Chapel House Motor Company Limited Advertising Banner
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 42

Thread: Does anyone know the rules anymore?

  1. #1
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk Scouse Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Blatherings on That Saints podcast.Back home in St.Helens and in the South stand for service
    Posts
    8,685
    Rep Power
    30

    Default Does anyone know the rules anymore?

    Watching Catalan v Hull last night the Dragons had a match winning try disallowed for obstruction by Greg Bird the dummy runner who went well through the defence line and didn't interfere with anyone....exactly what Cummings tells everyone on Sky that you need to do !!!!

    What is going on? Can anyone enlighten me?
    Learned comment from The Don

  2. #2
    Moderator Div's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sintellins
    Posts
    11,911
    Rep Power
    32

    Default

    Frankly, no.
    Watched the game for 43 seasons and played for 29 and not a clue as I have posted before. Not seen last night's game but the rule has been farcical for years.

  3. #3
    Learning All The Songs saint mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Gone fishing
    Posts
    1,127
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scouse Don View Post
    Watching Catalan v Hull last night the Dragons had a match winning try disallowed for obstruction by Greg Bird the dummy runner who went well through the defence line and didn't interfere with anyone....exactly what Cummings tells everyone on Sky that you need to do !!!!

    What is going on? Can anyone enlighten me?
    It was daft decision and what made it worse was the video ref had a couple of looks at it and saw an obstruction.I think before he made his decision he asked the ref to remind him what he gave on the field.It will be interesting if they give a reason why the try was disallowed.

  4. #4
    Upside
    Non Members

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Div View Post
    Frankly, no.
    Watched the game for 43 seasons and played for 29 and not a clue as I have posted before. Not seen last night's game but the rule has been farcical for years.
    I have it recorded

    It wasn't an issue for years as it was an instant penalty if you ran behind someone, and no player ran through, well not like they do today. So in fairness I think the current tactics have made it harder

    I think the rule now is if a player runs through and doesn't clash with a defender it is fine

  5. #5
    In The West Stand saintgeorge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    eccleston
    Posts
    5,257
    Rep Power
    25

    Default

    It was a crazy end to a game alright. Why do Catalan never shoot themselves in the foot against us like they seem to do against most other teams?

  6. #6
    In The South Stand Tabasco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Rivington Road, St Helens
    Posts
    2,903
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    I suspect the problem is that officials (including the video refs) have been told to interpret the laws literally rather than with some common sense. As such, any contact however faint by a dummy runner with the defensive line is deemed to be obstruction. Similarly, any defence player on the wrong side of the ruck that comes into contact with the ball or dummy half is considered to be offside.

    There was some contact between Bird and the Hull defender but it would probably have been missed in a game of touch rugby and it appeared to be more a case of the defender putting his hand out to touch Bird and then appealing to the referee. The impact on the defensive effort was non-existent (a bit like that by Paulo when Makinson was brought back on Friday) but technically there was contact and a penalty resulted because of the ridiculously narrow interpretation being employed.

    Given that Catalans have four of the greatest exponents of cheating - oops, I mean playing to the letter of the law - in Bird, Gigot, McIllorum and Tomkins, I am pleased at what happened but clearly somethings need to change. I note that Lee Redford has spoken out against this form of cheating and has suggested that the coaches need to discuss it and approach the RFL/Super League to push for better interpretation of the laws.

  7. #7
    Upside
    Non Members

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tabasco View Post
    I suspect the problem is that officials (including the video refs) have been told to interpret the laws literally rather than with some common sense. As such, any contact however faint by a dummy runner with the defensive line is deemed to be obstruction. Similarly, any defence player on the wrong side of the ruck that comes into contact with the ball or dummy half is considered to be offside.

    There was some contact between Bird and the Hull defender but it would probably have been missed in a game of touch rugby and it appeared to be more a case of the defender putting his hand out to touch Bird and then appealing to the referee. The impact on the defensive effort was non-existent (a bit like that by Paulo when Makinson was brought back on Friday) but technically there was contact and a penalty resulted because of the ridiculously narrow interpretation being employed.

