Receiving the ball after scoring.

[daz39]

What's folks opinions on this please?

It's long been a bugbear of mine so it's not just a recently discovered thing.

When a team has conceded what is the reasoning behind the opposition getting the ball straight back? is there a logical reason to it?

Quite often we see 1 particular team who are clearly 2nd best on the day having to constantly defend after kicking the restart back to the stronger opposition, who just generally go and attack again and again and again as we saw with HKR on Sunday.

Wouldn't it make for a more competitive game if the team condeding get the ball thus enabling them to have a go with ball in hand and giving the superior team the chance to win the possession back through good defence or forcing an error?

In my team's case we have suffered this season with this especially against Saints and Wigan at home where we struggled to contain them in the 2nd half after conceding as they just came straight back at a very shattered/broken defence and scored again.

I remeber back in 1994 when we beat Blackpool Gladiators 142-4, we scored 26 tries that day and i bet at least 10-12 were straight from the kick-off.

Is this a good or bad thing, is it a reward for scoring a try or a punishment for conceding? 

in my opinion it should be changed but obviously the rule has been around so long no one probably thinks about it, thoughts please but keep it on topic and civil.

[Harry Stottle]

2 minutes ago, daz39 said:

What's folks opinions on this please?

It's long been a bugbear of mine so it's not just a recently discovered thing.

When a team has conceded what is the reasoning behind the opposition getting the ball straight back? is there a logical reason to it?

Quite often we see 1 particular team who are clearly 2nd best on the day having to constantly defend after kicking the restart back to the stronger opposition, who just generally go and attack again and again and again as we saw with HKR on Sunday.

Wouldn't it make for a more competitive game if the team condeding get the ball thus enabling them to have a go with ball in hand and giving the superior team the chance to win the possession back through good defence or forcing an error?

In my team's case we have suffered this season with this especially against Saints and Wigan at home where we struggled to contain them in the 2nd half after conceding as they just came straight back at a very shattered/broken defence and scored again.

I remeber back in 1994 when we beat Blackpool Gladiators 142-4, we scored 26 tries that day and i bet at least 10-12 were straight from the kick-off.

Is this a good or bad thing, is it a reward for scoring a try or a punishment for conceding? 

in my opinion it should be changed but obviously the rule has been around so long no one probably thinks about it, thoughts please but keep it on topic and civil.

It has been tried before daz that the conceding team had the ball kicked to them, but it just put the dominant team further downfield nearer to their opponents line, that change of rule didn't last long and it was reversed back to kicking off to the scoring team as we have now.

[daz39]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

It has been tried before daz that the conceding team had the ball kicked to them, but it just put the dominant team further downfield nearer to their opponents line, that change of rule didn't last long and it was reversed back to kicking off to the scoring team as we have now.

Yes i remember it only lasted a season or 2, but it would give them an opportunity to have a break from defending, some days it's literally attackv defence in some games, as i said it's just my opinion but i'd like to see it mixed up and changed around to see if it helps.

Teams are probably a bit more equal in terms of strength etc than they were previously.

[Griff]

We did try scoring team kicking off twenty odd years ago. The trouble was that the receiving team got the ball but not in a very favourable position.

Obviously, there's no obligation for the kick off to be from half way but nobody thought of that and the experiment was abandoned.

[Sports Prophet]

If anything, I believe it is a sport of territory before it is a sport of possession, so the scoring team is at a disadvantage after a try has been scored as far as I am concerned.

Of your defence is woeful, you are going to concede in any case, so I am happy with the non-scoring team getting the immediate territorial advantage by kicking off.

[Coggo]

3 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

If anything, I believe it is a sport of territory before it is a sport of possession, so the scoring team is at a disadvantage after a try has been scored as far as I am concerned.

Agree, and the kicking team can attempt a short kick-off to regain possession, if so desired. 

[Damien]

We've tried this and it made things worse as it was easy for a dominant team to peg a weaker team back and they struggled to get out of their own half. 

[Jinking Jimmy]

55 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

It has been tried before daz that the conceding team had the ball kicked to them, but it just put the dominant team further downfield nearer to their opponents line, that change of rule didn't last long and it was reversed back to kicking off to the scoring team as we have now.

I think it was brought through the suggestion of Greg McCallum, the Australian referee, who was Director of Referees in England in 1995.

Edited May 28 by Jinking Jimmy

[Dunbar]

All coaches will tell their teams that after points, the next set is all about field position - a strong yardage set and then a good kick to get the opposition back close to their own goal line so you can apply some defensive pressure.

As people have pointed out, kicking off to the conceding team only does that job for the scorers.  In this system, the dominent team would never let the opposition outside their own half.

It's a good idea in theory to alternate possesion but when it is in the wrong part of the field then it is better to not have possesion and take the territory instead.

