Chapel House Motor Company Limited Advertising Banner
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 34 of 34

Thread: My God - Common sense from the RFL

  1. #26
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk Belgian Saint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    11,184
    Rep Power
    32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dux View Post
    I think the intention behind this is admirable, but I'm not sure the wording of these clauses is especially helpful. Take the one about passing in particular:

    "Passing into an opposing player – Any ball passed into an opposing player in and around the ruck, in any direction, will be deemed to be acting against the spirit of the game. OUTCOME - The passer will be immediately penalised."

    This seems to completely ignore the reality that sometimes retreating offside players do get in the way of a genuine pass. Likewise, the wording of the other rules makes me suspect that it will be possible to artificially slow down play the balls by lying around in the ruck until the attacking player has to untangle himself and 'step backwards' to play the ball.

    I seems to me that, contrary to the title of the thread, the RFL have once again tried to keep common sense/interpretation out of the equation and have swapped one problem arising from a set of inflexible rules for another problem that will arise from the opposite set of inflexible rules.

    For me, the best solution is to let the ref decide whether there is reasonable evidence for intent. If a player is getting up to play the ball quickly, has earned the right to do so, and finds himself obstructed by a defender lying in the ruck, then that should be a penalty to the attacking team. If, however, a player steps over a prone defender in order to play the ball into him, then the penalty goes the other way. Likewise, if a player passes the ball directly at a stationary opponent then obviously he is cheating and should be penalised. If he is trying to pass to a teammate and the pass is obstructed by an offside defender then the penalty should go the other way.

    Judging all of these things requires interpretation, and occasionally refs will get it wrong or come up with slightly varying interpretations, but that to me is preferable to creating a rigid set of conditions that teams will just learn to take advantage of.
    I made the same point yesterday re Passing into an opposing player. You would hope that the refs can determine if it accidental through a defender trying to get onside, or an intentional pass from the attacker at the PTB.

  2. #27
    In The South Stand Sean Day's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    4,672
    Rep Power
    24

    Default

    I think the business of stepping backwards is only applicable when there is a defender lying immediately in front of the attacker and rather than take a big stride over them or putting the ball on top of them like has been happening, they just need to move a foot or so backwards to create enough room to put the ball on the floor (like players used to when they were a bit more grown up). Even then I think when defenders are doing this deliberately they will still be penalised. In essence I think refs are being told to use their common sense (like any of us watching have for months) and judgement rather than allowing this cheating to take place

  3. #28
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Wirral
    Posts
    2,662
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tabasco View Post
    While we are discussing infringements at the play-the-ball, it annoys me that referees do not penalise more harshly those instances where the offside prevents a try scoring opportunity. A case in point was on Good Friday when O’Loughlin tackles Smith without attempting to get onside in a situation where Smith would almost certainly have reached the line. We received a penalty but surely the intentional interference from an offside position thereby denying a possible try deserves a yellow card?

    I thought that myself. Possibly a penalty try, although I can see why this wasn't awarded as they had a couple of defenders there who may have stopped the ball being grounded. Certainly ten minutes in the bin for a professional foul though.

  4. #29
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Wirral
    Posts
    2,662
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Webbo Again View Post
    Exactly. Why should the attacker have to run around the slow-retreating defender? Cunningham used to use the opposition player as a human shield at times - great fun!
    Spot on, it's totally different. In this case a player is impeding the player scooting from the ptb. Simply a case of the attack being quicker and smarter than the defence. Completely different to the scheming cheating of throwing the ball at a grounded player who is having no affect on the ptb.

  5. #30
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk Belgian Saint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    11,184
    Rep Power
    32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Prez View Post
    Spot on, it's totally different. In this case a player is impeding the player scooting from the ptb. Simply a case of the attack being quicker and smarter than the defence. Completely different to the scheming cheating of throwing the ball at a grounded player who is having no affect on the ptb.
    You would hope that this is the way the Refs will police it.

  6. #31
    WARNING! PIE EATER!