    Given that Catalans have four of the greatest exponents of cheating - oops, I mean playing to the letter of the law - in Bird, Gigot, McIllorum and Tomkins, I am pleased at what happened but clearly somethings need to change. I note that Lee Redford has spoken out against this form of cheating and has suggested that the coaches need to discuss it and approach the RFL/Super League to push for better interpretation of the laws.
    I like the fact Lee Redford has suggested this. To be fair to refs how do they apply common sense, because in reality that's subjective, and applying laws needs to be objective, it's either within or against the rules, anything else makes it even more difficult to be standardised across the game.

  8. #8
    Got A Season Ticket
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    castleford
    Posts
    370
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tabasco View Post
    I suspect the problem is that officials (including the video refs) have been told to interpret the laws literally rather than with some common sense. As such, any contact however faint by a dummy runner with the defensive line is deemed to be obstruction. Similarly, any defence player on the wrong side of the ruck that comes into contact with the ball or dummy half is considered to be offside.

    There was some contact between Bird and the Hull defender but it would probably have been missed in a game of touch rugby and it appeared to be more a case of the defender putting his hand out to touch Bird and then appealing to the referee. The impact on the defensive effort was non-existent (a bit like that by Paulo when Makinson was brought back on Friday) but technically there was contact and a penalty resulted because of the ridiculously narrow interpretation being employed.

    Given that Catalans have four of the greatest exponents of cheating - oops, I mean playing to the letter of the law - in Bird, Gigot, McIllorum and Tomkins, I am pleased at what happened but clearly somethings need to change. I note that Lee Redford has spoken out against this form of cheating and has suggested that the coaches need to discuss it and approach the RFL/Super League to push for better interpretation of the laws.
    I think that's part of the problem there's no common sense being applied it's a easy penalty now if you want to play the ball on to the man that can't get out of the way in the ruck in the nrl players have to pick the ball up over the man and just get on with it

  9. #9
    In The South Stand Tabasco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Rivington Road, St Helens
    Posts
    2,903
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Upside View Post
    I like the fact Lee Redford has suggested this. To be fair to refs how do they apply common sense, because in reality that's subjective, and applying laws needs to be objective, it's either within or against the rules, anything else makes it even more difficult to be standardised across the game.
    Theoretically you are correct. Nevertheless, application of the laws is reliant in many areas on interpretation which, in turn, leaves room for subjectivity. As an example, the laws define obstruction as “the illegal act of impeding an opponent who does not have the ball.”. The problem we are currently faced with is that “impeding” is interpreted to be contact with a defender rather than preventing that defender from effecting a tackle. Even if we substituted that latter viewpoint, however, there is still room for subjectivity as to whether the defender could have made ground to prevent the attack from continuing.

  10. #10
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Rainhill
    Age
    75
    Posts
    2,221
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    I have not much sympathy with anything concerning Bird but Huddersfield had a perfectly good effort disallowed Thursday when it was clear there was no impediment of the defender. As pointed out it has now become a part of the gamesmanship some teams employ to try and get perfectly good tries disallowed.

  11. #11
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk Belgian Saint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    11,182
    Rep Power
    32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by steve17 View Post
    I think that's part of the problem there's no common sense being applied it's a easy penalty now if you want to play the ball on to the man that can't get out of the way in the ruck in the nrl players have to pick the ball up over the man and just get on with it
    Sky after their comment of "wow" at the decision, then suggested that no common sense was being used.

  12. #12
    Got A Season Ticket
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    458
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    I guess that nobody does know the rules, especially Williame after catching a ball before it want the 10m. Every player under the age of 16 has been taught this - effectively lost Catalan the game with 5 secs to go

  13. #13
    In The West Stand Dux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    5,572
    Rep Power
    27

    Default

    Just catching up with this game now. A frankly ridiculous decision. The defender comes out of his defensive position in the line to make contact with Bird. If that’s how the rule is being interpreted from now on then it’ll be possible to stop opponents from scoring by just running up to a player who doesn’t have the ball and touching him.