[daz39]

Thanks for the replies guys, seems it's only me that doesn't like it then 

[Sports Prophet]

5 minutes ago, daz39 said:

Thanks for the replies guys, seems it's only me that doesn't like it then 

Ahh don’t let it get to you. You can’t all be right all the time like me

[Damien]

2 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

Ahh don’t let it get to you. You can’t all be right all the time like me

Mmmm 

[corvusxiii]

I wouldn't mind if the game was 'evened up' a bit. Yes, I get the 'strong shall prosper-the weak to the wall' ideology but I'd like to be entertained with, you know, the result being in doubt for longer. I know nowt about football and I'm happy with that but I suspect that if last weekends FA Cup final had been played under RL rules then Manchester City wins with the game over by HT. Maybe wrong of course... but I'd like to think I have a point. 

Yes, I get this is toxic for many but I'm thinking the spectacle might be more attractive if the result isn't already effectively decided and all there is left to see is the blowout. (and the penalty count/6 agains evened up). 

[Dunbar]

7 minutes ago, corvusxiii said:

but I suspect that if last weekends FA Cup final had been played under RL rules then Manchester City wins with the game over by HT.

I think they should have done that.  Tell the teams 20 minutes before kick off that they were playing Rugby League today.  It would have been fun to watch.

[Sports Prophet]

6 minutes ago, corvusxiii said:

I wouldn't mind if the game was 'evened up' a bit. Yes, I get the 'strong shall prosper-the weak to the wall' ideology but I'd like to be entertained with, you know, the result being in doubt for longer. I know nowt about football and I'm happy with that but I suspect that if last weekends FA Cup final had been played under RL rules then Manchester City wins with the game over by HT. Maybe wrong of course... but I'd like to think I have a point. 

Yes, I get this is toxic for many but I'm thinking the spectacle might be more attractive if the result isn't already effectively decided and all there is left to see is the blowout. (and the penalty count/6 agains evened up). 

The way Union is officiated definitely evens the field and in my opinion helps the growth of the game to new destinations.

[Damien]

11 minutes ago, corvusxiii said:

I wouldn't mind if the game was 'evened up' a bit. Yes, I get the 'strong shall prosper-the weak to the wall' ideology but I'd like to be entertained with, you know, the result being in doubt for longer. I know nowt about football and I'm happy with that but I suspect that if last weekends FA Cup final had been played under RL rules then Manchester City wins with the game over by HT. Maybe wrong of course... but I'd like to think I have a point. 

Yes, I get this is toxic for many but I'm thinking the spectacle might be more attractive if the result isn't already effectively decided and all there is left to see is the blowout. (and the penalty count/6 agains evened up). 

The thing is that is the nature of Rugby League. You can't really change that without changing what the game has evolved into and deskilling the better team to some extent. The only way I see to change that is by either slowing the game down dramatically or having more competition for the ball with more set pieces etc, essentially turning it more towards RU again.

[barnyia]

To even the game up just ask refs to referee the score, it seems to be like that in France, you get a couple of scores ahead in France and suddenly the ref becomes very strict with the winning  team and a little more relaxed with the losing team, makes for tight games , especially near the end of the game. 

[Sports Prophet]

14 minutes ago, Damien said:

The thing is that is the nature of Rugby League. You can't really change that without changing what the game has evolved into and deskilling the better team to some extent. The only way I see to change that is by either slowing the game down dramatically or having more competition for the ball with more set pieces etc, essentially turning it more towards RU again.

See, we do agree  

[Sports Prophet]

8 minutes ago, barnyia said:

To even the game up just ask refs to referee the score, it seems to be like that in France, you get a couple of scores ahead in France and suddenly the ref becomes very strict with the winning  team and a little more relaxed with the losing team, makes for tight games , especially near the end of the game. 

The old catch up logic of NASCAR 1999 on PS2. Made for some stunning finishes in mates races when not studying at uni.

[sam4731]

We could switch the kick off around like you suggest but extend the catching in goal rule for a tap on the 20 with 7 tackles for kick offs.

[dkw]

1 hour ago, Sports Prophet said:

The way Union is officiated definitely evens the field and in my opinion helps the growth of the game to new destinations.

In what way?

[Futtocks]

1 hour ago, daz39 said:

Thanks for the replies guys, seems it's only me that doesn't like it then 

It's not that you're the only one to dislike it; it's that the alternative option doesn't make much of a difference.

[Chronicler of Chiswick]

Instead of a kick off, why not just have the conceding team get a tap restart on the mid way point of the half way line?

[corvusxiii]

2 minutes ago, Chronicler of Chiswick said:

Instead of a kick off, why not just have the conceding team get a tap restart on the mid way point of the half way line?

That's all I could think of. Unintended consequences apart it should work. Also I'd rather my team defend from Half Way if we'd just scored. I'd be happy with that. 

[Damien]

4 minutes ago, Chronicler of Chiswick said:

Instead of a kick off, why not just have the conceding team get a tap restart on the mid way point of the half way line?

I hate the thought of that. A kick off adds a little variety to the game.  Similarly I don't like the thought of taking away scrums for taps either.