Inconsistencies in interpretations

[Harry Stottle]

I answered the second post, but will now gladly exit a spat between Wakey and Cas fans. One of them is correct not both.

[StandOffHalf]

46 minutes ago, LeeF said:

I pass the ball to you. I am now in front of you.

You put a grubber kick in behind the defensive line as there is no full back or sweeper in play. As you chase the kicking you play me onside when you go past me even if you pick the ball up say only 7 or 8 metres away from me.

If a full back is there to receive the ball I would be offside until either I got out of the 10 ( virtually impossible as it’s a short kick) or the receiver made 10 metres without me getting involved as I’m deemed to, correctly, be interfering with play even if I’m stood still looking away.

If the receiver fumbles the ball or doesn’t catch it cleanly then that is deemed to be my fault ie I have interfered. A ricochet from a close quarter kick does not negate

This is much easier to show via a video but I’m sure you get the basics  

 

That's a very good explanation and makes sense.

The one thing that I wonder about is the ricochet or subsequent kick. It was my understanding that the ball touching the opposition places those in front on-side and in play.

[JohnM]

2 hours ago, Dunbar said:

After everything we have seen on here in the last 24 hours, do we really need another thread about inconsistent refereeing decisions. 

Misunderstanding. I thought it was about the inconsistency of interpretation by a number of barrack-room refs on here.

[LeeF]

1 hour ago, StandOffHalf said:

That's a very good explanation and makes sense.

The one thing that I wonder about is the ricochet or subsequent kick. It was my understanding that the ball touching the opposition places those in front on-side and in play.

The “receiver” has to play at the ball. If you blast it from 2-3 metres that wouldn’t play anyone on side. The key word is “play”.

Also if you are within the 10m and the receiver doesn’t retain the ball then you have interfered and are penalised for offside. 

Or take an extreme example. Attacking players go forwards into offside positions. The kicker blasts the ball at a defender. It ricochets to one of the “offside” players who is in the clear and “scores” a “try”. Would you award that?

And before you think that this scenario couldn’t happen it could. A good kicker could easily create that scenario.

A similar thing used to happen when they messed around the scrums on the last tackle back in the late 80s when an attacker blasted the ball at the defender to get head & feed. 

Edited October 7, 2023 by LeeF

[north yorks trinity]

1 hour ago, StandOffHalf said:

That's a very good explanation and makes sense.

The one thing that I wonder about is the ricochet or subsequent kick. It was my understanding that the ball touching the opposition places those in front on-side and in play.

Yes it does, which is the main reason why the decision was wrong. 

[north yorks trinity]

Just now, LeeF said:

The “receiver” has to play at the ball. If you blast it from 2-3 metres that wouldn’t play anyone on side. 

Yes it would. Read the laws please and maybe then admit your mistake.

[StandOffHalf]

14 minutes ago, LeeF said:

The “receiver” has to play at the ball. If you blast it from 2-3 metres that wouldn’t play anyone on side. The key word is “play”.

Also if you are within the 10m and the receiver doesn’t retain the ball then you have interfered and are penalised for offside. 

Or take an extreme example. Attacking players go forwards into offside positions. The kicker blasts the ball at a defender. It ricochets to one of the “offside” players who is in the clear and “scores” a “try”. Would you award that?

And before you think that this scenario couldn’t happen it could. A good kicker could easily create that scenario.

A similar thing used to happen when they messed around the scrums on the last tackle back in the late 80s when an attacker blasted the ball at the defender to get head & feed. 

If the ball ricochets off a defender to an attacker in front, then that would be play on and a try IMO.

[Phil]

Not an inconsistency as such but a law which no longer seems to be applied. Tacklers/defenders lying in the ruck. To the best of my knowledge this is still a penalisable offence and yet we see it in just about every game, where to my mind it’s a deliberate tactic to slow down the play the ball.

Also if the player lying in the ruck causes the acting half back to fumble the ball a knock on is given rather than a penalty. It’s something I just don’t like in the game at the moment 

[LeeF]

12 minutes ago, StandOffHalf said:

If the ball ricochets off a defender to an attacker in front, then that would be play on and a try IMO.

To a player who was in front of the kicker when he kicked it? That’s offside. A ricochet by definition means the ball hasn’t been played at. 

Edited October 7, 2023 by LeeF

[LeeF]

5 minutes ago, Phil said:

Not an inconsistency as such but a law which no longer seems to be applied. Tacklers/defenders lying in the ruck. To the best of my knowledge this is still a penalisable offence and yet we see it in just about every game, where to my mind it’s a deliberate tactic to slow down the play the ball.

Also if the player lying in the ruck causes the acting half back to fumble the ball a knock on is given rather than a penalty. It’s something I just don’t like in the game at the moment 

The “interpretation” was relaxed when the dummy half started throwing the ball at the prone player so a change with the correct intentions but now used as a spoiling tactic and one that needs stopping. 

[Phil]

11 minutes ago, LeeF said:

The “interpretation” was relaxed when the dummy half started throwing the ball at the prone player so a change with the correct intentions but now used as a spoiling tactic and one that needs stopping. 

Ah yes, I now recall that, it does need stopping though 

[LeytherRob]

29 minutes ago, LeeF said:

The “interpretation” was relaxed when the dummy half started throwing the ball at the prone player so a change with the correct intentions but now used as a spoiling tactic and one that needs stopping. 

Yeah I said as much last night, all teams are doing it and the rules need adjusting to give refs power to stop teams spoiling. There was one point in today's game where you had Harry Smith intentionally standing in the ruck and Mikey Lewis trying to milk a penalty for not square, resulting in the ridiculous sight of Lewis pushing Smith along as he made a dummy half run.

 

Initially I thought from the title of this thread it was a comparison between the reffing in last night's vs today's game, which almost felt like they were being refereed under different rules. Kendal let most things go to try and let the game flow and Moore was being by the book and penalising most offences. The RFL and referees really do need to sit down with clubs in the off season and decide what approach we are going to go with and just stick to it for the full season. A playoff game should not be refereed any differently than a regular league game.

[StandOffHalf]

35 minutes ago, LeeF said:

To a player who was in front of the kicker when he kicked it? That’s offside. A ricochet by definition means the ball hasn’t been played at. 

I suppose intent does come into it.

There's a difference between, say, a marker sticking out a boot towards a grubber and a ball driven into the back of a static defender.

[StandOffHalf]

5 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

A playoff game should not be refereed any differently than a regular league game.

Adam Gee let the NRL GF flow and has been highly praised for his officiating. There is an argument for loosening applications a tad for big games.

[LeytherRob]

Just now, StandOffHalf said:

Adam Gee let the NRL GF flow and has been highly praised for his officiating. There is an argument for loosening applications a tad for big games.

Kendal did that on Friday and the game was a mess. I think the difference is the NRL have massively cracked down on the ruck over the past 5/10 or so years going back to when they started actually enforcing players to play the ball with their foot. When they ease off their players have the self discipline not to take the mickey. In SL these days it's like a bunch of rowdy teenagers with a substitute teacher who want to push every single rule to breaking point.

I think the time has come for a reset and alignment with NRL rules, it'll make for terrible watching for a good few weeks with constant penalties but eventually the players will learn just like they did with the NRL.

[StandOffHalf]

7 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

Kendal did that on Friday and the game was a mess. I think the difference is the NRL have massively cracked down on the ruck over the past 5/10 or so years going back to when they started actually enforcing players to play the ball with their foot. When they ease off their players have the self discipline not to take the mickey. In SL these days it's like a bunch of rowdy teenagers with a substitute teacher who want to push every single rule to breaking point.

I think the time has come for a reset and alignment with NRL rules, it'll make for terrible watching for a good few weeks with constant penalties but eventually the players will learn just like they did with the NRL.

Really good analogy, haha. The milking and messing makes it tough to enjoy sometimes.

[Dunbar]

2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Well we can just brush them under the carpet and believe everything is hunky dory and the officials are correct, but that is not the mods deliberations which is we cannot incite the referee/VR has some ulterior motive for their decisions.

Sure, I recognise that there is a difference between discussing officiating and being derogatory to officials.

I just think a cool off period may be in order.

[Dave T]

33 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

Kendal did that on Friday and the game was a mess. I think the difference is the NRL have massively cracked down on the ruck over the past 5/10 or so years going back to when they started actually enforcing players to play the ball with their foot. When they ease off their players have the self discipline not to take the mickey. In SL these days it's like a bunch of rowdy teenagers with a substitute teacher who want to push every single rule to breaking point.

I think the time has come for a reset and alignment with NRL rules, it'll make for terrible watching for a good few weeks with constant penalties but eventually the players will learn just like they did with the NRL.

I think the ruck needs a lot of work. I'm not convinced using the foot is anywhere near the biggest issue of it, but if its part of the solution then I'm supportive. 

The biggest issue for me is that they have swayed the benefit of the doubt to the defence, they are so reluctant to penalise that it's almost anything goes for tacklers. Flops are completely ignored, as is holding down, and then for the hattrick we see the tackler staying in the ruck knowing that it is almost completely unheard of to get penalised for it now even if you really slow down the PTB. 

The ruck is the single area I'd focus on all pre-season working with the clubs to try and make the game more watchable, as I think it is becoming quite problematic. 

[north yorks trinity]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

Ah yes, I now recall that, it does need stopping though 

Well done Phil you have produced a quote that Lee F and I both agree with. Quite an achievement. 

[Dunbar]

18 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think the ruck needs a lot of work. I'm not convinced using the foot is anywhere near the biggest issue of it, but if its part of the solution then I'm supportive. 

The biggest issue for me is that they have swayed the benefit of the doubt to the defence, they are so reluctant to penalise that it's almost anything goes for tacklers.

But I think these two points are symbiotic.

Because we allow the roll ball and so a faster play the ball than would be normal, we have compensated somewhat by allowing the defence more leeway in holding down.

Or...

