Super League: what have you done to our game?

[unapologetic pedant]

20 hours ago, Cerulean said:

It seems to me a shame to highlight time and space earned by pushing, pulling, twisting, holding, and manoeuvering in a tackle, when it can also be earned by evasion, footwork, accurate and incisive passing, clever kicking, efficient tackling, and many other attributes which RL has the potential to display.

 

On 26/08/2021 at 09:12, Cerulean said:

If the referee were to call “held” when the ball carrier’s forward progress comes to a halt (this may still be in the laws), and then strictly enforce no movement forward by the ball carrier and no continuation of the tackle by the defenders it would reduce wrestling and reduce the need for strength and power players.

Have a look at two of the tries from today`s Raiders/Roosters game which illustrated how "the wrestle" can backfire when countered by skilful ball play.

For the first Raiders try CNK was held up and driven back by two Roosters defenders who made no attempt to put him to ground. His response was to pop a very late offload, and Elliot Whitehead scored. Later on, Adam Keighran`s long-range hat-trick try began with another late offload after Raiders defenders chose to "wrestle" and delay rather than quickly complete the tackle.

In these cases would you prefer the ref to call held "when the ball-carrier`s progress comes to a halt", in favour of a quicker PTB, thereby preventing the decisive offload?

Both of these tries, particularly the second, also included plenty of "evasion, footwork, accurate and incisive passing". It isn`t either or.

[The Rocket]

On 01/09/2021 at 01:38, Cerulean said:

This is correct, and easily seen: but often denied.

25/30 years ago, generally the aim of the tackler was to put the man on the ground as quickly and efficiently as possible. The evolution to vertical tackling and wrestling is to delay the end of the tackle: doing so brings lage advantages to the defenders, and begins an arms race of searching for an advantage, with the ball carrier also involved, looking for opportunities to dominate the wrestle, or gain a penalty.

This is a thrilling and enthalling aspect for many fans: a frustration for other, perhaps older, fans. Unintentionally, I can see the beginning of the end for upright tackling, as the worry of brain damage caused by high velocity impact and severe deceleration of the head becomes more evident.

Quite incredible really how quickly once the six-again rule made the stalling and the untangling and the turtling and the turning around a no-go, three players above the waist with one around the ball and lift and drive either towards your own try-line or into touch if you are within ten metres of the sideline, has now become the modus-operandi of slowing the ruck.

Very cleverly the coaches have recognised that the tackle with the delaying tactics on the ground is easily interpreted by the referee as complete yet if you keep the player off the ground and moving, preferably backwards, it is play on.

Personally I see little merit in any of it, arguments that it is up to the ball-carrier to position themselves better so that they can off-load I find a little naive, especially when the first thing that one tackler does is grab the ball carrying arm.

And as usual I`ve noticed even the poorer teams are now beginning to imitate it.

I think it was you who suggested that perhaps the tackle should be called held once forward progress has been stopped and I tend to agree. The only thing that complicates that solution for me is the situation where we used to see, mostly only in big games, those driving defensive sets where a team attempts to pin the other team inside its` ten. Would a `held` call at the end of forward progress mean the end of those type sets. Not ideal if a team is desperately trying to pin a team or even force a team back into its` in-goal to regain possession at the culmination of a big match.

The solution I`m not sure, but I for one find this `lift and drag back` very tiresome.

 

 

[Kayakman]

I agree with you Rocket,,,,well said...the good hits and tackles are still there but not enough of the medium hitting././.alot more clutch and grab than before.

[soulboy]

Perhaps those pair of charlatans Maurice Lindsay and Chris Caisley would like to give an interview on the current state of Rugby League ?

The same pair who constantly talked down the Challenge Cup and International RL.

A pair of ‘ two bit frauds’ that should taken to task.

[unapologetic pedant]

1 hour ago, The Rocket said:

Very cleverly the coaches have recognised that the tackle with the delaying tactics on the ground is easily interpreted by the referee as complete yet if you keep the player off the ground and moving, preferably backwards, it is play on.

You`ll find that when a ball-carrier is held above ground after making a half-break or going well beyond the gain-line, the ref will call held much earlier, once he decides there is no chance of an offload.

The tackles that are allowed to continue, to the detriment of the ball-carrier, are the result of dull unambitious carries.

It`s vital that refs read the tackle to distinguish good play from poor play. If they instantly call held when forward momentum appears to stop, there will be no distinction between good and poor, easy metres can be gained with impunity, there`s little chance of an offload, and no incentive to use the ball. The game then degenerates into non-stop basic carries, complete your sets, get to your kick, etc.

