Penrith V Melbourne V Super League

[my missus]

Haven't read through this thread so forgive me if this has been mentioned, the biggest error in the storm v penrith match was the conversion kick being allowed nearly 10mtrs in from the side line imagine if it had been a crucial kick.

[DavidM]

25 minutes ago, my missus said:

Haven't read through this thread so forgive me if this has been mentioned, the biggest error in the storm v penrith match was the conversion kick being allowed nearly 10mtrs in from the side line imagine if it had been a crucial kick.

It was mentioned in the analysis and the officials got a bit of a roasting . Sutton will still get the GF though and Klein will be the VR , that’s how it is whatever 

[unapologetic pedant]

2 hours ago, fighting irish said:

I do agree however, (and I've always coached it) that sudden unexpected possession is more often than not, a huge opportunity to make progress and score, because the team losing possession isn't lined up in defensive formation.

In order to capitalise though, you need to know that and be confident enough to get the ball to where the spaces are (pass it about.) 

Contemporary refereeing is an obstacle in this. Specifically, phantom double knock-on calls and misguided application of the zero tackle rule. All the more frustrating in the UK at the moment with scrums replaced with PTBs.

It`s standard now for a team to lose the ball, opposition regather, you hear the ref call "no advantage" and go trotting off to the middle for a slow-motion tackle 1 PTB against a set defence.

As you say in most cases when a team gain possession following an opposition error their best option is "play-on, zero tackle". For the ref to stop the game there ought to be not just no advantage, but a significant disadvantage.

My hunch as to why this is happening is that we now have a generation of officials who don`t remember the introduction of zero tackle. They`re not conscious that it`s purpose was to encourage "play-on".

And there`s the triggering effect of seeing the ball on the ground and the consequent desire to draw a clearer line under anything that looks untidy. Worse in Oz, but a factor over here too.

[unapologetic pedant]

1 hour ago, Saint 1 said:

Ironically you see this less with the real successful teams. It often seems like a very reductionist approach from coaches who don't have the courage or the competency to coach effective attacking footy, and therefore instead see the game solely as an energy battle. 

Every pre-game interview with a player or coach includes the line "we need to complete our sets".

Every post-game interview with a losing player or coach includes the line "we didn`t complete our sets".

For me, this all comes back to the "simple game" culture. People with a limited vocabulary, who have imbibed a lifetime of assurances that they are playing and coaching a simple game, will tend to repeat the same vapid platitudes.

[DavidM]

19 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Every pre-game interview with a player or coach includes the line "we need to complete our sets".

Every post-game interview with a losing player or coach includes the line "we didn`t complete our sets".

For me, this all comes back to the "simple game" culture. People with a limited vocabulary, who have imbibed a lifetime of assurances that they are playing and coaching a simple game, will tend to repeat the same vapid platitudes.

We must stick / didn’t stick to the game plan , whatever it was …

[The Frying Scotsman]

6 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Contemporary refereeing is an obstacle in this. Specifically, phantom double knock-on calls and misguided application of the zero tackle rule. All the more frustrating in the UK at the moment with scrums replaced with PTBs.

It`s standard now for a team to lose the ball, opposition regather, you hear the ref call "no advantage" and go trotting off to the middle for a slow-motion tackle 1 PTB against a set defence.

As you say in most cases when a team gain possession following an opposition error their best option is "play-on, zero tackle". For the ref to stop the game there ought to be not just no advantage, but a significant disadvantage.

My hunch as to why this is happening is that we now have a generation of officials who don`t remember the introduction of zero tackle. They`re not conscious that it`s purpose was to encourage "play-on".

And there`s the triggering effect of seeing the ball on the ground and the consequent desire to draw a clearer line under anything that looks untidy. Worse in Oz, but a factor over here too.

I often think it could be fitness related. Not that that officials aren't fit, but the tempo of the game is so high at times, that they may subconsciously look for an opportunity for a stoppage.

It is far weirder though how it is not picked up in their post match review process! That suggests that the RFL/NRL are happy to have those slow motion restarts against a set D line, and as you say, is completely against the principles of the sport. It is definitely a factor in the UK as you say. 

[unapologetic pedant]

4 hours ago, Saint 1 said:

Not every, some coaches are more happy to take risks and there is more depth to it than that. They also generally aren't going to reveal their actual gameplan to the media. Besides, often the "completing our sets" refers to errors of concentration (i.e. PTB errors, unforced errors) rather than errors of execution. Otherwise, teams would just attack with 5 scoots and a kick continually. 

"Every" was used rhetorically. Mercifully there are a few exceptions to the general rule. Possibly significant that 3 of your 5 choice cuts feature Trent Robinson.