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    5,801
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sean Day View Post
    I think the business of stepping backwards is only applicable when there is a defender lying immediately in front of the attacker and rather than take a big stride over them or putting the ball on top of them like has been happening, they just need to move a foot or so backwards to create enough room to put the ball on the floor (like players used to when they were a bit more grown up). Even then I think when defenders are doing this deliberately they will still be penalised. In essence I think refs are being told to use their common sense (like any of us watching have for months) and judgement rather than allowing this cheating to take place
    Agree, but the first thing is to ensure the player with the ball plays it with his foot, just watch the NRL and see how "clean" the play the ball is there.

  7. #32
    Got A Season Ticket
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    458
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dux View Post
    I think the intention behind this is admirable, but I'm not sure the wording of these clauses is especially helpful. Take the one about passing in particular:

    "Passing into an opposing player – Any ball passed into an opposing player in and around the ruck, in any direction, will be deemed to be acting against the spirit of the game. OUTCOME - The passer will be immediately penalised."

    This seems to completely ignore the reality that sometimes retreating offside players do get in the way of a genuine pass. Likewise, the wording of the other rules makes me suspect that it will be possible to artificially slow down play the balls by lying around in the ruck until the attacking player has to untangle himself and 'step backwards' to play the ball.

    I seems to me that, contrary to the title of the thread, the RFL have once again tried to keep common sense/interpretation out of the equation and have swapped one problem arising from a set of inflexible rules for another problem that will arise from the opposite set of inflexible rules.

    For me, the best solution is to let the ref decide whether there is reasonable evidence for intent. If a player is getting up to play the ball quickly, has earned the right to do so, and finds himself obstructed by a defender lying in the ruck, then that should be a penalty to the attacking team. If, however, a player steps over a prone defender in order to play the ball into him, then the penalty goes the other way. Likewise, if a player passes the ball directly at a stationary opponent then obviously he is cheating and should be penalised. If he is trying to pass to a teammate and the pass is obstructed by an offside defender then the penalty should go the other way.

    Judging all of these things requires interpretation, and occasionally refs will get it wrong or come up with slightly varying interpretations, but that to me is preferable to creating a rigid set of conditions that teams will just learn to take advantage of.
    My interpretation of these new rules are a supplement to the existing rules and not a replacement of.
    The worst cases of what is wrong with the interpretation/rigidity of the existing rules is

    When a player steps over another player to play the ball - moving off the mark and gaining an advantage by leaving a player in the ruck - the new rules attempt to explain what will happen in that case
    When a player is deliberately held down in a ruck , putting them in a position that is now possibly penalise and then deliberately playing the ball into the player in a manner that is designed only to get a penalty - the new rules attempt to explain what will happen in that case
    When a player lying in the ruck has a ball deliberately thrown against them to gain a penalty - the new rules attempt to explain what will happen in that case (although I thought this was made illegal last year)

    Its made pretty clear - if you stand up and the player is still under your feet then stand back and play the ball, in a balanced manner as you would in a play the ball without any interference.

    If you stand up and there is nobody under your feet then play the ball, in a balanced manner as you would in a play the ball without any interference.

    If a player is in the ruck and prevents the dummy half from picking up the ball cleanly or is hit by a ball when using a standard play the ball action then it is a penalty (as it always has been)

    Don't forcibly play the ball deliberately into a player who is in the ruck.

    This has had to be brought about because players are taking the •••••• when playing the ball - its not the fault of the player in the ruck.

    the only thing I can see different to rules as they have always been used (and still are in Australia) is the standing back part. In other words its now the player who plays the ball who has the responsibility to have a clear patch of ground to put the ball down onto

  8. #33
    Learning All The Songs roy litherland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Moss Bank
    Posts
    1,986
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    #31 is absolutely spot on , the play the ball in this country is a joke .
    roy litherland it's happened i told you it would

  9. #34
    In The South Stand warringtonsaint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    3,046
    Rep Power
    23

    Default

    It'll be interesting to see how it's implemented for the first time tonight, given that Wigan are the masters at it
    "The great fallacy is that the game is first and last about winning. It is nothing of the kind. The game is about glory, it is about doing things in style and with a flourish, about going out and beating the other lot, not waiting for them to die of boredom." Danny Blanchflower.
    Might have been written by a footballer about football - but never a truer word............

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •