NRL a league of its own

[DavidM]

Must say I enjoyed  round 1 immensely . Canberra - Cronulla , Wests - Melbourne and Parra - Titans were particularly outstanding I thought . Some of the skills and tries were just amazing . That and the speed of the game made it hard to believe it was round 1 . I was doubly pleased the dragons got off to a winning start although they had a clunky spell . They could do ok given a fair wind with injuries

Edited March 14, 2022 by DavidM

[gingerjon]

4 minutes ago, DavidM said:

Must say I enjoyed  round 1 immensely . Canberra - Cronulla , Wests - Melbourne and Parra - Titans were particularly outstanding I thought . Some of the skills and tries were just amazing . That and the speed of the game made it hard to believe it was round 1 . I was doubly pleased the dragons got off to a winning start although they had a clunky spell . They could do ok given a fair wind with injuries

Are you on the right thread?

This thread is for detailed analyses of play-the-balls and nothing else.

[Cheadle Leyther]

3 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Are you on the right thread?

This thread is for detailed analyses of play-the-balls and nothing else.

Watch out this thread will be closed by the Drakesmaster for being too NRL orientated!!

[Dave T]

6 hours ago, Pigeon Lofter said:

It will be at the RLWC when England get penalised into oblivion because few if any of the SL based players correctly execute a legal PTB when every other visiting nation does it correctly.

Happy to have that debate when it happens. 

As has been pointed out, there was 3 in one NRL game the other day, so they aren't all doing it correctly. 

[Dave T]

3 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Around 2015/16 is when the NRL were drifting towards an acceptance of the rollball. That`s when they made the decision to crack down and restore the integrity of the PTB. We didn`t do that, only making half-hearted short-lived efforts to enforce the rules. Since then we`ve diverged ever more conspicuously from the rest of the world. The rollball has now been fully integrated into UK RL.

Watch any SL training session - the players use a rollball.

Watch any NRL training session - the players use a PTB.

That is precisely why the "genuine attempt" criterion was introduced. It`s an intelligent application of the "benefit of the doubt" principle and has managed to maintain the structure of the PTB in every RL nation bar the UK. Which speaks volumes for our administrators, coaches, players, and media.

 

These problems are more likely with the rollball.

Implementing the requirement to make a genuine attempt to play the ball facilitates compliance with all other criteria. The tackled player plants the ball and owns the space. Which establishes more clearly where the mark is. Which in turn establishes where the markers should be and when they can move. By contrast, just rolling the ball and hopping over it leads to RU-style mess.

If ruck speed is all the RFL are interested in, the next logical step would be to let the tackled player remain on the ground and hand the ball up to the dummy-half. 

I assume this was a huge issue in the 2017 World Cup for England? 

[Dave T]

2 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Some posters think discrepancies at the PTB between English and overseas teams are immaterial since the casual observer won`t notice them. But most casual observers don`t notice RL at all. Those who do will have long assumed it`s a simple game for simple people devoid of anything technical or sophisticated.

Don`t we want this to change? i.e. do we not want more people to pay more attention to RL? And in this country, if they look and listen more closely, what will they see and hear?

Despite some of the fools who traditionally occupy positions of power and influence in our game, I try to avoid depictions like "farce" or "laughing stock", but on this topic I`ll make an exception. -

When an English RL ref shouts "wait for the foot", then a bloke chucks the ball between his legs and on we go, UK RL is openly inviting ridicule.

You really think that tiny, minor thing (that you don't even hear refs shout anyway) invites ridicule? 

See, this is my issue with this point, I get that you hate the PTB, but you are massively overstating the issue because you've gone down a bit of a rabbit hole. 

This isn't on most people's radar. That doesn't necessarily make my view right and yours wrong, but even if they have a clampdown on this it's gonna do nowt for the game in reality apart from reduce an area of annoyance for a small number of people. 

[Dave T]

3 hours ago, Dunbar said:

 

2. Players run onto the fiend in jersey's 1 to 13.  When I am watching a game where I may not recognize every player, I really want to know where each player is playing based on his number.  I want to see which players are doing well and which are outperforming their opponents.   As I have said many times, I am not sure how we expect newcomers to see the tactical parts to the game when players are wearing squad numbers and so they don't necessarily know what position they are playing... all just for the sake of selling a few shirts with a players name on the back!

I agree with this point. Previously I've been a fan of squad numbers, I think it's far easier to understand who is who with squad numbers, and it allows for Names on shirts which helps when watching on TV - something I struggle with when watching the NRL, I don't recognise as many players and I don't have a team list in front of me when watching. 

But, I do miss seeing a stand off wear number 6, or a fullback wearing 1, and the number 13 shirt is one of the most iconic for me. I think there is something special in those iconic numbers and I think I'd prefer the return to normal numbers even though I get the benefit of squad numbers. 

[Vyvyan]

3 hours ago, DavidM said:

Must say I enjoyed  round 1 immensely . Canberra - Cronulla , Wests - Melbourne and Parra - Titans were particularly outstanding I thought . Some of the skills and tries were just amazing . That and the speed of the game made it hard to believe it was round 1 . I was doubly pleased the dragons got off to a winning start although they had a clunky spell . They could do ok given a fair wind with injuries

Same here.  Only one duff game at North Queensland.   The rest were really entertaining. 