Across all media outlets the evidence of coaches turned pundits suggests that inarticulacy and oversimplicity are greater factors limiting their ability to convey RL tactics than any inhibitions around revealing game-plans. Ex-player pundits who have never coached are even worse.

Since this is ultimately about the calibration of risk, it`s astonishing how often commentators and pundits are oblivious to the tackle count. Their counterparts in Gridiron would never fail to distinguish between a third down play and a fourth down play.

I take the point about "errors of concentration", but the language they use doesn`t make that clear. Something like "Too many unforced errors" would be more illuminating than " we didn`t complete our sets".

Coaches clearly do understand the risk of not taking risks. But again, I never hear post-game analysis on that theme. Unless you can retrieve some pertinent examples from your RL Aladdin`s Cave.

[unapologetic pedant]

7 hours ago, DavidM said:

We must stick / didn’t stick to the game plan , whatever it was …

Where did this "We spoke" verbal tic come from? I don`t hear that in any other sport or walk of life.

"We spoke about sticking to our game plan".

"We spoke about completing our sets".

"We spoke about respecting our processes".

They sound like graduates of a group indoctrination session run by a cult intent on boring the world to death.

[unapologetic pedant]

On 27/09/2021 at 23:05, The Frying Scotsman said:

It is far weirder though how it is not picked up in their post match review process! 

I`d be interested more generally to know what the "post match review process" entails at all levels of the game. What is said about the PTB, for instance?

Our officials will have grown up among RL crowds. It`s vital, when they pick up the whistle, that they leave all that behind. Refereeing in accordance with the demands of the crowd is the surest way to ruin the game.

At amateur and junior level being relentlessly informed that you`ve missed something can undermine a young ref`s confidence. Reviewing video footage is important to reassure them that most of the forward passes and knock-ons they supposedly overlooked only happened in the minds of those shouting from the touchline.

[The Frying Scotsman]

3 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

I`d be interested more generally to know what the "post match review process" entails at all levels of the game. What is said about the PTB, for instance?

 

Total Rugby League (the magazine version of this forum) did a decent article about 3 years ago on this (at SuperLeague level). 

As the refs are professional, the review process sounded pretty good, and very thorough indeed. This makes it even more strange that it is not being picked up/corrected. 

[unapologetic pedant]

24 minutes ago, The Frying Scotsman said:

As the refs are professional, the review process sounded pretty good, and very thorough indeed. This makes it even more strange that it is not being picked up/corrected. 

If you mean incorrect PTBs, they`re not looking to pick them up. The rollball is now officially legal in the UK. Check out the RFL`s video where "balance and control" are the stated requirements. Of course, the rulebook still says something totally different.

What I meant was I`d like to know what they say about all this in the review process.

I saw another shameful incident in video of a women`s game recently. These are becoming more common. The ball was played cleanly with the foot, but brushed against her other foot, the Touch Judge flagged, and the ref ruled a handover, presumably for "loss of control". Meantime, as you`d expect, in the rest of the game players were allowed to roll and walk over the ball.

So we`ve reached a point where conscientious players who abide by the rules are penalized, while wilful disregard of the rules is tolerated. As I say, I`d just like to know how they justify that in the review process.

[The Frying Scotsman]

8 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

If you mean incorrect PTBs, they`re not looking to pick them up. The rollball is now officially legal in the UK. Check out the RFL`s video where "balance and control" are the stated requirements. Of course, the rulebook still says something totally different.

 

No. I'm talking about stopping the game after a handling error instead of applying "play on, zero tackle".

The same point that you brought up! I can't understand how it is not picked up in the review process.

[unapologetic pedant]

2 hours ago, The Frying Scotsman said:

No. I'm talking about stopping the game after a handling error instead of applying "play on, zero tackle".

The same point that you brought up! I can't understand how it is not picked up in the review process.

I was judging what you said from the quote, which only included the PTB reference.

 

On 27/09/2021 at 23:05, The Frying Scotsman said:

 That suggests that the RFL/NRL are happy to have those slow motion restarts against a set D line

This must be the case. But for what reason?

Maybe the feedback they get from coaches is that they would rather settle everything down and begin again from the middle of the field. So they can "go through their processes". Evidence that a pedestrian orthodoxy has taken hold of their thinking. 

As @fighting irish sets out, playing ad-lib against an unset defence off a zero tackle would have previously been deemed the greater advantage following a lost possession.

[The Frying Scotsman]

38 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

 

Maybe the feedback they get from coaches is that they would rather settle everything down and begin again from the middle of the field. So they can "go through their processes". Evidence that a pedestrian orthodoxy has taken hold of their thinking. 