  14. #14
    WARNING! PIE EATER!

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    5,801
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dux View Post
    Just catching up with this game now. A frankly ridiculous decision. The defender comes out of his defensive position in the line to make contact with Bird. If that’s how the rule is being interpreted from now on then it’ll be possible to stop opponents from scoring by just running up to a player who doesn’t have the ball and touching him.
    I agree, it was totally wrong. The defender made the decision to make the tackle.
    My other big bugbear is the ptb. I watched the Canberra v Parramatta game this morning. Ninety percent of players play the ball on the mark with their foot, if the defender is still in there the ref allows the acting half to pick the ball up and pass it.
    Over here we have players stepping over the tackler and deliberately playing the ball into them, Gigot actually deliberately kicked the ball into the defender to gain the penalty.
    In the three U.K televised game this week ninety percent of the play the balls weren't played with the foot, Chris Hill and Alex Walmsley were two of the worst offenders, but it's not just them it's the majority and needs sorting.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by robert80 View Post
    I have not much sympathy with anything concerning Bird but Huddersfield had a perfectly good effort disallowed Thursday when it was clear there was no impediment of the defender. As pointed out it has now become a part of the gamesmanship some teams employ to try and get perfectly good tries disallowed.
    Spot on re Bird, he's the biggest cheat going. I thought it was a try, but if you live by the sword be prepared to die by it Birdie, karma, mate!

  16. #16
    Upside
    Non Members

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rogues Gallery View Post
    I agree, it was totally wrong. The defender made the decision to make the tackle.
    My other big bugbear is the ptb. I watched the Canberra v Parramatta game this morning. Ninety percent of players play the ball on the mark with their foot, if the defender is still in there the ref allows the acting half to pick the ball up and pass it.
    Over here we have players stepping over the tackler and deliberately playing the ball into them, Gigot actually deliberately kicked the ball into the defender to gain the penalty.
    In the three U.K televised game this week ninety percent of the play the balls weren't played with the foot, Chris Hill and Alex Walmsley were two of the worst offenders, but it's not just them it's the majority and needs sorting.
    I haven't seen the incident but are we happy that runners runthrough and d fenders have to make a choice? If the runner is on front of the ball carrier I'm uncomfortable with this, watch videos from 20 years ago I don't think there were ever runners in front or running through

  17. #17
    In The West Stand Dux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    5,572
    Rep Power
    27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Upside View Post
    I haven't seen the incident but are we happy that runners runthrough and d fenders have to make a choice? If the runner is on front of the ball carrier I'm uncomfortable with this, watch videos from 20 years ago I don't think there were ever runners in front or running through
    I know your post wasn’t directed at me but I’m perfectly happy with the idea of multiple runners presenting themselves as available for a pass. If they aren’t allowed to do this then we better get ready for some very low-scoring games.

  18. #18
    Upside
    Non Members

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dux View Post
    I know your post wasn’t directed at me but I’m perfectly happy with the idea of multiple runners presenting themselves as available for a pass. If they aren’t allowed to do this then we better get ready for some very low-scoring games.

    It's the running through that I question, attackers in front of the ball carrier, it's a recent thing, well 20 years I'd say.

    If you watch old videos it just didn't happen, wasn't deemed in the rules, the allowance of such has led to this confusing view and policing it is proving difficult. I'm not against less scores, some 48-36 type games can be boring, I want tight competition, not knowing who will win, big hits, creative players etc.

    I realise I've made two different points there, I don't profess to have an ultimate answer to either, just something for me and maybe others if they wish to think about

  19. #19
    In The West Stand Dux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    5,572
    Rep Power
    27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Upside View Post
    It's the running through that I question, attackers in front of the ball carrier, it's a recent thing, well 20 years I'd say.

    If you watch old videos it just didn't happen, wasn't deemed in the rules, the allowance of such has led to this confusing view and policing it is proving difficult. I'm not against less scores, some 48-36 type games can be boring, I want tight competition, not knowing who will win, big hits, creative players etc.