2 hours ago, The Rocket said:

Personally I see little merit in any of it, arguments that it is up to the ball-carrier to position themselves better so that they can off-load I find a little naive, especially when the first thing that one tackler does is grab the ball carrying arm.

Sometimes a ball-carrier gets an offload away. Other times defenders prevent an offload.

Sometimes a ball-carrier wins the contact. Other times defenders win the contact.

Some players are good. Other players are not so good.

Some teams are good. Other teams are not so good.

[JohnM]

1 hour ago, soulboy said:

Perhaps those pair of charlatans Maurice Lindsay and Chris Caisley would like to give an interview on the current state of Rugby League ?

The same pair who constantly talked down the Challenge Cup and International RL.

A pair of ‘ two bit frauds’ that should taken to task.

Language, Timothy!

[fighting irish]

2 hours ago, The Rocket said:

Quite incredible really how quickly once the six-again rule made the stalling and the untangling and the turtling and the turning around a no-go, three players above the waist with one around the ball and lift and drive either towards your own try-line or into touch if you are within ten metres of the sideline, has now become the modus-operandi of slowing the ruck.

Very cleverly the coaches have recognised that the tackle with the delaying tactics on the ground is easily interpreted by the referee as complete yet if you keep the player off the ground and moving, preferably backwards, it is play on.

Personally I see little merit in any of it, arguments that it is up to the ball-carrier to position themselves better so that they can off-load I find a little naive, especially when the first thing that one tackler does is grab the ball carrying arm.

And as usual I`ve noticed even the poorer teams are now beginning to imitate it.

I think it was you who suggested that perhaps the tackle should be called held once forward progress has been stopped and I tend to agree. The only thing that complicates that solution for me is the situation where we used to see, mostly only in big games, those driving defensive sets where a team attempts to pin the other team inside its` ten. Would a `held` call at the end of forward progress mean the end of those type sets. Not ideal if a team is desperately trying to pin a team or even force a team back into its` in-goal to regain possession at the culmination of a big match.

The solution I`m not sure, but I for one find this `lift and drag back` very tiresome.

 

 

I agree with everything you say here Rocket, the lift and drag back is a poor feature of our game.

It's reminiscent of a RaRa maul and I find that a retrograde step for our game.

If the ref, doesn't call held when forward progress is halted then the lift and drag tactic is made more attractive to the defending team, so encourages it. 

The problem is compounded then, when one or more players from the team in possession, get involved to try and prevent the ball carrier being carried over the touch or try line because it's even more RaRa.

For me, if we allow the lift and drag tactics, then as soon as another attacking player joins the wrestle, then the ref should call held immediately, rather than allow the shambolic RaRa-esque rolling maul to continue.

A quick ''held'' call, forcing a fast release of the tackled player and a quick play the ball, would, in my opinion, improve the spectacle considerably.

[soulboy]

2 hours ago, JohnM said:

Language, Timothy!

I apologise for that John .

[unapologetic pedant]

3 hours ago, fighting irish said:

It's reminiscent of a RaRa maul and I find that a retrograde step for our game.

However much we dislike the look of a defensive tactic, it`s a mistake to judge it in isolation. What happens post-contact is determined by the quality of pre-contact play. 

Perhaps because of your location you`re more allergic to anything that smacks of Rugger than I am.

3 hours ago, fighting irish said:

For me, if we allow the lift and drag tactics, then as soon as another attacking player joins the wrestle, then the ref should call held immediately, rather than allow the shambolic RaRa-esque rolling maul to continue.

This is from the RFL rulebook under "Moving tackled player". -

"Where opponents do not make a tackle effective in the quickest possible manner but attempt to push, pull or carry the player in possession, it is permissible for colleagues of the tackled player to lend their weight in order to avoid losing ground. Immediately this happens the referee should call Held".

I suspect a lot of players and coaches don`t know this.

3 hours ago, fighting irish said:

A quick ''held'' call, forcing a fast release of the tackled player and a quick play the ball, would, in my opinion, improve the spectacle considerably.

In an earlier post I mentioned two tries from the Raiders/Roosters game. Check them out. Neither would have happened had there been a quick "held" call. The second was a long-range spectacular, begun with a late offload.

[fighting irish]

1 hour ago, unapologetic pedant said:

In an earlier post I mentioned two tries from the Raiders/Roosters game. Check them out. Neither would have happened had there been a quick "held" call. The second was a long-range spectacular, begun with a late offload.