 

The odd thing about that, is that in almost every other decision taken around rules/refereeing etc, the priority seems to have been to speed up the game, and continually make it quicker.

That is why it makes no sense to me. 

[fighting irish]

3 hours ago, The Frying Scotsman said:

The odd thing about that, is that in almost every other decision taken around rules/refereeing etc, the priority seems to have been to speed up the game, and continually make it quicker.

That is why it makes no sense to me. 

 

I think, it's the low risk, (easy option) for the referee.

Low risk because if he makes a mistake and allows play on (when he shouldn't have done) and a try is scored against a broken field, then he is likely to come in for some harsh criticism.

Whereas if he chooses to award a play the ball restart (even when its the wrong thing to do) he's less likely to be severely criticised as long as the defending team are given time to organise their defense before play restarts.

So I think, it might be a case of the referee's, playing it safe by choosing the lesser of two evils in the heat of the moment.  

[unapologetic pedant]

5 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

I think, it's the low risk, (easy option) for the referee.

Low risk because if he makes a mistake and allows play on (when he shouldn't have done) and a try is scored against a broken field, then he is likely to come in for some harsh criticism.

Whereas if he chooses to award a play the ball restart (even when its the wrong thing to do) he's less likely to be severely criticised as long as the defending team are given time to organise their defense before play restarts.

So I think, it might be a case of the referee's, playing it safe by choosing the lesser of two evils in the heat of the moment.  

This is the general feeling I get about obsessive compulsive knock-on calling to which this matter is related. I mentioned up the page their nervous instinct to draw a clear line under perceived untidiness.

There may be some officious refs who want to make calls, but my sense is that most are reluctantly taking the safety-first option to avert potential blame.

If this has become (for want of a better word) cultural, i.e. if the culture of RL makes refs frightened to play on, this can only be changed collectively or from on high. Individual refs will naturally conform to prevailing practice. New or younger refs even more so.

Astute change directed from on high would require astute administrators who understand the game. So we can rule that out.

But how about a conference of officials, coaches, players, media, where the refs could pose the question  - "how do you want us to referee, how do you want us to manage doubt. If we`re unsure, should we play on or stop the game and make a call based on guesswork"?

And if a consensus emerges in favour of "play on", then everybody must accept that officials will sometimes miss things - same for both teams, get on with the game.

[unapologetic pedant]

37 minutes ago, Saint 1 said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqDyuDl0RLk – 9 mins – Brett Kimmorley and Danny Buderus running a halves and hookers session, talking about defending short sides and pass quality 

After watching this, one of the recommendations was a video titled "Rugby strike moves" on the channel "Geraint Davies Rugby coaching and analysis".

Had a look out of curiosity. There`s a bit of RU at the end, but it`s mainly Storm, Rabbitohs, Roosters.

A lot of NRL plays, techniques, terms, find their way into British RU via the All Blacks and Wallabies. This video cuts out the middle men and goes straight to the source.

53 minutes ago, Saint 1 said:

On the punditry point, I do wonder if that's as much driven by what it is perceived the public "want" as anything. I've had conversations with some decent coaches and the depth is far beyond what ever makes it into the media. 

This is what`s so frustrating. Our coaches and players have to have more going on in their heads than they are able or willing to communicate.

I don`t expect a dissertation, just something more illuminating than "we wanted it more than them", "we kept turning up for each other", etc, etc...

[The Rocket]

On 28/09/2021 at 08:05, The Frying Scotsman said:

That suggests that the RFL/NRL are happy to have those slow motion restarts against a set D line, and as you say, is completely against the principles of the sport. It is definitely a factor in the UK as you say. 

 

10 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Maybe the feedback they get from coaches is that they would rather settle everything down and begin again from the middle of the field. So they can "go through their processes". Evidence that a pedestrian orthodoxy has taken hold of their thinking. 

 

9 hours ago, The Frying Scotsman said:

The odd thing about that, is that in almost every other decision taken around rules/refereeing etc, the priority seems to have been to speed up the game, and continually make it quicker.

That is why it makes no sense to me. 

Something that was mentioned a couple of times this year during the FTA coverage, I think it was Gould who pointed it out, was how quickly Storm and Panthers getting into their attacking shape after a turnover, often a knock-on by the opposition, or on kick reception.

There was none of the ambling back on side or couple of settlers while the halves decided what strategy they would use during this set of six, but straight away they start to play football. It coincides with something that I noticed during the year as well (only watching three games a week, you notice it more when the top teams are on TV) these teams just do everything quicker.

In some clever way one might even imagine that the coaches of those teams know that in the majority, or certainly a good percentage of cases, a ball hitting the deck will cause a halt in play. By assuming that it won`t and perhaps counting on the fact that their opposition will, and go into, " great, here`s an opportunity to have a rest mode", they have that momentary advantage of assuming it will be play on and catching their opposition flat-footed so to speak.

