Let's talk about something other than June 30

[Bob Wiley]

Let's talk about something other than June 30

I'm sick of reading about June 30 and player movements. All this off-field action is boring and in just about every case, posters (and journos) have NFI.

Let's talk about something we are all experts on - the rules.

I'm not looking for radical changes - just some minor tweaks, primarily to the interpretations currently being applied.

Here's a few interpretations I would like to see:-

1. Get rid of the "didn't play at it" ruling when it comes off a defenders hands. If the defender gets his hands in the way of the ball, then he has played at it, end of story. Bloody Bill Harrigan invented this interpretation at Kogarah many years ago and it was a dud call then. A defender approaching the attacker with his hands outstretched is trying to affect the play - if nothing else by discouraging the attacker from passing the ball. If the ball ends up coming into contact with his hands then he played at it.

2. Go back to the old double movement rule. If momentum would have got the ball carrier across the line anyway, then he needs to trust that and not lift the arm. If he lifts the arm, double movement. I don't care if his momentum ends up taking him over the dead ball line. In many cases, I think lifting the arm helps his momentum get him across the line. If they don't lift the arm, the arm digging into the ground would prevent the momentum getting him across the line.

Of course, the other alternative is no double movement rule at all. I don't support this because the defending team has to be given some opportunity to prevent a try. If you can bring a guy down in a try saver inches short of the line, you should be rewarded, not have the attacker just stretch out in a second movement and put the ball down for the try anyway.

3. Whether you have caught the ball in goal or not should depend on where you LAND not where you jump from. Makes it very simple for everyone to understand what the correct ruling should be.


4. If the ball is on the ground (either still or rolling) then you should be able to fall on it and stay down and that constitutes the tackle (ie is not a voluntary tackle). The defenders shouldn't be able to stand there waiting for you to move and as soon as you do, belting you or trying to catch you off guard with a strip.


5. If the ball gets stripped, it is not knocked on by the stipper or the strippee, no matter which direction the ball goes (bit like a charge down is six again, but not a knock on). Whichever team gets the ball gets it on the Zero tackle. This interpretation removes any conjecture about whether the ball went forward off the strip etc.


6. If you are held up in goal then forget time off and going back 10 metres to play the ball. The attacking team should only have to go back 5 metres and play the ball and they can do this as quick as the like and not have to wait for the defence to re-set.

7. Benefit of the doubt goes to defending team.


8. To be onside chasing a kick, both your feet must be behind the kicking foot.

9. If you are in front of the kicker and get within 10m but have absolutely nothing to do with the play (ie not even putting the defender under pressue) eg Lolesi v Rabbitohs in that Golden Point, then it is play on.


If you want to talk more radical rule changes, I would be interested in seeing a trial of the SCORING team kicking off. Furthermore, they should kick off from their 20m line (pretty much like Gridiron). I never really watched Super League so I don't know how this rule went when they used it.


Bob

 

[Matabele]

Let's talk about something other than June 30

On the 10th point, I think Super League introduced that rule because of the lopsided nature of the competition. They knew there'd be some awful shellackings if the scoring side kept receiving the ball. Make of that what you will!

It might be a good idea to desist from June 30th talk. If Shane Elford is going to be the best outside back left on the market it might be a VERY good idea.

 

[Bob Wiley]

Let's talk about something other than June 30

It would probably be unfair to judge the Scoring Team kicking off rule by what happened in Super League because the whole way they played the game (ie quick play the balls like touch) meant Super League bore little resemblance to RL today.

Anyway, that rule was more an aside....... I am more interested in people's thoughts on some of the other interpretations.

 

[candy]

Let's talk about something other than June 30

Let's not talk about something other than June 30. I love it!

 

[ManlyBacker]

Let's talk about something other than June 30

Fantastic thoughts Bob. Some of the issues you have raised have annoyed me for some time.
I like 7 and believe if you can't show clearly that you scored - no try. I have been shocked by some of the rubbish decisions in this area.
I am not in agreement on the strip interpretation. If someone heaves it out of your arms and they force it forward then it should be a knock on. Outside of that this is a very solid post and worthy of discussion.

 

[fLIP]

Let's talk about something other than June 30

So let me get this straight:

Where in the grand final, playing the Roosters. Manly have just gone in to level the scores at 24 all. Working their way back into the match from 24 down and things are looking even with 3 mins to go.

You then think its a good idea that the side who works their ass off in the game to get back, then has to give up the ball and not only that, kick it from their 20 and let Roosters have a shot from the 40.

Nope, I dont like it. It works how it is. Whats wrong with the side playing better getting the advantage. Where is the competition if we change the rules to help sides who can't pull their fingers out and make tackles, stop dropping the ball?

 

[fLIP]

Let's talk about something other than June 30

BTW, if you don't like reading about june 30, dont. Click the back button. I enjoy it as and so do many others. I for one think theirs a number of positions that need improving before next season kicks off.

