it go. If the same happens at the next ruck, or the same player repeats the failure later, the ref will smell a rat and penalise.

These guidelines work perfectly well in every RL nation bar the UK. Only here have they led to the acceptance of the rollball as standard.

[unapologetic pedant]

16 hours ago, BrisbaneRhino said:

Some of these issues are peculiar to SL.  There hasn't been mass confusion regarding stripping in the NRL, and PTBs are reasonably clean.  Not sure why either has become an issue in SL.  

Hopeless incompetent administration. Hopeless incompetent media.

[Bearman]

30 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Hopeless incompetent administration. Hopeless incompetent media.

The fans are no better

[unapologetic pedant]

15 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

The final point in para 3 is true.  It should be (actually,  is it?) a tap?  It used to be a scrum didn't  it?  

In the UK, with no scrums at all, it`s currently academic.

The NRL have replaced a scrum with a handover. In my view, this is the worst, most pointless rule change since the RFL`s "Free Play" nonsense.

There`s a tap after the ball crosses the touchline if it`s a 40/20, 20/40. I`ve never liked this. A scrum in good field position is a better reward for a good kick than a tap restart.

15 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

But I'm old and vague these days.

The RFL must think we all are.

[Marauder]

16 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

The most recently published RFL guidelines from early 2020 are that the tackled player must "maintain balance and control, and make a genuine attempt to make contact on the ball with the foot".

Only if people are away with the fairies (BBC commentators for instance) are they unable to see that the second requirement has been abandoned in practice. But the RFL have made no further statement on the matter.

This is true, but to accommodate inevitable doubt, many rules in sport and other areas of life are better applied with discretion rather than rigidly. Officials need to know where to give the benefit of the doubt.

If we look at the way Aussie officials apply the knock-on rule when the ball goes to ground, we can see how things can go wrong. They currently call a knock-on if they can`t be certain the ball was lost backwards. Any doubt, and they call it forward. This means players can drop the ball a metre backwards and still be called for a knock-on.

Imagine if the same distorted logic were applied to the PTB, where if the ref had any doubt whether the foot had made contact with the ball, he would call it as incorrect. The ref is often unsighted, there would be dozens of bad calls in a game.

This is why the "genuine attempt" criterion was introduced. If the ref thinks a player didn`t make contact with the foot, but made a genuine attempt to, he has licence to let it go. If the same happens at the next ruck, or the same player repeats the failure later, the ref will smell a rat and penalise.

These guidelines work perfectly well in every RL nation bar the UK. Only here have they led to the acceptance of the rollball as standard.

Give over the standards are set by the referees controller and often fluctuate depending on what is or what isn't fashionable at the time, it wasn't to long ago the way the play the ball was executed in each hemisphere was the reverse of what it is today.

 also if a referee is unsighted at the play the ball, it boils down to them getting themselves in a poor position as for calling a knock on at every dropped ball; forward or backwards, that again is also a decision by the controllers using the wisdom that percentage wise getting the decision correct  by calling a knock on will out weigh getting it wrong, players now in the main accept this.

[Marauder]

19 hours ago, dkw said:

Don't the rules just say something like "make an attempt to play the ball with your foot" or something similar? 

No the law has stopped the same, the powers that be have produced a guideline on how it's going to be policed, which is basically an attempt to play the ball with the foot, I suppose it was done to speed the game up for the camera's and not in the interest of the game.

[dkw]

Still not missing scrums.

[Man of Kent]

Seems a bit daft that the lockdowned Aussies have them but we still don’t. Are they ever coming back?

[Chronicler of Chiswick]

Hopefully not.

[dkw]

On 12/07/2021 at 12:45, dkw said:

Still not missing scrums.

[Just Browny]

Not missing scrums but would have the play the ball where the scrum would have been, not in the middle of the pitch like a half-time kids game.

[M j M]

Yes, we need to get them back. One part of the problem with the 2020/2021 game is its relentless lack of variety. The scrum was something which both slowed things down and changed things around a bit. There's no reason at all not to bring it back.

[Damien]

Just now, M j M said:

Yes, we need to get them back. One part of the problem with the 2020/2021 game is its relentless lack of variety. The scrum was something which both slowed things down and changed things around a bit. There's no reason at all not to bring it back.

Indeed. No scrums and 6 again just seems to remove all variety. Faster does not always equate to better.

[Dunbar]

6 minutes ago, M j M said:

Yes, we need to get them back. One part of the problem with the 2020/2021 game is its relentless lack of variety. The scrum was something which both slowed things down and changed things around a bit. There's no reason at all not to bring it back.

 

5 minutes ago, Damien said:

Indeed. No scrums and 6 again just seems to remove all variety. Faster does not always equate to better.

I agree with this perspective.  The game in 2021 is just too repetitive.

I think it was Unapologetic Pedant who pointed out that a set of 6 starting with a scrum had a different dynamic and one that can be used for advantage by an attacking team. And what do we do? Replace it with a slow play the ball restart with the defence fully set.

Even though I personally like the six again law I would even be tempted to scrap that and introduce more penalties for field position etc... the game craves variety for me.

[sentoffagain2]

  Rugby League with no scrums is like Christmas without Santa.

[David Shepherd]

Not missing scrums at all, but I don't like the way the restart is done. Should be a tap on where the infringement happened. Not picking where to have it (it's always bang in the middle of the pitch).

[Fevrover]

Scrums are a waste of time if they aren't used correctly,,what's point if the team with the put In just feeds his own team ,pointless!