Page 2 of 3
Re: Australian Rugby
Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 10:17 am
by cpwigan
Ideas or reality
There are different ways of achieving the same aim. Maybe the strategy employed by the RFL is not the right one.
Re: Australian Rugby
Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 5:53 pm
by robjoenz
cpwigan wrote:Ideas or reality
There are different ways of achieving the same aim. Maybe the strategy employed by the RFL is not the right one.
It has to be an idea before it can be put into reality.
How else do you achieve this target?
It was interesting to read League Weekly, Paul Cullen and Daniel Anderson say that it's something the clubs wanted and that clubs are putting pressure on referees. Anderson admits to coaching players to push the referee because of the increased pressure they are under.
It was disappointing to see that Noble was complaining saying League was becoming too technical and going the way of Union. Take the Mickey Higham sin-binning and Tommy Lulu the other week, most of the penalised offsides were 2+ yards offside, does he not coach them to make it back to the line?
Re: Australian Rugby
Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 2:41 pm
by cpwigan
First and foremost the referees are not to blame for thecurrent scenario. Nor has it suddenly happened. It has evolved oer a decade+ and to be fair RL coaches were/are their own worst enemies.
The clamour for quicker and quicker POTBs and excessive interchanges led to RL changing from a sport where players completed a tackle, held the tackled player down briefly and we got a slower but better POTB. Instead RL demanded faster and faster play of the balls. That gave rise to wrestling/dancing and one out scooting yardage runs. We are reaching the climax of that process and one that necessitates referees to penalise incessantly because there is not alternative if we continue on the path the RFL (by that I mean all parts) decided to take.
The alternative is to say NO lets think about what we are doing. Let's slow the POTB down but keep teams a full 10 apart. Let's make teams have to think about using the ball rather than scooting/driving one out for 5 then kicking. In return for asking teams/players to play RL we are going to bring back fatigue. Reduce the interchange to 6. Fatigue is a better way of opening the game up than penalties/sin binning/sending off.
I have some sympathy for Nobbys comment. The game we are seeking to create is like Union of the early 80s. Dull/tedious. We want our game back.
Re: Australian Rugby
Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 4:46 pm
by highland convert
The game will continue to go downhill penalty wise until volentry tackles are blown up. Wellans is a master at it. Touch him he drops instantly, comes up on the bounce. If the defender trys to delay, penalty. If he does not the defenders are off side, Stop the players falling at the first touch. Surrender tackles are not working as the defender can't predetermine what the ref will give. The degree of efort to put the man down should determine how long the defender can hold him. HC
Re: Australian Rugby
Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 6:18 pm
by cpwigan
HC the RFL would argue they already do with calls of dominant and surrender but you are right the reality is that it rarely happens. Players are coached to find the ground when they run the ball. I often think Lockers may be getting criticised unfairly because he is doing exactly that and fans think oh he could not burst his way through a paper bag (recycleable of course
)By slowing the POTB you do away with the desperate desire to win the play of the ball and all the farce that it creates. You would not believe how much time clubs spend on winning the tackle both with ball and without ball.
Re: Australian Rugby
Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 8:23 pm
by robjoenz
highland convert wrote:The game will continue to go downhill penalty wise until volentry tackles are blown up. Wellans is a master at it. Touch him he drops instantly, comes up on the bounce. If the defender trys to delay, penalty. If he does not the defenders are off side, Stop the players falling at the first touch. Surrender tackles are not working as the defender can't predetermine what the ref will give. The degree of efort to put the man down should determine how long the defender can hold him. HC
What you describe Wellens doing IS a surrender tackle, not a voluntary tackle. A voluntary tackle is when a player plays the ball without being tackled (his way to try and get his opponents offside).
A dominant tackle is where the initial momentum of the tackle is backwards.
The defenders know whether they have time to lay on the ruck because the referee calls 'surrender' or 'dominant' and then shouts 'move.'
Re: Australian Rugby
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 12:31 am
by cpwigan
robjoenz wrote:highland convert wrote:The game will continue to go downhill penalty wise until volentry tackles are blown up. Wellans is a master at it. Touch him he drops instantly, comes up on the bounce. If the defender trys to delay, penalty. If he does not the defenders are off side, Stop the players falling at the first touch. Surrender tackles are not working as the defender can't predetermine what the ref will give. The degree of efort to put the man down should determine how long the defender can hold him. HC
What you describe Wellens doing IS a surrender tackle, not a voluntary tackle. A voluntary tackle is when a player plays the ball without being tackled (his way to try and get his opponents offside).
A dominant tackle is where the initial momentum of the tackle is backwards.
The defenders know whether they have time to lay on the ruck because the referee calls 'surrender' or 'dominant' and then shouts 'move.'
To be fair Rob a voluntary tackle is not much different from a surrender tackle. A voluntary tackle is actually where you go to ground before being tackled. The ball does not have to be played to be a voluntary tackle. It came about most near a players own try line or near the touch line. The infamous one is in the Grand Final, Joynt I think?
Surrender is when you make no effort to fight or progress in the tackle and your body posture effort is all about hitting the ground as soon as possible.
The worst practice was Vila Matuatia who used to run with the ball and dived at the legs of would be tacklers. it was outlawed because he started to injure players.
Another nasty trick was Ronnie Gibbs who used to dive at the standing leg of kickers.
Re: Australian Rugby
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:34 am
by robjoenz
cpwigan wrote:robjoenz wrote:To be fair Rob a voluntary tackle is not much different from a surrender tackle. A voluntary tackle is actually where you go to ground before being tackled. The ball does not have to be played to be a voluntary tackle. It came about most near a players own try line or near the touch line. The infamous one is in the Grand Final, Joynt I think?
Surrender is when you make no effort to fight or progress in the tackle and your body posture effort is all about hitting the ground as soon as possible.
To be penalised for a voluntary tackle you need to surrender to a tackle and then play the ball without being tackled.
What you describe as voluntary and surrender are both surrender tackles.
Re: Australian Rugby
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 2:28 pm
by cpwigan
Rob you are young and do not recall the BC period. A voluntary tackle is actually when you voluntarily go to ground and claim you are tackled without an opponent ever putting a hand on you. You still see some players raise their hands when a ball carrier does this. In the BC period you would get a penalty. in the AC period you will get nothing and the ball carrier will be given time to get up and surrender to a would be tackler or if the tackler even places a hand on the ball carrier it will be called tackle completed.
It irks us old timers but it is minor.
Anyhow I am in a good mood even with Mr Ganson. Let referees referee. If they make mistakes they make mistakes. NO to over analysing by their superiors/peers
Re: Australian Rugby
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:17 pm
by robjoenz
cpwigan wrote:Rob you are young and do not recall the BC period. A voluntary tackle is actually when you voluntarily go to ground and claim you are tackled without an opponent ever putting a hand on you. You still see some players raise their hands when a ball carrier does this. In the BC period you would get a penalty. in the AC period you will get nothing and the ball carrier will be given time to get up and surrender to a would be tackler or if the tackler even places a hand on the ball carrier it will be called tackle completed.
It irks us old timers but it is minor.
Anyhow I am in a good mood even with Mr Ganson. Let referees referee. If they make mistakes they make mistakes. NO to over analysing by their superiors/peers
Apologies... I'm living in 2008
I know what you mean though.