 

[Chip and Chase]

Let's talk about something other than June 30

1. Agree, "Didn't play at it" is a rubbish call.
2. This is a very difficult area of the game to police. The only foolproof way around it is to abolish the double movement rule altogether. If you can get the ball over the line before the ref calls "tackle" then it is a try. I can never understand why everywhere else on the field the players can try and wriggle, crawl, wrestle, whatever to gain an extra foot or two when hitting the ball up, but as soon as you get within a metre of the tryline you have to freeze all body movement as soon as you are tackled.
3. Agree
4. Agree, this is one of the most ridiculous interpretations running around at the moment.
5. Agree. It beats me how the refs come up with some of the calls from strips, they have no idea what happened and just guess half the time. The only thing that should still apply from a strip is the offside rule, whichever player dives on the loose ball should still have to be onside at the point where the "strip" occurs.
6. Disagree. Half the time with "held up" calls they are going to the video ref so there is a forced break in play anyway.
7. Benefit of the doubt is joke anyway. It is never applied, regardless of which way it is allegedly supposed to go.
8. Splitting hairs in my opinion. One or two feet, who cares.
9. Don't know about this. By definition if you are within the 10m you are affecting the play. The defender picking up the ball can see you out of his periphiral vision but he doesn't know whether you intend on involving yourself in the play or not. I agree that sometimes it is taken to a ridiculous level of interpretation by the video ref, as evidenced by your example.

The kick offs are fine the way they are IMO.

Some good ideas there, and there are cetainly plenty of areas that need improvement. One of my pet hates are teams that send a lot of runners through the line to cause "unintentional" interference to the defensive structure of their opposition. Whilst technically there are no sheperds because the ball runner does not cut behind anyone, they have players in the oppositions line which causes disruption to their defensive structure, especially from inside balls.

 

[Bob Wiley]

Let's talk about something other than June 30

1. For those who weren't quite sure what I was on about with this one - McIlwain's try today off Monaghan was the perfect example. Monaghan's pass was knocked down because he had his hand out to block the pass as he came in to make the tackle. Ball comes off his hand and yet he gets to pick up the ball and score a try.

2. As I said in my original post, I would hate to see the double movement rule gone altogether because that just gives too much advantage to the attacking team.

Almost all cases were pretty clear cut on the old interpretation. If you lift the arm and promote the football, then double movement. I think the current interpretation has led to greater uncertainty as to which way any particular case will go.


5. Agree - you still need to be "onside" to fall on a ball that is stripped.

6. If the held up goes to the video ref, then of course there will be time off. But for other cases where the ref actually makes the call, I say get on with the game and not stuff around with unnecessary time off.


8. You are probably right about splitting hairs. I guess examples like Billy Slater in last year's Origin where all but a miniscule part of his ankle was in front of the kicker makes the current rule seem stupid. I was trying to suggest the chasers should be clearly behind the kicker, not just barely behind.


I know what you mean about runners, but with defences so much better these days, if you banned such runners and second man plays, I think there would be a hell of a lot less line breaks and tries scored in every game.

 

[PEPSI]

Let's talk about something other than June 30

aftre today, june 30 is something we have to look forward to!

 

[Bob Wiley]

Let's talk about something other than June 30

So let me get this straight:

Where in the grand final, playing the Roosters. Manly have just gone in to level the scores at 24 all. Working their way back into the match from 24 down and things are looking even with 3 mins to go.

You then think its a good idea that the side who works their ass off in the game to get back, then has to give up the ball and not only that, kick it from their 20 and let Roosters have a shot from the 40.

Nope, I dont like it. It works how it is. Whats wrong with the side playing better getting the advantage. Where is the competition if we change the rules to help sides who can't pull their fingers out and make tackles, stop dropping the ball?

Maybe if the Roosters had to kick off after scoring each try, they would not have had all the momentum and run up a 24 point lead.


Maybe if the Broncos had to kick off to us a few times during that first half at Suncorp this year, we might have been able to get into the game rather than it being gone at half time.


Maybe if we had to kick off against the Panthers, we wouldn't not have been able to pull off the comeback.


The point is not which way you would prefer the rule to be in any one given scenario, the question is whether the rule is the best way to manage the possession flow.

In the modern game, the team defending is using a lot more juice than the attackers (especially with the up and back of the 10m rule). The all too common way these days that one team can get on a roll and the other team seems powerless to stop it suggests the problem is more to do with the rules that allow one team to dominate possession than just one team being unable to compete.

If one of the teams is truly superior, they will overcome having to kick off each time they score.

As I said, I am not certain changing the rule would produce a better outcome. I would just like to see it trialled so we can make that judgement.


Bob

 

[Canteen Worker]

Let's talk about something other than June 30

Back to the top - this is a great post. The weekend's game brought up a few issues with your suggestions.

A knock on is a knock on whether intended or not. The second last Bulldog try demonstrated this.

I feel the same way about kicks into players - whether blocked deliberately or not.

There needs to be more uncertainty in the game.

 

[fLIP]

Let's talk about something other than June 30

I see it differntly bob.

Maybe if manly had have shown up to the broncos game, they wouldnt have coped a thrashing.