Chapel House Motor Company Limited Advertising Banner
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 31 of 31

Thread: New play the ball rule

  1. #26
    WARNING! WOLF FAN!

    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    401
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    The lying on last night matched anything from Wigan, no wonder Salford couldn’t get any momentum.

  2. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Refugee from the fascist state of RLFans
    Posts
    5,853
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfie McWolf View Post
    The lying on last night matched anything from Wigan, no wonder Salford couldn’t get any momentum.

    Ours was ridiculous at times, but Salford weren't far behind - especially early doors.

  3. #28
    In The South Stand retro74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    St Helens, Lancashire
    Age
    49
    Posts
    4,887
    Rep Power
    24

    Default

    I was thinking throughout the game that nearly every play the ball could have resulted in a penalty and it was the same for both sides. First game and all but players were crawling over people to get back to a marker position rather than just rolling off. Loads of second effort stuff also where the tackle was made but they'd still grab a limb to limit a quick play the ball

  4. #29
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk Belgian Saint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    11,176
    Rep Power
    32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by retro74 View Post
    I was thinking throughout the game that nearly every play the ball could have resulted in a penalty and it was the same for both sides. First game and all but players were crawling over people to get back to a marker position rather than just rolling off. Loads of second effort stuff also where the tackle was made but they'd still grab a limb to limit a quick play the ball
    I thought both teams were lucky with lying on. Probably the worse that I have seen from us on that. I hope that's not something Woolfe is bringing to the table. We thrive on a quick PTB, but can't expect the opposition to get off or get penalised when we are just as bad.

  5. #30
    Got A Season Ticket AJ_1878's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Bury
    Posts
    195
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    All this does is allows the ref to pick and choose which team he wants and when.

    We got a penalty against us for incorrect play the ball (correctly) but then the next 10 balls were all played in a way that could also be penalised.

    It’s gonna cause havoc
    Hobbies include rewiring microwave ovens and meeting firemen.

    Nolite te B*stards Carborundorum

    @AJ_1878

  6. #31
    Got A Season Ticket
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    271
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    The statement by the RFL on the changes to the play the ball this season is clear, but the message hasn’t got through for some reason:

    ‘The proposal, which was unanimously accepted, stresses the responsibility of the tackled player “to maintain balance and control and make a genuine attempt to make contact on the ball with the foot”.

    It is also the tackled player’s responsibility to place the ball on the ground at their feet and not on a defender – and a failure to fulfil any of those requirements (balance, control, placing the ball on the ground and making a genuine attempt to play it with the foot) will be ruled a lost ball (not a penalty), leading to a scrum.’

    So those ptbs we saw on Thursday and Friday (and which we will see more of throughout the season) where the player does not make contact with the ball with his foot are not going to be pulled up as long as the ref deems there to have been a genuine attempt to do so.
    I read the new interpretation as being an attempt to ensure that the player is upright, balanced, and places the ball on the ground before playing it. One could argue that enforcing foot contact would be a good way to reinforce the more poised ptb this is aimed at; but I can see that foot contact is there as a technical aid to a poised ptb rather than being a prerequisite for it, hence the decision to accept ‘genuine attempt’. I thought it, plus the clear directive about tackling at the ruck, made policing the ruck easier for the ref, and I also thought I saw more consistency in enforcement across the two games.

    The penalty against us at the beginning of yesterday’s game is not part of this discussion; obviously, since the offence drew a penalty, not a scrum. As discussed earlier, moving off the mark, not incorrect ptb.

Posting Permissions

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