Now this may not work everytime, because as we know more often than not play will be halted, but if it isn`t, there can be a serious yardage gain advantage and then you get into the areas of momentum, teams backpeddling and the resultant confusion in defensive lines. Next thing you know you`re finishing your attacking set in their red zone and at the end of it you are either scoring, receiving a line drop-out or they are starting their set 5 metres out.

[unapologetic pedant]

1 hour ago, The Rocket said:

Something that was mentioned a couple of times this year during the FTA coverage, I think it was Gould who pointed it out, was how quickly Storm and Panthers getting into their attacking shape after a turnover, often a knock-on by the opposition, or on kick reception.

In some clever way one might even imagine that the coaches of those teams know that in the majority, or certainly a good percentage of cases, a ball hitting the deck will cause a halt in play. By assuming that it won`t and perhaps counting on the fact that their opposition will, and go into, " great, here`s an opportunity to have a rest mode", they have that momentary advantage of assuming it will be play on and catching their opposition flat-footed so to speak.

Now this may not work everytime, because as we know more often than not play will be halted, 

Officials should watch video of a zero tackle play and compare it with a tackle 1 mid-field slow-motion PTB. Then the respective second plays, and so on through the set. Then assess which option generally affords the greater advantage. I`m guessing it won`t be the orchestrated PTB against a set defence.

That`s just considering advantage to the players. There`s also the question of variety for those of us watching.

I often mention, in the context of knock-on derangement syndrome, that I watch as much lower-grade football as NRL. The officials inevitably aren`t as good, there`s no video back-up or captain`s challenge, so the real culture of the game is reflected in the refereeing.

I see some scarcely believable knee-jerk whistles in response to the ball coming loose, some where the bloke has blown up before anyone`s had the slightest chance to react. And nobody complains. It`s just accepted as routine.

This is germane to your evidence about Storm and Panthers. If the ref blew when one of their players was in the act of taking advantage of a loose ball, the whole team`s hands would go up, they`d make clear that he`d just robbed them of an opportunity.

[bobbruce]

I think changing the rules so any offence on 0,1 or two tackle reverts to being a penalty. I’d also say any offence where the attacking team are still within their own 40m should also revert to being a penalty. That should catch out a lot of the more cynical slowing down and set restart should be enough of a penalty for other offences. 

[Dunbar]

I find a really strange inconsistency with the way the commentators (particularly in Australia) speak about teams being awarded six again on the first tackle.

Scenario 1.  A team kicks the ball dead when trying to force a drop out.  The commentators say how damaging that is with the 20 metre restart being tackle zero so the attack having a 7 tackle set.

Scenario 2.  A team kicks long and the opposition get tackled around the 20 metre line and the kicking team slow down the tackle a little so concede a set restart.  That is essentially now the same number of tackles as the 20 metre restart now and yet in this case the commentators say that it adds absolutely no benefit to the team receiving the extra tackle.

Not a huge thing but an example of how you can spin almost the same thing as positive or negative if you have an agenda.

[bobbruce]

1 hour ago, Saint 1 said:

Why introduce loads more complexity rather than just scrap the 6 again? 

Because I think in parts the 6 again works well. Just some/all teams have realised controlling the ruck early in the tackle count or as a team is coming away from their line is worth giving one or two extra plays to the opposition. 

[Dunbar]

6 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

Because I think in parts the 6 again works well. Just some/all teams have realised controlling the ruck early in the tackle count or as a team is coming away from their line is worth giving one or two extra plays to the opposition. 

As per my point above, its strange that giving away 1 or 2 extra tackles in this situation is seen as the defensive team getting value but when 1 extra tackle is conceded on a 20 metre restart it is perceived as a reasonable forfeit. 

[bobbruce]

2 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

As per my point above, its strange that giving away 1 or 2 extra tackles in this situation is seen as the defensive team getting value but when 1 extra tackle is conceded on a 20 metre restart it is perceived as a reasonable forfeit. 

Teams don’t give set restarts away every set they do it when they are losing the ruck that’s why in certain situations a reset is preferable to letting a quick ptb go on. Where as kicking the ball dead isn’t the worst crime in the world so the slap on the wrist of one extra tackle seems fine. 

[Dunbar]

14 hours ago, Saint 1 said:

As far as I can see, it was introduced without any clear purpose of what problem it was trying to solve, has increased blowouts, disproportionately benefits the stronger teams, and has led to an increase in one-out carries.

On the increase in one-out carries, I would like to understand this more.  Do we have the data to show that the number of one-out carries per game has increased since  the introduction of six again?