Because we allow the defence to hold down, we allow the roll ball to compensate. 

Enforce a proper play the ball and enforce proper ruck discipline from the defence and we will be in a 100% better place.

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

But I think these two points are symbiotic.

Because we allow the roll ball and so a faster play the ball than would be normal, we have compensated somewhat by allowing the defence more leeway in holding down.

Or...

Because we allow the defence to hold down, we allow the roll ball to compensate. 

Enforce a proper play the ball and enforce proper ruck discipline from the defence and we will be in a 100% better place.

I'm not sure I agree that they have considered those two points as linked tbh. The impact of a player in the ruck is far more severe than not touching with the foot in most cases. 

There was a weird example today of a Wigan player in the ruck so the KR player stepped over him to play it and the ref sent him back to play it behind the defender. It probably added three seconds, and did exactly what the defender played for. 

But as per my original post, if to reset this area it involves beibg more textbook with ptb's I'm cool with that. 

[Dunbar]

12 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'm not sure I agree that they have considered those two points as linked tbh. The impact of a player in the ruck is far more severe than not touching with the foot in most cases. 

There was a weird example today of a Wigan player in the ruck so the KR player stepped over him to play it and the ref sent him back to play it behind the defender. It probably added three seconds, and did exactly what the defender played for. 

But as per my original post, if to reset this area it involves beibg more textbook with ptb's I'm cool with that. 

I don't think anything has been considered, it has been an evolution. 

When we had the 5 scoots, players taking contact, finding their front and winning a quick play the ball, wrestling was introduced to slow the ruck down.

Then because the ruck was slowing down, the players started to take short cuts with the play the ball till we arrived at the roll ball.

Refereeing has simply evolved to accommodate these changes while still trying to let the game flow.

[LeeF]

1 hour ago, LeytherRob said:

Yeah I said as much last night, all teams are doing it and the rules need adjusting to give refs power to stop teams spoiling. There was one point in today's game where you had Harry Smith intentionally standing in the ruck and Mikey Lewis trying to milk a penalty for not square, resulting in the ridiculous sight of Lewis pushing Smith along as he made a dummy half run.

 

Initially I thought from the title of this thread it was a comparison between the reffing in last night's vs today's game, which almost felt like they were being refereed under different rules. Kendal let most things go to try and let the game flow and Moore was being by the book and penalising most offences. The RFL and referees really do need to sit down with clubs in the off season and decide what approach we are going to go with and just stick to it for the full season. A playoff game should not be refereed any differently than a regular league game.

Your first paragraph is spot on. As usual when you solve 1 issue it only creates another as the coaches look for an “edge”. The absence of Ganson for nearly 8 months now has left a void where those big decisions about adjusting interpretations can be taken.  The RFL urgently need to finalise their investigation for all parties concerned. 

I don’t think Kendal & Moore actually refereed their matches that differently and they were definitely consistent how they have refereed most matches this year which has been at a high level.

The first half of Catalans & Saints so 2 evenly matched teams making unforced mistakes which prevented too much of the messing about we saw today. In the second half as both teams became fatigued, probably due to them being 2 of the oldest ones, the niggle in the tackle increased and I bet there were more penalties awarded. 

Today’s match was different despite Wigan’s virtually complete dominance hence more penalties and general messing around. swap the refs and there would have been no difference. 

With regards to your last sentence I have long thought that teams play big matches, especially finals, differently. They are cleaner, more clinical & less inclined to mess around due to the size of the prize which results in a different type of game and a much easier one to referee which makes people think it is the referee who has changed.

Saying that next week has all the makings of a “niggle fest” as both teams get numbers in tackles and love trying to lock in defenders when they have the ball as they try to win a penalty. They both play borderline on the aggression front so it probably won’t be an easy ride for the match officials. 

[LeeF]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

I think the ruck needs a lot of work. I'm not convinced using the foot is anywhere near the biggest issue of it, but if its part of the solution then I'm supportive. 

The biggest issue for me is that they have swayed the benefit of the doubt to the defence, they are so reluctant to penalise that it's almost anything goes for tacklers. Flops are completely ignored, as is holding down, and then for the hattrick we see the tackler staying in the ruck knowing that it is almost completely unheard of to get penalised for it now even if you really slow down the PTB. 

The ruck is the single area I'd focus on all pre-season working with the clubs to try and make the game more watchable, as I think it is becoming quite problematic. 

Interesting view of cause & effect.

The virtually universal reaction by the Saints team to the fully justified sinbinning of Matty Lees supports your point. They never expected it despite all 3 Saints players in the tackle taking the proverbial. 

The ruck compared to the Stuart Cummings era is completely unrecognisable. His seven deadly sins (get to your feet, play the ball etc) is broken at nearly every PTB nowadays. 

[Dave T]

49 minutes ago, LeeF said:

 

The virtually universal reaction by the Saints team to the fully justified sinbinning of Matty Lees supports your point. They never expected it despite all 3 Saints players in the tackle taking the proverbial. 

 

Just on this point. Makinson's strop was beautiful