[Dunbar]

41 minutes ago, Vyvyan said:

Same here.  Only one duff game at North Queensland.   The rest were really entertaining. 

I didn't mind the Cowboys Bulldogs game for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, Thompson had a good game which is nice to see.

And second, the Bulldogs would have lost that game every day of the week last year as (like the Broncos) they had a soft underbelly.  It was good to see them grind out a win.

Edited March 14, 2022 by Dunbar

[Dunbar]

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

You really think that tiny, minor thing (that you don't even hear refs shout anyway) invites ridicule? 

See, this is my issue with this point, I get that you hate the PTB, but you are massively overstating the issue because you've gone down a bit of a rabbit hole. 

This isn't on most people's radar. That doesn't necessarily make my view right and yours wrong, but even if they have a clampdown on this it's gonna do nowt for the game in reality apart from reduce an area of annoyance for a small number of people. 

We've had a bit of back and forth on this topic but I absolutely agree that it only annoys those that it annoys... most people probably don't care about the integrity of the play the ball at all.  I am happy to say that it really does bother me but I do try to wind it in (honest!).

It is symptomatic of a wider problem though that we don't actually play the sport to the laws as they are written. Every scrum and every play the ball contradicts the laws and so pretty much the whole game does.  It does annoy me as I don't know how we are supposed to sell and spread the game when we can't actually be bothered to play it properly. 

[Vyvyan]

12 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I didn't mind the Cowboys Bulldogs game for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, Thompson had a good game which is nice to see.

And second, the Bulldogs would have lost that game every day of the week last year as (like the Broncos) they had a soft underbelly.  It was good to see them grind out a win.

I thought the first half was OK but the Bulldogs play really uninspiring rugby even allowing for the conditions.  Their hooker's service from dummy half is sooooo slow and Averillo isn't good enough to make up for it.

Thompson was steady.

The Bulldogs had to win that one as the Cowboys are wooden spoon contenders.   Whether they've got rid of that soft underbelly remains to be seen IMO.

[Dave T]

6 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

We've had a bit of back and forth on this topic but I absolutely agree that it only annoys those that it annoys... most people probably don't care about the integrity of the play the ball at all.  I am happy to say that it really does bother me but I do try to wind it in (honest!).

It is symptomatic of a wider problem though that we don't actually play the sport to the laws as they are written. Every scrum and every play the ball contradicts the laws and so pretty much the whole game does.  It does annoy me as I don't know how we are supposed to sell and spread the game when we can't actually be bothered to play it properly. 

I don't disagree with the principle, there are things that bug me that may not bug you and so on, we've agreed on a few things about how the rules are written versus how it's played, but I suppose its ultimately something I'm not going to spend too much time getting wound up, because I'm only winding myself up, most people will never ever look at the book of laws, so me getting overly wound up that intentional knock ons are not penalties despite it stating that in the laws isnt really affecting anyone but me. 

I do understand why people want these things done properly, I get it, but there is a hierarchy of what I care about, and tbh it's not something that bothers me (and imho, many other people either). I think we have bigger things to worry about, and I get why the RFL have gone down the route they have. 

[unapologetic pedant]

5 hours ago, Dave T said:

I assume this was a huge issue in the 2017 World Cup for England? 

No, because NRL refs didn`t enforce the rules as they would in the NRL. I believe we should be told why.

 

5 hours ago, Dave T said:

This isn't on most people's radar. 

It will be if NRL refs enforce the rules against English players in international games.

 

5 hours ago, Dave T said:

You really think that tiny, minor thing (that you don't even hear refs shout anyway) invites ridicule? 

I regularly hear refs shout "wait for the foot". They also make a signal to play the ball with the foot at handovers.

 

5 hours ago, Dave T said:

 That doesn't necessarily make my view right and yours wrong, 

Perfectly happy to accept that this is personal preference. 

Specifically relevant to this thread though, I regard the difference in this area between NRL and SL as symptomatic of the superiority of Aussie coaches, players, and administrators over their English counterparts.

5 hours ago, Dave T said:

See, this is my issue with this point, I get that you hate the PTB, but you are massively overstating the issue because you've gone down a bit of a rabbit hole.  

My overriding objection to the adoption of the rollball in the UK is the lack of transparency. If the RFL amended their rulebook to make clear that playing the ball with the foot is optional, that only "balance and control" are now required, I would disagree with the change, but we would at least know what the position is, and our governing body could be made answerable.

Likewise, if the above rules were publicly set out for the World Cup before the start of the tournament.

It`s hardly going down a "rabbit hole" for a RL fan to point out that nobody seems to know what the rules of RL currently are.

[unapologetic pedant]

11 hours ago, The Rocket said:

I don`t want to derail this thread with my obsessions 

I feel the same reticence.

[The Rocket]

15 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

I feel the same reticence.

But we do anyway. #no6againforchargedowns !!

[gingerjon]

7 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

I believe we should be told why.

Is it because international matches are played under international rules with international interpretations and not simply an extension of the NRL fixture list and rule book?

