Jump to content

Receiving the ball after scoring.


Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, dkw said:

In what way?

I think with more penalties comes more disruption and opportunity for lesser teams to get a break. The pace as @Damien says is another major factor in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


40 minutes ago, dkw said:

In what way?

Or as I now realise, you probably are asking about how it helps the growth.

Well I feel like it has given rise to more “competitive” fixtures which despite being absolutely boring in most cases, can be reasonably close fixtures. I think that helps make the sport and the team of aspiring nations more credible, newsworthy and backable.

I think the RUWC growth has been helped by how much closer the fixtures have become. The results are less of an embarrassment for many teams now.

Just a theory.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 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?

Seems to favour a culture of trying to limit high impact collisions too. I think the half way line is a bit too much territory though. Maybe the 30. A decent team should get to an attacking kick with a full set from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some sports have a contested recommencement of play after a goal has been scored; ice hockey and shinty come to mind.  The difference between them is that in ice hockey, if a player wins the face off by drawing back the puck, he knows that only his team mates are behind him, whereas in shinty (as in some other sports such as Gaelic football, hurling and, I think, Aussie rules) both teams can place players anywhere on the pitch.

Aussie rules and the GAA sports use a contested start for each timed period of play, but, after a score, I think the team conceding that score has possession of the ball to restart play, but from near their own goal.

We could, I suppose, adopt one of the options offered by Gaelic and Aussie rules football.  In the former, the ball is thrown in the air between competing players; in the latter, it is bounced on the ground in front of the competing players.

After noting all those options, I am happy for RL to stick to what it does now. 

However, more thought could be given to the nature of the kick off.  I remember Pat Richards in his time at, first, the Warriors and, then, Les Dracs using, with some success, a steepling kick-off that fell about thirty yards out from the opponents' goal-line.  Given the height he achieved, his team mates had an outside chance of being able to contest for it, or, failing that, were quickly able to effect a tackle.

I also think that a low trajectory kick aimed at bouncing and finding touch about thirty yards out might be tried more often.  Sadly, we may currently lack a mavarick, such as Lee Briers or Tony Gigot, who might have tried that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This debate often leans towards the scenario where a team is getting battered and the change is suggested to make the game closer.

But what about a team that is 2 scores behind, at the moment they score once and get the ball back to try and even up or win the game, why should you effectively be punished and lose possession after scoring?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Wiltshire Warrior Dragon said:

I also think that a low trajectory kick aimed at bouncing and finding touch about thirty yards out might be tried more often.  Sadly, we may currently lack a mavarick, such as Lee Briers or Tony Gigot, who might have tried that.

Not in women's RL. Ruby Enright's mix of kick-offs was a decisive element in the Leeds v Wigan CC semi.

What we really lack are media commentators capable of recognizing and crediting tactical significance. Deviations from the norm in RL are commonly depicted as either unintentional or quirky. One of the aforementioned kicks that won possession for Leeds was described by Matt Newsum as "a cheeky little effort". Can't imagine a big play in Gridiron would ever be called "a cheeky little effort".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there are two questions here.

Firstly, is it a genuine 'problem' area that we need to focus on. It is often touted that poor teams can get trampled with repeat tries, so I think stats would need to come into play. It's my perception that there probably aren't too many repeat set tries, but stats would be needed. 

Secondly, of it is a problem area, what do we do about it? I'm all for being creative with any solutions, maybe the conceding team gets a choice of kick or receive after each try? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Damien said:

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.

Be better if it was 'contested' scrums.

Skilful/cheeky scrum halves feeding, dominating open side props, wily hookers, second rows with a loose arm, and the minders at loose forward, give over Damien for giving me that thought I am salivating at the memories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

I'm all for being creative with any solutions, maybe the conceding team gets a choice of kick or receive after each try? 

Or maybe we could go 10 subs and unlimited interchanges so we can bring on an offensive team and change to a defensive team at will, obviously I am not being  serious Dave, as far as I can see it is just fine as it is we have more than enough rule tampering leave it well alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours 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?

So, concede a try and immediately get a set of 6 in the oppostion half? Seems like trying to artificially level a game up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Or maybe we could go 10 subs and unlimited interchanges so we can bring on an offensive team and change to a defensive team at will, obviously I am not being  serious Dave, as far as I can see it is just fine as it is we have more than enough rule tampering leave it well alone.

Well that was sort of my point with the first half of my post. We should only change it based on there being a reason to change. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hopie said:

why should you effectively be punished and lose possession after scoring?

Well, if a team is daft enough to score points then it deserves to .......  Seriously though, I'd be happy to take the points surely. I think it's not unreasonable to defend six tackled from HW. 

TESTICULI AD  BREXITAM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Wiltshire Warrior Dragon said:

Some sports have a contested recommencement of play after a goal has been scored; ice hockey and shinty come to mind.  The difference between them is that in ice hockey, if a player wins the face off by drawing back the puck, he knows that only his team mates are behind him, whereas in shinty (as in some other sports such as Gaelic football, hurling and, I think, Aussie rules) both teams can place players anywhere on the pitch.

Aussie rules and the GAA sports use a contested start for each timed period of play, but, after a score, I think the team conceding that score has possession of the ball to restart play, but from near their own goal.

We could, I suppose, adopt one of the options offered by Gaelic and Aussie rules football.  In the former, the ball is thrown in the air between competing players; in the latter, it is bounced on the ground in front of the competing players.

After noting all those options, I am happy for RL to stick to what it does now. 

However, more thought could be given to the nature of the kick off.  I remember Pat Richards in his time at, first, the Warriors and, then, Les Dracs using, with some success, a steepling kick-off that fell about thirty yards out from the opponents' goal-line.  Given the height he achieved, his team mates had an outside chance of being able to contest for it, or, failing that, were quickly able to effect a tackle.

I also think that a low trajectory kick aimed at bouncing and finding touch about thirty yards out might be tried more often.  Sadly, we may currently lack a mavarick, such as Lee Briers or Tony Gigot, who might have tried that.

AFL have a contested centre bounce after goals are scored. But the conceding team get the ball between their own posts after a (one point) miss.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recall playing Wigan at Central Park when the defenders received the ball, all that happened was Wigan pinned us to the 30 metres and gained the ball back deep in our territory. It was awful to watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours 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.

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.