I understand the argument for allowing time for the ball carrier to offload, but once another member of the team in possession joins the ''maul'' I think the ref should call held. It's probably true as you suggest, that many players and coaches don't know this, but the referees should. 

I confess, I am allergic to all things RaRa.

It's a malady which comes about (in all those prone to it) as a result of even momentary exposure.

[The Rocket]

6 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Sometimes a ball-carrier gets an offload away. Other times defenders prevent an offload.

Sometimes a ball-carrier wins the contact. Other times defenders win the contact.

I think this is where your argument falls apart, it isn`t sometimes, it`s rarely. Set after set of watching the Panthers and Storm holding players up and dragging them backwards is not offset by a very rare off-load. One or two off-loads per half does not compensate for the interminable tactic of preventing players finding the ground and short of diving at the tacklers feet all the body positioning in the world will not prevent two or three 105kg blokes from holding you up off the ground until the third joins in and starts the backward shove. Tackle after tackle after tackle. Very boring.

[unapologetic pedant]

11 hours ago, The Rocket said:

I think this is where your argument falls apart, it isn`t sometimes, it`s rarely. Set after set of watching the Panthers and Storm holding players up and dragging them backwards is not offset by a very rare off-load. One or two off-loads per half does not compensate for the interminable tactic of preventing players finding the ground and short of diving at the tacklers feet all the body positioning in the world will not prevent two or three 105kg blokes from holding you up off the ground until the third joins in and starts the backward shove. Tackle after tackle after tackle. Very boring.

Are you any less bored by a set consisting of 5 dummy-half runs, 5 quick calls of Held, and 5 quick PTBs?

[unapologetic pedant]

12 hours ago, Saint 1 said:

Referees do know this. All professional (and any half-decent amateur) coaches know this. I would be gobsmacked if any professional players didn't know this. 

Apart from the NRL, I follow more amateur and junior RL than pro. Players frequently watch on helplessly as their ball-carrying teammate is driven backwards or over the touchline. Could just be poor reaction times, but it`s more likely they haven`t read or been taught the relevant part of the rulebook.

In general, on the evidence of interviews and retired-player punditry, I would not be "gobsmacked" if a majority of our pro players and coaches are not fully conversant with the rules of the game. Case in point - the difference between a penalty try and an 8-point try is often a mystery to many of them.

[The Rocket]

2 hours ago, Saint 1 said:

if three 105kg blokes all get simultaneous dominant contact on you and you can't get to ground, then you have done something wrong as an attacker.

Are you serious ? Three huge blokes with muscles on their muscles and both their arms free shouldn`t be able to hold one bloke up if he positions himself correctly. Sometimes I think we can get a little carried away with this body positioning stuff, it`s just about brute strength.

There`s no point using elite players like Cam Murray to back arguments up either, it`s like saying why can`t every half have a kicking game like Ivan Cleary or do what Brian To`o does on the wing for the Panthers. Murray is elite, what he does probably can`t be coached for your average first grade player which is probably 90% of players, who just take a pass and charge it up.

 

[redjonn]

2 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Are you any less bored by a set consisting of 5 dummy-half runs, 5 quick calls of Held, and 5 quick PTBs?

a fair point if that was the case but one would hope that after the 2nd dummy half run the defensive line is broken and with retreating defenders so that the attacking team can then exploit with some attacking plays... I did say hopefully but it probably still finish with a high kick to the corner, that is the safe or cautious or risk free option because you either get a try or end set in the corner,

[unapologetic pedant]

1 hour ago, The Rocket said:

Are you serious ? Three huge blokes with muscles on their muscles and both their arms free shouldn`t be able to hold one bloke up if he positions himself correctly. Sometimes I think we can get a little carried away with this body positioning stuff, it`s just about brute strength.

Compare the number of offloads executed in opposition territory with those in a team`s own half.

All the inherent factors (rules, body positioning, etc) are the same anywhere on the field. So why are there so many more offloads in good field position?

The same question applies to the distinction between earlier or later in the tackle count.

The difference is in intent. The intent of the ball-carrier to look for an offload, and the intent of his team to run a play that facilitates an offload.

When a team play hot potato on last tackle, amazing how it suddenly becomes a lot more difficult for defenders to wrap the ball up.

[unapologetic pedant]

16 hours ago, fighting irish said:

I understand the argument for allowing time for the ball carrier to offload, but once another member of the team in possession joins the ''maul'' I think the ref should call held. It's probably true as you suggest, that many players and coaches don't know this, but the referees should. 