[RL Sonja]

12 hours ago, Dunbar said:

I didn't mind the Cowboys Bulldogs game for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, Thompson had a good game which is nice to see.

And second, the Bulldogs would have lost that game every day of the week last year as (like the Broncos) they had a soft underbelly.  It was good to see them grind out a win.

It was worth it to see that attacking kick from Burton. It could only be described as towering. Lovely torpedo bomb. Everyone refused to catch it simply on account of the height. Marvellous skill from him.

[bobbruce]

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Is it because international matches are played under international rules with international interpretations and not simply an extension of the NRL fixture list and rule book?

Not yet

[Dunbar]

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Is it because international matches are played under international rules with international interpretations and not simply an extension of the NRL fixture list and rule book?

The fact that we don't just have international laws (bad enough... why not one set of laws for the game) but also international interpretations says it all.

[DavidM]

13 hours ago, Dunbar said:

And second, the Bulldogs would have lost that game every day of the week last year as (like the Broncos) they had a soft underbelly.  It was good to see them grind out a win.

Indeed , that’s a fair point . Must admit as the clock ticked down I was rooting for them to hang on . The Cowboys didn’t throw much at them but still , the Dogs showed up repeatedly 

[gingerjon]

18 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

The fact that we don't just have international laws (bad enough... why not one set of laws for the game) but also international interpretations says it all.

I don't disagree but it's not exactly unknown that we have (at least) three different sets of rules with differing interpretations. There's no great conspiracy behind that, it's just where we are - and where we have been for decades.

[Harry Stottle]

14 hours ago, Dunbar said:

I didn't mind the Cowboys Bulldogs game for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, Thompson had a good game which is nice to see.

And second, the Bulldogs would have lost that game every day of the week last year as (like the Broncos) they had a soft underbelly.  It was good to see them grind out a win.

They would have lost that but for a big toe nail.

[unapologetic pedant]

5 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Is it because international matches are played under international rules with international interpretations and not simply an extension of the NRL fixture list and rule book?

The PTB responsibilities of the tackled player set out in the RFL rulebook and accompanying guidelines are identical to those in the NRL rulebook.

If a requirement for only "balance and control" supersedes the rulebooks of both nations for international games, presumably this will be specified in international rules or international interpretations. Where is the evidence for that?

I have not seen the requirement for only "balance and control" written anywhere. It is spoken of in RFL videos. Nowhere else.

[Dave T]

56 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

The PTB responsibilities of the tackled player set out in the RFL rulebook and accompanying guidelines are identical to those in the NRL rulebook.

If a requirement for only "balance and control" supersedes the rulebooks of both nations for international games, presumably this will be specified in international rules or international interpretations. Where is the evidence for that?

I have not seen the requirement for only "balance and control" written anywhere. It is spoken of in RFL videos. Nowhere else.

Interpretations are needed for the whole lawbook, not only this area.

If we look at the play the ball specifically:

The play-the-ball shall operate as follows. 

(a) The tackled player shall be immediately released player immediately and shall not be touched until the ball is in play. - we would see a penalty literally every tackle in SL and the NRL

(b) The tackled player shall without delay regain their feet where they are tackled, lift the ball clear of the ground, face their opponent’s goal line and drop or place the ball on the ground in front of their foremost foot. - if a player drops the ball on the ground it would be a knock on

(c) One opponent may take up the position immediately opposite the tackled player.

(d) The tackled player may not play the ball before the players effecting the tackle have had time to clear the ruck. - we put the onus on the tackler to get out of the way, not the ball carrier to give them time

(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 them. The ball is in play when it has been played backwards - this discrepancy in written versus actual is just the same as the above three points.

[Big Picture]

23 hours ago, Dave T said:

I agree with this point. Previously I've been a fan of squad numbers, I think it's far easier to understand who is who with squad numbers, and it allows for Names on shirts which helps when watching on TV - something I struggle with when watching the NRL, I don't recognise as many players and I don't have a team list in front of me when watching. 

But, I do miss seeing a stand off wear number 6, or a fullback wearing 1, and the number 13 shirt is one of the most iconic for me. I think there is something special in those iconic numbers and I think I'd prefer the return to normal numbers even though I get the benefit of squad numbers. 

The thing to do then is make the squad numbers positional by having a range of numbers for each position, so that every player's number relates to his normal position in the team, i.e. the starters, the players and on the bench and the players not in the lineup too.  In other words the best of both worlds.

20 hours ago, Dunbar said:

We've had a bit of back and forth on this topic but I absolutely agree that it only annoys those that it annoys... most people probably don't care about the integrity of the play the ball at all.  I am happy to say that it really does bother me but I do try to wind it in (honest!).

It is symptomatic of a wider problem though that we don't actually play the sport to the laws as they are written. Every scrum and every play the ball contradicts the laws and so pretty much the whole game does.  It does annoy me as I don't know how we are supposed to sell and spread the game when we can't actually be bothered to play it properly. 

I absolutely agree with you.  IMO the governing body of any sport has a responsibility to enforce their rules and if they want their game played differently from what rules state it's their responsibility to rewrite the rules they want changed.