    I realise I've made two different points there, I don't profess to have an ultimate answer to either, just something for me and maybe others if they wish to think about
    I think it’s a fine art, and if a dummy runner ends up actively impeding a defender then it’s absolutely right that a penalty be awarded. This should IMO be the case even if that defender wouldn’t be the individual eventually making the tackle - often a try out wide can be made possible by an obstruction that took place further infield and stopped the line from sliding out.

    BUT I think if an attacking play successfully deceives a defender into actively trying to tackle a player who doesn’t receive the ball then that is just not an obstruction.

  20. #20
    Upside
    Non Members

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dux View Post
    I think it’s a fine art, and if a dummy runner ends up actively impeding a defender then it’s absolutely right that a penalty be awarded. This should IMO be the case even if that defender wouldn’t be the individual eventually making the tackle - often a try out wide can be made possible by an obstruction that took place further infield and stopped the line from sliding out.

    BUT I think if an attacking play successfully deceives a defender into actively trying to tackle a player who doesn’t receive the ball then that is just not an obstruction.
    This got me thinking, you just don't see three or four runners at the same time with the half back selecting the one aiming for a gap. We have more runners run through with the ball going out the back, it's the modern way and not something refs had to worry about years ago, of it happened it was an automatic penalty. But now it's almost every attacking play there's a judgement call time and again.

    My current thinking is that the runner must clear the defensive line, if there's a player in the way and s defender has to run around them its obstruction, most people think they blow to often, I think they don't blow enough in this case

    I do think refs blow to often at the ruck, the bull carrier should play the ball correctly, find their feet, not move off the mark and take responsibility for holding the ball. It seems the NRL ignore the ball carriers antics more often than we do, therefore the ball carrier messes around less as it only costs them time
    The other method I really like is just asking them to go back to the mark and having a controlled restart PTB if they move of the mark or drop it and it's a 50/50

  21. #21
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk Belgian Saint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    11,182
    Rep Power
    32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Upside View Post
    It's the running through that I question, attackers in front of the ball carrier, it's a recent thing, well 20 years I'd say.

    If you watch old videos it just didn't happen, wasn't deemed in the rules, the allowance of such has led to this confusing view and policing it is proving difficult. I'm not against less scores, some 48-36 type games can be boring, I want tight competition, not knowing who will win, big hits, creative players etc.

    I realise I've made two different points there, I don't profess to have an ultimate answer to either, just something for me and maybe others if they wish to think about
    I think if you go back before SL the attacking side stood much deeper off each other. I think the running through has come with the flat attack.

  22. #22
    Upside
    Non Members

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Belgian Saint View Post
    I think if you go back before SL the attacking side stood much deeper off each other. I think the running through has come with the flat attack.
    I think both have happened at the same time but not necessarily because of each other

  23. #23
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,340
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rogues Gallery View Post
    In the three U.K televised game this week ninety percent of the play the balls weren't played with the foot, Chris Hill and Alex Walmsley were two of the worst offenders, but it's not just them it's the majority and needs sorting.
    Walmsley always plays the ball that way. I have kittens every time.

  24. #24
    Upside
    Non Members

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rogues Gallery View Post
    In the three U.K televised game this week ninety percent of the play the balls weren't played with the foot, Chris Hill and Alex Walmsley were two of the worst offenders, but it's not just them it's the majority and needs sorting.
    But there's no rule saying they have to
    When this new rule came in I didn't like it, I remember some of the pros saying, what does it matter if they motion to play it with the foot if it hits the foot or not. Well now several years on it's just helped the PTB become a farce, our obsession with a quick PTB has led to a ridiculous situation.

    Get the PTB under control, tidy it up and makemteams work for their points, touching the ball with the foot hasn't killed the NRL as a spectator sport has it?

  25. #25
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,297
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by saintgeorge View Post
    It was a crazy end to a game alright. Why do Catalan never shoot themselves in the foot against us like they seem to do against most other teams?
    One word = Bogie team

Posting Permissions

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