A further point on how this touches on the divergence of League from Union.

Generally when a Union forward takes the ball in, he is expecting to be joined by teammates in a ruck or maul. These are their means of drawing defenders in. The ball-carrier isn`t thinking of passing.

A League forward is on his own. Having drawn defenders in, he ought to be looking to pass out of the tackle. This is one reason, probably the most significant, why we traditionally produced mobile skilful forwards rather than lumbering lumps who might pass the ball twice in their whole career.

If RL refs make no attempt to differentiate tackles and just allow a uniform brief moment for the ball-carrier to think about passing, I reckon it would all but erase offloading from the game. And a typical set will start to resemble 5 RU pick-and-goes, only with a bit of a run-up before each.

[The Rocket]

1 hour ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Compare the number of offloads executed in opposition territory with those in a team`s own half.

All the inherent factors (rules, body positioning, etc) are the same anywhere on the field. So why are there so many more offloads in good field position?

The same question applies to the distinction between earlier or later in the tackle count.

The difference is in intent. The intent of the ball-carrier to look for an offload, and the intent of his team to run a play that facilitates an offload.

When a team play hot potato on last tackle, amazing how it suddenly becomes a lot more difficult for defenders to wrap the ball up.

I think there has been a shifting of the goalposts here.

I`m not interested in intent or non-intent to pass, I`m interested in the situation where teams have no intention on getting the tackled player to the ground, be it either where he is tackled or perhaps certainly roughly in the vicinity of the tackle, but rather deliberately holding him up off the ground and carrying him several metres backwards or over the sideline, that isn`t a tackle. And to expect some player who is being bun-rushed in a tangle of arms and legs to make an off-load to counter that isn`t realistic.

A tackle was meant to stop a player in his tracks, a great tackle perhaps force him to fall backwards, not to be lifted and carried/dragged several metres backwards. That`s not Rugby League that must be some other game.

For the great defensive teams in the past, like Ricky`s Roosters in the early 2000`s, line speed and/or gang-tackling was enough, if the Panthers want to gain an advantage with their defence let them do that and then we can get on with watching people play Rugby League how it was meant to be.

 

 

 

 

[unapologetic pedant]

48 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

A tackle was meant to stop a player in his tracks, a great tackle perhaps force him to fall backwards, not to be lifted and carried/dragged several metres backwards. That`s not Rugby League that must be some other game.

I suspect there is less of a difference between your view and mine than you think.

I quoted, and support, the RFL guidelines about lending weight. If it helps clarify, here is another clause from the same section of the RFL rulebook, which I also think should be judiciously applied -

"A player is tackled - (Upright) when he is held by one or more opposing players in such a manner that he can make no further progress and cannot part with the ball".

I am just a bit wary of refs becoming trigger-happy with Held calls if they either have an inordinately purist idea of what constitutes a "proper" tackle, or think the game is better when played at breakneck speed.

I`ve seen too many occasions where the ball-carrier pops a good offload, the recipient is off running into space, excitement lifts, and then falls flat when we realise the ref had already called Held, and everyone has to come back to the mark for a routine PTB. - Dreadful.

When the above happens, it deters ball-carriers from even thinking of passing out of the tackle. - Again, dreadful for the game.

[unapologetic pedant]

54 minutes ago, Saint 1 said:

I disagree with this. There's more ball-movement and energy around the ball in better field position. Defence is rationally more spread out as a result and therefore can't commit as many men to the tackle - they're also more likely to lose the ruck due to the aforementioned factors, which has a snowball effect. 

What`s the difference between your "ball-movement and energy around the ball" and my "intent"?

Teams can choose to use "ball-movement and energy around the ball" in most parts of the field if they have the intent. The successful teams are sufficiently confident to play more in their own half, albeit mostly later in the tackle count.

Defence isn`t always more spread out against a team in good field position. Goal-line defence especially. Depends on the attacking threat.

I watch a lot of women`s RL. A superior team will often deploy a very narrow defence deep in their own half. Essentially they`re challenging the opposition to try and go round them, and trusting that their passing game won`t be strong enough. 

[Cerulean]

21 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Are you any less bored by a set consisting of 5 dummy-half runs, 5 quick calls of Held, and 5 quick PTBs?

It isn’t a universal perception, but there’s a general unease that the game is losing out in the battle for the attention and interest of sports enthusiasts, and in the search for a decent share  of leisure spending. There’s enormous structure debate about correcting this by adjusting which teams should play the game, which teams should be predominately visible in the game, and how the top division and its season should be constructed.

My opening post was to suggest that the attractiveness of the game on the field is at least as important as the structure. Is the game being seen as too brutal, too dangerous, lacking in visual impact, insufficiently accessible, too difficult to play, too homogeneous? Is it putting off existing fans in significant numbers, putting off potential new enthusiasts, possible new teams and areas?

The issues are the same as the structure debates: if it’s fine, leave it as it is, if there are problems, examine possible fixes.

And there’s some impressive depth of thought and analysis which has been displayed on the  forum. I just hope that whoever eventually takes charge of the sport puts in the same amount of determined consideration.

[Cerulean]

Any re-interpretation of the rules will have a cascade of consequences, difficult to fully predict, and there will always be attempts to gain advantage at whatever the cost to the spectacle. A mechanism to react to how the coaches react would be essential. And personally, I’d be happy to see new initiatives trialled in the lower divisions, which is where I watch most of my rugby.

[Padge]

On the subject of pushing a tackled player back or into touch, easily stopped. Re-instate the lending weight law which immediately ends the tackle.  

[DC77]

17 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

I suspect there is less of a difference between your view and mine than you think.

I quoted, and support, the RFL guidelines about lending weight. If it helps clarify, here is another clause from the same section of the RFL rulebook, which I also think should be judiciously applied -

"A player is tackled - (Upright) when he is held by one or more opposing players in such a manner that he can make no further progress and cannot part with the ball".

I am just a bit wary of refs becoming trigger-happy with Held calls if they either have an inordinately purist idea of what constitutes a "proper" tackle, or think the game is better when played at breakneck speed.

I`ve seen too many occasions where the ball-carrier pops a good offload, the recipient is off running into space, excitement lifts, and then falls flat when we realise the ref had already called Held, and everyone has to come back to the mark for a routine PTB. - Dreadful.

When the above happens, it deters ball-carriers from even thinking of passing out of the tackle. - Again, dreadful for the game.

A player held and prevented from making the next play quickly is dreadful for the game, so the ref must surely err on the side of making a quicker Held call. 

A big galoot lying on top of (or holding) another player is frustrating to watch. You can almost hear the frustration of the player too..“Get of me, get off me”. That frustration trumps any loss of a quick pass out of a tackle.

The PTB tackle is always going to be contentious in RL, because the instinct of the player not in possession is to stop the opponent from progressing play (hence holding to them for dear life). The RL tackle rule prevents the player from contesting possession (unique for RL in all of sport?) which is unnatural as any player “wants the ball”. They can see the ball, but can’t touch it, so they have to adopt a very unnatural, disciplined approach of just tackling the player and letting him get up, which he often struggles with as he holds on longer.

When a ball goes out of play in football, and it’s near the opposition bench (rolls next to manager or players), they are often reluctant to give the ball quickly to the player to make a quick throw in as they would be aiding the attack. Well this only happens maybe once in an entire game (usually not at all). But in RL, this happens at every tackle. It’s a constant battle to stop the opposition from progressing quickly, which often results in spoiling tactics. 

Really the ref cannot win, as if he shouts held quickly he’s aiding a quicker tackle, but preventing a quick off load. It’s an impossible situation due to a rule that invokes an unnatural player response.

[unapologetic pedant]

17 hours ago, Saint 1 said:

Honestly, I took your 'intent' as 'intent to offload once into the tackle', whereas I see it more in terms of the pre-contact factors which create opportunity to offload. It's also a matter of energy conservation - even if extremely confident, you're still gonna have a reasonable amount of carries without much support or ball movement.

A problem across the RL world is that we don`t have comprehensive standard terminology. So at times, participants in debates can`t be sure if they are referring to the same thing.

In lieu of any better word I could think of, I used "intent" to mean when a team intends to score rather than merely gain territory. Obviously it can be both simultaneously, but broadly there is a tangible distinction and, unless the memory is playing tricks, it`s sharper than when I started following RL.

It`s encapsulated in the phrase "you don`t have to try and score on every set", trotted out by pundits to rebuke what they see as undue risk-taking.

If there are more plays and sets today whose sole purpose is to gain metres, the 10m offside line is a contributing factor. Greater media pressure on coaches and players is another, certainly in the NRL. But you`ve identified probably the most influential - "energy conservation".

There are many more occasions in modern RL where enervated retreating players don`t want their ball-carriers attempting offloads or any width put in the plays. They just want settlers, whilst they re-organize their shape and get some air back in the lungs.